this very great subject.  To some it is a matter of concern that leaven bread

is used, to others, it is a matter of duty to take communion fasting.  Others

interpret the words `this is My body' as meaning literal transubstantiation;

to some it is of consequence that the word table should be used, to others it

is of supreme importance that an altar be in view.  We may have very strong

reasons for believing what the Scriptures actually teach on all these

matters, but they do not belong to our calling or dispensation, and we will

not permit anyone to introduce them into our meetings, for they are

unprofitable, and are often introduced by those who desire to be teachers of

truth that has become obsolete by the introduction of the Mystery.

The early antagonists of the Gospel of grace sought to impose the law

upon the Gentile believer, but later developments mingled an incipient

gnosticism with fanciful speculations concerning the law, some of which

appear in the epistle to the Colossians, and are seen in these epistles to

Timothy and Titus, with their endless genealogies and vain jangling.  The

injunction to Titus was definite.  The mouths of such perverters of truth

must be stopped or `muzzled' as the word can be rendered.  These teachers

must be rebuked sharply.  While the church today has departed far from the

primitive pattern set in these epistles, and second Timothy indicates that

even in the apostle's life time the rot had set in, yet it is not reasonable

to suppose that, because no one today appears to conform to the `bishop' of

Titus chapter 1, and no assembly appears to be on the lines laid down in

these epistles, these injunctions must fall unheeded on our ears.  There are

principles involved that continue, even though the specific likeness be lost.

The writer of these lines is not a `bishop'; the gatherings at which he

ministers are not `churches' in the Apostolic sense; all is too far gone in

confusion for that, yet it is not possible to write on Scriptural themes for

over fifty years without some measure of responsibility.  During that time we

have read articles in other publications that have appeared extremely

unscriptural, but it has not been our habit to use the pages of The Berean

Expositor to combat such teaching.  Only once now and again throughout the

years have we felt obliged to speak of the teaching of others, and that was

when our own testimony was controverted or misrepresented to the possible

misleading of our readers.  We have no authority to `muzzle' any speaker,

except where such a speaker would attempt to occupy our platform to

disseminate what to us would be contrary to sound doctrine.  No amount of

Christian charity would justify us in allowing either the pulpit of the

Chapel of the Opened Book, or the pages of the magazine to be occupied by

anyone who believed in the orthodox hell, with its eternal conscious

sufferings, its inherent and natural immortality and its approximation to

spiritism, and its vagueness concerning resurrection.  No amount of Christian

charity would justify the extension

of such opportunities to any who denied the principle of Right Division, who

contradicted the testimony of Ephesians and Colossians, concerning the unique

character of the Dispensation of the Mystery, and none could be tolerated who

would entertain any reserves in emulating Thomas when he said to the Saviour

`My Lord and my God'.  These principles underlie the teaching of Titus, and

are as binding upon us as Paul's injunctions were upon the Bishops of the

early church.  It is natural that such a narrow outlook should be met by the

accusation that we are setting ourselves up as a little `Pope' but the

example and experience of Nehemiah (Neh. 6:2 -7) show us that such attitude

is no new thing and put us into good company.  This giving heed to Jewish

fables and commandments of men `turns away from the truth' (Titus 1:14).

What the apostle feared when he wrote to Titus, took place before he had

finished his course.  He wrote in his last epistle: