EVENTS
AT PLYMOUTH, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY AT
THE BETHESDA MEETING IN BRISTOL,
1844 to 1849.
Part
4
A number
of brethren at Rawstorne-street, London, and elsewhere, have addressed
to Bethesda the following appeal:
June,
1849.
“To Saints who meet in Bethesda, Salem, etc., Bristol.
“In
consequence of the late republication of J. N. Darby’s letter
of last autumn (by W. H. Dorman), and of the ten co-labouring brethren
of Bethesda, with extracts subjoined from G. Alexander’s letters,
etc. (by G. V. Wigram) our souls have been exercised before the Lord
in humiliation and prayer. This has led to the conviction that without
compromising the holiness becoming the house of God, we could have no
further interchange of communion with saints of Bethesda, under existing
circumstances. Under this sad conviction, as we most anxiously desire
to stand in fellowship with all saints, we earnestly wish to remove
the apparent hindrances. We therefore, as separate individuals do earnestly
entreat and beseech that the only thing which seems to us as a means
to this end (viz., a meeting open to all parties concerned,
44
who plead conscience as the reason for being present), may be accorded
by you either in Bristol or elsewhere.
Let any evil
which has to be corrected in any be shown there. If it be in brethren
meeting in York-street, Bristol—in G. Alexander, J. N. Darby,
G. V. Wigram, or W. H. Dorman—we desire in no sense to screen
them any more than to condemn any among yourselves. Let the Lord’s
honour and the unity and holiness of the church only be thought of.
Our hope
is, that if such a meeting were held, the Lord Jesus Christ would, for
His name sake, so overrule by His Spirit, that some results in common
humiliation and blessing from His hand would follow.
Misunderstandings
might be corrected, evil judged, while holiness and brotherly fellowship
were still preserved to His glory and the comfort of our hearts.
This step
is also urged on us more especially by first, Certain public acts of
Tottenham, viz., its publication of the memorandum and reception from
Bethesda; and secondly, A secession of brethren from Orchard-street
on the grounds connected therewith.
The answer
is requested to be sent (for us) addressed to M.N., at 1, Angel Terrace,
St. Peter’s-street, Islington, London.
For the congregation
of Bethesda, etc., to the care of G. Miller, J. H. Hale and C. Brown.”*
* The above was signed by fourteen brethren,
and copies of it by several others.
Mr. Müller’s
reply is as follows:
Bristol,
July 18th, 1849.
“In
reply to a communication addressed to the care of Mr. Hale, Mr. C. H.
Brown, and myself, requesting a meeting of brethren to consider certain
charges that have been made against Bethesda, I have to state on the
part of myself and my fellow-labourers,
45
that we are ready to afford full explanation of the course that has
been adopted at Bethesda to any godly enquirers who have not committed
themselves as partisans of Mr. Darby and Mr. Wigram, but that we do
not feel warranted in consenting to meet with those who have first
judged and condemned us, and now profess to be desirous of making
enquiry. We think it well plainly to state, that were such brethren
even to profess themselves satisfied with us, we could not without hypocrisy
accord to them the right hand of brotherly fellowship. If they agree
with the course followed by Mr. Wigram and others, then there can be
no fellowship between us and them; if they disapprove of that course,
we feel that they are bound first to call to account those who have
been manifestly guilty of following a course tending to division, and
of grossly slandering their brethren. Should, however, any godly persons
who have not committed themselves to the upholding of such persons
desire explanation of the course we have pursued, we are not only most
ready to answer their enquiries (either by verbal intercourse in private,
or by means of a meeting called for that purpose), but it would also
give us real joy to satisfy the minds of such.
(Signed)
GEORGE Müller.”*
* See note on next page.
I pray brethren
to ponder this letter. The glory of Christ may be assailed, and the
foundations of the faith, as well as the moral integrity of the saints,
be sapped and undermined; Bethesda stands quietly by, and assumes a
neutral place. George Müller, Henry Craik, and others, are in their
own estimation roughly and badly used; but there can be no neutrality
as to that. Brethren propose to them a general meeting, as much
to investigate their charges against J. N.
46
Darby, G. V. Wigram, and others, as to investigate the charges these
brethren made against Bethesda. They wish to screen none, to condemn
none, but to hear all in each other’s presence, and in the presence
of the Lord Jesus Christ; but no—Mr. Müller and his co-labourers
will consent to nothing of the kind. They would admit to the Lord’s
table the friends and partisans of those who had slandered the blessed
Lord; but they will not meet for enquiry even with those
who approve of the course pursued by brethren supposed to have slandered
them. Surely this may safely be left for the judgment of the saints.*
* The letter from Mr. Müller and the comments
made thereon were added subsequently by Mr. Trotter.
It only remains
for me to notice two or three points much urged by those who object
to a decided course of action in this solemn matter. It is often said
that in declining fellowship with those who come from Bethesda in its
present state, we treat them worse than we do Christians in the denominations
generally. It has been asked again and again, whether we would not receive
a godly clergyman remaining in the Church of England, where all indiscriminately
are received to communion. I answer, unhesitatingly, yes, we should,
as always, receive a brother in the Lord who is in the Establishment
or among the Dissenters, without requiring him beforehand to separate
from the body of which he is a member. But what has this to say to the
case in hand? Does a clergyman’s reception of unconverted people
at the table of the Establishment accredit them to us as Christians?
Not in the least. But is this the case with Bethesda? The profession
is, that none but Christians are received there; and any one coming
thence heretofore, has come fully accredited as a Christian. If, then,
Bethesda admits those who are unsound in the faith, the result is, that
all confidence is destroyed, and we should never
47
know, in admitting persons thence, whether we were not receiving under
the guise of a “dear brother or sister” an enemy of the
faith, and a subverter of souls. This is the position in which Bethesda
has placed itself; a position altogether unlike that of the Establishment,
or of any evangelical Dissenting body. If I knew of a Dissenting congregation
which, on principle, and to maintain a neutral place, received Socinians
as well as Orthodox believers to communion, I should no more receive
persons from that congregation than from Bethesda. I should have no
confidence in their confessions of faith, however sound, till they had
renounced their unholy association with the deniers of the Lord that
bought them. And I regard Mr. Newton’s doctrine as a more dangerous,
because more insidious and artfully disguised heresy than Socianism
itself.
Men may subvert
the faith without denying in terms the fundamental doctrines
of the gospel. The Judaizing teachers in Galatia had not laid aside
the name of Christ, or ceased to acknowledge Him in word as the Saviour.
But they taught doctrines which, if true, made His death unnecessary
and vain. And both Peter and Barnabas were for a little season drawn
into the snare. But what said Paul of those subverters of the faith?
“I would they were cut off that trouble you.” “Though
we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” The assertion
that “the resurrection is passed already”* was not the denial
in terms of what our faith rests upon; but it was the assertion
of that which, if believed, took away from the soul the only resting
place for faith. “If the dead rise not, then is not
* The assertion that “the resurrection is
past already” appears in 2 Timothy 2:18. The writer of the letter
probably intended to allude to the assertion that “there is no
resurrection of the dead,” which we have in 1 Corinthians 15:12.
48
Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are
yet in your sins.” Paul knew nothing of the false charity of the
present day. He delivered Hymeneus to Satan that he might learn not
to blaspheme. And though there may be no one in the present day to exercise
discipline in that form, the obligation of saints to be separate from
such blasphemy, and from all those who practise and allow it, is as
solemn now as then. Indeed, separation from evil is not a question of
power, but of obligation. A saint always has power to keep a clean conscience.
It is not to a large and ordered church, but to “the elect lady
and her children” that John writes, “If there come any unto
you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither
bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of
his evil deeds.”
But are you
not introducing a fresh test of communion, and so setting up a sect?
is a question that is often asked. Let us look to Scripture for the
answer. All must allow that in the earliest days of the church it was
as Christians that God’s people met together. They received
one another as the Lord Jesus Christ had received them, to the glory
of God the Father. But when Satan had sown his tares and they began
to grow up, when grievous wolves had entered in, not sparing the sheep,
and when from among themselves men had arisen speaking perverse things
to draw away disciples after them; when for instance, the doctrine was
taught that “the resurrection was past already,” and Paul
had delivered the teachers of it to Satan that they might learn not
to blaspheme; was such an act of holy discipline setting up some new
term of communion? Suppose a thousand people, and among them many Christians,
had sympathised with those heretics and refused to renounce their fellowship,
thereby taking sides with them against the apostle and against the Holy
Spirit
49
by whose power the apostle acted, can we suppose that such persons would
have been received to communion by the apostle, or by any who regarded
the apostle’s authority? And would the rejection of such be setting
up any new term of communion? Did the beloved disciple set up a new
term of communion in warning the elect lady not to receive the false
teachers of that day? Suppose some one who had received these deniers
of the faith had come to the elect lady and her children expecting to
be received as before; and suppose she, feeble sister as she was, had
said, meekly, but firmly—No: the Holy Ghost by the Apostle says
that he who biddeth them God-speed is partaker of their evil deeds.
You have received those enemies of the faith, and have thus become partakers
of their evil deeds. You now stand in the same place as they do, I dare
not receive you lest I become partaker with you of your and their evil
deeds. Would such a testimony have been setting up some new term of
communion? Multiply the receptions ad infinitum, the principle
remains the same. Many a plea of ignorance and unguardedness may come
in and have to be considered, and such pleas would be more admissible
the further off the case was removed from the origin of the evil. But
rejecting heretics and the receivers of them is not setting up any new
term of communion; it was not in the apostle’s days, nor is it
now.
If any ask
then, Do you not meet as Christians, and if so, how can you think of
refusing so many who are undoubtedly such? my answer is, Assuredly we
meet as Christians, and it is because we do that we can receive
none among us who either by their sentiments or their conduct undermine
the foundations of Christianity.
I would not
close this communication without expressing my deep and unfeigned sorrow
that any necessity should have arisen for speaking as I have
50
had to do of brethren at whose feet I feel unworthy to sit. With brethren
Müller and Craik I have never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance;
but often have I had to thank God for the refreshment ministered to
my soul through the writings of the one, and often have I been humbled
at the thought of the faith and devotedness of both the one and the
other. However, I may have had in faithfulness to our common Master
and love to His sheep, to canvass the course pursued in this matter
by these beloved. brethren, and however sorrowful my impressions as
to the line of conduct into which they have been betrayed, I know of
no unkindly feeling towards them in my heart, much less could I think
of despising their “grey hairs,” or forget the injunction,
“Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder.”
But where God’s glory and the honour of His Christ is the question
at issue, all lesser considerations must stand aside. The Lord look
upon us and pity us, and send us restoration and blessing, as, if He
tarries, He assuredly will in His own time and way. May we have grace
to bow to His hand who smites us in love! In patience may we possess
our souls; and may the chastenings of His love work in us by the power
of the Holy Ghost all that repentance, that vehement desire, that revenge
upon ourselves, that will prove us at least clear in this matter. The
Lord grant it, and send health and healing, for His blessed name’s
sake!
Ever, dear
brother,
Affectionately yours,
W. TROTTER.
To Thomas
Grundy.
*
* *
|
