EVENTS
AT PLYMOUTH, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY AT
THE BETHESDA MEETING IN BRISTOL,
1844 to 1849.
Part
2
“In
the law of the land there is such a thing as misprision of treason,
involving heavy penalties when
17
any one who has been acquainted with treasonable practices does not
give information. In this case I believe the doctrines taught to undermine
the glory of the cross of Christ, and to subvert souls; and it seems
to me a duty to Christ and to His saints to make the doctrine openly
known. The MS. professes to be notes of a lecture—I suppose a
public lecture. With these notes on Psalm 6 there was given, as accompanying
it, notes on Isaiah 13, 14, if I recollect aright, with this notice,
‘This to go with Psalm 6,’ or something to that effect;
so that it appears from this title that these MSS. are as regularly
circulated among a select few, in various parts of England, as books
in a reading society,” etc.
The doctrines
of this lecture on Psalm 6 by Mr. N., it will be best to state in his
own words. Speaking of Christ, he says, page 7, “For a person
to be suffering here because he serves God, is one thing; but the relation
of that person to God, and what he is immediately receiving from His
hand while serving Him, is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm,
and many others, open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched
out, as rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure: and remember,
this is not the scene on the cross.” He says, on the same
page, that this—the scene on the cross—”was only
one incident in the life of Christ... It was only the closing incident
of His long life of suffering and sorrow; so that to fix our eye simply
on that would be to know little what the character of His real sufferings
were.”
After saying,
“I do not refer to what were called His vicarious sufferings,
but to His partaking of the circumstances of the woe and sorrow of the
human family; and not only of the human family generally, but of a particular
part of it, of Israel,” he goes on to speak of the curse having
fallen on them; and then adds, "So Jesus became part of an
accursed people—a people who had earned God’s wrath by transgression
18
after transgression.” Again: “So Jesus became
obnoxious to the wrath of God the moment He came into the world.”
Again: “Observe, this is chastening in displeasure; not that which
comes now on the child of God, which is never in wrath, but this
rebuking in wrath, to which He was amenable, because He was part of
an accursed people; so the hand of God was continually stretched
out against Him in various ways.” From this dreadful condition
he represents our Lord as getting partially delivered at His baptism
by John. I say partially; for elsewhere he distinctly affirms that He
only emerged from it entirely by death: “His life, through all
the thirty years, was made up, more or less, of experiences of this
kind; so it must have been a great relief to Him to hear the voice of
John the Baptist, saying, ‘Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand.’ Here was a door opened to Israel at once. They might
come, and be forgiven; so He was glad to hear that word. He heard it
with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptised, because He was
one with Israel—was in their condition, one of wrath from
God: consequently, when He was baptised, He took new ground:
but Israel would not take it,” etc. Such were the doctrines promulgated
by Mr. Newton.
The exposure
of them by Mr. Harris excited general alarm among those who had been
associated with their author; and he, finding it needful that something
should be done, issued two pamphlets, in neither of which did he disclaim
the lecture, or the doctrines asserted in it; but first stated it more
at large, though in a less palpable and offensive form, and then defended
and supported it.
It appears
that, long before this, a paper of his containing the germ of this doctrine
had been inserted in the Christian Witness. This was pleaded
by Mr. N. and others in palliation of his subsequent course. It was
said that he had avowed the doctrine openly in
19
a publication read by brethren generally, and edited by Mr. Harris,
and that neither he nor they had detected in it any error, till altered
circumstances made them adopt a different standard of judgment. But
the facts, alas! while quite showing how long Mr. N. had held, or been
inclined to hold, his present views, formed no real palliation of the
evil. In the first place, he had carefully guarded what he said in the
Witness against what constitutes the chief evil of his present
views. In the Witness he strongly asserts that the sufferings of Christ
he speaks of were “vicariously incurred”; in his
tract—”Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus“—he
defines the sufferings he specially writes of to be “sufferings
which pertained to Him, because He was a man, and because He was
an Israelite; sufferings therefore which cannot be restricted
to the years of His public service, but which must be extended over
the whole of that period during which He was made sensible, under the
hand of God, of the condition into which man had sunk, and yet more
into which Israel had sunk in His sight.”* These sufferings he
carefully distinguishes in a note (page 2) from “those which were
vicarious,” and “which latter,” he says, began at
the cross.” Now this makes all the difference possible. I should
regret to hear any one say that our blessed Lord endured God’s
displeasure, even vicariously, all His lifetime. It would be
an error, and a serious one, to assert even this. Still, it does not
so entirely overturn the foundations of our faith. But to assert that
the hot displeasure of God rested on Jesus throughout His life, not
vicariously, but “because He was a man, and because He was
an Israelite,” does subvert the faith; because if as
a man and as an Israelite He was obnoxious to this, how could
He voluntarily endure it on the cross instead
20
of others? But, secondly, the remarks in question were not inserted
in the first edition of the Christian Witness, edited by Mr.
Harris, and generally read by brethren, but added to the paper in a
second edition, issued from the tract depot at Plymouth, under Mr. N.’s
control. But I must proceed with my narrative.
* The italics in the above sentence
are Mr. Newton’s own.
The two tracts
issued by Mr. N. were answered by Mr. Darby. His pamphlet entitled “Observations,
by J.N.D., on a tract entitled ‘Remarks on the Sufferings of the
Lord Jesus’” is most valuable, and well deserving the study
of any one anxious to know the bearings of this solemn question. He
printed another, likewise presenting proofs in copious extracts from
Mr. N.’s writings, of what his doctrines on this subject really
are. The effect of all this, through God’s great mercy, was, that
many of Mr. N.’s friends, who had adhered to him till now, began
to have their eyes opened to the frightful precipice to the brink of
which they had followed him. By them Mr. N. was pressed to make confession
of his error, and he so far consented to this as to put forth a paper,
dated “Plymouth, Nov. 26th, 1847,” entitled “A Statement
and Acknowledgment respecting certain Doctrinal Errors.”
I well remember
the effect produced on my mind by an extract from this paper, which
was sent me, and which was as follows:—
I would
not wish it to be supposed that what I have now said is intended to
extenuate the error which I have confessed. I desire to acknowledge
it fully, and to acknowledge it as sin; it is my desire thus to confess
it before God and His Church; and I desire that this may be considered
as an expression of my deep and unfeigned grief and sorrow, especially
by those who may have been grieved or injured by the false statement,
or by any consequences thence resulting. I trust the Lord will not
only pardon, but will graciously counteract any evil effects which
may have arisen to any therefrom.—B. W. NEWTON.
21
Supposing, of course, that the error confessed was the error contained
in his recent tracts, my soul was bowed before God in thanksgiving for
such evidence as this extract seemed to afford of a humbled and penitent
state of soul in the writer. Judge of my surprise and sorrow, when I
received the paper itself, to find that the above is almost the only
word of confession contained in the seven pages of which the paper consists.
And the error confessed is not that of the doctrine already described,
the doctrine taught in the Notes of his Lectures and in the two subsequent
pamphlets. No; he only withdraws these for reconsideration; and the
error he confesses is one contained in his paper in the Christian
Witness, viz., the attributing our Lord’s endurance of the
sufferings in question to His connection with Adam as federal head.
This is the error retracted, and except the paragraph above cited, the
tract is little but extenuation and excuse.
Those of
Mr. N.’s friends, however, whose consciences were really awakened
by the Spirit of God, could not be content with such confession as this.
A meeting was held in Ebrington-street, in which Messrs. Soltau and
Batten made full confession; and as many were more disposed for self-justification
than confession, they withdrew from the assembly, and shortly after
issued printed confessions, which now lie before me; and I am sure these
beloved brethren will excuse me in giving extracts from those papers
to show, what none could show like those who have been involved in them,
what the doctrines in question are. The following are Mr. Batten’s
words:—
These doctrines,
or this system of teaching, may be stated as comprising:
1. That the
Lord Jesus at His birth, and because born of a woman, partook of certain
consequences of the fall—mortality being one,—and
because of this association by nature, He became an heir of death—born
under death as a penalty.
22
2. That the Lord Jesus at His birth stood in such relation to Adam as
a federal head; that guilt was imputed to Him; and that He was exposed
to certain consequences of such imputation, as stated in Romans 5.
3. That the
Lord Jesus was also born as a Jew under the broken law, and was regarded
by God as standing in that relation to Him; and that God pressed upon
His soul the terrors of Sinai, as due to one in that relation.
4. That the
Lord Jesus took the place of distance from God, which such a person
so born and so related must take; and that He had to find His way back
to God by some path in which God might at last own and meet Him.
5. That so
fearful was the distance, and so real were these relations by birth,
and so actual were their attendant penalties of death, wrath, and the
curse, that until His deliverance God is said to have rebuked Him, to
have chastened Him, and that in anger and hot displeasure.
6. That because
of these dealings from God, and Christ’s sufferings under them,
the language of Lamentations 3, and Psalms 6, 38 and 88, etc., has been
stated to be the utterance of the Lord Jesus while under this heavy
pressure from God’s hand.
7. That the
Lord Jesus extricated Himself from these inflictions by keeping the
law; and that at John’s baptism the consequent difference in Christ’s
feelings and experience was so great, as to have been illustrated by
a comparison of the difference between Mount Sinai and Mount Sion, or
between law and grace.
8. That beside
all these relations which Christ took by birth, and their attendant
penalties and inflictions, and His sufferings under the heavy hand of
God, it has been further stated that He had the experience of an unconverted,
though elect Jew.
23
After giving this summary of the doctrines which had been held and taught
by himself and others, Mr. B. thus proceeds: “I feel, beloved
brethren and sisters, whilst writing this outline of doctrine, that
it ought to be enough of itself to arouse and alarm you; that it ought
to give you at once a sufficient insight into this system of teaching
to lead you to ask what spell could have been so firmly bound around
us as to make all contented under it; to induce many not only to feed
upon it themselves, but to circulate and commend it to others; and to
lead some to defend and re-affirm it whenever assailed or threatened.
This, I repeat, might be a very proper question for each to put to his
own conscience before God; and I do not doubt that a ready answer would
be supplied, according to our individual faith and acquaintance with
God; at all events, I do not hesitate to declare that my own mind is
satisfied to say—delusion, and that I am as free to own
my conviction as to the source of this delusive power, however
painful and humbling to me to do so.”
The evil
effects of the system of doctrine from which he had thus been graciously
delivered, Mr. B. solemnly points out in the following paragraphs:—
“I
would say, then—1. That if Christ took at birth, and by birth,
certain consequences of Adam’s sin, such as mortality; and that
if He stood by birth in the relation to God of Israel under the broken
law; and that if He took correspondingly the place of distance from
God, and had the experiences of an unconverted man, there was surely
need enough that He should work his way back to God, and find some point
where God could meet Him. 2. That if the accompanying inflictions, rebukes,
and chastisements from God, due to a person in that position, were really
allowed to fall upon Christ, and were moreover pressed upon His soul
according to God’s power and holiness, there was surely need enough
that He
24
should seek to extricate Himself, and find the door of deliverance.”
“This
summary of Christ’s standing before God at birth, and the awful
experiences and sufferings of His soul and body under God’s inflictions
on this account, I solemnly present to you as containing Christ’s
disqualifications for becoming our surety, our
sacrifice, our Saviour! For He had to extricate Himself!
He had to be delivered Himself out of this horrible distance,
and from these fearful judgments. However free from taint His person
might be, and is declared to have been, yet because of these relations,
which, it has been said, He took at birth, it was even a question, as
to fact, whether He could deliver Himself and be owned of God. This
was, however, settled as regards His own acceptance by His keeping the
law, and by His obedience unto death; but then, alas! all this
was due from Him to God—due to the law, as having been born under
its curse—due for Himself and for His own extrication: all that
He could render to the last moment of His life, all that He
could offer up in death, was needed by Him for Himself, and
for His own deliverance!... But then what becomes of the blessed doctrines
of grace? What becomes of the glorious gospel of God’s salvation?
What becomes of the Church? What becomes of us individually? We
have lost Christ.”
Mr. Soltau’s
printed confession was more brief, but equally explicit and humble.
So was Mr. Dyer’s: and it would be well for any one anxious to
understand fully the nature of the question now before brethren, to
read and ponder seriously and prayerfully those remarkable documents.
They were not without their effect at the time, as a number more withdrew
from Ebrington-street, and were in a while received afresh to communion
with brethren at Raleigh-street and elsewhere; and some time after Ebrington-street
ceased to be occupied by Mr. Newton and his party,
25
a smaller room in Compton-street being the place in which they have
since assembled.
Some months
after the withdrawal by Mr. N. of his heretical tracts for reconsideration,
he published another, entitled, “A Letter on Subjects connected
with the Lord’s Humanity.” This tract reaffirms the doctrines
of those which he had withdrawn, and all the confession now made is
of ”carelessness,” and “a wrong use of theological
terms.” Brethren must excuse me when I say, that to refer to this
tract as an adequate exposition of Mr. N.’s doctrines seems to
me either the height of folly, or something worse. First of all, notes
of a lecture appear, in which the doctrine flows out freely from the
author’s lips without reserve and without disguise. Finding the
indignation excited by it so very great, he publishes one tract expository
of his views, more carefully worded than the lecture, but still plain
enough; and another, vindicating those views against the charges of
his opponents. Finding his own friends ready to desert him, he confesses
his error on one point, and withdraws the tracts for reconsideration.
The fruit of this reconsideration is a republication of the doctrine;
but, after months of study bestowed on the subject, who can wonder that
the form in which it appears is made as unobjectionable as possible?
An acute mind, spending months of study on the stating of the obnoxious
doctrine in as harmless and apparently unobjectionable terms as possible,
while it is still maintained and asserted as firmly as ever, might be
expected to produce just such a tract as this of Mr. N?s. But who would
trust it? Does he hold the doctrines he did when he wrote his former
tracts? Yes, unquestionably. Then let us look to them to know
what those doctrines are; or rather to the notes of his lecture prior
to any of them, in which, without a thought of reservation or disguise,
he speaks out what was in his soul.
26
But there is another point I must advert to before Bethesda’s
connection with all this comes in view. In the month of May, 1848, a
meeting was held at Bath, attended by about 100 brethren from all parts,
the leading features of which were 1. That in it the brethren who had
been rescued from the doctrinal errors of Mr. N., and whose confessions
have been noticed, made further confession, full and ample, as to their
implication in the charges made against the untruthful, immoral system
of Ebrington-street, as brought to light in the “Narrative of
Facts,” and “Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne-street.”
They acknowledged that these charges were just. One, at least,
of those who signed their names to “the Plymouth documents,”
referred to on page 8, confessed that these documents were justly chargeable
with trickery and falsehood.* It is not as delighting in evil, or feeling
any pleasure in publishing my brethren’s sins, the Lord knoweth,
that I mention this. I am only astonished at the grace bestowed on them
thus humbly to acknowledge wherein they had fallen; but I mention it
because it is of all importance to remember that the false doctrine
is not the only thing in question. There was a separation, and solemn
necessity for it, before the evil doctrine came to light. And what was
made clear to the simplest by the confessions of beloved brethren at
the Bath meeting was this, not only that the doctrines must be repudiated,
but the system of trickery and deceit guarded against, which preceded
the open avowal of the doctrines. Both system and doctrines, however,
blessed be God, were distinctly confessed, and as distinctly renounced,
by beloved brethren who had been most deeply entangled in both. Let
this triumph of the restoring grace of our God and Father be our
* My authority for this statement is
Mr. Robert Howard, who was present at the meeting, and assured me of
what is above stated.
27
comfort now, and our encouragement to look for further displays of His
almighty arm of love.
2. The other
remarkable feature of the Bath meeting was this, that the “Narrative
of Facts,” and other publications of Mr. Darby on these mournful
occurrences, were subjected at that meeting to the strictest scrutiny;
Lord Congleton endeavouring for five hours to prove them false, and
Mr. Nelson, of Edinburgh, aiding him in his efforts. The result was,
that the statements contained in these pamphlets were so fully established
that some, who had always mistrusted them till then, exclaimed that
they never knew anything so demonstrated. Mr. Robert Howard, of Tottenham,
and Mr. Jukes, of Hull, who were present at the meeting, both assured
me that nothing could exceed the triumphant manner in which these publications
were vindicated from every attempt to call their statements in question;
every endeavour to shake their testimony recoiling on the heads of those
who made them.
It was immediately
after this that the rulers at Bethesda* admitted to communion there
several of Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partisans, and this
in spite of all the remonstrances of godly brethren among themselves,
and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views
of the persons in question. The brethren on the spot who had protested
against this step were now obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with
what they knew to be soul-defiling and Christ-dishonouring doctrines
and ways, to withdraw from fellowship with Bethesda. This they did;
one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading
brethren there, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons
at Bethesda then drew up and signed a paper vindicating their conduct
in receiving Mr. N.’s followers, and rejecting
* A meeting at Bristol.
28
all the warnings and remonstrances which had been addressed to them.
This paper you may see at full length in “The Present Question,
1848-9, by G. V. Wigram.” As to this document, I have only a remark
or two to make. You may see it fully examined in the pamphlet just named.
1. The object
of the paper is to vindicate the conduct of those who signed it in taking
a neutral position with regard to the solemn questions which
have now been hastily reviewed. They say, “We were well aware
that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance
of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered
as identifying ourselves with either party.”
2. They do,
nevertheless, at the beginning of the paper, disclaim the doctrines
taught by Mr. N. They do not mention his name; but say, “We add,
for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed,
that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was
involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the
curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel. We hold
Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was
ever well pleased.
“We
know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which He endured
as the surety for sinners—according to that Scripture, ‘He
was made a curse for us.’
We utterly
reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted
person; but maintain, that while He suffered outwardly the
trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite, still, in His
feelings and experience, as well as in His external character, He was
entirely separate from sinners.” That is, they severally and jointly
disclaim Mr. Newton’s published views on these subjects. And yet
it is well known that one of those who signed
29
the paper agrees with Mr. Newton on these points; and in the very last
tract I have seen, written by Mr. Groves, brother-in-law to Mr. Müller,
and an active agent and zealous advocate of Bethesda, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison
are named as among the known friends of Mr. Newton, and Mr. Aitchison
is one of the ten who signed the paper. The simplest saint can see the
want of uprightness in a course like this. Ten men sign a paper, in
which they disclaim views held, and known to be held, by at least one
of those who signed it.
3. The reasons
assigned in this paper of the ten for not judging the error in question
are most unsatisfactory, some of them being, in fact, the strongest
possible reasons for their investigating it thoroughly.Hear their words:
“The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation
of certain tracts issued from Plymouth was, that thus we might be able
to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence
(rather, who had already come), or who are supposed to be adherents
of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to
state, that the views of the writer alluded to, could only be fairly
learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings...
Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer
in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge
as his.” So, because the author of a heresy is inconsistent with
himself, and knows how to puzzle and confuse his readers by apparently
contradictory statements, the poor of the flock are to have his disciples
let in among them, to scatter the poison of his sentiments, and the
pastors plead as their vindication that very tortuousness of error which
makes it doubly dangerous, and the necessity for a barrier against it
doubly imperative!
4. There
is a most dangerous principle asserted in this document. “Even
supposing that those who
30
inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the
amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided
us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For,
supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this
would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching,
until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially
subversive of foundation truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street,
Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement disclaiming the errors
charged against the tracts.” That is, a man may for years teach
doctrines admitted to be fundamentally heretical (say Socinian); the
congregation which allows him thus to teach (say Socinianism), puts
forth a statement disclaiming the doctrines which are still, nevertheless,
known to be taught amongst them, and thus accredited by them; members
of the congregation apply for communion elsewhere, and unless they can
be individually convicted of having “understood and imbibed”
Socinian doctrines, this Bethesda principle would require their reception.
They are members of a congregation which allows amongst them a Socinian
preacher, and boasts of him as deeply taught in the Word, etc.; but
unless we can prove that they themselves have intelligently embraced
Socinian errors, we have no warrant, Bethesda says, for rejecting them.
Do saints need more than this to open their eyes as to the ground Bethesda
has taken? And this is no “fable,” no “exaggeration!”
it is Bethesda’s recorded judgment of what the fellowship of God’s
house is. The words above cited, to which “the ten” subscribed
their names, and which were adopted by the vote of the congregation,
tell a louder and more solemn tale in the ear of conscience than anything
which has been advanced by those whom Bethesda looks upon as her adversaries.
31
5. The manner in which the congregation at Bethesda were ensnared into
the adoption of this paper of “the ten” is what no one could
approve whose judgment was not previously warped. “Mr. Craik stated,”
at the meeting held July 3rd, 1848, “what would be the order
of the meeting, viz., the perusal, first, of Mr. Alexander’s letter,
then of their reply. After which the church would give judgment upon
it. But that they (the ten, I suppose) stated deliberately and advisedly,
that they were firmly resolved not to allow any extracts to be read,
or any comments made on the tracts, until the meeting had first come
to a decision upon their paper.”* Think of this: ten persons come
forward with a paper committing the church, if they adopt it, to a neutral
course between the author of those tracts and his friends on the one
hand, and those who reject them entirely as unsound and heretical on
the other. If this paper be adopted Bethesda becomes neutral between
Mr. Newton and those who have disowned him; and yet, till this paper
is adopted the authors of it will not allow any extracts to be read
from Mr. N.’s writings, or remarks to be made on Mr. N.’s
doctrines. And, when some objected to the congregation thus giving a
decision in the dark, Mr. Müller said, “The first thing the
Church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that, if
this was not done, they could not continue to labour among them; that
the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought
out,” etc. Thus were Bethesda people required, under pain of losing
the labours of their beloved and honoured pastors, to assume a position
of neutrality with regard to doctrines on which there was not a word
to be spoken till they had assumed the position And the majority acquiesced
in this: by standing up they declared their approbation of this paper
of “the ten,” and assumed the position which
* See “The Present Question,” pages 53-4.
32
they were required to take. But while, on the one hand, the course taken
in this matter by the rulers was most sad, let no individual in the
congregation think to shift on to their shoulders the responsibility
of the body in adopting their paper. Be it that they did it in the dark;
be it that they were not allowed to have a ray of light shed on the
subject, they did still rise up in approbation of the paper, and they
had been informed previously by Mr. A. that the errors in question were
errors affecting the person and work of our blessed Lord. Solemn was
the responsibility assumed by the congregation in their vote of that
evening; tenfold more solemn the responsibility of those who influenced
them to come to it.
*
* *
|
