Blair Collection > Rhys Lewis, minister of Bethel

1 82 RHYS LEWIS.
inasmucli rb he persistently took it upon him that they did not
apply personally to himself, mother, one night, gave up
parahlising, and pressed upon him seriously the duty of be-
taking himself once more to his religious professions. His
answer, as near as I can recollect it, was in these words : —
" You know that it is not my fault that I do not profess. It
was not I who threw away profession, but the church who took
it from me. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing different
in me now from what there was when I professed, except that
I have been to prison; and that, I should think, does not add to
my fitness to profess. Were I to offer myself to the church,
the first question asked — or, at any rate, that ought to be asked
— me would be, have I repented the fault for which I was ex-
communicated ? I should be obliged to reply that I have not
repented, never can repent it. Either the church or I, in that
case, would look like a . It is the church alone that is
responsible for my non-profession — if having my name on
Communion-book means profession. I believe, however, there
is a higher profession, and a far superior confession of faith.
There are men to be found — I do not say I am. one, lest you
should tell me, as you did once, that I am self-righteous— but
there are men, I repeat, whose chief object it is to find out the
truth, from whatever direction it may come ; men who are
constantly groping for the God of Truth, and who know what
it is to lose many a night's rest in eager, painful expectation of
the light. They know well what it is to be grievously wounded
by doubt and unbelief, and yet they will not give up searching
for the balm which is to heal them. I call these God's sons,
even though some of them have not their names on any book
of Communion. I have, as you know, a deep respect for
several members of the church as true-i^riucipled, piously-
disposed men, and, after their own fashion, strict disciplinarians.
But, to me, it does appear strange that they can see only one
kind of sin. Are Robert Lewis and William the Coal the only
transgressors ? Can you explain to me why William has been
many times censured and John Lloyd not once ? As far as I
know, there is not one who doubts William's innocence, poor
fellow. His besetting sin is a forgetfulness that his head is not
strong enough to resist the effects of more than two glasses of