EVENTS
AT PLYMOUTH, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY AT
THE BETHESDA MEETING IN BRISTOL,
1844 to 1849.
Part
3
It was soon
after Bethesda had thus assumed a professedly neutral position by the
reception of Mr. Newton’s agents, and the adoption of this paper,
explanatory of the ground on which they were received, that Mr. Darby
presented the whole case to brethren in a circular, which has been reprinted
lately in W. H. Dorman’s “Review of certain Questions and
Evils,” etc. Soon after the circular was issued Mr. Darby went
abroad. All the notice that was taken of it was in a hostile letter
from Mr. Wakefield of Kendal, of the spirit of which I will not trust
myself to speak, and all the arguments of which you have seen in Mr.
Jukes’s letter to the Leeds and Otley gatherings. It was by local
circumstances that our brother Willans and myself were led, reluctantly
enough on our part, to take any share in these proceedings. You must
understand that by means of Mr. Müller’s Orphan houses, Bethesda
has links of connection with almost every gathering throughout the country.
With one in Yorkshire we knew that there was a link of great: strength.
Two other gatherings in Yorkshire we knew to have very strong and tender
ties to a brother who had been greatly blessed to them in former days,
33
but who, alas! had been instrumental in part in placing Bethesda in
the position she now occupies, and we knew that his policy had always
been to keep the saints in ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and
that he had been on a visit to those gatherings since these troubles
began.
A brother
had removed from Otley to Bethesda, and by returning, or even coming
on a visit, might at any time have forced the question on saints here.
Efforts had been made, moreover, by some to prejudice the minds of saints
here and at Leeds by altogether inaccurate representations of Bethesda’s
position, and of Mr. Darby’s conduct towards it; and what weighed
with us more than all the rest, Mr. Jukes, of Hull, came down from Bath,
where he had been in intercourse with the friends of Bethesda’s
neutral position, resolved to take part with it himself, and this he
could not of course do without either the silent acquiescence of brethren
everywhere in these parts, or, on the other hand, the consideration
by brethren of the whole case. We had anxiously looked for some persons
of note amongst brethren to summon a general meeting to take Bethesda’s
case and Mr. Darby’s circular into consideration. A step of this
magnitude it was clearly out of the question for us to take. The question
for our consciences was whether to stand by and see the Yorkshire gatherings
quietly drawn into a neutral position between the Newtonian heresy and
the receivers of it on the one side, and those who had faithfully protested
against it and separated from it on the other—these gatherings
all the while, save a few brethren in Leeds and Otley, being profoundly
ignorant of what the questions were on which they were to be thus neutral.
This we could not with a clear conscience allow. We looked to the Lord,
and had, I believe, His guidance in sending out the circular which you
have seen. It makes known what the evil is, how by Bethesda’s
reception of it all the gatherings
34
were threatened; and then states the course which, as we believed, the
word of God required of us in these circumstances, leaving it, of course,
to brethren everywhere to form their own judgment of the whole in the
fear of God. I have no doubt that very many of God’s dear people
would have acted in the case better than we did, had they acted at all.
But when none would act, and the evil was at our doors, we had no choice
left us but to act as the Lord might enable us. He knows whether we
sought His guidance, and what our motives were in the step we took.
Results, too, have shown whether there was not the most imperative need
for some such step. Sorrowful and humbling indeed was the state of things
which made it needful; but God never fails His people in the worst of
times; and I suppose there are very many now who feel that His blessing
can be expected on no course in the present emergency but one of unyielding
firmness and uncompromising decision.
It has been
alleged, however, that Bethesda has cleared itself of all charges of
fellowship with Mr. Newton’s false doctrines, or the holders of
them; and it may be well first to state what has been done at Bethesda,
and then to examine whether by all this it is really cleared, so as
to be again entitled to the confidence of saints.
A meeting
was held in Bethesda, October 31st, 1848, in which Mr. Müller gave
his own individual judgment of Mr. Newton’s tracts, stating that
they contained a system of insidious error, not here and there, but
throughout; and that if the doctrines taught in them were followed out
to their legitimate consequences, they would destroy the foundations
of the gospel, and overthrow the Christian faith. The legitimate consequences
of these doctrines he stated to be “to make the Lord need a Saviour
as well as others.” Still, while recording so strong an individual
judgment as this, Mr. Müller said that he could not
35
say Mr. N. was a heretic, that he could not refuse to call him brother.
And he was most careful in maintaining that what he said was not the
judgment of the church, but his own individual judgment, for which he
and he alone was responsible. As to the paper of “the ten,”
and all the steps connected with it, he justified them entirely, and
said that were they again in the circumstances they would pursue the
same course. And what, I ask, is the natural effect of such a proceeding
as this? On the one hand the individual judgment against the evil lulls
to sleep consciences that are beginning to awake. People say, surely
there can be no danger of unsoundness where such a judgment against
evil is recorded as this. While on the other hand the door is left as
wide open to the evil as ever; and Satan is quite satisfied if you will
only let it in, whatever strong things you may say against it.
But it is
now asserted that there has been a public investigation at Bethesda,
issuing in a united judgment of the whole body there on the subject.
This is said to have taken place in November and December, 1848; but
the first word of it that has openly seen the light is in a tract which
has only reached me since I began to write this letter, and which bears
date June 16th, 1849. Before examining it, I would solemnly put to the
consciences of brethren this question, When Bethesda knew that her
conduct had stumbled so many, and was giving occasion to so much division
and controversy—if she looked on the decision come to last December
as one that ought to satisfy the consciences of godly brethren who complain
of her previous course, where was her regard for Christ’s glory,
the love of the brethren, or the peace of the church, in keeping this
decision a secret from December to June? But such as it is, now
that it is out, let it be examined, and the Lord give to saints everywhere
to weigh it in His fear.
36
It is presented to the saints in a tract by Mr. A. N. Groves, in which
he publishes a letter from Mr. J. E. Howard to Mr. Dorman. In this letter
Mr. Howard says, The following statement was given me on the authority
of Lord Congleton: “Seven church meetings were held at Bethesda
between November 27th and December 11th, 1848. Mr. Newton’s tracts
were considered.
“CONCLUSION—That
no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton’s views
or tracts should be received into communion.
“Written
down by Lord Congleton from Mr. Müller’s lips, in Mr. Müller’s
presence, Mr. Wakefield, of Kendal, being also present. January 3oth,
1849.
“Result—By
the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton’s friends at Bethesda
had sent in resignations—Capt. Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown,
Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers and two Miss Percivals. (Signed)
C—.”
Before noticing
the statements contained in this remarkable document, one word may be
allowed as to its author. It was Lord Congleton who for five hours endeavoured
at the Bath meeting, in May, 1849, to fix the charge of falsehood on
the “Narrative of Facts.” Mr. Robert Howard assured me that
his efforts were so weak and so absurd, that the only effect of them
was to make the charge recoil on his own head. His conduct at that meeting
was so sad, that when he afterwards sought admission to Rawstorne-street
the brethren there declined receiving him until satisfied of his contrition
for the course which he there pursued. And this is the brother whose
name and testimony are put forward by Mr. J. E. Howard to satisfy the
consciences of saints that Bethesda has purged itself from the evil!
It is with
reference to the meetings Lord C. speaks of that Mr. Groves indignantly
asks, “What! six weeks’ anxious enquiry, during which every
other
37
meeting and business was suspended, to consider the question, arid inform
every member of Bethesda, in order to obtain a right and instructed
judgment on this difficult and perplexing question—doing nothing!
What! disallowing Mr. Newton as a teacher, and refusing communion
to all who defended, maintained, or upheld his doctrine or his tracts,
after the most prolonged deliberation and prayerful enquiries—doing
nothing!” It is a sorrowful thing when the only answer one
can give to such an appeal as this is, “Nothing to satisfy
the consciences of any who value the honour of Christ, and the purity
of the fellowship of His house, more than saving appearances and propping
up the interests of a party.” But let us turn to the document
itself, and examine its allegations.
1. Seven
church meetings were held, and Mr. Newton’s tracts were considered.
The refusal to do this before had forced out from Bethesda some 50 or
60 godly brethren, and plunged numbers elsewhere into sorrow and strife,
and is there no word of confession now that seven meetings are held
to consider what might not be considered at all but a short time before?
In the paper of “the ten” I read, “We considered from
the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edification of
the saints here—nor for the glory of God—that we in Bristol
should get entangled in controversy connected with the doctrines referred
to. We do not feel that because errors may be taught at Plymouth or
elsewhere, therefore we as a body are bound to investigate and judge
them.” Again, I read, “The requirement that we should investigate
and judge Mr. Newton’s tracts, appeared to some of us like the
introduction of a fresh test of communion.” Now, how is it that
what was so wrong in June and July has become right and needful in “November
and December? How is it that what is refused in summer, at the cost
of forcing out a number of godly, conscientious brethren on the spot,
and
38
plunging brethren everywhere into sorrow and division, is done in autumn
without a word of acknowledgment that wrong had been done before!
Nay, if we are to believe Mr. Groves himself, they still think they
did quite right.
2. The conclusion
come to was, “That no one defending, maintaining or upholding
Mr. Newton’s views or tracts, should be received into communion.”
Now this to a person who knew nothing of the controversy, and nothing
of the tracts, would sound very fair and straightforward, and it is
intensely painful to have at every step to call in question whether
documents and declarations do really mean what at first glance a stranger
would suppose they mean. But what are the facts of the case before us?
First, there is no judgment given as to those who had already been received,
received too at the solemn cost of the division which immediately ensued
at Bristol, as well as all the rest which have followed elsewhere. It
is a judgment as to who “should be received into communion,”
not as to what should be done with those who had already been received.
Secondly, the conclusion arrived at still leaves the door quite open
to those who are in avowed fellowship with Mr. Newton, provided they
do not “defend, maintain, or uphold his views or tracts.”
There is nothing here that goes beyond the principle laid down in the
paper of “the ten.” “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.” If a person comes
from Compton-street, and has frankness to say, I understand
and hold, and am resolved to propagate as I can, Mr.
Newton’s views on the points now in question, he would not be
received by Bethesda. But a dozen persons might come at once from Compton-street
and be admitted
39
into the heart of the assembly at Bethesda, provided they were so far
under the influence of the immoral, deceitful system of the place they
came from as to conceal the fact that they sympathise with Mr. Newton’s
views. They must ”defend, maintain, or uphold”
Mr. Newton’s views or tracts to be excluded by this conclusion
arrived at in Bethesda. Should they say that they do not understand
Mr. Newton to teach what others attribute to him, and they themselves
entirely repudiate the doctrines charged upon him, there is no hindrance
here to their admission at Bethesda. And when admitted, they may speak
highly of Mr. N., they may express their sympathy for him as an injured,
calumniated, and mercilessly treated man, and so enlist the sympathies
of Bethesda people in his favour. And is not all this doing Satan’s
work, and paving the way for their reception of the doctrines of the
tracts themselves, when in some other way these fall into their hands?
Nor are the means for this far distant. This we shall now see.
3. The result
of this judgment of Bethesda is said to be that “By the 12th of
February, 1849, all Mr. Newton’s friends at Bethesda had sent
in their resignations—Captain Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown,
Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers, and two Miss Percivals.”
And this is clearly put forth in Bethesda’s defence by one of
Bethesda’s chief leaders! From the time that these questions arose,
the uniform and oft reiterated defence put forth by Bethesda and her
advocates was that there were none in Bethesda who held Mr.
Newton’s views, or promoted his designs. Now we are assured by
Lord C. in a tract put forth by Mr. Groves, that all Mr. Newton’s
friends at Bethesda have sent in resignations! A list of their names
is given us, consisting of the very persons who had been received by
Bethesda in spite of every warning and remonstrance from within and
from without; including also one name which was appended to the paper
40
of “the ten.” So that one of “the ten”who committed
Bethesda to a neutral course is now ranked by Bethesda herself and her
zealous advocates, amongst Mr. Newton’s friends. And is there
no confession on Bethesda’s part of having despised the
warnings and counsels of grave and sober brethren, whose testimony they
have at last found but too true? Is there no expression of sorrow for
having forced out from her fellowship those whose conduct has thus been
justified in the sight of all? No, not the least. Bethesda, by her own
account, has done right from first to last. Right, in assuming a neutral
position, right in abandoning it, if indeed she had abandoned it. Right
in receiving Mr. Newton’s friends; and right in pursuing a line
of conduct, the “result” of which she states to be the retirement
of them all! Right in maintaining she had none within her pale tinctured
with the Newtonian heresy; and right in proving herself clear, by alleging
that all such have resigned! But it is not a course of self-justification
like this that either meets with the approval of God or commends itself
to the consciences of saints.
The worst,
however, remains to be told. So far from the six weeks’ meetings,
and the conclusion arrived at, and the result of both, having cleared
Bethesda of the evil, or made it more worthy of the confidence of brethren,
its actual present position is such as to be less entitled to confidence
than before. We are not left to learn the value and grounds of the resignations
of Mr. Newton’s friends from Lord C.’s statement, as two
of them, Captain and Mr. Woodfall, have circulated a paper in which
the grounds of their resignation are plainly stated. Two sentences from
that paper are enough to make manifest the character of the whole proceeding.
“This step of ours,” they say, “has been finally determined
on from a conversation with one of your pastors, who seems to think
this would relieve them from some of their difficulties.”
41
“In taking this step we do not at all waive our claim, as brethren
in Christ, to a seat at the Lord’s table here.”
Only think
of an amicable arrangement between one of the pastors of Bethesda and
two of Mr. Newton’s friends who are in communion there, the issue
of which is the withdrawal of the latter, to relieve the former
from some of their difficulties, these voluntary seceders maintaining
meanwhile their right to communion whenever they may think proper to
return! And this is set forth as a proof that Bethesda has cleared herself
of the evil, and as enough to satisfy the consciences of brethren that
there is nothing now requiring separation from Bethesda.
The fact
is, if I am correctly informed, and the truthfulness and accuracy of
my informant I have every reason to trust, that there is an open communication
between those “friends of Mr. Newton” who have withdrawn
from Bethesda, and others remaining in Bethesda still. Bethesda has
not professed to shut the door against those who are in avowed fellowship
with Mr. N. and his adherents, unless they uphold, defend, or maintain
his doctrines or his tracts. Sympathisers with him there are unquestionably
in Bethesda still. They have the work to do inside; while those who
have withdrawn can do work of another kind outside more effectually
than they could have done it within. I say not that Messrs. Groves and
Müller intended it should be so; far from it; but when expediency
becomes our guide, and to maintain our own consistency our object, we
become the dupes and tools of an unseen agent, who seeks to accomplish
his own purposes by means of us and our ways. I state it subject to
correction; and the moment there is a fair and open meeting, where everything
can be gone into, I am willing to give up my author, and have the following
statement, with every other I have made, thoroughly sifted and weighed.
I have been
42
assured of the fact, that one person remaining in Bethesda claimed
his right, or stated his determination, not to forgo fellowship with
Mr. Newton’s friends who have withdrawn. And I have been
credibly informed again and again that the meetings held by Mr. Newton’s
friends have been attended by several still in Bethesda. If these things
are not so, let the matter be investigated openly and fairly; and if
they should be proved untrue, I know who would be one of the first,
by God’s grace, to confess the wrong done to Bethesda brethren,
and to entreat their forgiveness. But if these things be true, let no
saints be persuaded that mutual arrangements, as matters of expediency,
for some to withdraw while others remain, can clear Bethesda of that
wherewith she stands charged, or vindicate the holiness of God’s
house, which has been practically denied by her doctrines and her deeds.
Were I asked
my reasons as an individual, for being entirely separate from Compton-street
congregation, Plymouth, my answer would be twofold:
1. The sectarian,
clerical, and demoralising system there set up, as unfolded in the “Narrative
of Facts” and account of proceedings in Rawstorne-street.
2. The awful
doctrines since promulgated by Mr. Newton on the subject of the sufferings
of our blessed Lord.
Were I asked
the same question with regard to Bethesda, my answer would be:
1. The declared
assumption of a neutral position towards the evil system and evil doctrines
of Mr. Newton.
2. The latitudinarian
principle laid down in the paper of “the ten,” and adopted
by the body, that those who are in avowed fellowship with heretics cannot
be refused admission to the Lord’s table, unless they themselves
have understood and imbibed heretical sentiments.
43
3. The attempt to make the impression on people’s minds that the
neutral position has been exchanged for one of separation from Mr. Newton
and his tracts, without any confession of error or sin in having taken
a neutral position at first.
4. That the
neutral position has not really been abandoned; that sympathisers with
the heresy are yet allowed to be within, and no barrier presented to
their free communication with avowed adherents of the heresy without.
5. The statements
made by Mr. H. Craik in his letter to T.M., in answer to G. V. Wigram’s
Appeal. What he says there of the Lord’s humanity, leaves no room
for doubt that he does to a great extent sympathise with Mr. N.’s
unsound views.
*
* *
|
