ignorance of what had wrought such untold sorrow elsewhere, and brought such sad dishonour upon the Lord. Before it can be demanded of those “in Bristol,” to investigate and judge corporately what was taking place in Plymouth, we require proof from scripture that such a demand is made by Christ upon churches meeting in His name. From the Epistles to the Seven Churches, we assuredly gather, that while each church is held responsible most solemnly and earnestly to keep out evil, and to walk in separation to the Lord in life and doctrine, no external jurisdiction is allowed; but if brethren think otherwise, we beseech them before the Lord, not to allow oneness of mind on the relative standing of one assembly to another, to become a ground for breaking up all fellowship, and for denying the very truth sought to be maintained. The unity of the body is an out-growing of the unity of the spirit, and every attempt to make the former, will end only in confusion, or in lifeless formalism; it will be, as Mr. Darby has already told us, “Popery or Dissent at once.” We have dwelt on this at some length, because a valued brother strongly opposed to the principles he thinks are contained in this letter, writes in reference to this subject, “This is to my mind the main question at issue.” We believe it to be so, and have no doubt that had correct views been held by all concerned, on the relation of one church to another on earth, we should never have seen the counter opinion develope itself into a claim to stand as “the one assembly of God.” We are not surprised that those who have fallen into this delusion, should hate a letter that resists that principle on which their claim rests. But the poison of this doctrine has been drunk into more or less by many who abhor its developed manifestation, and who therefore object to the position taken by those in Bristol in this matter.
“2nd. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued from Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence, or who are sup posed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings. We did not feel that we should be warranted in taking our impressions of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatise writen by himself, and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there has been such variabless in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.”
The reason here given for refusing a church investigation is the variableness of the views upheld, added to which there was this increased difficulty
