p414 [J S Oliphant] DEAREST BROTHER, - Discipline is not merely for restoration, though it be one object. It is to keep the Table pure. It is sometimes a very delicate question to settle whether the individual is so thoroughly restored as that the conscience of the assembly is not engaged, and that specially in a recent case. An old case, where I was thoroughly convinced the person was, I should not bring up, and clearly not where it was before conversion, unless in some special circumstances. … If 'there were serious evidences' against genuine repentance, clearly these few should not have taken it on themselves. There seems to have been effort in this case all through to conceal it - a bad sign. Bringing up evil needlessly is a bad thing, it defiles: but without - at this distance, or hearing those concerned - pretending to judge the case, I confess there seems here to have been, where the consciences of many were engaged, an effort to screen more than to purify. The assembly remains pure, as it has not been engaged in it. If it has cognisance of it, it has to decide if it be satisfied with the report of these four. If not, it must take the case up. Bringing out sin is neither grace nor purity, but slurring it over is not the way of blessing to an assembly.

I copy a letter just sent me, written to a brother at Lyons many years ago. 'In sin is very vague. One who is disciplined for fornication is not engaged in the sin when they excommunicate him. He is always in the sin he has committed until he repents and confesses it. There lies the whole question. If there be a long time since he sinned, and the state of his soul is entirely changed, I should not bring up the sin again. The question is, has he really repented; otherwise, the time that is passed makes no difference, be it two days or two years. If the sin was committed before his conversion, his state is totally changed; if since, then it is that of which the assembly has to judge. If the assembly leaves the sin unjudged when it knows it, it makes itself responsible, and is identified with the evil doer. This 1 and 2 Corinthians shews very clearly, and it seems to me of all importance … to have a firm hand as regards this sin - love towards the sinner surely - seek his restoration; one ought to do so, and there is sometimes failure in this - but the holiness of the table of the Lord must be maintained. To separate because there is a difference of judgment is to break the unity of the body. If the assembly cannot come to any decision, it is a proof that its spiritual state is bad, and then it is well that all should humble themselves together; but if there be a determination to allow the sin (in any one), God will judge them if they separate.'

[Date uncertain.]