RYDE
AND DR. CRONIN;
RAMSGATE AND MR. WM. KELLY
100
THESE matters, which occurred in the years 1879 to 1881, and eventually
resulted in the separation often referred to as the “Kelly trouble,”
were really but the fruit and evidence of a low moral state among the
brethren generally, which caused enfeeblement of moral and spiritual
perception, and an absence of unity, resulting in a general powerlessness
to deal with evil. The general state shewed itself in an independence
of outlook and judgment on the part of certain well-known brothers,
with a readiness to override the consciences of their brethren in attempts
to enforce recognition of their own judgment.
The material
facts of this sorrowful history are as follows: There was in 1879 a
company meeting at the Temperance Hall, Ryde, Isle of Wight, which was
recognised as in fellowship, though admittedly in a low state. A letter
of commendation from this company having been sent to the brethren at
Kingston-on-Thames, and having been read to them in the usual way, this
action was challenged by Mr. W. Kelly and others on the ground that
the state at Ryde was such that the meeting should not be regarded as
in fellowship, and that therefore a person commended from there should
not be received. This attitude was resisted by Mr. Darby and others,
on the ground that the Ryde meeting had never been disowned by brethren,
and therefore a person from that meeting could not be refused on the
private judgment of individual brothers. In the course of the difficulties
existing at Ryde, an independent company had been formed in that town
by some who previously broke bread at the Temperance Hall, but this
independent company was not recognised by brethren generally in the
neighbourhood, who continued to extend fellowship to those breaking
bread at the Temperance Hall.
101
In this state of affairs, Dr. Cronin, who belonged to one of the London
meetings (Kennington), went down to Ryde and broke bread with the independent
company, seeking by this means to enforce recognition of it. The brethren
in London were unduly slow in repudiating Dr. Cronin’s action,
though there was much concern about it among the saints wherever it
became known, and in August, 1879, certain of the brethren who broke
bread together at Guildford Hall, Ramsgate, felt that in order to maintain
a good conscience before God, they could no longer continue in fellowship
with those who supported Dr. Cronin, whether at Ramsgate, Kennington,
or elsewhere. They therefore, after having broken bread with the rest
of their brethren on August 17th, but a common judgment not having been
arrived at in a meeting specially called on August 22nd to determine
Ramsgate’s relations with London, separated themselves and broke
bread together on August 24th at Almorah House, Ramsgate. Those they
had left did not break bread on that day, the meeting at Ramsgate being
thus broken up. Had those who commenced to break bread at Almorah House
not acted in this precipitate way, much sorrow might have been avoided,
for on the very next day news reached Ramsgate that the London brethren
had considered Dr. Cronin’s matter and were proposing his exclusion
from fellowship, by which action their consciences would be met. On
hearing of the action proposed to be taken by London, those at Ramsgate
who had not broken bread at Almorah House, nor indeed at all
on August 24th, took another hall at Abbotts Hill, Ramsgate, and assuming
assembly status, decided to accept the action proposed to be taken by
London, and, without seeking their brethren who had broken bread at
Almorah House, closed the door upon them as having withdrawn from fellowship.
As soon as London’s proposed action became known to those
102
who had withdrawn to Almorah House, they ceased breaking bread, and
acknowledging that they had been precipitate in the step they had taken,
sought to rejoin their brethren. This was refused, those at Abbotts
Hill claiming to be regarded as the acknowledged company in Ramsgate,
and that their brethren at Almorah House had been guilty of schism and
as such were excluded from fellowship. In taking this ground those at
Abbotts Hill ignored the just claim of their brethren at Almorah House
that, however much they might have failed in detail, their action had
been dictated by a desire to maintain what was due to the Lord’s
name. On November 21st the brethren at Abbotts Hill withdrew their exclusion
from fellowship of their brethren who had separated from them, and who
by then were again meeting in the old room—Guildford Hall—but
declared at the same time that their exclusion of them had been righteous.
On December 18th the Guildford Hall brethren who, as stated before,
had ceased to break bread, proposed to those at Abbotts Hill that in
view of their common failure, the latter should cease to break bread
for one Lord’s day and that they should then all meet together
for confession and prayer. This was refused by the Abbotts Hill company,
who took the ground of having continued all along to be the recognised
company at Ramsgate, despite the break-up that had occurred on August
24th.
All efforts
by godly brethren elsewhere, including Mr. Darby, to bring in healing
proving unavailing because of the attitude maintained by those at Abbotts
Hill, those meeting at Guildford Hall recommenced breaking bread in
March 1881, and appealed for the fellowship of brethren generally in
doing so. In the following month a letter of commendation from Guildford
Hall, Ramsgate, to brethren in London compelled a decision to be come
to as to which of the two companies in Ramsgate was to be regarded as
in
103
fellowship, and it was judged by brethren, Mr. Darby being present with
them at the time, that those at Abbotts Hill could not be accorded assembly
status when their actions shewed that they knew nothing of the Lord’s
presence in their midst, or of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit.
The letter of commendation from Guildford Hall was therefore accepted,
and this judgment of the matter was largely accepted by gatherings throughout
the country. There were, however, those who insisted on the recognition
of the Abbotts Hill company, among whom Mr. Wm. Kelly, who had previously
endeavoured to support the independent company at Ryde, took a leading
part, and a division among brethren, which had for some time been felt
by those who were spiritual to be inevitable, resulted.
The following
letters by Mr. Darby throw valuable light on the moral issues raised
by these sorrowful happenings.
*
* *
|
