p248 [J Lakeman?] BELOVED BRETHREN, - I have no intention of commenting on the proceedings in the case of poor Mr. Morris, as I never had any part in it, and believe that the enemy and not the Spirit of God was working in the whole matter; but as some one has sent me "A Letter addressed," etc. (I do not know who), I felt desirous to make a remark to you, beloved brethren, whose names are appended to it, as to all who concur, though there be but one to whom I am known after the flesh, and present to you a very important principle which seems to me involved in the statement you have made - or, at least, leaves it in a dangerous uncertainty: that union in "faith in the blood of Christ, the Son of the living God," is to become a kind of allowance of error in those who may claim fellowship on that ground. This principle, I judge, it is of all importance to repudiate. Whatever means may be used, I am bound to see that no man fail of the grace of God, and that there be no root of bitterness, whether it be manifested in doctrine that alienates from God, or in any carnal workings. I should fail in charity towards humble, simple souls did I not. Heresy is a work of the flesh, as other grosser things, and surely has to be checked: words may eat, as doth a canker. Errors are often found to affect fundamental truth which many a simple saint may not perceive to do so.

There is another thing I apprehend sorrowful in your paper; you appear at least to excuse the doctrine, and you lay as a basis of this, that the only sense in which it would be said to affect the doctrine of the cross is asserting that there is another way of obtaining pardon of sin besides the death of the Lord Jesus. Do you think, then, that Satan will always declare his object? This is surely most dangerous ground to take. Supposing it was said that the Divinity of Christ was not necessary seeing suffering was not eternal - an argument, I apprehend, difficult to answer - or for whatever other reason; would that not affect the doctrine of the cross? An inefficient atonement is as bad as another. I use the word suffering instead of punishment, because it seems to me that the word punishment is used a little equivocally; and that to call eternal punishment where the punished person no longer exists is something very like evasion.

What pains me is that you seek to justify the doctrine or excuse it, and not merely to blame the conduct of certain parties as to Mr. Morris. Degrees in punishment do not do away to my mind with what we mean by infinite punishment, no more than degrees of glory with infinite bliss. You give out a deliberate opinion and commit the whole of the meeting to it, not that M. was ill-treated, but that his doctrine does not affect directly, or undermine, the value of the cross or of the Person, work, or blood-shedding of our blessed Lord and Saviour. He who communicates with you must do so on the footing of accepting this theological statement - at least, that he is bound also to accept all such, and hold full communion anywhere and everywhere with Mr. M., and any others who receive and publicly propagate this doctrine. This is a very serious position you have taken. It effectually identifies you with M. and his doctrine. For if it does not directly nor indirectly affect that, and you pronounce him guiltless in holding it, you oblige communion with those holding it and teaching it. It is not, you say, connected with faith in Him: an astonishing statement, as I know of no truth that is not. If any person is convinced that your theology is wrong, and that the wonted doctrine of Christians is to be maintained, and resistance distinctly to be made to the view in question, or that seeking followers for it is heresy, you exclude them completely from your communion: because that serious error and truth are to be on the same terms in communion is a principle insupportable in the church of God. You affirm it is not important, hence nothing ought to be done. You will find it hard to convince the great body of Christians of it. And indifference to error makes truth no truth at all.

I say nothing of the excommunication, as you well know I could have nothing to say to it; and I see in your tract the expression of that of which I have been long conscious - the result of what all know I have considered a work of Satan elsewhere. But I look to the goodness of God, dear brethren, to set it all right: His power is above all the workings of the enemy. I have never been at - in my life, and it is very possible never may, but as your letter was sent to me, I should have failed in faithfulness and in love, too, if I had not communicated with those who have signed it, and with all the brethren adhering to it. It is not a blame of the excommunication, but a theological judgment on the doctrine as a ground of the reception of persons teaching it. You have committed the meeting to the doctrine being harmless and blameless. I only want to press this fact, beloved brethren, on your consciences before God, and that you may consider the position in which it places yourselves and others. Though I address my letter necessarily to one, I shall feel thankful if it were communicated to all. I have nothing to add but unfeigned affection in Christ to all.

Taunton, May, 1848.

[53198E]