p218 [J G Deck] BELOVED BROTHER, - The ground taken by your dear son -, is not I think a happy one. And what I mean is this. It is not exercise of conscience for himself, but reasoning for others; and finding in defect of argument, or supposed defect, the ground of putting them in the wrong, and even shewing that on their own principles they ought to go further. This is argument, not conscience and thought for Christ's glory. Supposing it proves that they ought to go further, and that they are inconsistent, let them go further. It has nothing to do with its being right or not, but whether A. B. is consistent or not.

In many cases I judge they are inconsistent. Dear Bellett, who was thoroughly decided as to not admitting them, after sore trial of heart, was, from extreme kindliness of nature, and perhaps other mere human motives connected with his own personal character, in some cases inconsistent in this way, and felt on his death bed it was wrong. I should make a difference between misleaders and misled. For the Lord's table's sake, they must not have a false flag, false to Christ. But in my personal conduct, though I could not have communion with them in religious things, as members of the same body, true christian kindness would seek to make them feel their false position. Yet I should make a great difference between such and those who, untrue to Christ, sought to pervert. "Of some have compassion … and others save with fear": I see Satan's work, and would fain deliver. Satan's instruments are a horror to me, though even they may be delivered. If there is bonâ fide ignorance of facts - not wilful, (for some refuse to know, to save the trouble of having their consciences exercised and they are not true to Christ) but bonâ fide ignorance, their conscience is not bad. If they had been connected in ignorance with leavened meetings, I should inquire and see if they were so in principle. If so, they are also false to Christ, they accept Christ and Belial going together; if they say no (if that is so, I should not walk with them on any account) I should not refuse them, only warning them that we knew things were so, and could not have communion with gatherings which were thus loose, and if they went back after warning, the case would be altered. What I look for is an honest and pure heart in the matter. Ignorance, when they have never had to say to Bethesda and her followers, is sufficient to preclude all further question: but ignorance alleged, when they have been counted with such gatherings, is saying that they do not know on what principle they were gathered, which may be, but which is strange; and at any rate they imbibe the spirit and tone of looseness, which is exactly opposite to all the scriptural directions for the last days.

All that is said of "ad infinitum" is merely the repetition of what we have too often heard, and has no real sense the moment the Church is known to be one. The question is, Does the person come from a place which has identified itself with the refusal to judge evil? It little matters to me how many steps a person is from the first who had the typhus fever in the country; five or fifty is all alike, if a man has got it. Evil is judged as evil wherever it is, and the argument is simply a denial of the church, and the unity of the body. If a gathering accepts fellowship with these one or fifty who have refused to maintain the glory of Christ, it is contaminated as such. - would have left Bethesda; would he have gone to Bath or Dublin, in communion with B., and receiving persons from it, yea, because they were of it, and whose members went there? This was the real case we had. Where there was intercommunion, there was moral identity, cases of bonâ fide ignorance excepted. They have turned to independency to avoid the evident consequence themselves as I stated to you; they have found the evil, and are now willing to exclude heresies; but I hear nothing of unity, so that there is no guarantee for security as to what others do, so that gatherings can be owned. If they are honest and faithful in this, the reason for excluding persons belonging to them might fail, but the gathering itself denies unity, and its responsibility as to connection with other gatherings, nor is there honest confession. They would not be bound by a discipline common to all; each person would have to be received by brethren individually; only belonging to a gathering thus faithful would not of itself be the ground of exclusion, their connection with others remaining to be inquired into. Only where they have been in communion with B. and those associated with it, one has alike a right and a duty to ask if they have given it up. If they refuse to say, they are not honest, and have not done so. They maintain this unholy liberty to do evil, and have not judged the evil in themselves. A person may be an active seducer from want of faithfulness as to Christ, or mislead; but the thing in question is Christ and principle. The making a difference between misleaders and misled, has nothing to do with its not being a question of Christ and principle.

All this reasoning I find very sad. It tastes of B., and those who sustain it. In this country (Canada) we have acted on the principle of refusing those belonging to bodies who allowed heresies, having nothing to do with B., but denying the immortality of the soul, and the results have been blessing, and the state of things around us every way confirmed us in the need of faithfulness. I shall own no gathering once in connection with B. and its supporters, which had not given it up, nothing more simple; they are indeed formally inside the camp. I have already spoken of cases of ignorance, but if a person deliberately chose to continue in connection with loose principles, I could not own him; he has not a pure heart in his worship; it is a mercy to himself that he should learn it. It soon comes distinctly out, if there is faithfulness.

One of the most striking things in my late labour in the Western States has been, that everywhere by being faithful and holding to the Word, persons esteemed and active in union prayer meetings and the like, have professed themselves infidels, Socinians, deniers of the immortality of the soul, of the inspiration of the word of God, and the like. They were strange and trying scenes, but useful; but I felt I had the immense comfort of having only to bring forward scripture. It had not got so far in the loose gatherings everywhere, but it had got very far indeed; only many have been frightened, but those of the loose gatherings who came to this country are in full fellowship with this state of things, lead the meetings, etc. They have gone back into the camp just when the saints are called out of it. I know one of the nicest of them boasting that he had succeeded in contaminating a young saint, so that now he could not be received among us: the latter is now grown worldly and flourishing in the religious world. I seek to be separated to Christ from current evil, they will not. I never heard an argument on that side which was not for more or less tolerating evil. When forced they would leave it where it discredited them, but retain as much liberty as they could under the plea of charity: such a person's conscience is not purged, he cannot but defile others if allowed.

A passage that gave me a clue on my first starting, was in that wonderful chapter, Jeremiah 15. "If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them." Take the epistles or chapters which refer to the last days, and see if in all, separation from evil be not what is pressed. Patience and grace are required, but no acceptance of evil. It is Christ, it is principle, it is faithfulness and obedience, which are in question and we have acted on it in other cases than B. It is the great question: Is the church of God to confess and hold, to maintain the truth with Him that is holy, Him that is true? and then, whether there is one body formed upon the earth?

If a person comes from a gathering which has been connected with B., I am entitled and bound to ask him, Has it broken with it? If not, have you broken with it? If the person says no, I ask, How comes that? He may be ignorant, though it is very rare. I should say, We cannot walk with that gathering because it is unfaithful. If he says he prefers going with it as it is; he judges himself, he is unclean. If he says, I know nothing of the facts, I would tell him what was the principle of action, and sufficient of the facts to shew the application of the principle. If he honestly says, If the facts are so, I would not walk with them a moment, I am in a very great measure relieved. If he say, If it be so, I will not walk with them any more, I should be content. If he say, I had rather wait and inquire, one has only so to leave it. If he refuse to hear the facts or be informed, he has a bad conscience; he prefers walking loosely to taking a little trouble for Christ's glory; his heart is unsound, as a man who would refuse to be examined by a priest for leprosy; he condemns himself. All this requires patience and toil of heart, but the grace of Christ is sufficient for us, and grace and quiet firmness as to evil, will meet its sure reward. A work of Satan has been going on, alleging that evil doctrine was no matter: people have been mixed up with it; I must know if they are clean where they have been, or I am accepting the evil as no matter. I do not expect to carry on the work of the Lord without Satan trying to throw difficulties in the way, but I do count on the blessed Lord's faithfulness to be with us, and difficulties are a gain if that be the effect.

I accept the principle of grace fully, but grace which is not holiness is not God's grace, and holiness is by truth. "Sanctify them by thy truth." Thus says "he that is holy, he that is true." As regards 'attached to life,'* I know not if you have seen my second edition. I attach no value to the expression if I could find a better. The doctrine contained in it is vital. All He had taken on Him was attached to His life in that sense, that in laying it down the sin He bore in it was gone for ever; all He bore for us was gone in laying down that life. This is of all importance. C. objected to it. I said, Give me a better expression and I will readily accept it. He said, 'Attached to His Person.' I said, I do not believe you mean any harm, but that is an awful heresy, for His Person never changed, and He has it now. He admitted it would not do. I have found no better than that the sin which He took for us on Himself was gone with the life to which it attached. I do not myself believe it was really opposed on account of Christ, and when used to clear Newton, I being as bad, I said, Put us both out then. Do not at the expense of Christ use the heresy of one to defend another. And I added, Allow me to say if a servant is accused by another of stealing, and he says, I will prove you are as bad, I know he who retorts thus is a thief, and I will see about the other.
{*[See "A man in Christ." Collected Writings, vol. 7, p. 368.]}

No tract has been more blessed. First, it recalled the heart to the sufferings of the blessed Lord; and secondly, N-'s statements had made people afraid of thinking that Christ suffered at all, to their great loss. And it restored the equilibrium, and quieted the spirits of saints. I would have withdrawn it for the sake of the two brethren who opposed, but that the truth of Christ's suffering was denied. As to the connection of those sufferings with the Jews, I was no way surprised they should not understand it.

I still hope to see you, and have been informing myself as to ways of getting to New Zealand. It is easier, I believe, hence than from England.

Ever affectionately yours.

1873.

[52134E]