Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHarry Ironside Collection: Ironside, Harry A. - A Historical Sketch Of The Brethren Movement: 12 The Attempt At Union Thwarted
TOPIC: Ironside, Harry A. - A Historical Sketch Of The Brethren Movement (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 12 The Attempt At Union Thwarted
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter Twelve - The Attempt At Union Thwarted
It has been pointed out already that from the first, there were leaders among the “Grant” Brethren who did not look with favor upon the effort to reconcile Open and Exclusive Brethren. Mr. Paul J. Loizeaux, the able evangelist whose fiery eloquence had made him the outstanding preacher in this particular section of the movement, dreaded any apparent lowering of the standard and shrank from re-opening a question which it was felt the fathers had settled. Yet his sense of fairness, was such that once an attempt was determined upon he entered into it heartily, placed his beautiful grounds at the disposal of the Brethren as a meeting place and personally bore a large share of the expense, far more than one in his position might seem well able to afford. When the Plainfield decision was arrived at he accepted it, though with misgivings, and sought to act upon it until he felt convinced of its impracticability. Others shared his exercises and pursued a “policy of watchful waiting.”
A protest couched in no uncertain terms was soon forthcoming from the Stuart or Reading Meetings as we have seen, who wrote a solemn letter charging American Brethren with ignoring many facts of importance, acting hastily and on faulty information. This letter insisted on the unchanged character of Bethesda and declared that the fact that the Letter of the Ten had not been withdrawn or its principles repudiated, made fellowship impossible.
Mr. J. H. Burridge who had appeared at Plainfield to speak on behalf of Open Brethren gave out the following statement in regard to Bethesda which re-assured some troubled ones but did not go far enough for others:
1st. Bethesda gathering has had no fellowship with Mr. Newton from the time of the seven church meetings in which his heresy was considered very fundamental.
2d. No intercommunion of those meetings with Mr. Newton has ever been allowed.
3d. Hundreds of the Lord’s people have been kept by grace in happy harmony and fellowship together without division for nearly fifty years.
4th. Though during this time she has been the object of attack from all parts; brethren have tried again and again, but in vain, to fix the charge of unscriptural looseness and heresy upon her; but it has never been proven. May she not forget that she is still dependent upon the same grace that has kept her.
5th. Though to our shame be it said, the company known as exclusives have been shattered into half a dozen pieces. May our gracious Lord gather us more undividedly around Himself!
6th. At the present time Bethesda has about thirteen hundred in fellowship who meet in four different meeting rooms, and over twenty brothers laboring in foreign mission work, and for the last ten years has proved to be a place of refuge for many an exclusive brother distracted and perplexed by division and strife.
7th. Any brother or brothers may visit Bethesda to see for themselves if the above is not true.
Mr. Walter Scott of Hamilton, Scotland, widely known as a teacher of repute, came over to America in 1893 to verbally back up the protest of English and Scotch Brethren against any recognition of the Open assemblies. He was armed with a multitude of documents which seemed to show that these meetings were honeycombed with moral and doctrinal evil, and he practically threatened a complete disruption between the Grant and Stuart Brethren unless the action of the Plainfield conference was rescinded.
This opposition was at first firmly met and with seeming decision by F. W. Grant and others of prominence. They insisted that ample time had been allowed to produce any such evidence in the months’ interval between the printed call to Plainfield and the conference itself, and that it was neither fair nor honorable to bring it forward at so late a date, unless indeed new facts had come to light that were not available earlier. On the other hand they felt a statement was due their Brethren to allay suspicion and distrust, and to make clear just what their attitude was, so the following letter was drafted and sent far and wide:
New York, June 1st, 1893.
To our Brethren in Christ, in England and elsewhere,
gathered with us to the name of the lord jesus.
Beloved Brethren:
In view of the evident misapprehension on the part of many brethren in this country and elsewhere, as to the meaning and intent of the Plainfield Circular of last July (which we are free to admit was imperfectly expressed), it was deemed advisable to have a conference of brethren in these parts, to consider the subject and express a judgment as to the result of the Plainfield meeting, and the true meaning and object of the circular.
Accordingly such a conference was held on the afternoon of Tuesday the 30th ult.
It was agreed that intercommunion with those in fellowship with Bethesda-or Open Brethren, so called-was not contemplated so long as The Letter of the Ten with its evil principles was unjudged and allowed to stand. At the same time, godly persons, unintelligent as to their associations, ought not to be denied fellowship amongst us should they desire it.
This action is found especially necessary from the fact that certain laboring brethren from amongst us have construed the matter differently, by fellowshiping with “Open” gatherings, practically denying that there has been occasion for division in the past, and assuming that the evil principles of Bethesda have been really judged, which we should be only too happy to learn, but of which we are sorry to say there exists no evidence.
We also generally feel that we have allowed ourselves to go too far in fellowshiping certain persons from among them, giving thereby cause for the alarm which some have taken.
Humbled through the events which have transpired among us of late years, we sincerely desire to increase in love toward all our brethren in Christ, whatever ecclesiastical position they may occupy. At the same time we realize that these are no times to grow slack, but contrariwise, increase in vigilance, remembering the promise and the warning, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Rev_3:11).
E. G. Mauger, South Brooklyn.
James Brown, New York.
F. W. Grant, Plainfield, New Jersey.
W. S. Heron, South Brooklyn.
George Bezer, South Brooklyn.
John F. Gilmore, Brooklyn, E. D.
H. E. Lampe, Rutherford, New Jersey.
C. Jouard, New York.
Julius Overbury, Orange, New Jersey.
A. McGilchrist, New York.
James Manahan, Jersey City, New Jersey.
G. H. McCandless, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
James Welsh, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
W. S. Rolston, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
T. O. Loizeaux, Plainfield, New Jersey.
Paul J. Loizeaux, Plainfield, New Jersey.
Shortly afterwards a statement was sent to America, signed by representative Open Brethren in Great Britain endeavoring to make clear their position in regard to the much-discussed Letter of the Ten, which many trusted would have settled the entire controversy. I give it in full:
Statement
It has been suggested that brief statement on the subject of fellowship of saints might, with God’s blessing, prove helpful towards “keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” and therefore we gladly mention a few points with a view of removing misapprehensions from the minds of any believers, especially in America, and we trust that this statement will be received with the same sincerity with which we make it.
1. Those commonly known as “open” brethren only seek to maintain liberty to carry out all the will of God, as unfolded in the Scriptures, and to receive all believers who are not plainly disqualified by the Word of God, because of evil doctrine or immoral practice.
2. Intercommunion is not permitted with assemblies where the false doctrine of annihilation or other fundamental error is tolerated.
3. Although cases of reception of persons holding such false doctrines have been alleged, they have not been substantiated when proof was requested.
4. On the contrary, cases have now and again occurred (though we are thankful to say not frequently) in which persons holding such doctrines have been put away from fellowship.
5. When Christians who are sound and careful as to fundamental truths, but without sufficient light to renounce a sectarian position, desire to break bread, as being of the one body, and are permitted to do so, we believe that it is on the ground that each one is responsible to Christ as Lord of the conscience and in the hope that by remembering with them the love wherewith all His members are loved they may be helped to learn the way of God more perfectly.
6. Though ourselves conscious of much shortcoming it is our desire to carry out our Lord’s Word, “He that doeth truth cometh to the light.” We do not strive to make a party, but we endeavor to hold the Head, and we trust that where there is a similar aim, misconception regarding us, though of long standing, will be removed. The name of our Lord Jesus will thereby be glorified, we shall receive mutual comfort and help and the father of lies be defeated.
7. With regard to difference of judgment on points not involving vital doctrines, we seek to give ourselves to humiliation and prayer, knowing that God would have us to be of one mind, while exercising forbearance with one another and carrying out our convictions as to the truth.
8. We must add that we do not attach our signatures as representing the assemblies with which we are connected, but, rather as those who have had more or less lengthened experience, we give according to our personal knowledge the information that is desired.
Finally. We would love and serve all who unfeignedly love our Lord Jesus Christ, and would cultivate fellowship with all who aim at walking in the truth, and, though declining controversy on this subject, some of us will gladly reply to any brotherly enquiry, so far as time allows.
C. Underwood - For over 40 years in fellowship at Orchard Street and Welbeck Street, London.
John C. McVicker-Now of Clapton Hall, London.
For over 30 years among those known as “open” brethren.
George Mueller-Ashley Down, Bristol.
G. Fred Bergin - For over 30 years in fellowship at
Cork, Cardiff and Bristol.
James Wright-For 50 years in fellowship in “Bethesda,” Bristol.
Henry Dyer-For 50 years meeting with fellow saints to the name of the Lord, namely: from 1843 to 1848 at Rawstorne Street, London, and elsewhere, and from 1848 till now, to the same name of the Lord, with those known as “open” brethren, Bournemouth, Hants.
J. L. Maclean-Bath.
Thomas Cochran-Patrick, Glasgow.
John R. Caldwell-Glasgow.
F. C. Bland-5 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Martin Shaw-Belfast, in fellowship from I860 (part of the time, 1863, in Dublin).
Robert E. Sparks-Belfast, in fellowship for 26 years.
W. H. Bennet-Yeovil.
To this was added a personal explanation by the godly and esteemed W. H. Bennet of Yeovil, the last of the signatories:
If there is anything I can say to help our brethren whose consciences are troubled by false statements, and who are not sufficiently acquainted with us to know that they are false, I would be glad to do so.
But may I again draw your attention to the statement dated February 9th, 1894, and signed by several brethren?
No. 1 and No. 3 clearly state that we only receive “believers who are not plainly disqualified by the Word of God because of evil doctrine or immoral practice,” and that any who make allegations to the contrary have not been able to substantiate such allegations “when proof was requested.”
But is not No. 2 as clear on the question of association? It says, “Intercommunion is not permitted with assemblies where the false doctrine of annihilation or other fundamental error is tolerated.”
If this assertion had been received with the candor with which we made it, ought it not to have settled the question? What is understood by “intercommunion”? Does it not denote receiving from and going to or commending to any meeting? Then if we specified “annihilation” only, it is because that is the doctrine which has been more often referred to of late; but we were careful to say “other fundamental error” in order to make it inclusive. That this clause refers definitely to assemblies that profess to be gathered to the Lord’s name, on what is called church ground, should such be found tolerating “fundamental error,” ought, I think to be evident, because it is in No. 5 that we refer to the mode of dealing with “Christians who are sound and careful as to fundamental truths; but without sufficient light to renounce a sectarian position.”
We have no desire, dear brother, to seek “self-justification.” That we have been indifferent in the matter of association with evil, we cannot allow; but whenever any beloved brethren who had charged us with this, have, by patient and honest investigation, discovered that they had been mistaken and have met us before the Lord, they have found us as ready to bow in confession and self-judgment as they themselves were, and far indeed from seeking to “fasten sin or failure” upon them. And if some will not thus meet us, but persist in refusing to give us credit for common truthfulness in our statements, we seek rather to humble ourselves before God than cherish hard thoughts of them.
With love in our Lord,
Yours affectionately in Him,
W. H. Bennet.
Before these letters were actually in the hands of the American Brethren another grave barrier was raised up in the publication of a paper by a Mr. H. G. Holborow, of Selsley, Gloucestershire, England, designed to allay the fears of those who were not sure but that evil teaching as to Christ had been definitely held by Mr. Henry Craik, so long associated with Mr. George Muller at Bethesda. It had been reported at the time of the Newton difficulty that Mr. Craik had said that our Lord’s humanity was of such a character that he would have died of old age, or if he had drunk a cup of poison -thoughts abhorrent to the Scripture-taught mind-as He Himself so distinctly affirmed His death to be voluntary in the solemn words, “No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself.”
As the calumny in regard to Mr. Craik had been repeated by many who had never taken the trouble to investigate it, Mr. Holborow evidently considered it due to the memory of this departed brother to clear him of such imputation. But he was unfortunate in his effort, owing probably to his unfamiliarity with the theological terms, for he left the distinct impression upon the minds of his readers that he personally considered the body of the Lord on earth as mortal, or subject to death. I cannot find a copy of his pamphlet at this time, but the answer to it sent out by Mr. R. T. Grant entitled Some Remarks on Mr. Holborow’s Doctrine indicates by direct quotations the error into which he had inadvertently fallen:
Some Remarks on Mr. Holborow’s Doctrine
It is a little strange that a pamphlet sent out to prove the justice of Bethesda’s cause should need, in the very part which refers to doctrine, to be patched with the pen so extensively, after being printed. I refer, of course, to one entitled Correspondence about Bethesda in 1892, and being circulated in the hope of justifying the position taken by O. B. (That is, Open Brethren, Ed.).
To one or two points in it I desire to call attention, and to the sad fact that Mr. Holborow’s statements are extremely bad, and defective, to use the mildest term possible, where they ought to enunciate the truth emphatically. I fancy that many of the Lord’s dear people who are in fellowship with Bethesda, will hardly feel very comfortable, as they read what Mr. H. says in defense of his party. The accusation brought by Mr. Rickard reads thus:
“But what do we find was taught by the man whose name appears first to the Letter of the Ten, Mr. H. Craik? ‘If the Lord Jesus had taken poison, would he not have died?’ Another says of him, ‘We have heard, and we do believe, a shameful, irreverential, and vile expression attributed to Mr. Craik.’ Mr. Trotter says of him, “What he says there of the Lord’s humanity, leaves no room for doubt that he does, to a great extent, sympathize with Mr. N.’s unsound views.’ Mr. Wigram, in An Appeal, page 8, thus writes:
“He (Mr. Craik) said with great warmth the other day, that J. N. D. and his followers made too much of the humanity of the Lord Jesus, and that he believed if the Lord had not been crucified, He would have lived to be a shrivelled old man, and have died a natural death; and more to a similar effect.”
On page 10, and paragraph 35, Mr. Holborow says, after some words of extenuation, speaking of Mr. Craik: “He never admitted that he had been correctly reported, but explained he uttered the phrases in question in opposition to assertions which appeared to him to involve a denial that Jesus Christ came in flesh, and was perfectly human as well as Son of God.” The italics are mine, and making all due allowance for what is said in the first part of the sentence, the words italicized, involve an acknowledgment that in substance he said what was imputed to him. (But see note*(8) below, Ed.)
In paragraph 36 Mr. H. begins his defense of the statements, and I would call attention to the Scriptures he refers to: first as to Heb_2:17, evidently the Spirit of God would teach by these words, “being made like unto his brethren,” that in his life of suffering, and on the cross, He who by title was exempt from it all, underwent what gave Him His acquired perfectness, or fitness for the place which He fills for us with God. Always perfect, He yet had to be perfected, and the latter through suffering; yet nothing of this involves the idea of what Mr. H. asserts of the Lord’s humanity being “identical with ours.” These last are Mr. H.’s words, but the need of some correction has been felt, and with a pen is added, “as God made ours.” He is not satisfied with “veritable flesh and blood” (page 180), which Mr. R. uses to state his view of the Lord’s person; but insists it was “veritably identical with ours,” the danger of which statement was felt evidently when with the pen some corrector has added, “as God made ours.”
With Mr. Holborow “being made like unto his brethren” is taken for identity in nature, whilst it evidently refers to something entirely different. The “brethren” are fallen, sinful men, and to be made like them in the sense in which he would have the passage taken, would involve what no one who loves the Lord Jesus truly could accept. I do not say Mr. H. would allow such a thing or tolerate the thought, but his view of the passage is dangerous in the extreme, and involves it.
A lot of unhappy reasoning follows (page 180) as to what could have happened, but unfortunately all these things only help to hinder clear seeing for simple souls, and one fatal defect is that they leave out and ignore the character and ways of God. It is not true that God could have sent these marks of age and infirmity upon the Lord Jesus, nor the things of which Mr. Craik spoke, and one has to ask what makes these brethren write so, as to the Holy One of God, if there is not something radically unsound in their views? Why speak of things as possible to Him, which were only possible to a sinner? The Scripture pictures the Lord Jesus growing up from infancy to perfect maturity, manifesting at each step and in every circumstance, His own inherent perfection, and there it stops; and to say that anything else could have happened is to involve the Lord in the consequences of the fall, and one wonders how one who owes his salvation to the humiliation of the Son of God, can do other than reject with indignation such unholy trifling. Referring to the Lord’s body after death Mr. H. asks: “Why does he say, ‘Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,’ concerning the Lord’s body, if before there could have been natural decay its very nature must be changed?” “Is not the interposition of God here clearly indicated?” he adds. The answer is simple and evident, that is, that the Lord had given himself up to the judgment of sin as the Substitute for others and had been brought by the holy hand of God down to the dust of death, the consequence and penalty of sin. When all had been done that was needed to satisfy the claims of divine righteousness and glory, the answer came in the power of God raising Him from the dead. Thus was fulfilled the Scripture, and thus was secured God’s glory, and no indignity was permitted, nor could be, that was not absolutely necessary for the work accomplished; to this the character of God was pledged, even to the providing the new tomb of the rich man wherein never man had been laid; according to Isa_53:9, and to use the words of the Holy Spirit as to the dead body of Christ, “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” to justify Mr. Craik’s assertions, is a sad proof of what has to be defended.
Does Mr. H. not know that the things named as possible to the Lord, could not even have happened to an obedient Israelite, if such could have been found? Decay is the way to death and dissolution, and can only be the consequence of sin. Yet Mr. H. says (page 18):”Mr. Craik’s statements involve no imputation of sin to Christ, nothing impossible to the humanity of our Lord. :but he was wrong in predicting such things would without his authority.” Then Mr. Craik did predict they would happen, and Mr. Holborow undertakes to defend and extenuate such expressions! Is there no leaven at work in Bethesda? Saying such things would come on the Holy One of God then is no serious outrage upon the person of the Lord for “he (Mr. R.) has to prove Mr. C. a heretic before he can talk about ‘Craik’s heresies’ (page 18). But if this is not counted heresy by Mr. H. he asserts at the end of the same paragraph that those who hold the doctrine maintained by Mr. R. as to the Lord’s person would not be suffered in fellowship at Bethesda!! A reference to page 17 will show what it is Mr. H. thus stigmatizes as Gnosticism and which would therefore be refused.*(9)
But I turn back to consider a moment the second of Mr. H.’s quotations from Hebrews 11 (page 10, paragraph 36): “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same,” etc. To this Mr. H. adds, “and you cannot deny that the statements Mr. Craik made are true of his brethren; it is just as wrong to deny them as to assert them”; “for with God all things are possible,” is added here in ink in the copy I have before me. What does this mean? These things are true of his brethren, and the passage is quoted from Hebrews to preface the sentence, and it is “as wrong to deny the assertions attributed to Mr. Craik; and Mr. C. was just as wrong in asserting them.” I am perplexed to know what to understand here, but I leave it with the reader to unravel the knot, and content myself with the thought that if it was true it would not be wrong to assert it, nor if false to deny it; and it is either true or a very grave departure from the truth.
It is unhappy for Mr. H.’s doctrine, but an unspeakable comfort for those who do not tolerate what, if followed to its legitimate results, would put a blemish on the Holy One of God, that neither of the passages he relies on afford the least foundation for what they are cited in support of, but the opposite. If the reader will turn to Heb_11:14 and look it up in the Greek Testament, there will be seen something of the care of the Spirit of God in guarding against such irreverent notions. The children were partakers of flesh and blood “and he also himself took part of same.” Now two different words are used in this passage. The children are partakers of flesh and blood: the word used is koinoneo, or a sharing in common, connected with the word communion. Had this word been used as the Lord’s participation in humanity there might have been some ground for Mr, H.’s views, but the word took part is meteko, and by referring to Luke 5 the difference is clearly seen. There are two words translated “partners” in verses 7 and 10. In verse 7, “they beckoned to their partners which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them.” Partners here is metokos, and might better be translated fellows; that is, they were fishermen also, but did not share equally in the proceeds of the fishing. It is the verb of this noun that is used of the Lord in Hebrews 11, “took part of the same,” and the same word in Heb_1:9”Above thy fellows.” In verse 10, of Luke 5 (Luk_5:10), we have, “which were partners with Simon.” These were truly sharers in the full sense with Simon, and the same word is used as in Hebrews 2, “The children were partakers of flesh and blood”; they shared it in common, were alike identically. This has been often noticed, and it is a wonder Mr. H. could have overlooked the importance of it. (See a note on Heb_11:14 in the new translation by J. N. D.)
Let me add in conclusion that in writing what I have, it is as deeply deploring the controversy, and the need of it; but the attack has come from themselves, and from the persistent effort to force upon us unrestricted fellowship, whether we wish it or not. A forced fellowship would be a poor substitute for that which the Spirit of God produces. I know no way amidst the sad discord and humbling divisions of today, but to cultivate, as far as can be, within the prescribed limits of the Word of truth, brotherly love towards those manifestly the children of God according to Ephesians 4, and no fleshly zeal can accomplish this.
Mr. Burridge sought to get a retraction of his erroneous views from Mr. Holborow, but the latter at first did not seem to sense the gravity of the situation. Later he sent out the following letter of withdrawal and explanation:
Letter from Mr. Holborow,
Selsley, near Stroud, Gloucestershire,
April 18th, 1895.
Mr. J. H. Burridge.
Dear Brother in Christ:
Your letter of 8th instant just to hand. In reply, after reading its contents, I pen you an unqualified withdrawal of the sections of my paper, Correspondence About Bethesda, 1892, in question; those I have already particularlized in my letter to Mr. Buss. I withdraw them because the language is faulty, and capable of being understood in a different sense from what I intended- and therefore in that light they are wrong; also because they have a savor that is not godly about them; they have a spirit of strife about them that cannot be right, and they dwell upon subjects that it is impossible for a finite mind to adequately express in language that is not the very words of the Holy Spirit. And I am sorry I ever wrote them.
But, in writing the above, I do not justify the perversions and false witness concerning them that have been circulated by some. In confessing wrong on my own part, I should not be right in justifying what is wrong in others.
It will be asked, “Why did you not say this before?” I explain-because the perversions I refer to draw my mind away from a calm consideration of the nature of my words in the light of the Word; but I told a brother in England last summer, that I did not like my own expressions on recurring to them again. May the brethren forget all about them-that they ever existed-and forgive me for ever sending them out. My only plea is this: that I did not like to see Mr. Craik so spoken of, and that I simply endeavored to explain that the expressions attributed to him did not necessarily convey the evil teaching some have sought to attach to them.
H. G. Holborow.
Open Brethren generally repudiated the doctrine, but did not consider there was any further step necessary after this letter had been published, as Mr. Craik had long since definitely refused any such thoughts as had been attributed to him, and was with his Lord long ere the question was again raised by Mr. Rickard.
Nothing however could now allay the feeling among many of the Exclusives that there was something radically evil, still unjudged, in the Open fellowship and the most amazing charges were made by utterly misinformed men and circulated as truth. It was even declared that Mr. Muller maintained frequent intercourse with Mr. Newton and had “all his books in the Bethesda lending library.” To this slander Mr. Muller replied as follows:
New Orphan House, Ashley Down,
Bristol, August 23, 1895.
My Dear Brother:
1. Neither Mr. Newton nor any of his friends have been in fellowship with us since 1848. If the contrary is stated, I ask who and where?
2. I have only seen Mr. Newton once since 1848, to know of his present state; this was about 10 years since; yet you say I attend .his Bible readings. See how false! !
3. You state that Bethesda library contains all his books. False. We have no Bethesda lending library. There is a library at the Orphan Houses, for the teachers, a private library, in which there are three books of Mr. Newton’s on prophecy. They are quite sound.
Yours in our Lord,
George Muller.
But it seemed that nothing could be done to stem the tide of distrust that had set in against any further effort to bring about communion with Open Brethren. Already in July, 1894, at a conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a letter had been sent out signed by twenty-three laborers repudiating the Plainfield circular. A similar letter had also gone out from New York City. Later another went forth from a conference at Dunkirk, New York.
The direct result was most unhappy. Division and dissension spread throughout many of the Canadian and American assemblies. When the clouds had somewhat cleared there was a new party to be reckoned with, known as the “Independents,” who steadfastly refused to repudiate the Plainneld letter and have ever since sought to keep their doors open to Exclusives or Opens alike, who desired to commune with them. On the other hand many of the Grant meetings have gone steadily on, receiving godly, properly-commended saints coming from Open or Independent meetings, as they have never recognized the authority of the Pittsburgh and Dunkirk circulars. This was the attitude of Mr. R. T. Grant himself and has been consistently followed by many others through the years, in spite of the opposition of some of a more legal tendency. But the definite declaration of Mr. F. W. Grant that “the refusal of simple godly souls has never been contemplated,” makes any other course plainly inconsistent, even though full inter-communion cannot yet be enjoyed.
(8)* It was afterwards proven that what Mr. Craik really said was that if it had been the will of God the Lord might thus have died. But it is a pity such a subject was ever broached.
(9)* Note: -Mr. Rickard says: “That Holy Thing which was born of Mary was essentially free from every element of decay. Before there could have been natural decay its very nature must be changed.”-”It was real humanity, but it was His, in our human circumstances never subject to decay or dissolution.” This is branded by Mr. Holborow, as “a most dangerous error, and it must be exposed at once.”