The majority believed the statements without more. A few were driven out every time. They were no longer spoken to, unless to worry them to come back, if there was hope of that. And now, as these five, as well as Mr. Newton speak of the manner of the investigation, and Mr. N. and others for him, have repeatedly said it was only this he objected to, I shall repeat what I proposed to him. I refused to name four as my friends to investigate it, because it was taking it out of the bands of the Church of God when already before it. I never heard of a person accused of evil, in the Church of God, naming four, to enquire into his case, and those who knew of it, four more. It was taking it out of the Church of God altogether. I declined to name them. It is supposed that no one had been to Mr. N. This is a mistake. They had; two bad as to the untruth (and first two, (besides myself by letter) and then thirteen as to the sectarianism) and the whole had been before three hundred of the brethren. But in reply to this proposal. I offered to meet the four he named individually, or together, to go before the whole body, or before a limited number, if that was a better way,—or to let the four named by Mr. Newton collect the thirteen, before whom the matters first had been. Or Mr. Newton might act on the Scripture rule of Matt. xviii. if he considered it a wrong. I received for reply, that Matt. xviii. did not apply, because I had done the wrong publicly, that bringing it before the body of the brethren was only seeking to repeat the grievance, that my letter was an evasion, that it was evident I was unprepared to substantiate the charges, that my statements appeared unworthy of credit, and that copies of the letters were given to Mr. Newton.
And two of the signers of this letter were among those who pursued the enquiry afterwards. One left almost immediately after signing it. It is generally known that these brethren refused to go up to the London meeting too, because it must take the character of investigation.
