| |
The Step I Have Taken
Nine Letters to A Friend on Taking His Place with So-Called "Brethren"
by Edward Dennet
EXPLANATORY:
The following letters, by permission of the friend to whom they are addressed,
were not sent until they had been printed. When his loving remonstrance first
arrived, I intended to reply immediately, but since I received many similar
letters and personal inquiries, I have published my answers; first, to explain the
step I have taken; secondly, to remove misconception; and thirdly, to publicly
withdraw my pamphlet against so-called "brethren," referred to in the letters.
The grounds of this withdrawal are that I discovered that some sources of my
information, used when writing the pamphlet, were untrustworthy. More
authentic information caused me to interpret the circumstances in a
completely different manner. Also, an examination of the statements that I had
used, when viewed in their context, convinced me that I had given them a
meaning not intended by their writer. Further, a prolonged reconsideration of
some of the views that I had condemned, led me to conclude that they were
Scriptural. Under these circumstances, I simply obeyed the directions of the
Word of God and the dictates of conscience in confessing my error, and I hope
that the publication of these letters will help nullify the effects of my pamphlet.
If the Lord should condescend to use these letters in guiding believers into a
right path and position, I could not be sufficiently grateful. May they be used
for His glory in the welfare of His saints.
E. D., BLACKHEATH, 1875.
LETTER ONE:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
Your letter was so full of gentle and loving remonstrances, and our friendship
has been so intimate, that I owe you a detailed explanation of why I have
changed my position. Since many others also asked why I, who wrote a
pamphlet against so-called "brethren,"* have so changed my views as to
become identified with them, I trust that you will not object to my answering
them through these letters to you.
*EDITOR'S NOTE: These Christians referred to as "so-called brethren "(often
known as "Plymouth Brethren") refuse such "names" as setting them apart
from other Christians. They simply meet as Christians, gathered to no other
name than the Lord Jesus (Matt. 18: 20). However, the above phrase is used
herein as a matter of convenience to distinguish these believers from those in
the various denominations.
First of all, let me recall our past association. About six years ago, our friendship
was formed, which has continued and grown deeper with time, proving that
the blessing of the Lord was on it. Its very beginning was a prediction of its
nature and character, for it sprang out of fellowship in what we, at that time,
held to be the truth. Nominally, we were Baptist ministers, but in spirit and in
practice, we were so outside of the Baptist denomination that we were
disliked.
Why? Because we have been freed from the restraints of theology and simply
prized the Scriptures as the true Word of God. Having been taught something
of dispensational truths; the distinctive position of the Church of God; and
teaching the believer's perfect standing before God through death and
resurrection with Christ; the heavenly nature of our calling; the personal
indwelling of the Holy Spirit; the return of the Lord for His saints before the
millennium; and the Messiah's glorious millennial (1,000 years) reign, etc., we
found ourselves out of harmony with our fellow ministers to where we were
afraid to ask them to preach in our pulpits, lest they should contradict our own
teaching. In honest dissent from all denominationalism, we could not support our societies, and thus stood clear of the political proceedings of so many of
the denominational gatherings. The consequence was that you and 1, when
present, were alone in these meetings, and we were strongly suspected of
having a tendency toward "Brethrenism." Our position was well known, and
our isolation was nearly complete.
As a result, we gave ourselves more fully to the Lord's work, striving to shield
our people as much as possible from "denominational influences," to train
them to study the Scriptures for themselves, and to build them up in the truth
of God. The Lord graciously blessed our work. He encouraged us by many
tokens of His favour. Indeed, to the end of 1872, we both had much cause for
gratitude for scarcely a month passed without people brought to Christ by the
preaching of the gospel.
How often we poured out our hearts together before the Lord in gratitude for
His great mercy in using us for His glory! In all our prayers, our one desire was
to become vessels "sanctified and fit for the Master's use" (2 Tim. 2: 21). Our
prayers were heard, for I see the answer to our cries in the experiences of the
last two years. Our desire was to continue with our people and to have
increased blessing on us and on our labours in their midst. We prayed for
greater dedication, but we were shutting our eyes to the fact that our position
was not according to the mind of God (and there were things in my teaching
which also were not Scriptural). Hence, if our prayers were to be answered, it
could only be by separating us from everything, whether in position or in
teaching, that was evil before the Lord. He answered us according to His own
thoughts of love, and not according to our desires.
Yours affectionately in Christ,
Edward Dennett.
LETTER TWO:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
How merciful is the Lord to conceal from us the future. I am afraid that if we
had seen the path before us, our prayers would have died on our lips. How did
the Lord answer our prayers? In both cases, it was by sickness. I was the first to
be smitten, in October, 1872. Having somewhat recovered, I struggled on with
my work until March, 1873. This period of weakness was the most fruitful
period of my ministry in the conversion of souls. It was, therefore, my earnest
desire to remain at my post, but the Lord was to send me away into the desert
for a long season of heart searching in His presence.
Becoming very ill, I was sent to the Continent for a six months rest, which was
extended to 13 months before I returned. Although the Lord had now
separated me from my people*, I joyfully recall how they ministered to my
need throughout this time. May the Lord abundantly repay them because they
did it as unto Himself in the person of His servant, and "supply all their need
according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4: 19).
*This phrase, "my people," is used in these letters simply as expressive of old
associations, not as justifying it now. E. Dennett.
Before I discuss my exercises during my stay in Switzerland, let me look forward
a few months. Not long after I left, your health also failed. You likewise went to
the Continent where we unexpectedly met at Lausanne. You know how I was
impressed with these "coincidences" in the Lord's dealing with us! Thus, I
suggested that we consider whether there had been something in our position
and teaching which had brought the Lord's loving chastisement on us, and that
it might be the Lord's design to correct us and lead us into a fuller
understanding of His truth, and into a position more according to His Mind.
This question came from much previous self-examination and self-judgment. It
is natural to the child of God that trial should bring heart searching. Thus, no
sooner had I reached the Continent than, in my daily walks and during my
sleepless nights, the question continually before me was, "What is the Lord's
purpose in this affliction?" or, "What does He wish to teach me?" I resolved not to rest until I knew the meaning of His chastening hand. Hence, I examined and
re-examined my past methods of work, the truths I had taught, and the
position I had occupied. Let me briefly detail the results of my investigation.
First, I considered my book against "the Brethren." Soon after it was issued, I
had regretted its publication because, although I believed all that I had written,
I sincerely admired what I knew of the "brethren," so-called. I admired their
separated walk, their simplicity of life, and their love for the Word of God and
the Person of our blessed Lord. I was sorry that I had hurt them; and that, by
my book, I had shut myself out from all fellowship with them. Further, I
questioned whether I had been fair in criticizing detached quotations; whether,
in fact, I had honestly sought to determine their real meaning and then to test
them by Scripture. Consequently, long before leaving England, I ceased to
advertise my book. With more authentic information on many of the points on
which I had dwelt, and having been forced to renounce, after searching the
Scriptures, some of the doctrines which I had therein advocated, I was
compelled not only to withdraw the book, but to confess that I could no longer
agree with all its statements. I further resolved that, at the first opportunity, I
would state this publicly and express my sorrow for its publication.
Next, I examined my practice in the light of my teaching. Had I been consistent?
I had to admit some important discrepancies. I had preached for many years
that believers should be gathered as believers on the Lord's Day, to "break
bread." I also knew the evil of pew rents. Apart from their unscriptural
character, I had noticed that poor believers had to sit where they could,
however uncomfortable it might be, because unbelievers who could pay, could
choose their pews. I had frequently stated my convictions on these points, and
thus had satisfied myself with my testimony.
Here was failure. I was responsible for the truths which the Lord revealed to
me. Hence, I was responsible, in faithfulness to God, to carry them out in
action. I had neglected this, but now, God has given me grace to confess my
error and to seek strength for faithfulness on my return.
After this, I tested the doctrines I had preached by the light of Scripture. Here
also, I discovered grounds for regret. I had taught the mortality of the Lord's
human body, in the sense of it being under the necessity of death. I was not
aware of the errors with which this doctrine had been associated or I would
have shrunk from it with horror. Further study showed me that the Lord's
human body was mortal, but only in the sense of it being capable of dying, and
not in anywise as being under the necessity of death! To maintain the latter
would be an attack on the very foundations of the Lord's atoning sacrifice on
the cross.
The coming of the Lord for His saints also occupied my attention. We had
maintained that, while His coming would be pre-millennial (before the Lord's
1000 year reign over the earth), there were intervening events before the
"rapture" of saints. Hence, the Church would have to pass through the great
tribulation and thus be on the earth during the Antichrist's reign. I devoted the
whole winter to this subject. I searched the Scriptures with other Christians,
and finally concluded that the Church would not be in the "tribulation" - the
time between the Lord's coming to the clouds for believers (the "Rapture") and
His return to the earth to reign (His appearing). For instance, I saw that
Matthew 24 does not apply to the Church.
With great delight, I realized that the believer is privileged to daily expect the
Lord's return. I long had had a secret conviction that unless this were so, many
of the exhortations of Scripture as to "waiting" and "watching" had little force,
and that such an expectation must exert, in the power of the Holy Spirit, a most
blessed and sanctifying influence on the believer's soul.
My change of view on this subject helped me to modify several other points. It
brought into clearer light the "nature" and "calling" of the Church; the contrast
between the earthly hope of the Jew and the heavenly hope of the believer,
and between the "kingdom" and the "Church." All this led to the readjustment
of related truths. But, I did not go further at that time.
Although during the winter, at Bible readings and in conversations with friends,
I found it difficult to defend the "church practices" with which I was associated,
I stuck to my position. With the above exceptions, I had not altered any
fundamental principle - anything, at least, that affected my continuing at the
post I had held for so many years. If I had any thoughts about changing my
position, the prospect of soon returning to my beloved people scattered them
and re-established my confidence. Thus, when we finally started home, the
only fear I had was whether my health would enable me to resume my long
interrupted work.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER THREE:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
Upon returning to England, I again began my ministry. Because I was still weak,
my beloved people kindly allowed me to preach only once on Lord's day; and
through the tender mercies of our God and Father, I was able to do this with
comparative ease and much joy. Perhaps as never before did I realize so much
of the presence of God and of the power of the Holy Spirit in preaching the
Word. The reason, no doubt, was that never before were so many prayers
offered that the Lord's strength might be made perfect in my weakness.
Regardless of all these happy experiences, the Lord was about to make me
retire from my work. Scarcely had I settled down before indications appeared
that it was not His will for me to continue at my post. You are acquainted with
the peculiar path by which I was led, so you know that I didn't take the step of
my own will, but was forced to act by influences from without. I called a
meeting of believers and read to them a paper that contained the leading
truths which I held at that time. A part of this paper follows: it will help explain
the change which I was led to make. After some personal references, I
proceeded as follows:
"I am said to have taught so-called "Plymouth" doctrines last Lord's day. It so
happens that on two previous occasions, I expressed exactly the same views,
and, as far as I know, not a single complaint was made. But, the important
question is, 'Did I proclaim truth or error?' Because the Catholics hold the
divinity of the Lord Jesus, am I to reject this most true and blessed doctrine?
But, I confess that I do largely agree with the doctrines usually associated with
so-called 'brethren.' When I began my ministry here, over 13 years ago, I was a
great student and read many books. But, the Lord gradually showed me that,
with the Holy Spirit as Guide and Teacher, the Bible is all-sufficient for the
instruction of the man of God (John 14: 16-17).
Thus, my books became fewer and fewer. Now, the Scriptures are my chief
companion and my only textbook for the pulpit."
"The result was that I had to reject most of the views that I had been previously
taught, and I had to confess that many of the doctrines of so-called 'brethren'
were according to the mind of God. For instance, I saw that it is right to meet
simply as Christians on the Lord's day, to break bread. Again, in regard to
dispensational truth, although I had differed from them on some important
points, I agreed with them in their general outline, as for example, in the pre-
millennial return of Christ, in the first resurrection of believers, in the rapture
of the saints; and in their association with Christ in the glories of His millennial
reign. I also agreed in the restoration and conversion of the Jews and in the
conversion of the world, not by the preaching of the Gospel before the second
coming of Christ, but after the Lord's return, when God 'will turn to the peoples
a pure language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him
with one consent' (Zeph. 3: 9). I also agree with them, speaking generally, in
their teaching on the standing and walk of believers, separation from the
world, and the indwelling Holy Spirit. I have differed with them on other points.
If I had not, I hope I would have had grace to unite with them. If I had been fully
convinced of the ground they take as to worship and ministry, it would have
been my pleasure to seek to glorify God by obedience to His will."
"I will go farther. I often have said in talking to friends, that under some
circumstances, I would rather be with so-called 'brethren' than with other
Christians. Even now, if I were in a place where no definite truth was taught, I
would seek the privilege of fellowship with them in the breaking of bread."
"I have often expressed regret that I ever wrote my pamphlet against 'brethren'
because I soon found that Unitarians, clergymen, and other ministers with
whom I had not the least sympathy, were using my book to help their cause. I
felt, therefore, that I was in the wrong camp, and must have been in error. It
also was referenced in newspapers and reviews to support views that I entirely
rejected. Hence, I express my deep sorrow that I ever published it, even though
at the time, it contained my sincere convictions. In these days of worldliness
and error, I would far rather see Christians with so-called 'brethren' than in the Establishment (the Church of England) or with many Independents and
Baptists. I take this opportunity to say that I do not now agree with the
statements and views that my book contains."
Such, dear brother, was the substance of the paper that I read on that
occasion. I then announced that since my teaching had been called in question,
I would resign from my pastorate. I returned home with more joy of soul than I
had experienced for some time, for I felt that the Lord had opened a door for
me to declare plainly all the truth that I held. I was sure that, whatever might
be the trials of faith connected with the separation from my people, He Who
had spoken so plainly to me, would give me grace to be faithful; strength for
the testimony to which I might be called; and ability to follow on, although the
character of the path I was entering was entirely hidden.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER FOUR:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
The effect of the meeting that I described in my last letter was unexpected and
wonderful. I felt like a bird that had just escaped from a cage, so great was my
liberty and freedom of soul. Further, truths that were not clear in my mind,
were, by the influence of the meeting, solidified, and they glistened like newly
discovered treasures. Hence, when I was urged to remain with my people, with
the assurance that I could preach all that the Lord had revealed to me, I could
not do so, even though I yearned over the souls that had been given me in the
gospel. The ties that Christian fellowship had formed, drew me very close to
many believers. Also, temporal maintenance, humanly speaking, depended on
my continuing at my post. But all these things could not draw me back or make
me recall the words I had spoken.
Having uttered the truths given in my paper, I felt that I must follow them. I
began to long after a position that could bear the test of the Word of God.
Further, having expressed in public my regret for the publication of my book, I
felt that I also should tell those against whom it was written. Accordingly, I
wrote a brief letter to Mr. William Kelly - one well-known among so-called
"brethren" - stating what I had done and expressing my sorrow that I had
published my pamphlet.
This done, I was free from all entanglements. So, I determined by God's help, to
bring Scripture to bear on everything connected with my position, that I might
be gathered aright in my future path; for as yet, the exact position I should take
on my separation from my people, was uncertain. My only desire was to know
the will of the Lord.
The first thing I examined was "ministry" as practiced by "Dissenters."* For
years, we both have been known as Dissenting ministers, although we were
unwilling to accept the name. Why? I can answer only for myself. After I had
confessed Christ, I had a great desire to "enter the ministry." I was young and
uninstructed, and according to the practice of our denomination (Baptist), I
looked to one of the colleges for the needful preparation. Recommended by
two ministers, (although I had only preached once, and not in their hearing), I
was accepted for the usual four years. I studied hard, but not the Scriptures,
although these had a secondary place to the other studies.
I was prepared for a B.A. degree at the end of the third year, but while waiting
for final examinations, I caught typhus fever and was unable to proceed to my
degree. After months of weakness, I recovered through God's blessing. About
six months of study remained. At the end of three months, I was invited to
preach on probation at the end of which, the "church" met to discuss my
merits as a preacher. Then, by vote, I was unanimously elected to be their
pastor.
I won't here discuss the method of preparing young men for the ministry,
although it is full of many evils, and completely unwarranted by Scripture. I will
confine myself to one question, "is there any Scriptural authority for the
election of a 'minister' by the vote of the church?" This was the question which,
with Bible in hand, I sought to answer.
I first turned to Acts 6, where we do find something like the "election" of
church officers by the believers in fellowship (v. 5). But, note several things.
First, although they were chosen by the multitude, it was by the direction of
the apostles, and the appointment was confirmed, if not made, by the apostles
(v. 6). Secondly, although they were chosen by the multitude, the word used to
indicate ' the act of their choice, indicates simple selection, not vote by ballot.*
Thirdly, the "officers" chosen were not elders or bishops, but were appointed
only to attend to the daily ministration of relief to widows - of serving tables
(vv. 1-3). Afterwards, Stephen preached the word in the power of the Holy
Spirit, but no one contends that this resulted from his appointment to serve
tables. Thus, nothing in this chapter bears on the election of "pastors" or
"ministers."
I then examined Acts 14: 23, which is more to the point. We read there that
Paul and Barnabas "ordained elders in every church." "Elders" and "bishops"
are the same in the Scriptures. These two terms indicate the same office, and
the office of the Dissenting minister is held or claimed to correspond to this. If
these "elders" were appointed by church vote, then there may be justification
for the practice of Dissenters.
The proof that the words "elders" and "bishop" indicate the same office is
found in Acts 20: 17, where Paul "sent . . . for the elders of the church." In
addressing them, he says in verse 28, "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers
(bishops)."
Turning back to Acts 14: 23, let's see what are the exact words used. Literally, it
is, "Having appointed them elders." Until now, I had believed what I had been
taught, that the word translated "appointed" ("ordained" in the King James
translation), meant 'appointed by the vote of the church' - that is, to "hold up
the hand" - and, hence, that the church first selected these elders by vote,
and then, the apostles confirmed or ratified the choice that the church had
made.
Conceding for a minute that this might be the meaning of the word used, I ask
you, dear brother, if this is the usual method for interpreting language'? The
context shows that the participle translated "having appointed" refers only to
the action of the apostles, and that the pronoun rendered "them," refers to the
disciples in every church. It is evident, therefore, that, whatever the word
"appointed" may mean exactly, we are here told of something that the apostles
did for the churches. But, if you insist that the word does convey the meaning
of "voting by the church," I would reply at once, on the authority of this
passage, that if the church voted, there could be no valid appointment apart
from the presence and action of the apostles!
But, is this the meaning of the word "appointed" or "ordained?" The same
Greek word only occurs in two other places in the New Testament; once in the
same form, and once compounded with a preposition of "time," which leaves
the meaning of the word unchanged. In 2 Cor. 8: 19, the apostle Paul speaks of
a brother whose praise in the gospel was throughout all the churches, and says,
"And not that only, but who was also chosen (the word translated "ordained" in
the former passage) of the churches to travel with us with this grace . . ." Here,
the churches did the appointing, but we have nothing except the word itself to
indicate the method of appointment. However, this is not the appointment of
an elder, but only of one sent by the assemblies to act with the apostle in the
handling of their gifts - an entirely different thing!
The other passage is Acts 10: 40-41, "Him God raised up the third day and
showed Him openly; not unto all the people but unto witnesses chosen (the
same word) before by God . . ." Does not the use of the word here, prove its
meaning? Used in connection with God, it is impossible to attach any idea to it
beyond that of selection or appointment. Therefore, this passage should
control our interpretation of the more doubtful former passages.
I repeat, then, that the word "ordained" is used only in one place in connection
with the appointment of elders or bishops (the office claimed by Dissenting
ministers), and even in that place, the action in the word is applied to the
apostles, not to the churches. Therefore, can any unprejudiced mind still
believe that the Bible gives any warrant for the election of "ministers" (elders)
by church vote, or that there is any idea contained in the word "ordained"
beyond that of simple appointment?
Hence, the elders in the verses referred to, were appointed by the apostles.
This was the conclusion that God's Word compelled me most reluctantly to
admit. Nor could I gain any comfort from Paul's direction to Titus, to "ordain
elders in every city, as I had appointed you" (Titus 1: 5). First, the word "ordain"
is not the same as discussed above, but means "to establish;" and secondly,
what Titus did, he did only under the direction and authority of the apostle.
These are the results of my investigation. My conclusion is that the method of
our appointment is without Scriptural authority. If you would like to pursue this
subject further, let me recommend
"Lectures on the Church of God," by William Kelly. But you will find that the
Scriptures are amply sufficient to show the correctness of the above
conclusions.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett.
LETTER FIVE:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
For the sake of clarity, I will summarize the conclusions of my last letter before
proceeding. We saw that:
1. Scripture contains only one instance of an absolute appointment by the
church. However, the appointed man was not an elder, but simply a brother
who was delegated by several assemblies to go with the apostles to help
administer the assemblies' gifts (2 Cor. 8: 18-19).
2. There is only one instance of selection of "church officers" by the church, and
the job of these "officers" was to "serve tables." Although they were selected
by the church, they actually were set apart to their office by the apostles (Acts
6).
3. There is no instance whatever of the selection of elders by vote or otherwise,
by the Church. In every case, they were appointed either by the apostles or
under the apostles' direction and authority (Acts 14: 23, Titus 1: 5, etc.).
4. The conclusion from these facts is that unless we have apostles or apostolic
authority, we have no Scriptural warrant for the appointment of elders or
bishops.
You may tell me that in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, we have those apostolic directions
and authority which are required. But, these "directions" were not sent to the
churches but to individuals - those very individuals, Timothy and Titus, who
were acting under the direction of the apostle, and thus needed the
instructions given there. It is most significant that, in Titus, the qualifications
for the bishop (elder) follow the direction given to "ordain elders in every city."
Thus, the very placement of these instructions show that, instead of being our
authorization to appoint elders, the church, by so doing, is taking upon itself a
function which was only connected with the apostolic office. Therefore, we
must conclude that the method of appointing Dissenting ministers is
unscriptural.
I am convinced that there are hundreds of godly men in "dissent" who would
be thankful to see this conclusion. While they have accepted the traditions of
"dissent" on this subject, they have found it hard to reconcile them with their
belief in divine wisdom.
Suppose, now, a "church" without a minister. What does it do? First of all,
notable men will be asked if they know of anyone who would please the
church. Applications also will come in from "moveable" ministers. In due time,
a selection will be made of one or more candidates who will be asked to come
and preach on probation for several weeks. Then, the church will meet, and the
merits of the candidate(s) will be discussed. Finally, with the aged believer and
the babe in Christ all being judges on the same level, judgment is passed on the
spiritual qualifications of the candidates. Then, a vote will be taken. If there is a
majority in favour. of a candidate, the invitation to the pastorate (although he
has only been tested as a preacher) will be sent, and the candidate accepts or
rejects the invitation as he pleases.
All this was in my mind when I was re-examining this subject. Perhaps it helped
me to come to an unbiased conclusion. I say "unbiased" because my own
position was involved. I concluded that the minister, as appointed among
Nonconformists, is completely without the approval of Scripture.
Thus far, I have gone under the assumption that there is similarity between the
office of a Dissenting minister and the office of the elder or bishop of Scripture.
But I soon saw that there is little or no similarity between these two things, for,
in Scripture, there always is the most absolute distinction between office and
gift. While there was appointment to the office by the apostles, the possessor
of a gift used it in sole responsibility to the Lord, and never was appointed to
use it either by the apostles or by the assembly. See Rom. 12: 6-8 and 1 Peter 4:
10-11. Consequently, it is never said in the listing of the gifts in Eph. 4: 11-12
that the Lord gave "elders," although apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors,
and teachers are all named. Elders were appointed for rule, so they held an
office, but the possessors of gifts received their gifts for the building up of the
saints, and were bound to use them to this end, in obedience to God from
Whom their gifts had come.
But this cannot be among Dissenters because, in opposition to the plain
distinction of Scripture, the use of gift is connected to election to office. Hence,
a Dissenting minister is said to be an elder or bishop. He also is called a pastor.
Likewise, he is a teacher; and he is also supposed to be an evangelist -- to be,
in fact, a sum-total of all the gifts and offices, except that of a deacon. Is it not
strange that we have been so long content with such a system?
I found another difficulty -- that of "one-man ministry." If all the rest had been
clear, this would have been an insurmountable problem. I found that there is
not a single verse that speaks of an elder or a bishop of the church; nor is the
word (in either case) ever found in the singular, except in the pastoral epistles
where the qualifications of the office are detailed. In Acts 20: 17, "He . . . called
the elders of the church"; Acts 14: 23, Elders in every church"; Phil. 1: 1, "With
the bishops"; Titus 1: 5, "Ordain elders in every city"; 1 Peter 5: 1, "The elders
who are among you"; etc.
Thus, it is impossible to justify from Scripture, the Nonconformist method of
appointing one elder or bishop to "preside over a church." In fact, the practice
isn't even seriously defended, for I remember dining with some Congregational
ministers when one of them began to condemn the practices of so-called
"brethren." Interrupting, I asked, "Are you sure of your own position? Show me
your Scriptural justification for one-man ministry." He replied, "That easily can
be done." But, on being pressed, the only passage he could find was, "The
seven stars are the angels of the seven churches" (Rev. 1: 20). The others were equally helpless. This example shows not only how indefensible the practice is,
but also, how easily we are led to take solemn and responsible positions
without the guidance of the Word of God.
Surely, if we desire God's glory, we shall seek to be separated from evil of heart
and position and to make God's Word the lamp unto our feet and the light unto
our path, both for our daily walk and our church practices and associations. To
set up anything in the house of God that doesn't have the direction and
approval of Scripture, is practical disobedience to the Lord as Head of the
Church!
I am sure that you will agree with these conclusions from Scripture, for I
remember in times past, how we longed for some change so that, together, we
might carry out our work unhindered by any authority other than the
Scriptures. We often said that if any thing should occur to separate us from our
people, we could not conscientiously offer ourselves for the pastorate of any of
the ordinary denominational "churches." The fact was that we had learned
much more than we were willing to confess. Hence, we were dissatisfied and
uncomfortable amid the usual "church" methods and activities. We already
were outside in spirit, and we only needed to understand our responsibility
before God for what He had taught us, to be outside in practice.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER SIX:
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
The examination detailed in my previous letter was carried on between the
announcement of my resignation and my actual leaving. Therefore, apart
altogether from the truth I taught, which had been questioned, my conclusions
as to the office I held, forced me to stick to my decision. If I would be faithful to
the Lord, I had no choice but to turn a deaf ear to the many pleas for me to continue with my people. All my interests, humanly speaking, were bound up
with my continuing, but I dared not place such considerations ahead of the
plain indications of the Word of God. Hence, I preached to my beloved people
for the last time on September 27th. At the close of the morning sermon, I told
them that "I could not now, with a conscience void of offence towards God,
remain, for since I had announced my retirement, I had gone afresh to the
Word of God, and I felt compelled to say that I could no longer uphold our
practices as to ministry and worship."
Four days later, I headed for Scotland to be in quiet for settlement of further
questions in my mind. I shall not easily forget our conversations on the unusual
"coincidences" in the Lord's dealings with us. Not only had we occupied the
same position in relation to denominationalism, but we were both afflicted,
both sent away to the Continent, both returned last spring desiring to remain
with our people, and for different causes, were both compelled to resign our
posts. Without any mutual arrangement, we both preached our farewell
sermons on the same day, and within a week, we found ourselves together in a
strange city. May the Lord give us grace and strength to be obedient to all His
will!
But, to go on. Since I could not accept a pastorate among Dissenters, the
question then was, "With what Christians should I be identified?" You will
remember that I already believed that Christians should be gathered together
on the first day of the week to break bread. Therefore, my attention was again
directed towards so-called "brethren," for I knew that, regardless of the
generally admitted Scriptural character of this practice, they were the only
Christians (except some individual congregations) who gathered weekly around
the Lord's Table.
Therefore, the first thing that I determined to examine more thoroughly was
their theory or ground of worship. It is in direct contrast with that of Dissenters.
At my pastorate, the worship, so-called, was all under my direction, and the
plan into which we fell was much the same as that of chapels in general. We
began with prayer and singing; then had two Bible readings divided by singing
and prayer; then came the sermon; and we concluded with singing and prayer.
I never believed that this was worship. Individual believers often realized and
enjoyed the presence of the Lord, for faith can always count on His aid. But,
few of us ever thought that we were worshipping as an assembly, for we knew
that our "assembly" was not composed of only God's people. Also, the majority
of the believers who met with us, never looked for any operation of the Holy
Spirit while so met, except through the minister. Hence, if the minister was full
of the Holy Spirit, he was the means of ministering "rivers of living water" to
God's children; but, if not, there was almost a complete lack of blessing. Thus,
the spiritual state of any such congregation is determined largely by the
spiritual state of its minister because the system makes everything depend on
that one man!
Let's look at what I found to be the principle or ground of worship as
understood by so-called "brethren." They are gathered together to the Name
of Christ, around His table, to break bread, according to His command, every
Lord's Day (Matt.18: 20, 1 Cor. 11: 23-26, Acts 20: 7, etc.). They simply gather
around the Lord Himself, in dependence on and in subjection to Him as Lord,
knowing that He, in faithfulness to His promises, is present in their midst when
they assemble "to show the Lord's death till He come" (1 Cor. 11: 26).
Next, and this is of primary importance, they believe that the Holy Spirit, having
been sent down from heaven after the ascension of the Lord Jesus, dwells now
in the Church of God. Thus, He is the power for both worship and ministry.
Many Christians believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in the individual believer,
and this is a most blessed truth. However, the truth contended for is that He
also dwells in the Church.
The following verses may help. In writing to the assembly at Ephesus, the
apostle Paul says, "in Whom you are built together for an habitation of God
through the Spirit" (Eph. 2: 22). Here, Paul is not speaking of the Holy Spirit as
the Spirit of adoption in believers, for he says, "you are built together as an
habitation of God through the Spirit" -- that is, together, they formed the
dwelling place of God. Paul tells us that "The house of God . . . is the Church of
the living God" (1 Tim. 3: 15). In writing to the Corinthians, Paul also says, "You
(the word is plural) are the temple of the living God" (2 Cor. 6: 16). In 1 Cor. 6:
19, we find the other truth, that the individual bodies of believers are the
temple of the Holy Spirit.
We thus have the solemn truth that the Holy Spirit is now on earth, dwelling in
the Church of God that, as the Lord promised, the Comforter is come to abide
with us forever (John 14: 16-17). Therefore, whenever believers are gathered
together to the Name of Christ, seeing that God regards every such assembly as
a local expression of the whole Church, they know, on the testimony of
Scripture, that the Holy Spirit is in their midst, guiding and controlling all for the
glory of God through Christ Jesus.
Lastly, so-called "brethren" teach another thing (in common with most
Christians, except as to its application), that, since the veil is now rent, we have
"boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." Therefore, our place
of worship is above -- within the veil (Heb. 9: 11-14, Heb. 10: 1-22) -- where
Christ, our High Priest, has already entered to appear in the presence of God
for us (Heb. 9: 24), as the "minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle,
which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8: 2).
Several consequences flow from these fundamental principles. First, believers
are gathered together, not as agreeing on certain doctrines or as belonging to
the same denomination, but simply as members of the body of Christ. Anything
short of this fails to express the Church of God, for there ought to be a place at
the Lord's table for every believer who is not under Scriptural discipline. In
making this statement to you, dear brother, I admit that we aimed at this, but I
could never succeed for some with whom I was associated had a strong
objection to any breaking bread with us who were not members of other
"churches." They did not acknowledge that to be a "member of Christ" was the
title to the Lord's Table.*
Secondly, when gathered as the members of the body of Christ, the priesthood
of all believers is recognized because the Lord Himself is the Centre of the
gathering. I often had read 1 Peter 2: 5, which says, "You also, as living stones,
are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." I thought that the apostle had some
reference to the use of our priesthood when assembled. I knew that every
believer could act as a priest in private, but I also saw that if one man was
appointed to pray for those assembled, that was, in practice, a denial of our
common priesthood and a subtle form of clergyism. I am sure that many
Dissenting ministers would confess that they often have felt the necessity of
being the mouthpiece of the congregation, an intolerable burden.
On the other hand, when gathered together around the Lord in the power of
the Holy Spirit, and when bowing together in common adoration, the Holy
Spirit opens the lips of one and another as He wills, to pour out before the
throne of grace the feelings that He Himself has placed in our hearts. In this
way, having a High Priest (not one of ourselves) over the house of God, and
knowing the Holy Spirit within us and in our midst as the power for worship, we
"draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith," etc. (Heb. 10: 19-22).
Thirdly, when gathered on this ground for worship, the only recognized
Minister is the Lord Jesus Himself within the veil. It is only through Him that our
worship and praise ascend to God the Father. Thus, our eyes are directed to
Him. Everyone is made to feel that, as the Lord alone is the Centre of the
gathering, He also is the only Mediator of the worship which is rendered in
spirit and in truth as His redeemed ones rejoice together before God in the
perfect salvation which God has worked out for them through the gift and work
of His well-beloved Son.
In summary, the difference between the two principles is this. So-called
"brethren" are gathered together as members of the body of Christ, to His
Name, and as recognizing the presence and power of the Spirit of God. On the
other hand, Dissenters meet as agreeing on certain views of truth or
ecclesiastical position, in unconscious denial of the presence and power of the
Holy Spirit. (Their human arrangements necessarily preclude the action of the
Holy Spirit according to His sovereign will, except as He, in tender mercy, may
be pleased to work by such arrangements for the blessing of souls.) In other
words, the Scriptures teach that believers should be gathered together as
members of Christ, in dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit Who is
present in their midst, but Dissenters meet as dissenters, looking for blessing
through the minister whom they have appointed. Reduced to their simplest
elements, the two principles resolve themselves into a belief either in the
presence and action of the Holy Spirit or into a practical denial of this precious
truth.
I hardly expect that you, dear brother, will be prepared to fully accept these
statements, but I assure you that I find them to be Scriptural. If, however, I
have overlooked any passage pertaining to this matter, I will be thankful if you
will point it out, for the one thing that I desire is to find the mind of God on this
subject. Hence, my prayer is, "Give me understanding according to Thy Word"
(Ps. 119: 169).
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER SEVEN:
BLACKHEATH: January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
The question of "ministry" as held by so-called "brethren" next occupied my
attention. I again found that the truth on this subject is connected with the
Holy Spirit in the assembly. When this fact is clearly understood, many
difficulties are cleared up.
I found that so-called "brethren" maintain that the Holy Spirit should have
liberty to minister by whom He wills in the assembly: and that whoever
possesses a gift, whether great or small, is responsible to use it unto the Lord.
Accordingly, I searched the Scriptures to discover if these two principles
expressed the Lord's mind.
I turned to 1 Cor. 12 and 14. Never in my own ministry had I read or explained
these chapters to my people because I felt that they did not agree with existing
practices. I tried to believe that they applied to a state of things which had
passed away. Perhaps this is the general belief among Dissenters, for I have
reasoned, and have heard others reason that "the New Testament was not yet
in existence. Therefore, these 'diversities of gifts' were given for the temporary
building up of the Church, until they should receive the mind of the Spirit from
the New Testament Scriptures." But, is this so? I felt that everything depended
on the answer to this question. Thus, I sought more carefully and prayerfully
for light and guidance.
You know that in explaining and applying truth, we always attach great
importance to the question "For whom was it originally intended?" For
example, the directions given to a Jew cannot always be applied to a Christian.
Thus, I looked at the beginning of 1 Corinthians to see to whom it was
addressed, and I found the following: "Unto the Church of God which is at
Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all
that in every place call on the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and
ours" (1 Cor. 1: 2). It is very evident from this "address" that the instructions of
this epistle were not meant to be confined to the local assembly at Corinth.
Rather, they were intended for all believers. When I thought of the permanent
character of Scripture, I had to believe that these instructions were intended
for believers in every place for all time.
This conclusion was strengthened by a passage in Ephesians where we have a
listing of gifts, and prophets, who figure so largely in 1 Cor. 14, are included.
Then, we are told that these gifts are given "for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying (building up) of the body of Christ, till
we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"
(Eph. 4: 11-13). We obviously are not yet come in the unity of the faith. Hence,
God intended the continuance of gifts and the consequent continuing
application of the instructions contained in 1 Cor. 12 and 14.
Thus, "the liberty of the Holy Spirit to minister by whom He wills" is a Scriptural
truth. Otherwise, it would be impossible to understand such a statement as,
"Let the prophets speak two or three and let the others judge. If anything be
revealed to another who sits by, let the first hold his peace. For you may all
prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted" (1 Cor. 14:
29-31).
Many hastily conclude that a "prophet" is one who foretells or predicts things
yet future and unknown. They then ask, "What place is there for prophets in
the Church of God since the revelation of God's will and purpose is complete in
the Scriptures?" But, the true definition of a prophet is "one who
communicates the mind and will of God to those to whom he is sent." Samuel
and Elijah were both prophets, yet they had very little to do with predicting
future events. Rather, their main work was to bring God's will, already revealed
in the Law, to bear on the hearts and consciences of their nation. So it is with
New Testament prophets. Their job is to apply known truths to the hearts of
the saints. Therefore, there is continual need for their ministry.
The same thing is seen in another epistle. In Rom. 12: 6-8, Paul says, "Having
then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy
(let us prophecy) according to the proportion of faith; or ministry (let us wait on
our) ministering; or he that teaches, on teaching," etc. These exhortations were
addressed to the local assembly at Rome, but if that assembly had been under
the pastoral care of one man, there could have been no opportunity for
obedience to those instructions in the use of the various gifts named. Rather,
the apostle contemplated the fullest liberty for the Holy Spirit to minister by
whom He would. Indeed, this is a necessary consequence of Paul's words, "To
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of
knowledge by the same Spirit; . . . to another prophecy . . . but all these, work
(operate) that one and very same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He
will" (1 Cor. 12: 8-11).
Few dispute that such was the order in the early Church, but it is a common
argument that all gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic age, so these
directions as to gifts have no application for the present time. I have partly
anticipated this objection by showing the continuing application of the
Scriptures in 1 Corinthians, but I would complete my answer by two
considerations.
First, if this objection were demonstrably true (which it isn't), it would not
affect the principle of gathering. Our duty would still be to gather on Scriptural
ground, leaving room for the use of gifts when the Spirit's power was restored
to us; or if never restored, still to meet around our Lord in adoration and
praise, submissive to His will in our lack of gift.
Secondly, if all gifts have been withdrawn, as is argued, we are not at liberty to
cover up our condition of weakness by substituting human arrangement. If the
Lord has so chastened us, we are not at liberty to set up ministers and church
officers according to the desires of our own hearts. No, dear brother, we
cannot suppose that this liberty is ours; and the very fact that it is claimed, only
shows that the belief in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the
assembly is fast dying out of the minds of believers.
The remainder of the subject may be dealt with in fewer words. Since there
should be liberty for the Holy Spirit to minister by whom He wills, then it is a
simple consequence that gift is the measure of responsibility! I say gift and not
office, for the possessor of the gift is responsible to the Lord alone for its use
for the saints. Thus, for instance, if you have the gift of exhortation, God
expects you to use it without waiting for the approval of the Church by electing
you to an office.
The passage already cited from Romans 12: 6-8, proves this. Paul writes,
"Having, then, gifts" (not office), let them be used. 1 Cor. 12 and 14 teach the
same thing, as does Eph. 4: 8-13, where we are clearly told that the Lord gave
gifts unto men, and, as in principle, in the parable of the talents of Matt. 25: 14-30, He looks for the increase. We have the same principle stated in 1 Peter 4: 10-11: "As every man has received the gift, even so minister the same one to
another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Thus, the Lord holds
all His servants -- all of us -- responsible for the use of our gifts to build up His
people. I repeat that this is totally impossible under the "church government" of
Dissenters. In fact, their ecclesiastical policies despise prophesyings, and
consequently, quench the Spirit (1 Thess. 5: 19-20). Thus, dear brother, I have to
agree with the Scriptural character of "ministry" as practiced by so-called
"brethren."
I have heard the objection that "however Scriptural it may be, it doesn't work,
and that teachers are sadly lacking among so-called "brethren," so we must
adopt other plans. I am not as yet prepared to pass judgment on the first part
of this objection, and I have no desire to do so because I am satisfied as to the
Lord's will regarding ministry, as revealed in the Scriptures. I am fully assured
that His way for ministry, as in all things, is better than man's way. I also am not
in a position to say whether the second part of the objection is true. However, I
know that those believers who are with so-called "brethren" are far better
instructed than those who are in Dissent. I am confident, dear brother, that you
will agree with me in this also, for one of the greatest difficulties that we had in
our attempts to instruct the Christians under our "pastoral care" has been their
lack of acquaintance with the Word of God, owing mostly to their habit of
taking their "views" from their favourite preachers.
Be this as it may, I am content to rest my conclusions on Scripture alone, for we
have no other guide. If we once allow ourselves the addition of human wisdom,
we open the door to all the corruptions which have afflicted and weakened the
Church of God. Keeping to the Word of God, I have a sure and infallible guide
and, at the same time, a means for testing every "church system" that seeks my
allegiance. I also have the sword of the Spirit with which to fight the Lord's
battles in this day of darkness and departure from the truth.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER EIGHT:
BLACKHEATH: January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
When I had settled the questions of "ministry" and "worship" as held by so-
called "brethren," I felt the need to be clear on the question of discipline before
making any practical move. There are many Christians, and we were among
them, who believe that the Lord's table is open to all believers. This, of course,
is basically true, or it would not be the Lord's Table. However, are there any
limitations given by the Lord Himself, in His Word? Different answers are given
to this question. In the Anglican Establishment, there is no attempt to use
discipline. Any parishioner, except in one or two specified instances of gross
sin, has the right by its laws, whether he is saved or not, to be a
"communicant." Since the one or two exceptions seldom come to the "altar
rail," there is essentially no restriction in the Establishment.
With Dissenters, the practice varies. The Congregationalists or Independents
often are as unrestricted as the Episcopalians. All who consider themselves
believers are invited to the "Communion Service." This also is the case with
some Baptists, although it is not their common rule. In fact, they are divided
into several classes. Some make baptism the condition of communion; some,
membership of a church; but almost all profess to exclude those who are
walking disorderly. But, as far as I know, doctrine is never a matter for
consideration. Take the Association of Baptist Churches in London, to which we
belonged. One very prominent member has denied in writing, the total
sinfulness of human nature; another has taught the non-eternity of
punishment, but this does not affect their standing as members. We both
deplored this. On one occasion, we stayed away from a meeting because we
feared that, in God's sight, by going, we might be endorsing the views of the
brother at whose chapel the "Association" was meeting.
Turning to so-called "brethren," I found that there had been a division on this
very subject. Hence, I had to very carefully examine this subject by the
Scriptures. My question was, "Does the Bible teach that false doctrines --
doctrines touching the Person and work of the Lord -- disqualify one from the
Lord's Table?" To put it another way, "should we have fellowship with the
teachers and holders of false doctrine?"
In answering this question, I won't quote from the Old Testament, lest its
application be denied (although the principle of separation from evil teaching is
taught there). Instead, I will turn to the epistles as more applicable to the
Church of God.
Turn to Gal. 1: 8-9. Here, evangelists who preach another gospel are in view.
What was this other gospel? It was the addition of ritualistic observances to
faith in Christ as the means of salvation -- a "gospel" that is common at the
present time. If there is no discipline for false doctrine, these "Galatian"
preachers should have received the right hand of fellowship, as they almost
everywhere do now. But, what does Paul say? "I would that they were even cut
off who trouble you" (Gal. 5: 12).
At the end of Galatians, Paul states the principle that is continually binding on
the Church: I (the true doctrine of the I (Gal. 6: 14-15), I (Gal. 6: 16). The
inference, then, is that we are not to have fellowship with those who do not
walk according to this rule. (in fact, back in Gal. 1: 8-9, Paul says that such false
preachers should be "accursed" Ed.)
Paul also says, "if any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness.... from such withdraw yourself' (1 Tim. 6: 3-5). Read
also the still stronger statements of 2 Tim. 2: 15-21 and 2 John 9-11. The
epistles to the seven churches of Rev. 2 and 3 also are full of similar teaching.
Look at the portion addressed to the "church at Ephesus." Our Lord, in
approval, says, "You have tried those who say they are apostles and are not,
and have found them liars" (Rev. 2: 2). On the other hand, He condemns
Pergamos and Thyatira for tolerating false doctrine in the church (Rev. 2: 14, 20).
These passages convinced me that it was the Lord's mind that there should be
discipline for false doctrine. The reason is obvious. If one who "walks
disorderly" has to be put away from the fellowship of the saints, much more
must the teacher of false doctrine be put away, because "a little leaven (sin)
leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5: 6). So, if a disorderly walk leavens, much
more does false doctrine.
If a believer fails into drunkenness or other kinds of open sin, he brings
dishonour upon His Lord, but the believers with whom he is associated are not
likely to follow his obviously poor example. On the other hand, if a saint is led
into false doctrine, he will begin to teach it, and many will become
contaminated (leavened). I will give one example of this from my own
knowledge. A certain minister adopted "views" that discredited the Person and
work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Many of the believers connected with him,
followed him in these evil doctrines. For some time, the godly remnant were
powerless. But, the minister, too confident of his own influence, was not
content with the support he was receiving. So, he proposed that his doctrines
should become the basis of their gathering. This opened the eyes of some who
had been silent, but when the question was put to a vote (the church charter
declared that the majority should settle such questions), the minister's
proposal was defeated by only one vote. Thus, the "leaven" was stopped, since
the minister was forced to resign. But, had that minister remembered the true
character of leaven -- that it works silently -- the whole lump soon would have
been leavened, as indeed, it already had become in God's sight before action
was taken.
It is a fatal doctrine that evil teaching may be tolerated! The condition of the
Church today is the result of this terrible laxity. Instead of being established in
the truth, saints are asking, "What is truth?" for human opinion often is their
only standard.
Having become satisfied as to the principle, I reluctantly had to review the
"Bethesda controversy" which split so-called "brethren" into two groups; one
commonly known as "open brethren" and the other as "exclusive brethren."
(Open brethren, so called, hold more or less lax views on discipline for false
doctrine, and thus are "open" to receive those associated with false doctrine.
Ed.) Some years ago, I examined only one side of the case. Now, I also
investigated the other side and talked with some who were acquainted with it
from its beginning.
I concluded that the whole difficulty arose over the question of discipline for
false doctrine and over whether the action of one assembly in carrying out
discipline should be respected and maintained by other assemblies. For
example, suppose that a teacher of false doctrine is put out of fellowship in one
locality. Is it right to receive him in another? The case should present no
difficulty because, with the smallest amount of spiritual intelligence, any
believer should see that if the assembly at Liverpool were to reverse the action
of the assembly at Manchester in a matter of discipline, it would thereby deny
the truth of the unity of the body of Christ. It also would declare that what was
rightly done by the saints in one locality, might be undone in another.*
*EDITOR'S NOTE: At this point, Mr. Dennett recommends several pamphlets
dealing with the "Bethesda matter" that are no longer in print.
I do not contend that mistakes have never been made in the application of the
true principles of discipline. This does not fall within my ability to decide. My
job was to decide whether the principles were based on the Word of God. I
wish that all who are concerned about this subject would divest themselves of
all extraneous considerations, and simply confine themselves to the
examination of the principles of discipline in dispute, asking but one question:
"is it Scriptural or not?" Until a person is settled as to this, he cannot decide on
the merits of the "Bethesda controversy."
I want to remove one difficulty from the path of inquirers. One is often asked,
"Can it be right to exclude such and such men from assembly fellowship? Look
at their holy lives and their devotedness. Do you pretend to sit in judgment on
their qualifications for the Lord's Table?" Such questions are common, and to
some, very important. But, these questions simply have nothing to do with the
matter! The only question we have to decide is whether discipline is to be
maintained according to the Word of God. If so, it becomes simple obedience
to the Lord, and not "passing judgment on other believers." The apostle John
tells us, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God
and keep His commandments" (1 John 5: 2). So, we show love to the saints, not
by admitting them to the Lord's table against God's expressed will, but by
keeping God's commandments. Let me counsel all believers by the means of
this letter to you, dear brother, to keep their eyes off men, and fixed on the
Lord. Then, they will find that the path of discipline for false doctrine, although
sometimes very "narrow," is the path of obedience to God.
The teaching of this principle of "discipline" will stir up the most determined
opposition, for whatever helps to keep the Church of God as the "pillar and
ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15), according to the divine purpose, is sure to
excite the hatred of Satan. In no way can Satan accomplish his ends more
successfully than by destroying the boundaries between truth and error. You,
dear brother, are acquainted with Church history. Is it not true that the
weakness and the corruption of the Church has always resulted from
indifference to maintaining the truth regarding the allowance of "leaven" (sin)
in both teaching and life? The fact is, if you once stop administering Scriptural
discipline, all assurance as to the truth is soon lost in the conflict of confusing
opinions of men.
Whatever the opposition that this principle of discipline may stir up, no one has
a right to charge "sectarianism" of those who maintain it. A "sect" is made up
of those who meet or associate together because they agree on a certain truth
or doctrine, or hold to a particular form of ecclesiastical policy. Thus,
Congregationalists, Baptists, Wesleyans, State Churchmen, and Presbyterians
are all sects.
In fact, they often speak of themselves as different sections of the Church. But
when believers simply are gathered together, as members of Christ, around
Him as Head, in obedience to Him as Lord, and seek in dependence on the Holy
Spirit to do all things in subjection to the Word of God, and to maintain the
discipline which it calls for, etc., they are in no way a "sect" because there is a
place at the Lord's Table for every believer who is not disqualified by the Lord
Himself because of an ungodly walk or false doctrine. This, I think, will be clear
to every unprejudiced mind.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Edward Dennett
LETTER NINE:
BLACKHEATH: January, 1875
MY BELOVED BROTHER,
You won't be surprised to hear that when I reached the conclusions indicated
in my previous letters, I felt that I must take my place with so-called "brethren"
to be consistent and honest before the Lord. But, I did not find it easy to act
out my convictions. I shrunk from surrendering my position. I shrunk still more
from breaking the ties that had bound me for many years in loving association
with many dear Christian friends. I could not bear the thought of grieving some,
like yourself, with whom I had enjoyed such close fellowship.
I was also frightened at the prospect of the storm that I knew that the step
would produce in certain quarters. Moreover, when I remembered the strong
antagonism which I had held against so-called "brethren" in the past, it was not
easy to confess to all the world the mistake I had made. I also received many
letters full of kind but urgent pleas and warnings against the "delusion" which
supposedly had possessed my mind. Others told me plainly that if I united with
so-called "brethren," I soon would lose all independence of thought and action,
as well as become a partaker of the evil deeds of those whose teachings were
supposedly subverting the very foundations of the gospel. So, you will
understand some of the difficulties which disturbed me in this final step.
God enabled me to look away from men, and under His constraining love, I
went and asked to break bread (remember the Lord) with the saints at
Blackheath. That permission was granted. As a believer, a member of the body
of Christ, on this ground alone, and not on the ground of any doctrine or
doctrines whatsoever*, I took my place at the Lord's table with the believers
who are gathered on that ground in obedience to their Lord (2 Tim. 2: 22).
I have no desire to dwell on the "misrepresentations" (not to use a stronger
word) that followed upon this step I have taken, since I expected it. Instead,
they have helped me to understand many portions of Scripture -- those that
speak of bearing our cross after Christ, and having persecutions or tribulations.
I did not understand these verses as well when my position and profession of
faith in Christ met with favour. rather than opposition. Besides, I remembered
the open opposition I once held against so-called "brethren." Thus, I am
quieted in the hope that my adversaries also may have their eyes opened and
be found sitting with me around the table of our Lord.
Before I close, I would like to speak about results. On the very first Lord's day, I
found to my joy that there really is a distinction (for which so-called "brethren"
have always contended) between worship and meetings to hear sermons. It
was a blessed experience to realize that the Lord was in our midst, according to
His promise (Matt. 18: 20). It was a new found joy to enter into this truth as we
communed together in the broken body (as shown forth in the broken bread)
and in the precious blood (as displayed in the wine) of our blessed Lord. Our
hearts were, of necessity, occupied with Him -- with what He was down here;
with what He was on the cross; with what He is now at the right hand of God;
and with all that He was and is to God the Father. Thus, as we bowed in
adoration within the veil, truly our fellowship was with the Father and with His
Son, Jesus Christ.
In saying this, I do not deny that individuals may realize the Lord's presence,
even in a significant way, in mixed "churches," for the Lord is always present to
faith. But what I contend for is this, that unless we are gathered to His Name,
we have no title to expect the Lord's presence in the midst. His Own words are,
"For where two or three are gathered together unto My Name, there am I in
the midst of them" (Matt.18: 20). Thus, the condition for His presence in the
midst of the gathering is that they be gathered together to His Name -- a thing
possible only for believers!
Oh, my brother, I wish that you and all the saints could see this blessed
privilege of gathering together, know the happy liberty of soul that the
assurance of the Lord's presence in our midst inspires, and know the joy of
heart wrought in us by the Holy Spirit as we joy together in God through Jesus
Christ. I am convinced that if you once enjoyed this experience, your only
wonder would be that you had been satisfied so long with mixed assemblies.
Another thing that soon attracted my attention was that the Word of God was
given its proper place. Its authority was maintained as supreme. One of our
great difficulties in "Dissent" had been to obtain any real and practical
recognition of this principle because lax views were so prevalent on the
question of inspiration. Besides yourself, I never met a Dissenting minister who
held the absolute verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Consequently, everyone
felt more or less at liberty to sit in judgment on the revelation which God has
made to man, instead of allowing it to judge man and his ways.
Under such conditions, there can be no certainty of mind as to any truth. Thus,
congregations will receive in succession, without any hesitation or doubt,
ministers with different and opposed "views." In one chapel, there have been
three ministers in the past 12 years. The first taught that the death of Christ
was nothing but self-sacrifice. The second taught the accepted view of the
atonement, but denied the total depravity (sinfulness) of man. The third
taught, to some extent, dispensational truths. Yet, with these differences, the
people never thought of saying that any of these three men was in error. They
would tell you which one they liked best, and that was all!
A sadder state of things can hardly be imagined, and it all comes from an
incorrect knowledge of the true character of the Word of God. Therefore, it
was with great pleasure that I found the authority of the Word of God
continually enforced, and that the duty of complete subjection to it was
commonly recognized.
"But, what of the doctrines?" is a question that I know you will ask. Without
seeking to answer fully now, I have learned one lesson. Do not take the
statements of enemies, or detached sentences as correctly representing the
teachings of so-called "brethren" (or, of anyone). The common view of their
doctrines is entirely false, through misconception, no doubt. The fact is, the
mind of the writer should govern the interpretation of a passage, even though a
faulty style, or laxity of expression might seem to permit another meaning. But
theological controversy often proceeds on an exactly opposite principle -- that
the mind of the writer is just what his words can be made to mean!
I do not say that so-called "brethren" have taught no error, for they are as able
to make mistakes as others. But, I do maintain that, even if some error is
taught, I am not responsible to attack it (although I should attempt to point out
from The Word of God what I believe is the truth), unless it is of such a nature
as to call for discipline because, as I have said before, we are not gathered on
the ground of doctrines at all, but as members of the body of Christ, as those
who have been perfected forever by the one offering that He made on the
cross (Heb. 10: 14).
I would like to ask one question. "Are there, or are there not definite directions
in the Bible as to the Assembly of God? Are we or are we not taught God's will
concerning the ground on which the members of the body of Christ should be
gathered for worship, for maintenance of the unity of the Spirit, for ministry,
etc.?" If not, then it is left for all to do what is right in their own eyes. But if
there are instructions concerning these matters, then God requires every
believer to obey His Word. "if you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:
15) still applies to all, and no amount of confusion in things about us excuses
the weakest or young believer from seeking to stand perfect and complete in
all the will of God.
God's path is narrow and difficult, but if everyone who is anxious for the glory
of God and to bear a faithful testimony in these days of darkness, would only
begin to separate himself from everything that either is not authorized by, or is
condemned by the Word of God, he would soon find that "unto the upright
there arises light in the darkness" (Ps. 112: 4). Thus, seeking to do God's will, he
would know if the doctrine was of God (John 7: 17), and would be guided in the
power of the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16: 13).
Dear brother, who knows better than yourself the need for taking our stand
only on the Word of God? Why is it then, with evil increasing on every side and
assaults being made on the very foundations of our faith that even godly men
hesitate to be completely separated from evil and to commit themselves
entirely, in their church associations as well as for individual walk, to the
guidance of the infallible Word of God? Such neglect is merely a false holiness
that deals with outward experiences, and abandons the Church of God to the
will and ways of man. The Church is the body of Christ, and as such, our Lord
"loved it and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy
and without blemish" (Eph. 5: 25-27)! Shouldn't we, then, seek to have
fellowship with out blessed Lord in regard to His own body, the Church, of
which we, through grace, are members?
My prayer is that God may so open the eyes of His people that they will come
out and be separate from all that is contrary to His will, and that they will be
found with the few who are, in the face of much difficulty and opposition,upholding His honour by bearing testimony to the authority of His word in this
evil day.
Yours affectionately in Christ,
Edward Dennett
|
|
|
