Two Letters to a Wesleyan Inquirer - 1st Letter

Two Letters to a Wesleyan Inquirer

by Richard Holden
 

*************************

16h December, 1872.

DEAR BROTHER, 

Thank you very much for allowing me to see your friend's letter. It is interesting to me, as the expression of a clear mind and an upright heart, faithful according to its light, viewing the subject from a wrong stand-point, and consequently seeing it disjointedly. It has for me all the more interest that the sentiments and convictions it reveals are very similar to what were, little more than twelve months back, my own.

I see your friend's counsel to you is pretty much what my own has been "He that believeth shall not make haste": "not a step before your faith, not a step behind your conscience”.

Your friend's remarks about "the Church in apostolic times" give at once the clue to his misunderstanding, not only of "Brethren," but of the whole question of sectarianism. He has not weighed as carefully before the Lord, as I trust he will yet be led to do, the true character of the Church of God as set forth in Scripture. He intimates that the Church, which started as one, ceased to be so even in apostolic days. Nothing can surely be farther from the truth. The New Testament presents us with a most complete example of unity. The Church throughout the whole world was one Church. Every part of it was in full and unhindered communion with every other part. Local assemblies there were, but each simply the local expression of the unity of the whole. They knew but one name "The Church of God" (which in one aspect is the "body," in another "the house" - 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:15, etc.). Individually its members were all members of the one body, knowing no other names than those of "Saints," "Brethren," "Disciples," "Christians”. Nothing like the idea of members of a Church, and not of all the Church—nothing like members of a sect with the name of a man, or any other "denominational" distinction, as Paulites or Apolloites. There was indeed the manifestation of the presence of the fleshly principles which, if tolerated, must have developed into such; but it was at once put down by apostolic authority (as in 1 Cor. 1:3), and so afforded an occasion for a warning which, instead of being heeded, has, alas! been utterly neglected to the ruin of all.

To quote the instance of subdivision of labour, in respect of the circumcision and the uncircumcision, as an example in any degree approximating to modern sectarian divisions, is as complete a fallacy as it would be to say that because God laid it on the heart of one missionary in "the Methodist body" to go to the Jews, and another to the Africans, they ceased to belong to that "body," and became separate sects. So long as they brought their converts into the unity of Methodism— i.e. into full communion with that "body," as to doctrine, discipline, government, etc.— they would continue in the unity of that sect. If each took up an independent ground of action, gathered his converts under a separate name, set up an independent church government and organisation, then each would be the author of a separate sect; and that whether he "intended" from the first to form a separate Church, or whether it only "grew" to that, as in the case of Wesleyanism. I feel sure it was only the hurry of an unpremeditated letter that betrayed your friend into such a misconception.

Just such is, I feel sure, the explanation of his remark that a "separate sect does not destroy the unity of the body," and the illustration with which he seeks to elucidate it. In the first there is a confounding of the thought of the body in its intrinsic with that of its manifested character, with which the question has to do. The former is a matter wholly pertaining to God, and quite outside the range of man's responsibility. It is the work of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12:13), and man can neither make nor mar it. It embraces all true believers, wherever they may be found. The latter man is responsible to maintain (Eph. 4:3), and a sect—or part cut off—does beyond all question destroy the manifested unity of the body.

The illustration of a forest fails because the oak, elm, and beech trees all continue compacted in the same group. If transplanted on to separate ground, and grouped together in distinct masses, they would cease to be one forest. Differences of opinion or of minds do not destroy manifested unity, so long as the differences are not suffered to develop into organic separation. Scripture has sharply and well defined this in its rules for the treatment of two different classes of such opinions. Doctrine destructive of foundation truth must not be tolerated within the "body;" the false teacher also must be rejected, as must he who partakes of his evil deeds by having fellowship with him (2 John 10,11). For other cases of difference provision is made in Rom. 14, etc.; but there is no license given for any man to set up an independent Church, according to his own preferences.

The Old Testament supplies us with a most instructive parallel, if we will but give heed to it. Suppose our brother had lived in Judah in the days of the Judges or the Kings, and had seen the whole nation, from the king downwards, going up to worship in high places (not idols, mind, but God - 1 Sam. 9:12; 10:5, 13, etc.), what would have been his duty? Would it not have been to stand firm on Deut. 12, and refuse to add to or diminish from the commandment of the Lord, or to have fellowship with the acts of those who set up such worship as seemed right in their own eyes; and that although such servants of God as even Solomon, Uzziah, and the like, allowed themselves to be carried with the stream? Your friend thinks that "where God commands His blessing, there cannot be much wrong”. God blessed the reforming kings, according to the measure of their faithfulness, but that implied no sanction of the evils they still perpetuated;  but that implied no sanction of the evils they still perpetuated; His "Nevertheless" comes in in abatement of His commendation, fixing His perpetual stigma on the disobedience (even though mistaken, or in ignorance) of otherwise excellent men.  (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3, etc.).

God deals in grace now and not in judgment, in terms of 2 Cor. 8:12; and, where there is faithfulness up to the measure of light, He blesses; but if wilful carelessness as to His honour or His will come in; if one refuse to search into His mind when He calls to it, or persevere in a course of evil after it has been pointed out and recognised, His blessing need not be hoped for. The Wesleys were faithful witnesses for God in their day, and were His honoured instruments to bring into prominence precious truths that had long been lost sight of. But if Wesleyans refuse to march again when the cloud lifts, God having committed a fresh testimony on other long-lost truths to other hands, they will be left to barrenness, as others have been in similar circumstances.

God had but one temple of old, and to set up His worship anywhere else was to add to His Word and to do "whatsoever was right in man's own eyes," instead of "that which was right in the eyes of the Lord," and was therefore sin.

God has but one Church now, and to set up whatever mars its unity, no matter how specious the pretext of expediency, is "to do whatsoever is right in man's eyes," and just the same sin. He has made His mind clear to us, if we be willing honestly to give heed, as He did to Israel (1 Cor. 1:10, 3:3, 11:18, 19, 12:25; Eph. 4:3, 4; Jude 19), and it has met with about the same attention. Alas! it was abundantly foretold—"It must needs be that offences come, but woe be to that man by whom the offence cometh”. 

Suppose your friend, living under the kings when the nation was all going up to the high places to worship, had put his finger on Deuteronomy 12, and either alone, or with "two or three" like-minded, had refused to go up, and persisted in worshipping at Jerusalem alone. Of course they would have been nicknamed and called a sect; but who would have been the real separatists or sect, and who the true representatives of the one true worship of Jehovah?

The case has its perfect parallel now-a-days. If there be but "two or three" who take their stand on the plain, simple text of God's Word, refusing to add to or diminish aught from it, holding fast to the ground on which the Lord originally set the Church, no matter in how much weakness, these (and these alone) are the true representatives of the one body. If others give them a name other than that their Lord has given, they are not responsible so long as they refuse to adopt it; they are Christians, and among such no "denominational" distinction should be needed; if any adopt such, they do it on their own responsibility and in direct contradiction of the Word of God. (1 Cor. 1:12, 13).

I quite agree with your friend that the unity spoken of in the first clause of John 17:21 is "one of nature and essence," but how was it to affect the world's belief except by a visible manifestation of it? Is it not notorious that one of the greatest obstacles to the progress of the Gospel is the disunion among Christians? If every one had had it as often cast in his teeth as I have, he would know it only too well.

But my letter is growing too long, and I must wind it up. I will but add that, if our dear brother understood the Scripture teaching as to eternal life—life in Christ Jesus—he would soon see that "Brethren" have good reason for their teaching about it.  If you care to copy off the accompanying notes on it, written for another object, they may help him*.

I remain,

Yours in the fellowship of Christ,

R.H.

*Those notes, formerly printed with these letters as an appendix, have now been expanded into a separate tract, and are published apart.