amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party. We judged that this controversy had been so carried on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire to be considered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord. At the same time, we wish it distinctly to be understood, that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers; and we consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply the name of the Lord Jesus.”
The dread of strife in the things of God, especially connected with that which belonged to the Holiest of Holies, every godly soul instinctively shrinks from, and this is stated as a reason for avoiding the controversy. But this clause contains an unpardonable crime, in the eye of the domineering spirit that prevailed, and that is, the bold avowal of wishing to belong neither to the party of Mr. Newton, nor to that of Mr. Darby. It was too independent a place to be tolerated for a moment by those incipiently aspiring to the exalted position of “the one Assembly,” that was to be ruled over by some Diotrephes or other, one or more. There is no greater crime than independence with certain minds, and hence the cry of “independence” so often raised against Bethesda. Mr. Wigram in reference to this, writes “The aim of Bethesda is still to make a party positively apart from us all, and apart, I judge too, from Mr. Newton.”[1] And yet this clanse states in the strongest terms, the earnest desire of the brethren in Bethesda, not only for general fellowship with all saints, but for particular and special fellowship with those who meet simply in the name of the Lord Jesus. There was no desire to make a party, but in the earnest godly desire to avoid it, they sought to keep aloof from the quarrel going on; but not to keep aloof from any, anywhere, who loved the Lord Jesus, seeking amidst the strife to maintain their catholic position; but even for this, they could allow of no compromise of principles, no conceding to man of that which they felt bound to concede to the Head of the Church only ; for it was seen that the demand made in this matter, was a secret device of the great enemy, to introduce principles of subjection to man in opposition to that on the ground of which, they had hitherto maintained their standing, as above not only all traditions of men, as also above all commandments of men.
“9th. We felt that the compliance with Mr Alexander’s request would be the introduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right to demand our examin-
- ↑ Letter bearing post mark Feb. 2 , 1849, see “The Bath Case, p. 10,” printed by Eyles, Brighton.
