The following narrative, though constantly demanded by brethren, would have never seen the light, had the work which occasioned the separation been confined to Plymouth, or its activity ceased. No desire of clearing up one's own grounds of conduct has influenced me, nor would such have induced me to publish any account of what passed. The best proof is that in a lapse of a year it had not. But convinced as I am that it is a work of Satan which has developed itself here, and finding that, as Mr. N. announced that he would seek to produce everywhere "united hostility" to the brethren who differed from him, the same system at present is carrying on elsewhere to propagate the work, and believing that many true-hearted saints become unconsciously instruments of this, I have thought well that they should be apprised of what passed.

The argument alleged against such an account would be the scandal of it. But that exists in the division already. The knowing the grounds of it will rather take it away. For it is a very serious thing indeed to separate from Christians, and indeed the saints have, in some sort, a right to know why it has been done. It may be very humbling to the saints concerned; but I do not think this is an evil. The strongest motive by far -- the one which weighed with me -- was the dislike of publishing evil. I never should have done it, but left it to the Lord, had the trouble occasioned by it stopped the activity of the evil. What overcame this motive with me was, that there was just as much activity as before in the evil, and the same unblushing unscrupulousness as to truth. It may perhaps be thought that I have exaggerated in this account. Far from it. None of the facts which did not enter into the public course of events are mentioned, though as numerous and in my judgment as grave or graver than what is here stated; and not only so, but were not similar facts now going on, which are not alluded to here, I should never have published these. Another motive might act, that is, the general discredit thrown on the brethren. But this must yield before duty to souls. I have never seen one who got into the active influence of the system, whose moral integrity was not ruined. Besides, I believe that this system had so puffed up the brethren, and worldliness had so crept in, that under such discipline as God has sent us, it is only our part to bow. Indeed the present influence of the spirit of the world is such in the system which has driven me out, that, unless the Lord corrected it, I should be thankful to be entirely free from it. Lastly, I do not expect to escape what Sir A. C., Mr. W., and others have been subjected to, that is, to have all my statements denied. I expect it. But this is no reason with me for not informing brethren if this latter be a duty. It cannot last long this.

It is possible that in a narrative extending over a year and a half, embracing many people, and even places, some inaccuracy of detail which may occasion cavil may have escaped me. I have given too many names not to give the fullest opportunity of confirmation or correction, indeed always, save where charity demanded their suppression, or in the case of females. Engaged in such a business I had no need to conceal those of brethren. They must take their share when they acted in public. There is nothing here of which I am not assured of my own knowledge, or which were public facts before all, or facts stated already in print by others, or with the authors' names with some exceptions; in a word, nothing of the truth of which I am not thoroughly satisfied. At all events, what is here related is with other facts that which has led me into the position I am in; and I give them as substantially a thoroughly authentic and true narrative of what has passed. I have only to add, that the ground of evil doctrine or teaching, and the unsettling the souls of saints on every thing precious and even vital, is acquiring every day very greatly increased weight in my mind. This from its subtle and fleeting character, though conclusive with me, is more difficult to give. Some specimens however are here. The "Examination" of the "Thoughts" gives many though on less important points.

I may add one here from a tract sold in the tract shop. It is there taught that the wicked will rise with their diseased bodies; as that a man that had the palsy would keep it for ever, they would receive again their corrupt and sin-worn bodies, in all their wretchedness. This is addressed in a gospel tract to the careless. The tract is printed in London, but it was sold at Plymouth in the depot, nor have I any doubt of its origin.

I have communicated this narrative to others, to take all the care I can, that it should be perfectly true; I give no names, as I feel in such a case it is the juster way to let it rest on my own responsibility. I add here one or two corrections resulting therefrom.⁺

This is all that I can find to correct in what follows. It is, of course, possible that something may have escaped me.

I add another mark of the enemy's work. It is this: where there is the sudden reception of a whole system, and the authority of the author of it set up at once over the mind. When truth is received into the soul by the Spirit, it is received and engrafted by God, so that, though a blessed door may be opened by any given truth, we are built up truth by truth, each being wrought into the soul so that there is truth in it, and the consciousness of God's teaching us that, and the instrument of it, if any, is not between us and God as to it, though inspired teachers were of course an authority. In the case stated the mind is at once shut up into the system, and real progress in divine truth is entirely arrested. The consequences of having thus taken a system of error for truth is often most deplorable for the whole life, even if the person be delivered from it.

The reader will find another example of the unsettling the soul as to fundamental truths in the confusion between the life communicated to the saint and the divine nature in Christ. Thus, "But did Jesus think that the life which was in Him, and which He communicated to others, was not heavenly?" Did He not Himself say, "The Son of man which is in heaven? Were they (the angels) ignorant of the existence of a life in earth, which they had known in the excellence of its own uncreated glory, above? ... Were they ignorant that this life had, through the Son been communicated to persons chosen from among sinful men?" (See pages 28, 29, of "Answer to Second Letter.")

I have felt unable, having reread this narrative after the corrections, to detect any inaccuracy. As to the expression "He will catch it" (page 58), my memory is so vague that I could not pretend to give it as the word used. But this perusal has made me feel that such a publication of evil would be entirely unjustifiable, and evil in itself, had I not the conviction, the solemn settled conviction (not, I believe, led to it of man) that there is an active positive work of the enemy going on. That conviction I have. I do not publish it to justify myself, for in my own judgment it does the contrary. I feel, as I have stated in the body of the narrative, that I failed in spiritual energy, through human feeling, in letting the matter drop in April at the instance of others. I hesitated as to my own being, spiritual enough to do it in public then, though I had acquiesced in doing it in private. If it be asked why I do it in a worse way now, I answer that it became a public duty to the saints, cost me what it would. And I do not expect to meddle with such evil without its costing me something.

⁺[These have now been added as footnotes. -- Ed.]

I have had, in journeys I have made since I wrote this account, abundant confirmation as to the doctrine taught and other points.

No one who was present at the meeting lately held in London can doubt that the brethren were brought (may I not in a certain measure say, brought back?) into the presence of the Lord -- that the Lord has dealt with them in the manifestation of His presence, of His presence and dealings with them. This is a serious and solemn thought, and (I have felt) ought to take the lead and be as the source and spring of our other thoughts. I have myself been laid by, unable to read and write, so that, for my own part, I have been necessarily more particularly thrown into His hands, so that things should be more immediately judged as in His presence, viewed as they are seen there, and that what does not become His presence should alarm the conscience, man becoming little, but the saints exceeding precious.

After the meeting my conscience somewhat smote me for not declaring there in the plainest way what I believe to be the Lord's judgment of the work which has resulted in Ebrington Street at Plymouth: and it has been yet more pressed upon my conscience since I have been laid by. What prevented my doing so will be evident to every one who was there. The Lord took the meeting so entirely into His own hand, and so gave to it the character, and that of blessing, which He pleased, that I felt my part was to leave it exclusively with the character He had given to it. If it was a want of faith, my motives will be understood by every one who was there. But then this return into the presence of the Lord leads to dealing with brethren as in His presence. It is due to them. I feel I owe it to them to communicate to them as seen there, so to speak, what may press on my own spirit before the Lord. Now I believe fully that the work which has resulted in, what I may call in its present state, Ebrington Street, is a direct and positive work of Satan. And here I entreat brethren not to turn away as if these were mere hard words or a bad spirit. I mean simply and solemnly what I say. If such be the case, it is charity, unfeigned charity, to say so, and warn the saints of it. I so much believe it to be so, that I do not believe any one who meddles with or is within its reach will be safe from its influence till they treat it as such.

This may be always remarked, that where there is a work of the enemy even saints always fall into it if they do not treat it as such. It has power over the human heart, and where there is not in the soul the power of the Spirit to judge it as the positive mischief of the enemy (and so it will be judged where that power is), there the soul will fall into it, as if it were more perfect truth than what the Spirit teaches. See the early judaizing of the church, traced and detected in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians, and elsewhere. And see in the Galatian churches how the saints fell into it. See the same thing in Popery.

And here I would explain a little further. It does not follow by any means that there are no truths held by those who fall into such a snare. Many important truths may be held by them. Nor is it to be thought for a moment that true saints of God are not liable to fall into these snares. On the contrary, what makes it important to consider them, is that they affect the saints of God. Did they not, it might be sorrowful instruction, but no more: just as the awful darkness of heathenism, or the sorrowful condition of a poor unbelieving child of Israel. Nor does it follow (though it will generally have a legal tinge, because the flesh will in such case more or less resume its power) that many good works will not be done by those under it. They may abound. So that in saying that there has been a work of Satan I am not saying there are not many very dear children of God; I am not saying that they do not hold many all-important fundamental truths, as truths, nor that they may not be doing a great many good works. All this will be fully found in the system of Popery, for example, as it was in the Galatians, the earliest form perhaps of that amazing and deluding system.

But there is a further point which it is right to notice. Truly godly people may be the instruments of helping on a system which is truly Satan's. No one can doubt that Cyprian, who laid down his life for Christ's name, that Augustine, that Bernard, were godly men. Yet, though one opposed Rome episcopally, and the last declared Antichrist was risen there, no one can doubt that they helped on most eminently Satan's work in Popery. They did not perceive the bearing of certain points on the meaning and testimony of the Spirit of God.

Further, I do not call every evil I find a direct and positive work of Satan. Of course his hand is there. A saint I call a work of God, though Satan may mar it. Thus I believe there are serious defects and faults in the Establishment; but I believe it to have been a work of God, marred and spoiled by human considerations, which led those who framed it, to adapt it to circumstances and to the then state of the population, and to introduce principles which lay it now open perhaps to that work of Satan which is commonly called Puseyism. In that too itself, I dare say, several good men are labouring, because they do not by spiritual power discern Satan's craft who has a lovely religion for the flesh, a religion fairer to men's judgment and loveliest natural feelings than God's, which acts entirely on the conscience and gives all glory to Christ. So with Dissenters: I believe that was a work of God; with many defects, I judge, but still a work of God. And so of others. But Popery and Puseyism are the work of the enemy, though you may, and doubtless would, find many dear persons among them. Of course the degrees of evil or power may vary. I speak of its character and source merely.

Satan originates nothing. This is God's prerogative. The work of Satan is to mar and break down what God has wrought, when this is left, as an effect produced, to the responsibility of man. God created Adam. Satan spoiled the work through man's folly. There was but One whom he could not touch down here; in whom, having laid his defiling hand on all else as prince of this world, he could find nothing. He can originate nothing, but he can build up with vast sagacity an immense system, out of the corruption, suited to the evil which is in us; yea, and stamped with the character of the evil that is in us to which it is so suited. What would money be without avarice? or worldly power without ambition? or superstition without a natural principle of religiousness in the heart of man? Such a system may be a vast fact in the economy of divine government considered as a judgment, as Mohammedanism; or a subtler corruption, as Popery, pregnant with greater mischiefs, but where the enemy of souls has not been permitted to blot out in the same way the great facts of Christianity, as to the manner of the Divine existence and incarnation, nor the historical truths of the gospel; or it may be a marring where, in the main, truth abides; or it may be the ruin of some special testimony of God as far as it goes.

A testimony of some special truth may decay, or be lost, or lose its power by becoming mere established orthodoxy; but I do not call this directly or properly a work of Satan. I call it a work of Satan, when, blessing and testimony having been brought in by the blessed Spirit of God, a systematic effort is made, producing a regular system; an effort which takes up the truth whose power has decayed as to faith really carrying the soul out of the influence of present things, or some neglected truth generally, and, while it seems to adopt it as it stands in its basis as a fact, subverts and sets it aside; throwing the soul back on ground which is no longer a test of faith, though it be truth (for there Satan can adopt truth for a time), and bringing in apparent additional instruction, but really subversive of the power of what the Spirit taught, and making the authority of this teaching sectarian, or superstitious, or both, though they will not last together. I am not speaking here of Satan's work in open infidelity.

Now many may be quite unable to detect Satan working in this way, but there will be always enough, through the faithfulness of God, to guard souls really waiting on Him from falling in; or if listened to, through grace to bring them out. But then it will be and must be judged as evil, not dealt with as a mere measure of better and worse.

There is a distinction which may yet be made.

There are two distinct characters of work which Satan does, which may nevertheless merge one in the other. Of these however one, if alone, will be ephemeral, the other lasting. First, where power is not the true power of the Spirit, so as to detect and judge Satan's imitation, there he can easily set up the imitation of power, and that even where there is a measure of true faith and owning of God, but subjection, intelligent subjection by the Spirit to the word as of the Spirit, is not found. Where this is connected with the establishment of arranged human authority, this latter may subsist, but the work itself is ephemeral. Such a work as this will probably be connected with some of the most right-feeling, if not right-judging, persons among Christians, who have the strongest feelings of the decay which occasions it, but there will be generally shipwreck of the faith in some point or other. Yet it will afford exceeding difficulty to those who cannot discern the work of the enemy in the midst of this right feeling. I would instance as examples of this kind of evil work of the enemy, the Montanists, the Irvingites, and, in some respects, the Quakers or Friends. As to these last it is well known that what I now refer to has passed away, and that they remain amongst men a most quiet and, in many respects, most estimable body of persons. I speak of their early history. What remains is the authority that was settled among them, though with the old Friends very much defect in doctrine.

I have no doubt that this work began in a right feeling about the want of spiritual power. This may be easily seen in Dell's works. But no one who has read the remarkable history of George Fox, Naylor, and many of Penn's writings, or known much of the doctrines of Friends, can doubt the inroad of the enemy. I have added a few words on this because it was a more mixed and ambiguous case. I would not pass it over because it is one instructive to the church.

But there is another form of Satan's working.

In this orthodox truth is in general maintained. Any pretension to the possession of spiritual power is based on church position, not on any particular manifestation of power, and thus seems to honour the institution of the church and Christ in it. God is alleged to have set there, in that institution, the seat of blessing, and this also is an acknowledged truth, and the unity of the body of Christ is thereon connected with the institution. But the sovereign operation of the Spirit of God is set aside, and that which acts outside the actually formed institution is condemned as denying the authority of God's institution and schismatical sin. Thus the actual possessors of the power of the institution, in its then state, really take the place of God. His power is vested in them as far as it acts on earth. Divine condemnation attaches to all who act independently of them. Direct dependence upon God is unallowable. And thus whatever puts individual faith to the test (for going with the crowd under authority does not) is condemned as self-will and presumption.

The system which so judges is alleged to maintain the unity of the church. This may exist in different degrees, and in different circumstances; but it always attaches divine authority more or less to official position, and thus puts man in the place of God by attaching His name to man. It is not spiritual energy in man putting souls through Christ in direct relation with God, with the Father. There spiritual affections are happy and blessed. It is man eclipsing God, getting between Him and the soul. Not man revealing God, but the authority of God attached to man. Hence full love and grace will never be known. The Spirit of adoption and blessed assurance of salvation in the knowledge of Him will never be. It may survive such a system for a time, but it cannot be identified with such a system when matured. To be with God, while always rendering the soul submissive, must render it independent of man; that is, it asserts no rights, but when the need is, it says, "we ought to obey God rather than man." The first of these works of Satan then is the pretence to the extraordinary operation of the Spirit. That is ephemeral. It is suited to the ill-directed but righteous cravings after that manifestation of spiritual power which was and is the only true source of living blessing on the earth, when that power has faded away. The other is the orderly establishment of men in the place of that power. This lasts. It is suited to unbelief, and in its full development it always generates it. Montanism is passed. The spiritual pretensions of Irvingism are in fact passed; the system of men and ordinances set up by it abides. So practically among the Friends. This is common to both, as far as they go, that the manifestation of Christ in living power for the peace of souls, and the truth as to Him, is weakened and set aside more or less. Orthodox truths may, as we have seen in one of the cases I have supposed, be maintained; but (as it is the work of the Holy Ghost alone to present Christ to the soul, so that it should be in the power of that living faith which sets the soul in blessed fellowship with the Father in true joy, leaving the impress of its own everlasting nature upon it, which the Holy Ghost can alone give, and the Holy Ghost alone maintain) the consequence is that such communion with Christ is lost, and the conscience ceases to be before God.

In the former of the cases I have supposed Christian truth is generally lost, that is, saving truths connected with the person of Christ, and error substituted on these points. The Spirit's alleged presence eclipses, instead of revealing, them. In the latter they are plausibly subverted in their effect on the soul rather than set aside. As justification by faith in the Popish system, where, while every orthodox truth is maintained, the love and work of God in Christ is as to its efficacy denied by it as a system, as effectually as it could be by Socinianism itself. We are enabled in this case to speak of the full and awful maturity of this abiding corruption of the enemy; but those most conversant with history, and most spiritual, know how much spirituality it requires to detect its commencement and early growth: and that it sprang really from the best persons and most apparently godly principles that appear after the record of scripture; so that, though there were counteracting principles which Protestants can justly cite, yet full-grown Popery can quote the earliest fathers to establish in principle her claims, and support her pretensions. The blessed and perfect word of God reveals in one word this history: they began in the Spirit, and ended in the flesh. If you inquire who were the persons who laid the basis of this amazing evil, it will be found that it was those who insisted on good order and unity; yet it was not in the power of the Holy Ghost (God is not the author of confusion, but of order in the churches), but in arrangements which attached to office the authority necessary to maintain it. There may have been fleshly workings which gave occasion to it; but the remedy was not spiritual acting on the conscience and affections of those astray, for this is what we see in the epistles, but the authoritative arrangement of order, because power was so much gone, and spiritual discernment to know it. Hence the effect produced by the power, the institution itself, the church as an ordered system (not the church as redeemed by Christ), became the object presented, and was made the guard as an institution, instead of being guarded by spiritual care. Hence when the outward institution became the positive enemy of Christ and of His people, it retained its claims, and used its power as His.

Now, however subtilly at first, so that none scarce perceived it, if any, we now know what a work of Satan this was. It has, so to speak, usurped the world.

I feel satisfied that, as to the principle of it, a similar work has been going on at Plymouth. It will be ever founded on practically setting aside the power of that truth which has been, in any given case, the gathering principle, and the testimony of God to the world.

I do not exactly expect that in itself every one could see through such a work; but, as I have already said, there are sufficient proofs always afforded of God to the single eye: there will not, and cannot be, to others. I shall add here some of the points which seem to me to mark the presence and influence of the enemy in general.

The first sign of weakness is the gathering itself becoming the object of attention instead of their being a people enjoying the blessedness of their position by the relationship and fellowship it gave them with Christ, who had become and was their abiding object, revealing withal God the Father. But I would speak with more detail, for this is rather the occasion of Satan's power than the fruit of it as a positive word Where this last is, you will find holy spiritual affections broken and set aside to give place to the claim of the institution. And so are even natural affections, whilst the latter are given all their natural force and weight in practice to hold persons in the institution, and even largely used for this purpose. In the same manner people are won and brought under the influence that acts there by them. The activity and zeal will be for the system. It will be to make proselytes, and establish them in what will keep them there, not to save souls or lead them on in Christ. There will generally be a good deal of acting against or depreciation of others who even hold the faith of Christ.

Paramount importance will be attached to the views which distinguish that institution, not to what saves or to what brings faith to the test by the revelation of Christ.

Good works will be found generally much pressed, and that in a systematic way in which it works for and into the system. Truth I mean truthfulness will ever be lacking. This I have always found where the work of the enemy is.

Connected with this is the pressing much certain doctrines, when it is safe, which form the bond of the institution, and denying them in the alleged meaning, or explaining them away, when they are pressed on them by those who detect the evil. This any one conversant with the subject cannot but have noticed. The denial of the doctrine positively stated where the influence exists, as held in any such sense or its explanation, is the very thing that marks the power of evil. With this will be found the attributing to those who hold the truth, every kind of doctrine they abhor, where there is influence enough to have their statements believed. Popery is the plain example of this.

Another mark, whatever the apparent devotedness, yea, and real devotedness sometimes, is that the spirit of the world is acquiesced in. The poor will be nursed as instruments, and the rich (and so the clever) flattered for support. Another mark is the extreme difficulty of fixing them to any definite statement, save as they have power to enforce it; and then it is bound on others; and there is the sternest rejection of all who do not bow. Calumny of the saints, and of their doctrines has been known from the testimony of the blessed Lord Himself onward. The influence of females and of money will be found also largely employed.

In cases of the second character of evil I have noticed, the combinations of a party will always be found.

There is another mark, often incomprehensible to one not under the influence, and that is an incapacity of conscience to discern right and wrong, an incapacity to see evil where even the mere natural conscience would discern and an upright conscience reject it at once. I speak of this incapacity in true saints. The truth is, the soul is not, where under this influence (for it may be upright in other things), at all in the presence of God, and sees everything in the light of the object which governs it; and, as to these things, the influence of the enemy has supplanted and taken the place of conscience. The moral marks will be found to attach to every case of evil power.

I am satisfied that I have seen these principles distinctly at work in what has produced the system established at Plymouth. Some may think I have copied it for the picture. I have not. Let them, if they have ever been conversant with it, recall what the ways of Popery are, and they will easily find the same there. It is not because there are no saints among them, but because there are many and very dear ones, that I speak of it.

But having stated these general principles, a statement which I leave to work its own effect, I shall briefly narrate what I may call the public facts which have come under my knowledge; for much never has. I have never done so hitherto. I did not feel led to do it, and certainly had no inclination. I do not think a mind for which holiness has any charm at all will ever love the detailing or publishing evil: and, if one has any heart, most surely not what has passed among those he loves: but God's truth and His church are sacred things. I shall still endeavour to pass over in silence the private facts which seem to me to be evil. They might be called for in a case of discipline; but here they would only aggravate, without increasing, intelligent apprehension of the evil.

I will not detail the origin of the "brethren," but certainly that which characterized their testimony at the outset was the coming of the Lord as the present hope of the church, and the I presence of the Holy Ghost as that which brought into unity, and animated and directed, the children of God; and they avowed their dependence upon it. The distinct condition of the saints of the present dispensation, as filled with the Spirit abiding with them and risen with Christ, marked their teaching, while the great truths of the gospel were held in common with other true Christians, only with the clearer light which God Himself directly, and these other truths, afforded. The distinct heavenly character of the church was much insisted on. Though the "brethren" insisted on a spiritual ministry, and the recurrence to the original principles of ministry were urged, they did not, for the same reason, pretend to appoint ministers, nor organize any church or special membership; for they held the unity of all saints. Themselves outside the camp, whatever saints had faith to follow them were companions in their position, and they were not separated in life, love, or essential unity, from those who could not, though blamed by them. In this spirit they walked for a good while. I now turn to details.

From an early period Mr. Newton isolated himself much from the other brethren. He held reading meetings, and would not allow the labouring brethren to attend them; saying it was bad for the taught to hear the authority of the teachers called in question, as it shook confidence in them. At the later prophetic meetings in Ireland he did not attend.⁺ At one of them, instead of going, he held a meeting for himself at Plymouth on the questions proposed and discussed among the brethren in Ireland, and published his views on them under the title of "Answers to Plymouth Questions." Particular meetings of his own for inculcating his peculiar views were multiplied without end, and sisters instructed in them, and provided with notes, employed to hold smaller meetings among the poor, and to write letters elsewhere to propagate them. Every visitor was at once brought under the most stringent process for imbuing him with them, and instruments sought wherever possible.⁺⁺ Indeed I have known a meeting closed the moment any remark was made on a statement of Mr. Newton's. "The Christian Witness" was denounced as the most mischievous book that ever was written. This process of course grew up gradually. This, with a train of similar conduct, I sorrowed over as an unhappy trait of isolation, and love of acting alone, and having his followers for himself; but I had no suspicion whatever of any purpose of any kind, bore with it as a failing of which we all had some, and left perfect individual liberty complete and entire untrenched on. I should not have so acted without my brethren. I should have rejoiced to have my views corrected by them when I needed it, and learn theirs; but there it was, and there for my part I left it.⁺⁺⁺ At the Clifton meeting Mr. Newton, speaking of ministry and the points connected with it, told me that his principles were changed. I replied that mine were not, that I felt I had received them from the Lord's teaching, and with His grace I should hold them fast to the end.⁺⁺⁺⁺

⁺ I have what I believe to be a correct statement of the meetings Mr. Newton attended. He did not attend 1834, 1835, but he was at 1836; that is, I believe, the last Irish meeting. He did not attend London or Liverpool, that is, the two last English.

⁺⁺ One meeting of a smaller number of brethren was at once broken up, that is, never met again, on some objection to critical remarks being made by another brother.

⁺⁺⁺ Mr. Y. made, it is true, a mistake in his tract as to the Clifton meeting, which he states Mr. N. not to have attended: but, though this was made a handle of, the truth is that, though he mistook the particular meeting, the case was much stronger than that, as may be seen above.

⁺⁺⁺⁺ Mr. Newton can easily deny this, as he and I were alone, walking up and down before the Gloucester hotel. This, of course, will not now hinder my stating it, though it did my referring to it publicly in the inquiry by the brethren. There is One who will judge who is truthful in the matter, if he does deny it, and to Him I leave it. I might here refer to the testimony of an intelligent brother, a physician, who plainly states that Mr. N. ten years ago pressed the principles I have done now, and which he resists; but then he declares he always thought them a delusion, that he joined the "brethren" as a sect, and continues with them as such. Loudly, as this is denied, a sister, whose zeal for Ebrington Street would not be questioned were I to name her, said to me that it was quite evident there were two systems among the "brethren" which would produce their fruits and gatherings everywhere. My reply was, I did not doubt it, and respected her sincerity. I would that others had the honesty to own it: they were all assuring me there was not.

This, however, subsequently went farther. Mr. N. got rid of Capt. H. at Plymouth. I do not enter into any details here, but I use advisedly the expression 'got rid of'⁺ This also was let pass. My own mind acquiesced in it, though grieved, because I felt it possible that there was a tendency to accumulate labourers on one spot; and that, in the want of spiritual energy which led them, God might use this as a means of sending the testimony farther. In fact, the gathering at Hereford soon followed on this. Thus I consoled myself with what I felt the unhappy disposition of Mr. N. I was not indeed acquainted with all the facts which I have learned since. I saw what was public before all. I knew what had happened to myself. I suspected nothing; and from beginning to end of this history the truth is that grace has kept smothered up what pained individuals in the character of Mr. N. For my own part, much as I mourned many things, I was the last to suspect any plan or purpose. I sought for years to soothe and make peace, to maintain union and link all together.

After the departure of Capt. H., two other brethren became the objects of attack, R -- e and S -- s; and in the first instance the latter. I myself interfered at that time to soothe and tranquilize matters, and soften the effect of the evident assumption and conduct of Mr. N. Subsequently to this I was, as is known, much abroad, and do not pretend to give the detail of what passed.

There is only one circumstance to which I may allude in passing, as it has been often referred to. At a time when Capt. H. and myself were leaving Plymouth, there was some anxiety as to pastoral care, the value of which I fully recognize. Some minds were restless as to the nomination of elders, or recognized authorities; some fearful of it. The, question had been slightly mooted in a private meeting after one of the Irish prophetic meetings. I had been there, I may say, accused of swamping the question. I stated what is my present conviction, that the right-minded saint would surely own and "know" those who laboured, admonished, and took by the Holy Ghost a pastoral interest in them; but that still it could only be, in the present state of the church of God, by spiritual power, wisdom, love, and faithfulness, that such a place could be acquired and maintained. To attempt to authorize them would unsettle every right principle. There was no competency for it. The moment an authorized position is assumed -- a title to it, I raise the inquiry, what is this title? and I defy any one to allege any which is not at once the formal recognition of a sect; or otherwise the Popish ground of being the church, and then you must recognize succession and apostolic authority in the clergy.

⁺Capt. H., of course, went freely at the time, and the influence of Mr. N. may even at that time have been shaken by circumstances; but the main fact of the statement remains unaffected by this.

Under these circumstances, on the departure of Capt. H. and myself, this question having been raised, I stated to the assembly that Messrs. H., N., and Sir. A.C., who were already labouring and visiting, as is well known, would still remain, and be under the responsibility of continuing the visiting I refer to this only because it has been frequently referred to lately. It was really avoiding the question, which none could have solved, calming the minds of others who were uneasy at those who had first laboured going away. And this I desired. I remember being blamed by some who desired something definite; and there were those who had difficulty as to Mr. N.'s being so named from distrust of his ambition. I have been told lately that some brethren were dissatisfied at my having done too much. It is of course possible, though I never heard it till lately, nor have I the smallest ground for thinking so. I merely relate the fact without comment. Mr. N. indeed has stated that Mr. R.H. advised me to leave Plymouth on account of the feeling it produced; but this is without a shadow of truth in it. Of this Mr. R.H. is equally certain with myself. It has no sort of foundation whatever. Mr. R.H. had nothing to say to the matter, good or bad.

On my returning from abroad, about six years ago, I was spoken to by brethren well known amongst all as to certain letters written by Mr. Newton, and circulated in MS. far and wide,⁺ begging me to read them, as it had excited the feelings of many brethren, and made them very uneasy. I replied that I did not want to enter into these questions, that I had hitherto acted as a peacemaker, and sought to link and unite by going with all, and I had rather now keep out of the question. It was urged upon me that I must take a part in it, as the letters were making brethren uneasy everywhere. Thus urged, I read the letters. They were an elaborate argument on Mr. N.'s prophetic views, denouncing all who held the views of the rapture of the church before the end, and insisting on the evils of applying any part of the New Testament to any but the church, or of supposing that there were saints on earth, subsequent to the church's rapture, who could be spoken of in it prophetically. In these (besides accusing the brethren of rejecting "all⁺⁺ the Gospels," if they held principles contrary to his interpretation of Matthew 24, for this was the only and avowed ground, as may be seen in the passage in the note) he declared that, if they were listened to, "the foundations of Christianity were gone." And will the reader believe the reason which so many have swallowed down? for this is the grand cry at Plymouth still. It is this, "for the foundations of the city are the twelve apostles of the Lamb." He presses the duty on all, that a categorical reply should be received as to this from all that professed to teach, because ambiguities were to be avoided in the church.⁺⁺⁺ "With respect to such passages, we have a right to expect a clear unhesitating answer from all who teach in the church." Meanwhile brethren who took the opposite view were carefully kept away from Plymouth,⁺⁺⁺⁺ and letters in one unceasing stream went out from the sisters against the brethren who did not receive these views, and everything was said to discredit them to those who visited Plymouth. The whole teaching there was to settle people in them. In this no pains were spared, as to either strangers arriving or those who had leisure at Plymouth. The sisters in particular were carefully taught, and held meetings in their respective districts to retail what they had heard at the principal meetings held for that purpose. The poor were in general starved as to feeding them with Christ.

⁺These letters have been sent to Ireland, India, Canada, and wherever an opportunity was afforded, as Mr. N. avows and (I may say) boasts of.

⁺⁺"Thus this passage, and with it the whole Gospel, and all the Gospels, are swept away as not properly pertaining to the church." Till I found this passage of large inference, I never could conceive what gave rise to this charge of rejecting the Gospels.

⁺⁺⁺It is well that it should be known that, though this is the ground still taken as the reason for denouncing the "brethren," Mr. Newton has entirely given up the main point of his prophetic views, insisted on in these letters. The whole of the second letter, to refer to nothing else, is occupied with the proof of the saints of the Christian church being in tribulation. Indeed every one conversant with these matters, knows that it was a test of the holding of Mr. Newton's views. We were told what a mercy of God to prepare us for it by testimony. Indeed the fact is too well-known to require further proof. People were planning leaving the limits of the Roman earth, to be out of it; Mr. Newton now (both by argument in the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," and in express terms in the "Thoughts on the End of the Age") declares that they will not.

⁺⁺⁺⁺I am well aware that this is denied by the five signers of the letter to the brethren in London. But in the first place it is perfectly well known to multitudes of the brethren. Moreover Mr. Newton had been spoken to about it before I arrived at Plymouth. He answered, that he could not help their breaking bread, if they came, but it was a yoke he was obliged to put up with, and that they would have no welcome from him. Anyone can understand the effect of conduct answering to such language, unless a person came to contest the point with Mr. N. Mr. H. was asked, when saying at the last meeting in April that he should invite the Irish brethren, could he give them this invitation from the others at Plymouth, and he could not say he could. Further, confession, public confession was made of it by two of those who signed that paper by one with "if any have been kept away," by another without. It was owned in private by one of these, and Mr. N. was spoken to by him about it, saying that they had done so, and that he had participated in the sin. I am fully aware everything will be denied But this must not arrest the plain statement of facts for brethren. The writing of letters by the sisters discrediting the brethren was attempted to be called in question too; but brethren being present in the April meeting who had seen them, and having declared that heretic⁺⁺⁺⁺⁺ was too good a name for the Irish brethren in their letters, it was no longer attempted to be disputed.

⁺⁺⁺⁺⁺"Heretic was too good a name." Though I have a perfect recollection of these words being used, yet as being in animated conversation and a general representation, it is desired to correct this by saying that what Irish brethren held and taught was spoken of as heresy.

This had come to such a point before my last return from abroad, that the gospel had been formally sent away from Ebrington Street, and teaching substituted for it, the gospel being banished to Raleigh Street, where some thirty or forty went. It was said in so many words they did not want the gospel -- it was a bad sign to wish for it; they ought to be going on to more complete knowledge. It is not astonishing if a great body of the Christian poor were thoroughly miserable: they understood Mr. H. only. He was their visitor and friend.

But to return to the letters: I spoke to Mr. Newton about them (I refer to about five or six years ago), though I had no idea then of the assiduity with which they were circulated, and the views pressed. It was done by letter out of Plymouth, and I had been abroad. I read the letters, and I told Mr. Newton that T could not see that the Spirit of God had led to or guided in them. He told me thereupon, that all friendship between us was at an end, and that he should have nothing more to say to me in the way he previously had. I replied that this would not change me towards him or others, and I walked up and down the street with him till I got him to give me his hand; and, save writing to him to soothe him, buried it all. I wrote, at his request, some of my objections to the views in the letters; and this, furnished subsequently to a sister, formed together with his answers the famous appendix, of which so much has been said. But I speak of an interview, six years ago or thereabouts. Since then the letters were constantly copied and circulated. From that time I was a good deal abroad, though I visited Plymouth. I saw clericalism creeping in, but at first thought it was merely from circumstances. The deaf people were placed round the table, and consequently the speakers were to stand at it. This soon evidently defined them. I saw the tendency, and sat in the body of the congregation, and spoke thence when I spoke. I was remonstrated with, but retained my position. On the last visit before the present one, finding the teachers always breaking bread, I urged some other doing it, or this union of the two things would soon be a regular clergy. Mr. H., to whom I spoke (but as to all), made no difficulty, and something was done.

At this time, about three years ago, I suppose, I was thoroughly unhappy in the meetings. I felt the Spirit utterly quenched, and, if I went to the meetings happy, returned miserable. It was only at the last I was at I found it in my heart to pray. I had communication on the subject with Mr. H., who remonstrated with me. I returned abroad. While abroad (I cannot here give the date) Mr. Newton wrote to me that I was an apostle.⁺ This did not, I confess, inspire me with confidence. About three or four months before my return to England I had a correspondence with Mr. H., one of whose letters, from the great change in its tone, convinced me that every barrier was gone at Plymouth; for he had long sought to keep himself free from the influence that ruled most things there. From that moment I felt that conflict and trial awaited me, though I knew not what: but I was satisfied before God that nothing which could be ventured on would be spared. I passed through much more conflict of soul then than after I came to England. Nor was I mistaken in my judgment.⁺⁺

⁺This explains to me a statement in the letter sent to the London brethren, signed by the five leading brethren at Ebrington Street, saying, that they recognized no one in the position of Timothy now. At the time he wrote the letter alluded to in the text, Mr. N. in England denounced my views as subverting the foundations of Christianity.

⁺⁺Prior to my previous visit to England, Mr. S. had issued a tract holding up a most beloved brother as a public warning, on account of holding prophetic views discordant with Mr. Newton's. I answered thus by shewing that Mr. S.'s arguments could not be sustained, hoping to check these attacks on brethren, made as if truth, "the truth" as it has been called since, was at Plymouth alone. What was unsold of Mr. S. s was suppressed, and the whole of mine, at the instance of a brother who hoped controversy might be ended. I had stated no system of my own. It was a mere effort to check the tide.

Mr. H. invited me, however, to come to Plymouth. I was greatly exercised as to leaving Switzerland, having the conviction that troubles, which nobody else then believed, would certainly break out, and I lingered there till violence and revolution took place, and all the brethren judged me better away than there. Ministry was impossible, and I should have rather occasioned trouble to them, as well as been particularly obnoxious myself, as having been the active person there.

I returned to England, and came directly down to Plymouth.

I may now relate what took place then, and what had been going on with others before my arrival.

About four years ago Mr. Newton and Mr. B. held meetings at Devonport on ministry, where the following statements were made: that there had been, indeed, the fisherman system, and that Christ had previous to His resurrection chosen poor men to be His instruments: but that after His resurrection this was all changed, the Paul system was then set up, and the Lord chose educated gentlemen,⁺ as Paul was. This had been the case at the Reformation, as Luther and Calvin proved; at the modern revival as Wesley and Whitfield shewed; and now recently, as Mr. Darby, and I know not who else, proved. The result of this was that one poor man who had preached among the Methodists, and still did at times, went out of his mind, and was in that state for a couple of years from the conflict of feeling, pressed to declare the Lord's love for sinners, and harassed by the thought, as he had been now instructed, that it was wrong for poor men to put themselves forward. The application of the word of God to his soul, in the hands of one who then knew nothing of the circumstances, but who entered into his then state, has happily restored this poor brother.⁺⁺ To finish with Devonport, which was a place exclusively under the care of the Ebrington Street leaders. Since my return those who assumed the lead there arranged an assembly of those they judged elders, that they might recognize and own one another among themselves. Two however of the persons they included declined. A number of the brethren then met to know what was to be done, and this was broken up by authority. A good many left, and the rest, I apprehend, are tolerably peaceful and at liberty. Those who sought to govern all in connection with Ebrington Street having been stated by all who left as the persons whose assumption drove them away, they were withdrawn for the time, and now, I apprehend, go on pretty quietly.⁺⁺⁺

⁺The confirmation by Mr. R.H. does not apply to the words "educated gentleman," but the general idea that God now made use of talent and worked by it, and, as he apprehended it, not in uneducated persons and these statements of Mr. N. were commonly current at that time.

⁺⁺These statements were at first denied, then explained, and then confessed and apologised for. I add this note on account of the last circumstance. The person concerned (a brother, whose integrity no one would dispute) freely forgave Mr. Newton, and thinks no more about it as a wrong to him. But this does not affect the historical state of things, and it is in that way that I bring it forward here. Mr. R.H. declared, when this came to be known, that it was no isolated case, but the constantly inculcated doctrine at that date.

⁺⁺⁺I have some doubt of the stability of this gathering, from what I have heard since, but I do not pretend to know much about it. Others can give more exact details of this than I can, as 1 took no part in it; but I give the substance of what passed, as I had it from the mouths of those concerned; and I myself know many of the facts.

As to Plymouth, there was a constant labour to reduce the meeting to a clerical form, and to invest certain leaders with the sole direction.

This went on in a thousand minute and many private circumstances which it is impossible to detail, which made gracious brethren uneasy, but afforded little or no ground for any specific interference; if it did, there were few or none that dared.

For indeed one of the scarcely intelligible phenomena of the case to me was, the way people were cowed, and heart and conscience disposed of, I know not where; save that the quiet and gracious were oppressed and unhappy. I have remarked that it is the art and skill of some men to turn every conscientious man, every one who cannot or will not become an instrument, into a radical or a schismatic. But it is a sad state of things. I could name persons here that were denounced to us as radicals and busybodies, that I have found when not tortured and harassed in conscience, as quiet, unassuming, happy Christians as possible. Indeed in these cases, it is generally the truest-hearted and the least of a party spirit, who are thus miserable; if they stir, it has that uneasy unhappy character which is thus characterized by those who rule. With such it is only as in a famous Latin passage, when "solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." When they make a solitude around them, they call it peace.

Mr. R.H. has mentioned in his tract some of these circumstances; little by themselves, but together gradually changing the whole character of the meeting. But he has wisely passed over many, many, private ones, which helped largely to alienate him from Ebrington Street.

I may add here, as it was a public one, that he himself was stopped praying in public. How many a gracious person, esteeming himself and his doings of little importance, has yielded in this way, till power was gained to change principles!⁺

But thus things went on. A poor brother gave out a hymn. Nobody would raise it. He felt it, spoke of it in private. The simple were disheartened. They feared to give one out. Whose fault was it? Nobody's, and the point was gained. When tolerably disheartened it went farther: for Mr. Newton himself, at a prayer meeting, got up and went and sat down by the side of a young brother who gave out a hymn, and laid hold of his book. The hymn was, I believe, at last raised, but he was asked if he meant to pray too. The young man left, and goes to a free church, where the gospel is preached. Brethren have been hindered speaking; and not only so, but there is not a person resident at Plymouth who frequented Ebrington Street but (as Mr. R.H. has remarked) knew when it was Mr. Newton's and when Mr. H.'s day: and it became the common language to speak of it so by all, rich and poor; and people took their measures for going accordingly. I speak of Sunday mornings at breaking of bread. Now it may happen that there may be only one habitually able to edify in a body; though it is a sad thing if there be no diversity of gift in a large body. But a regular alternation of two, and if absent a sort of manager left, for so it really was, and the speaking prepared as previously considering the state of the congregation and preparing a discourse (and such was the ground avowedly taken with me as the right thing, when I arrived), is certainly not that dependence on the Spirit which characterized the profession of the brethren. I do not like the expression "going to meet the Spirit," but the devoted brother who used it expresses in it (badly, I think,⁺⁺) the substance of an all-important truth, which those who cavil at it have been assiduously undermining: and, I may add, in such language as I am bold to say no one under the guidance of that Spirit could use, and which expresses real unbelief as to the substance of the matter. The church is the habitation of God through the Spirit. It is by the Holy Ghost God dwells in the church, though He cannot be separated from the Father and the Son. It has been formally, and expressly, denied that the presence of the Holy Ghost should be looked for in the assembly. It has been perhaps affirmed too. And this is one of the sad circumstances, as it strikes me, in Ebrington Street -- not exactly unorthodox teaching, but important truths dealt with in so rash and daring a manner, and the authority of the teacher leant upon for them, and his wildest notions put upon the level of certainty with justification by faith; so that were his authority once shaken there would be danger that no one would know what was certain. It would be scepticism as to everything. So I have seen it with Roman Catholics.

⁺At this moment there are some twelve or twenty persons that take part, who never opened their lips nor ventured to give out a hymn till the separation. Of these I refer to several, even in Ebrington Street, where, since the separation, it has taken place as to speaking, praying, and giving out hymns.

⁺⁺"Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Now the presence of Jesus, though of course in Spirit, implies many associations of heart which His name peculiarly bears, and His authority too as Lord. But when met, the Holy Ghost is the acting power in every ministration which is not mere fleshly worthlessness.

I have myself heard it taught from Hebrews 9: 27, that Christ had to be judged after His death as another man! as it was appointed to men to die, and He was a man. It has been taught that Christ was born under death, being a constituted sinner, and worked His way up to life by His obedience. So on Leviticus 1, that covering sin was not merely by sacrificial atonement making satisfaction for it, but that Christ's devoting Himself, as typified by the burnt-offering, made up by a thing of the like kind for our imperfect devotedness, and what a blessing it was that it should be of the like kind, and so filled up and completed, its defects covered. The statement as to the Holy Ghost was, that they did not look for His presence in the assembly, but for God to be over it to bless it.

I admit that since the question has been raised, it has been stated otherwise. But the explanation recently given, to which I have alluded elsewhere, was, that they went to meet God, not the Holy Ghost; we the Holy Ghost, not God. I leave any sober and intelligent Christian to judge what the state of those must be, as to steady certainty on fundamental truths, who were habitually under this kind of teaching. I have given but specimens; I may add from my own experience that most decided legalism took the place of Christ and grace. I could not have recommended a person about whose soul I was anxious to go there, nor was I singular in this feeling. And these things are urged with all solemnity of the most important fundamental truths. The godliest of the poor happily never understood Mr. Newton at all.

But I return to the history of the circumstances.

When speaking was really impossible for unallowed brethren, some of these read a chapter in the Bible sometimes. This was stopped as hindering the ministry. This happened to three different brethren; to one of them it was one of the ruling sisters who went. The brother, a reserved and blameless brother, was told that he could read his Bible at home, and that he hindered the ministry. He read no more. In another of those cases Mr. Newton himself interfered, and when asked whose ministry had been hindered, and having stated, the brother went to that person, who replied that it had only been hindered by Mr. Newton.

As to the teaching I heard in Ebrington Street from Mr. Newton, the one undeviating object seemed to be to teach differently from what brethren had taught, no matter what, so that it set their teaching aside. This was so marked in many cases as to draw the attention of others besides myself.

And now as to the circumstances connected with rule and authority. It is alleged that we are radicals, and look for democracy. I trust brethren will seek nothing but the guidance of God's blessed Spirit. But what are the facts? There was a meeting from the earliest period called the Friday meeting, where those who laboured habitually among the saints and were occupied with their concerns met to consult together, instead of acting apart or isolatedly; and where many little things, such as arise everywhere, were settled in the fear of God, while what became matters of public discipline were presented to the assembly at large. There may be trouble between brethren happily terminated without the need of shewing them up in public before a whole assembly. If public discipline be needed, then it is clear from scripture the assembly must judge, and act to clear the consciences of all, their own consciences. But then this is a very painful case. However such a meeting there was, and, with the difficulties and trials incident to all things, went on with the confidence of the saints. Latterly, but after the lapse of a good many years, when Capt. H., Sir A.C. and myself were no longer at Plymouth, Mr. Newton absented himself: only, when any case arose on which he had formed an opinion, and wished to interfere, he came down at the close of the meeting, inquired how it was settled, and insisted on its being judged his own way, setting aside what had been done where it did not accord with his mind. Mr. R.H. remonstrated once or twice against this procedure. This was received with great anger by Mr. Newton, and the practice being still followed, Mr. R.H. told Mr. H. that it was idle their meeting if things went on thus, and left. It lingered on awhile and finally closed about two years ago, it being impossible to bring them together again. Mr. H. however laboured at its restoration, but in vain, the following circumstance having occurred. On the occasion of the burial of a poor person on Sunday (which the poor always desire as their attendance is more easy, and which had been disallowed at Ebrington Street), the son of the deceased insisted on it. He came from a distance. Mr. S -- s, who was habitually the resort of the poor in similar cases, sent him to Mr. H. He was away. Mr. S -- s then told him to go and get the grave dug, and on Sunday morning he mentioned it to the assembly at the close of the meeting. Mr. Newton went over to him in great anger and told him it was impossible to go on with him any longer, etc.

On a weekday Mr. Newton sent down Mr. H. to summon Mr. S -- s to the back room of the tractshop where he remained himself.⁺ Mr. S -- s asked what for, and was told to come up to be instructed in the principles on which the meeting was conducted if he did not know them. He declined going. Mr. H. declined going again, and Mr. Newton was obliged to go down himself; and there he told Mr. S -- s that there were those whom God had raised up and given authority to, and his business was to obey. Mr. S -- s asked who they were, and Mr. Newton replied, himself, H., S., and B., and that neither did he recognize Mr. S -- s at all. Mr. S -- s replied, that neither did he recognize Mr. Newton. This closed the attempt to re-establish the Friday meeting. The two brethren S -- s and R -- e were now the objects of every annoyance and dishonour. I found stories against the latter, which were totally false, circulated far and wide, which I knew to have been spread by sisters. These two brethren took care of the money, and paid the expenses, and distributed any allowances to the poor. Mr. Newton insisted on an arrangement, against their remonstrance, which separated the expenses from the poor; and soon after I arrived at Plymouth, it had to be announced that there had been no means of paying for more than a year's gas, and wine for communion for half a year.

Such was the state of things when I arrived, ignorant of all these details, but since my last visit having felt that clericalism and worldly principles had usurped the place of the Spirit of God. I had received no complaint, no letter about it. It was a letter, as I have stated, of Mr. H.'s which shewed me that all barrier was gone against evil which I knew to be at work, but which had been hitherto borne with as individual evil. The tractshop had become a violent party sectarian instrument. It was an institution I always indeed thought objectionable. One tract was sold there shewing how the universal consent of the church was against those who differed from Mr. N. and that it could easily be shewn that those who did were "subverting the first elements of Christianity." This tract had been published on a resolution of the Plymouth teachers, taken after a remonstrance⁺⁺ from some London brethren.⁺⁺⁺

⁺Before I arrived at Plymouth, Mr. H. used to call this room the Chamber of the Inquisition. [Lest this note should identify unduly this name with Mr. Newton, it may be right to state that the name was given to the upper (not the back) room as much through Mr. H.'s use of it for the purpose as Mr. Newton's. Mr. S. went down as well as Mr. H. He stated in the conversation that they were not acting on the principles they began upon: if they were, he should leave. At Exmouth this departure from original principles was avowed by one brother distinctly.]

⁺⁺I do not mean that the remonstrance turned on this sentence. It was, I believe, rather on the earlier part, and practically imputing certain views, and on other points.

⁺⁺⁺'London brethren' should be a London brother. As to the letters only one, which was the material one, was taken about by Mr. Newton. The word 'furnish' is merely meant to convey the fact of their communication.

It has been supposed that it was my sudden arrival which occasioned the feeling and conduct which followed. This is all untruthful pretence. Mr. Newton had ever since my letter to Mr. H. (I have the date from Mr. Newton himself) been labouring to prepare the minds of all he could against me. This I learnt after my arrival. It is only since the London meeting that I have known that Mr. H. had furnished him with my three or four private letters to him, which Mr. N. took about and pressed on people, with his own reasonings, to prove that I was subverting the truth. Mr. H. did it most innocently.

In the letters (which I have not seen since⁺) I apprehend there was nothing. At least the brethren who came down to inquire asked me if there were others than these of the date in question, in which I had said something to Mr. H.: an inquiry of which I could not well tell the meaning till I heard the use that had been made of them (a use which was not confined to Plymouth). Of all this I was happily ignorant when I went there, and desired only in ministry to raise, if God enabled me, the spiritual tone of souls which I felt to be grievously sunk -- I acknowledge I was a poor instrument for it. But the public weekly meetings in Raleigh Street were trebled in spite of all the prejudice raised.

But this is the way the letter-shewing worked. A great many took Mr. Newton's statements as to my views without further inquiry, and at the same time it was based in their subsequent statements on my own letters. If not, distrust was produced, and this was something. Those who were disgusted with this way of getting on were known, and set down and discountenanced as Darbyites.

⁺Since I wrote this, I have seen them, and, though written with the unguardedness of private communications, there is nothing that I can see unscriptural. I suppose brethren thought so too by asking me if that was all.

I leave to others to recount, if they please, the meeting and consultings of the leaders to ensure united opposition to and rejection of me, as I have only known it since the London meeting.⁺ Such there were. I can only mention the facts as they occurred. I went to stay at Mr. R.H.'s the next morning after my arrival. There Mr. Newton came, and I met him cordially in manner, however pained. He sat down at the opposite side of the room, whereon I resumed my seat by the side of one I was speaking to, and Mr. N. after a few words with Mr. R.H., who seated himself beside him, got up and said, Good morning, sir, and went out. Three brethren, Messrs. H., S., and B., then came, or were sent, separately, to ask me what I had come to Plymouth for.⁺⁺

Mr. Newton then wrote me word, that he had met me with intentional coldness, considering I had come as an antagonist to them, but on the report of B. and H., he could walk on peacefully in separate paths. I replied, that I objected to his "having acted very badly towards many beloved brethren, and in the sight of God." He withdrew thereon the former kindly-written note, and applied for names and circumstances. I confess I felt this miserable. He had been writing for six years to every quarter of the globe (Mr. Newton boasted of it at last before the brethren who came), saying, the foundations of Christianity were gone if brethren were listened to; sisters had been employed in copying these letters; tracts had been published, declaring that we all subverted the first elements of Christianity! and he asks for dates and circumstances. I replied, it was the sectarianism and denouncing of brethren I complained of. This, he replied, was a new charge! And, as it involved all the rest at Plymouth in the charge as well as him, he would consult with them about it and meet, but demanded the dates or circumstances of the former charge or its withdrawal. As I well knew, and any one could see, that it was a mere explanation and enlargement of acting badly towards beloved brethren, I declined further communication unless before brethren; the rather as he alluded very incorrectly to past circumstances, and I thought such correspondence very useless. I had his letters declaring the foundations of Christianity were gone, and the tract saying we subverted Christianity, not to mention that there were letters without end written under his influence.

⁺ But in truth, when I think (knowing now something of what passed there) of all the professions and protestations made to me, and how I was assured all was suspicion on my part, and accident without design, if anything had crept in, it is sickening.

⁺⁺I would just ask what, now that I know such a meeting was held to get rid of me, I must think of the statements in the letter to C -- w, that every door was opened to me, and that Mr. Newton would have a decided objection to its being otherwise; though why they should have opened it, if my doctrines subverted Christianity, would be hard to tell. I must add here that Mr. C. declared that the statement as to him (a brother from Ireland) in that letter was not the fact; that he was asked what views he held on prophetic points, and when he replied that he had no fixed views, but was open to receive anything that could be proved to him that then ministry was opened to him.

But there are other circumstances I must now mention because it has been supposed Mr. Newton was charged publicly all at once, and no steps taken, and this has been even much insisted on. Before ever I came to Plymouth, and without any communication with me, Mr. H.Y., who felt equally the sectarianism and that every principle was set aside, had been to Mr. Newton and spoken to him. Mr. Newton answered him with the greatest violence, and declared that we were destroying the fundamentals of Christianity, that he was justified in what he was doing against us, and should continue. Mr. A.P. went also to him just about the time I came, and was met with the same avowed determination to persevere.⁺

To continue, Mr. H. came down to me to say that Mr. Newton would not consent to have a sort of jury formed on him, but that they could have a meeting, to see whether sectarianism had been introduced. I replied, that they would have had no difficulty in having what he called "a jury" on a poor brother, but that I was content to have such a meeting, as I could go and take my part in the inquiry like any one else. He asked me who should go. I said, I suppose Y. and page, as they had been already to Mr. Newton; for the rest, any Mr. Newton wished to bring as his friends. I declined bringing any. I have always avoided the very semblance of party. Subsequently Mr. R.H. desired to come. Mr. N -- r from Jersey, having been conversant with affairs at Plymouth, was there, and Mr. P -- 's brother, and Mr. McA. The rest, thirteen in all besides Mr. Newton and myself, were Mr Newton's friends. Messrs. H., S., B., D., C -- w., J., R., A.P.; C.P., N -- r., R.H., Y., McA. from Exeter.

⁺ It has been already stated that Mr. Newton had been complained of as to these letters by brethren all over the country, and I had been compelled to read them, and had at the instance of others remonstrated with him four years before. Mr. S.'s letter has also been referred to as hewing that it was going on and remonstrated against.

Being called upon to state what I objected to, I said, As an inquiry into sectarianism, any could inquire as well as me, any judgment on Mr. Newton's conduct having been avoided. Being pressed, I began by stating, that what I objected to was the sectarianism (I had previously declared to Mr. H. that I would not enter on the prophetic question as a doctrinal thing; it was a moral question to me).

Mr. Newton broke out in great anger, saying, that he waived all formal objections, that he did seek to make a focus of Plymouth, and that his object was to have union in testimony there against the other brethren (that is, as explained and is evident, their teaching), and that he trusted to have at least Devonshire and Somersetshire under his influence for the purpose; and that it was not the first time that I had thwarted and spoiled his plans.

After this declaration, I produced of course no proofs, and Messrs. Y. and page said, that they had no need to state anything that passed, as Mr. Newton had declared his object as plainly as they could have alleged it. I called upon the brethren to say, If this was what Plymouth was to be, as, if it was, I should not go next Sunday. Mr. Newton said I had no right to ask that: it was his own affair, and he should go on with it. I however persevered. Mr. H. said, this made it difficult for him to act with Mr. Newton, as he could not seek union against anything. None other stated his feelings on the subject.⁺ It was arranged, that those present should meet, to know what were the heresies which made such a course as Mr. Newton's desirable. There were two meetings, at which I attended as desired, and stated my views. Some there said, the mountains were molehills; but Mr. Newton declared he was farther apart than ever; and that the differences were fundamental.

Mr. H. had interviews with Mr. Newton on the subject of the union in testimony, against the teaching of the brethren. He obtained from Mr. Newton the statement, that it would be an object, not the object, of his labours; with which he, Mr. H., was much delighted, as a means of peace. To me it was the proof of deliberate perseverance in a pursuit which anger had disclosed. Subsequently Mr. D. and Mr. H. obtained verbally from him, that his statement was objectionable, if taken irrelatively. But there was no explanation of this, but an unauthorized one by Mr. D., that Mr. Newton would go on with "brethren" on other points, but continue his own pursuit of the avowed object. I was dismayed, not at the existence of the evil, but at the utter insensibility to such a statement, the only thought of most being to save, not the church, but Mr. Newton from its effects; and all silent (save what I have stated). But on Mr. A.P. saying that brethren ought to say what they felt, Mr. B. replied, You may ask me, but I will not answer you. When I had asked at first, whether brethren acquiesced in this statement, Mr. Newton (as I have mentioned) interfered instantly, and said I had no right to put such a question. At the close of the last meeting, which was to know whether there was any disavowal of it, and at which the term "taken irrelatively," was discussed, Mr. R. indeed asked Mr. N -- r why he said nothing, and he said he was a stranger, and Mr. R. excused himself on the same ground.

⁺This silence was subsequently taken notice of, and by some as matter of self-reproach.

I left for Somersetshire to leave time for those less obnoxious to Mr. Newton than I, to obtain some disavowal of the purpose -- the "objectionable if taken irrelatively" was all that could be obtained. I then stated that perhaps I had better leave and ask for Raleigh Street. Mr. R. said that very great good had been done, that I ought to be uncommonly thankful, and urged me not to press any further disavowal then, lest it should produce a rupture with Mr. Newton, but wait and see. I said it was a sorrowful position to be in, but it was all that I was then doing, and acquiesced in the wish, and I continued to minister on the general topics of the grace of the Lord Jesus.

But I must now relate what my journey to Somersetshire further opened to me. I went there, quite unconscious of it all, to evangelize where none of these questions were. These circumstances were important as to Plymouth, as unfolding the working of the plan there. As at Plymouth they treated what wonderfully blessed new light they had got as to their church position, so here it was taught that, as the brethren had first learnt brotherly unity and fellowship, now they had been, as fresh instruction, led to church order. This church order was the authority of the teachers, who were exclusively to judge of, and recognize or the contrary, others as teachers.⁺ This was founded on "Let the rest [others] judge," in 1 Corinthians 14: 29. This was said to be the prophets, to which the teachers now answered. They were to try, and approve or not, of a person's being a teacher. Mr. Newton had gone up and held a tea meeting there and expounded this. This came to such a pitch in these quarters that one brother, on these points being mooted, having urged that after all the Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they searched the scriptures whether these things were so, he was answered by a young, and, as far as I know, very nice-hearted young man who was associated in the ministry there, that it was Jews searching Jewish scriptures, but that, now that God had raised up teachers and given gifts, all that was changed, and they must listen to the teachers. The brother replied, Surely, sir, if Jews searched Jewish scriptures, Christians may search Christian ones. It was there taught by Mr. Newton, that Puseyism was the devil's imitation of a truth, and that, if brethren did not adopt it, God would set it up elsewhere. It was stated at Plymouth, at the close of these matters, on the question as to judging in the church, that the teachers were the representatives of the church, and that they were to decide, and the church to act on their decision. This may be and probably has been denied; but I know it to be true, and to have been stated as well since, as before all the debate about it. As to the explanation of the chapter there can be no doubt about it; not only because it was urged upon me and numbers of other persons; but even before I arrived, H. had objected to this interpretation, on the ground that it could not be approving and sanctioning teachers, for it was the teaching that was to be judged; and the person was assumed on their own shewing to be a prophet already. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

⁺The doctrine decidedly taught there was that the Holy Ghost, who was sovereign, wrought in the body by members, and that these members were the gifted teachers. I am aware that the five brethren who signed the circular letter say, "we do not hold that the Holy Spirit resides only in the teachers." I am aware they do not. But they did teach that it was by gifted members He acted in the body, that is, by teachers. And every one knows, that anyone's taking a part in the meeting as led of the Spirit to do so was denounced as "impulse." Moreover I know that, since this has been under press, it has been pressed at Plymouth, that it was by instruments prepared before they went to the meeting that God acted in it. And long ago, when praying and hymns were urged as not being gifts, it was admitted, but answered that only gifted persons would take part in either. It will be remarked in the statement referred to, that it is carefully avoided saying, that the Holy Spirit acts in the assembly. But on this hereafter.

At Exmouth the principles were sought to be introduced first, rather roughly by one, and then more prudently by another; but the first person alluded to, acting on the principle, excommunicated a person on his own authority. He had withdrawn because the principles were abandoned, and it was asserted that no one could leave the church, and he was excommunicated. I know it has been sought to shew that this met the mind of others. Some may very likely have been under the influence of the same principles, so that I should not deny this in a measure; but the excommunication was refused to be received by two bodies of the brethren, and at last the most of the other brethren at Exmouth took courage and restored him.

It is alleged that government and order are rejected. But let it be remembered that it was Mr. N. who deserted and broke up the Friday meeting, a point on which we shall see more just now. And, as to the brethren who laboured according to what was given them as servants of all to administer and guide as helpers of the body, Mr. B. in the counties I here refer to (and he acted on the same principle elsewhere) urged that five ciphers never could make one, a statement which 'became such an accredited one that it was repeated elsewhere by another as original; so that I was very near getting into a scrape by attributing it to him before those who had heard it from another. The excellent answer of a brother in those parts then was that, if the Spirit of God was there as one before them, the five ciphers would be 100,000.

All this be it remembered had happened before I came back to England. Mr. B. himself urged the point on me soon after I came. Yet, when things began to come out, it was repeatedly urged upon me, that some things had happened as accidents, but that there was no plan nor principle in it. It closed at Wellington by some of the leading brethren stating to Mr. Newton (in what terms I do not pretend to know) that they could not be distracted by these proceedings any more.

Mr. H. went to Ireland and was very happy there with the brethren who were the great objects of Plymouth denouncement.⁺ This, after the open avowal of sectarian objects at the April meeting, I have no doubt acted greatly on his mind. At his return he spoke in the way of admonition. Such a party spirit blazed out against him, that I ceased ministering for a time. However, they seemed softened, and I began again. Mr. H. then laboured again at setting up the Friday meeting; as, except the few things Mr. N. wished to govern, which had now to be more cautiously done too, all common matters were in disorder. If it was a funeral, no one knew rightly what to do, nor a person wishing for communion; and he felt bound too to those who had been practically ousted. But he could do nothing.

⁺At the April meeting of 15 when I referred to the sisters' letter-writing, denouncing the Irish brethren, I was challenged to prove it and produce instances. Of course, though I knew of it in every quarter, the letters were not to me, and I had none of them. But a brother who was there stated he had seen the letters -- some that is, of course, and that in them 'heretic' was too good for the Irish brethren.

At this time appeared the two documents upon which the famous question of the charges arose. Mr. C -- w had printed a letter written to him by Mr. Newton to give an account of the April meeting of 15 -- both having been there. Mr. S. got it suppressed as soon as he saw it, but Mr. N. himself subsequently circulated it again. This (though so bad and sectarian, that some brethren counted it as bad as what was said) is, confessedly now, not a true account of the meeting. This rests not only on (besides myself) the testimony of Mr. H., N -- r, McA., and many others, but Mr. R. (who, the most openly of all, took the part of Mr. Newton, and was cross-examined at length by Lord C. to get some modification of his testimony) persisted in the same account as myself. The only modification was that, instead of saying that he trusted he should have at least Devonshire and Somersetshire under his influence for the purpose, he understood him to say, that wherever he could get influence in Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall, he should seek to do the same thing. Mr. N. himself at last said, as I understood, that as everybody said he did, he supposed he did say as alleged. Lord C. at last asked Mr. R. whether, if he had read that paper, he should say it was an untrue account of the meeting. He replied he must, but that Mr. N. was so angry (so chafed, I believe, was the word) that he did not think he ought to be charged with what he did say. This passed in my room when the brethren who came to inquire came to examine me.⁺

⁺ Mr. Newton declares in his letter to Cw that every door of ministry was thrown open to me, and that he should have decidedly objected to its being otherwise. At the time he says this was so, was assiduously insisting that we denied the Gospels, redemption through the blood as to some, life in the Old Testament saints; and that the fundamentals of Christianity were in question. Can anyone give credit to these things together? It is a mystery, I confess, to me, how Mr. H., who knew of the meeting held to arrange united opposition to me, could have got on at all after this letter was published. He did go to Mr. N. to speak to him about it, telling him he regretted it for his own credit and character, as he (Mr. H.) must say (if asked) that it was true; but I confess I do not see how common action is to go on in such a case.

The other thing which formed the subject of charge was this. Mr. Newton published the first letter of the five, which had been circulating six years in MS., denouncing the brethren, with the following advertisement: "The following letter was written some years ago, in reply to the inquiries of a friend, who resides in Norfolk. It is now published with some omissions and alterations, but in substance it remains the same." What was my astonishment to find, on comparing it, that a quarter nearly of the printed matter was not in the MS. letter at all; partly mixed up, but chiefly added at the end; and that the new matter consisted of reasonings against the doctrines he was charged with holding now as to the authority of teachers. So that these charges appeared most wanton and unfounded, inasmuch as six years ago the person charged had actually written against the things he now was charged with. This is all woven in at the end of the letter, so as to form part of it.

I had been already pretty well disgusted with diplomacy and special pleading, but this was too much for me. I said to H. and S. I did not know what to do, and ceased ministering. But I still went down to the room, and sat in the crowd at communion, and went to villages to preach. I was greatly exercised about leaving -- prayed much; and at last it occurred to me that, if the Friday meeting were set up again, these things might be inquired into there, and the body hindered from being responsible for it, or God might lead to some remedy, though humanly speaking it was a forlorn hope. But I said, I will not leave till I have tried all. I spoke to Mr. H., and he said he had twice tried, and it was no use.

I then spoke to Mr. S. He said there ought to be such a thing -- it was absolutely necessary, but that he could take no step in it, as it would produce a rupture with Mr. N., as he would have nobody but the persons he approved of. I asked if everything was to be sacrificed to the caprice of an individual. In another interview Mr. S. said he had spoken to Mr. B., and referred to a particular brother as objectionable, not the one who had been chiefly obnoxious before. As to him Mr. S. said he must be of the Friday meeting. I said I should object seriously to some that thought themselves unquestionably entitled; but though I had difficulties as to some most looked up to, and which I could justify by Mr. S.'s own statements, I was content to waive them, and take them as they had been together.⁺ Meeting him a third time, I found nothing was done, and I told him I must then act on my own conscience. Again I thought of leaving, when it occurred to me, that still I ought not to charge the whole body with the matter, when it was only some party leaders and their followers that had yet been dealt with.

I therefore begged the assembly to stop after the service one Sunday morning, and told them that Mr. H. having laboured to restore the Friday meeting, things being in disorder or dealt with summarily and irresponsibly by one or two, I had pressed the point on those more immediately concerned, but to no purpose; I now laid it on the consciences of the saints themselves. Mr. H. was at this time absent, and Mr. W. H -- n wrote to him that I had sought to turn the meeting into a dissenting body,⁺⁺ but that nobody thought it worth taking the least notice of, and that it had dropped to the ground. This letter, I know, contributed very greatly to the emancipation of Mr. H.'s mind from the bondage it was under.

I then went to Jersey, etc., to give all the fullest time to consider the matter. As Mr. H -- n stated truly, not one stirred. The fact is, while I attempted to heal or remedy, and walk with the evil, God, though He sustained me, never (after the April meeting) gave any efficacy to a step I took. I do not doubt I ought to have left then, or brought it publicly before all the brethren. I did not do so at the instance of Mr. R., Mr. Y., and some others. I can only sorrow now I was not more decided. The case would have been infinitely simpler, but God graciously overrules all. But no brother could have expected me to have stayed to have made Plymouth a focus, and join in helping a union in testimony against myself, not to speak of other brethren. It has been asked why I did not go on and teach at Plymouth. I answer, I did. Why did I not bring it before the leading brethren there to be remedied? They had been broken up, and their meeting was refused. Mr. Newton would not hear of it from any one. He had claimed, as already related, sole authority for himself and three or four others he had approved.

⁺At this time Mr. S. spoke most freely on all these points, taking a sort of independent place. I think it better not to repeat what he said to me as to people, but merely relate the facts.

⁺⁺It is objected that the statement as to Mr. W. H -- n's letter is rather too strong; that he blamed my act as being rather a dissenter's principle to bring it before the whole assembly.

But I must now turn to some other collateral minor facts which entered into this miserable history.

An aged person, whom it is needless to name, who had long been opposed to and kept aloof from brethren, who himself preached, but whose congregation had died away, came into communion and began to minister on Sunday morning. He did not do so, strange to say, in general, when Mr. Newton was not there; at least when I was. I cannot answer for other occasions. But I heard him on week evenings. Though there was nothing unorthodox or wrong in his teaching, yet I did not at all think he was led of the Spirit of God in it, and when he came to speak to me about these things afterwards, I told him so. I was not at Plymouth when he joined, but I told Mr. H. I thought his joining was, under the circumstances, a chastisement; but if they put away the chastisement instead of the thing they were chastised for, they would have worse. Mr. H. spoke to him with no adequate effect at any rate. But Mr. B. one Sunday morning, being left (practically) in charge of the meeting as was customary, the other chief leaders being absent, the old gentleman got up to speak while the alms box was going round after the communion. Mr. B. pulled him back to his seat by the tail of his coat, and on the return of the box closed the meeting. A brother, well known and esteemed, long suffering under the state of things, remonstrated; and another urging, just after when the first was not listened to, that the first had said that if this went on he must leave, Mr. B. replied, Let him.

This person however was not to be daunted by this; and one day, when he got up to speak at the Sunday morning meeting, the sisters tried to put him down by scraping with their feet. At this period I sat among the communicants, taking no part in general publicly in the service, though I once said something on a week evening. I was quiescent. That Sunday I was present. The next I was not, and then, as he rose to speak again, the sisters and some brethren began leaving, and before the close of the meeting one sister came and patted him on the back and told him, if he went on that way, all would leave. The Sunday following, before the brother who broke bread reached his seat to sit down, Mr. N. jumped up so as to prevent anyone's speaking.⁺

⁺ I was informed by several brethren that this was constantly the practice. I speak of what I saw.

During the week I spoke to Mr. S., and said that it was impossible that all this could go on. He replied that it was very bad, it was regular jockeyship. I called his attention to his expression, and what would be said of me if I had used it. He repeated, Well, I say it again, it was regular jockeyship. I said, Do you feel the force of what you are saying? If the presence of God is thought of in the meeting, what jockeyship would be there? All this passed previously, and partly led to my putting the re-establishment of the Friday meeting on the consciences of the brethren at large. The present result was that Mr. Newton took Mr. H. and S. and silenced the person referred to, who left the meeting. No notice was taken of the means used to put him down in the meeting. I could not help feeling that all this was allowed of God as a humbling test of the state of things.

I now turn to another circumstance which occurred about this time. A brother, known at Plymouth (where the facts also are known, but whom I shall not name, as what I am about to relate is sad enough), rose up and spoke in the assembly after a hymn referring to the cross. He had never, I believe, spoken in the assembly, but had preached in villages. He was (I did not know him before this, but as far as I can give any testimony) a truly upright godly person, respected by those who knew him. It was a sad instance of Plymouth ways. He spoke a little nervously in manner, but gave a godly and useful exhortation on really crucifying self if we celebrated the cross, and then pressed the evil of aiming at any importance for oneself. I asked Mr. H. who it was as we went out. He said, He is a godly humble man, but it will make a proper hubbub, and he will catch it, or some such expression. He was accordingly immediately set at, so as to be effectually dismayed. Nor was there one, as is well-known at Plymouth, who spoke more strongly (unless perhaps one other not there now) against the kind of tyranny which was practised there, and the hindrance of all liberty in ministry or otherwise taking part in the meeting.

Mr. Newton went to Mr. H. the next morning, and pressed him as to what he was going to do as to the brother's speaking. Mr. H. declaring he had no intention to do anything, Mr. N. pressed the matter, that this brother was not fit to minister, and that it was a sin against the order of God's church for which he had been sweating his soul for the last twelve years.⁺ Mr. H. declined. However he had been quite sufficiently cowed by other means used already. How did this history close? This brother, a respectable godly man, for such he has been ever esteemed, had given up a place of confidential warehouseman in the town, I believe conscientiously from the nature of the employment, and waited to see what would turn up. He was given⁺⁺ a weekly allowance, sent out to preach, and began to speak in the meetings.⁺⁺⁺ In one of the meetings held by Mr. Newton by invitation to explain things, after the brethren who came to inquire were gone, this brother stood up and testified that he never had been hindered,⁺⁺⁺⁺ but always encouraged to speak, Mr. Newton and Mr. S., who knew all that had passed, sitting by.

⁺If anyone knew all the pains taken to persuade me that, if there were evils they were unintentional accidents, they would be surprised. This was not the only occasion on which Mr. N. made use of this same expression.

⁺⁺Since writing this, the state of things here related has ceased to exist; and the brother, whose godliness none called in question, not only has employment of his own, but his conscience, I apprehend, better informed as to many facts, is out of the snare that he was in. But I have had no communication with him. It is not his path I refer to, though he may have been caught unawares in the snare; it is that of those who were active in the matter -- the system.

⁺⁺⁺As regards the brother alluded to, whom I have seen since the publication of this narrative, he assures me that the supplies which he received he did not receive as a fixed weekly sum; and that as to the villages in which he went to preach, he went at the request of those to whom they had been previously allotted, and did not consider himself sent by the leaders of Ebrington Street. I may add, that he has since ceased speaking in Ebrington Street.

⁺⁺⁺⁺The reader must remember that he did not know what had passed between Mr. Newton and Mr. H.; but he certainly was inconsistent in this, that no one had spoken more plainly as to the hindrances there were.

Having gone through this collateral subject, I return to the general narrative. After some time I returned from Jersey, my mind much tried about leaving, but my conscience allowing me no longer to stay. I arrived Saturday and had no wish to act in a hurry. On Sunday week I detained the assembly and told them it was a matter of the deepest sorrow, but that I was going to quit the assembly; I felt it impossible to enter into details. It would have been a string of miserable facts, the public ones of which have been detailed here, and practically an accusation of others. I therefore refrained from them entirely, and only stated the principles on which I went: that I felt God was practically displaced; and more particularly, that there was a subversion of the principles on which we met; that there was evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged; and, as a collateral point, that the Friday meeting, which was a means of inquiry and service, had been suppressed and refused to be restored, so that the remedy for much was taken away. I then left the assembly.

Mr. H. returned that week or the next, and, having communicated the day to Messrs. S -- s and R -- e, gave on Friday his reasons for declining ministering any more.⁺ I had had no communication with him. Messrs. S -- s and R -- e had told him that they should gather the brethren to see what was to be done about his leaving. Accordingly, at the close of his address on Friday, Mr. Re proposed their meeting on Monday to see if anything could be done or what. Mr. S -- s got up and said it would be well at the same time if I was called upon to say why I left. I was not present, being no longer of Ebrington Street. It was communicated to me afterwards.

Accordingly on Monday, after they had spoken of Mr. H., and prayed without any definite proposal or result, I was sent for to give an account to the brethren why I had left. Every engine had been meanwhile set in motion to hinder any coming. It was called a sin to go, because it was not called by the authorities in the church. The sisters held meetings in their districts for the purpose. It was denounced as "an electioneering meeting," etc. About two or three hundred however assembled there. I stated my reasons, and, I can humbly say, with the presence of the Lord and in grace towards all; so that I know one very dear brother still in Ebrington Street went to Mr. S. and told him all would be well from the spirit in which I had spoken. It was at that assembly that I stated, in the narrative I gave, that the two printed tracts already referred to had stopped my ministering three months before my leaving. I brought no accusation against Mr. Newton in general at all. So far from it that facts, many many facts, which I thought much worse of I did not allude to, because they had nothing to do with my leaving. These had stopped my ministering, and I stated them.

⁺The meeting held after Mr. H.'s return, at which he explained his reasons for ceasing to minister, was at the instance of other brethren, not at the suggestion of Mr. H.

I shall just now state one of the other facts, because it also was one of the most public points in the affair. The rest I shall pass by. But I will first close the matter of the meeting. As to the appendix and the letters, I stated that the first thing that made me uncomfortable was the circulation of three out of the five letters which had been sent forth against the brethren, with an appendix which related to the last two given at the end of the third and professing to relate to the first, while much related to the two last which were not there. Mr. Newton was not mentioned in this statement; though, as Mr. N -- r remarked, he being connected with this part of the subject, it would naturally be referred to him, which so far is true. I did not mean to appropriate particularly the measure of wrong, as I knew the copy I had was in a sister's handwriting. It has been alleged (and Mr. Newton made it a public charge at a meeting he held after the brethren were gone) that I stated he had altered the letters, and that I stated he had altered them after I had been told he had not, and a great fuss was made about it. A Miss H., it was said, had been authorised to say he had not. Miss H.'s statement made to me by letter is totally incorrect.⁺ Of this I have absolute proof. I never said the letters were altered. Had they been, it would have been no sort of subject of complaint. Mr. Newton had a perfect right to alter them if he pleased. Had I anything to complain of in this respect, it was that they were not altered; for they are full of the grossest calumnies against the brethren. Mr. N. had been remonstrated with about them; and in them brethren are called upon to have a categorical answer from any who teach, whether they agree with Mr. N.'s views on Matthew 24. What I spoke of was the suppression of the two last, and the adding the appendix which referred to them.⁺⁺ This was the fact. All I said of it was that it was the first thing which made me uncomfortable, without any other charge whatever. The fact of the last two letters not being there was stated, and so it was.

⁺In saying this I have no doubt whatever of her entire uprightness, I merely state the fact.

⁺⁺This itself was a publication of my private letter without communicating with me, but of the unsuitableness of this Mr. N. has no sense, and there I must leave it. It has been repeated in other cases and in much worse circumstances.

Subsequently to this, the sister who had copied it sent for me to explain this, and of course I received all she said. I have published the statement elsewhere. I shall here say why I used the word "probably," because I could not honestly use any other. This sister put a copy of the letters (she was one of those employed to copy and circulate them) into my hand, and I observed that the three letters were there together also, and not the two last. This I noticed to her and said, Perhaps you copied them in two books, and that may account for it. She replied, Yes, I did so to give it to two to read at a time. This I of course accepted. But the sister added, that the reason the appendix was added at the end of the third, though it belonged to the first, was, that the letters were already written, and that she was obliged to put the appendix and notes in a space at the end. Now in my copy, written by this sister, this was not the case. The notes, which are very long, are all in their respective places. And therefore, though I let all this drop as utterly immaterial, I could (when urged to give the account) only say, the presence of the appendix there was probably accounted for; because, though I gave credit to this sister fully in what she said, it did not tally with the facts as to my copy in which the circumstance was to be accounted for.

As to changing the letters, not only would this have been no charge whatever (for what should hinder my altering my writings in a new edition?) but though Mr. N. made this a public charge among his own party at the meetings he held, that I had accused him of it after an authorised denial, and this was spread far and wide, he did not think of making it to me. I have his written authorized complaint, presented at his request by four of his friends, and there is not a word Of that; but only of what I have stated, the absence of the last two letters; the other, so publicly charged and widely circulated, was not ventured on in the account he gave of the charges he complained of in the communication with me on the subject.

Being now fairly out, and Mr. H. having declined further ministry, I received a letter from Mr. L.P -- r urging me to assemble a number of the leading brethren to see into it before I broke bread elsewhere. At the same time I received a letter from Capt. H. pressing on me the misery of a second table. I wrote two letters to Mr. P -- r, stating in general, what led me to it, and saying that, if he felt as he said, he had better come himself. I wrote to Capt. H. to say I felt as sorrowfully about a second table as he could do, but it was a question with me of having any, not of a second; and, further, that I did not ask him to come as he had been considered hostile to Mr. Newton's views, but that if H -- y or any of the brethren they thought right at Hereford came, they could judge of the grounds. No one came thence. I communicated to Lord C. what I had done, and said I did not ask W. as he was considered an adversary to Mr. Newton. I communicated it also to Sir A.C. Mr. P -- r, who brought with him C., Lord C., and Sir A.C., with whom was Mr. McA., came. Mr. N. or Mr. S. sent for Mr. N.'s friends.

In result there were Messrs. McA., C., P -- r, W., R., R -- s, M -- s, N -- r, who arrived from Jersey at that time to let his house, Mr. M., Lord C., and Mr. W -- r, who left early before the inquiry (I understood through the illness of his child). There is one fact I will notice here, that all who were not, and did not come as avowed partisans of Mr. Newton, declined breaking bread⁺ any longer in Ebrington Street; that is, Mr. McA., Sir A.C., P -- r., C., W.: I am not sure whether Mr. N -- r avowed it as the others, but I believe there is no doubt of his judgment of the matter.

And allow me to ask a question here. Sir A.C. declares he cannot break bread there, and leaves Plymouth. Mr. McA. does so and leaves Plymouth; Messrs. C. and P -- r the same. What were people to do who had come to the same conclusion in conscience, and that from much longer and fuller evidence, but who had shops and children at Plymouth, and could not leave? I could have left, but I should have failed in faithfulness to those brethren had I done so. The others had other places perhaps that claimed them; I was free.

⁺I am warned that this might seem to say that they did not break bread at all. This is not at all the meaning. "Any longer" refers to after their investigation of the matter, which gives it indeed its whole importance.

I will now mention another circumstance, which though it were a publication subsequent to my leaving so that it did not influence it, did influence any thought of my subsequent return, or recognition of Mr. Newton in ministry. Mr. N., previous to the Clifton meeting, had taught assiduously in public and in private that the Old Testament saints had not the new spiritual life; that the Holy Ghost had indeed acted on them as men in the flesh, but the new life was not communicated to them. This, which was Lord C.'s account before the brethren, confirmed by Sir A.C.'s testimony, was what I had in a general form spoken about at the April meeting; that is, that they had not life. Other persons, whom it is not necessary to name, had full recollection of it. And Mr. N. does not now deny it, brethren having spoken to him on the subject. This at the time made me very uneasy. Mr. H. was very near being led by Mr. N. into it; but I spoke with him and he was preserved from it.⁺ I spoke to Mr. N. at the Clifton meeting about it in Mr. H.'s presence, and he gave it up.

When at the April meeting Mr. N. was stating why he must pursue his purpose of seeking united testimony against us, he urged the notion that there might be a difference in the circumstances of glory in the kingdom between the Old and New Testament saints. I demanded how he could be so violent as to a supposition that there might be such a difference, which was after all a settled idea of no one that I knew, when he had held and taught that they had not life. He replied, That is false. I said I knew it was not; but what had he taught? He said, That they had not the new creature. I said, I know I am right, but be it as you say. He replied, But I did not say they would not have it in another world. I said with astonishment, Well! this is a new kind of life-giving purgatory. They lived a life of faith without the new creature, and get it after their death. He replied, No, they may get it at the instant of dying.⁺⁺ I left it there. This conversation is referred to in the publication I now proceed to mention. It had been very widely circulated, as every one knows at Plymouth and elsewhere, among rich and poor, that we denied that the Old Testament saints had life. This, and that I denied that redemption through the blood as to many, took away the Gospels, Hebrews, and Revelation, from the church, was the constant and assiduous charge by all the leaders at Plymouth, and still continues to be so.⁺⁺⁺ I left them to destroy themselves, which in every upright mind they soon did.

⁺The reader will kindly efface from "Mr. H." to "from it." The circumstance alluded to, does not properly connect itself with this point.

⁺⁺To Mr. C., when the brethren were here, he stated that he always held at that time that they would receive it at the resurrection.

⁺⁺⁺Instances have happened while printing this narrative.

At the time however I now speak of, Mr. N. published a second letter on my Examination. In this, in the coolest and most deliberate way, he charges us, and me particularly, with the doctrine which he, and he alone, taught, and says that, as people's minds are exercised about it, I ought to explain myself on it. There is not even the excuse, itself absurd enough, that though he had been brought out of it by those he charged with it, they had themselves fallen into and propagated it afterwards; because, in the publication in which the charge is, he alludes to the discussion held about it in April. The brethren P -- e and M -- l asked him as to this when I began to break bread. He stated that he had held as was stated, and that he was wrong; but that he had never charged us with holding difference in life, but only in glory. Every one at Plymouth knows whether this was true or not, but there is only need of appeal to the second letter itself (page 17), where he says that it is no wonder we hold difference in glory, seeing we suppose difference in life. I must leave to every one to estimate the cool manner, and apparent zeal for the truth, with which this charge is made in the letter.

To proceed to what took place when the brethren came down. Lord C., Mr. M., and Mr. Wr arrived, Mr. W. and Sir A.C. about the same time; the others shortly after. Mr. N. had a very long interview at the Dispensary at Plymouth, with Lord C., Mr. M., and W -- r, and with a physician of Plymouth, who sent a jointly signed letter to me, to name four persons along with Mr. Newton's four to inquire into the charges I had made. I replied that I should not name any four persons; that the matter was an affair of conscience before the church of God (the most of it had already been first before 15, and then about 300 persons). I thought it a worldly way of settling it. Nor can I yet see that, when a person is charged with sin in the church, it is a scriptural way that he should name four persons to investigate it, and the one who has charged him four more. Indeed I was justified in this by every spiritual person I know before whom it came. I shewed it to Mr. H. and Mr. McA. then arrived, and they said, What is the good for us of four people inquiring into this when we were there? Their report could not affect our judgment. However, I only declined having four on my side. I said that I was quite ready to meet the inquiry, that I would meet the four friends of Mr. N. individually, or all four together, and tell them everything, or I would go before the whole body, or (if a limited number were thought more suited to investigate) I was content it should be done in that way, or Mr. N.'s friends might reassemble the 15 who met in April, or if Mr. N. chose to take it up as a personal wrong (which is what in fact he complained of), he could follow the scriptural rule in that case.

All I demanded was that it should be fully inquired into before the church of God. I mentioned that the statement of the charges themselves was inaccurate. I received for answer that it was not a matter of conscience but of fact; that they had expected to receive a withdrawal of the charges, or an acceptance of their proposal; that it was evident I was not prepared to substantiate them, and that they therefore treated my statements as unworthy of credit, and had given a copy of the letter to Mr. Newton to do as he pleased with; that bringing it before a public assembly was repeating the grievance, and that Matthew 18 did not apply, because it was a wrong done in public. They had never been near me at all (save Lord C., and with him there was nothing to say to this). They had never asked me what my charges were; and they had never asked a word of five or six brethren present at the April meeting, then in or near Plymouth, not partisans of Mr. N., that is, Messrs. H., C.P., McA., N -- r, R.H. I replied that I was sorry some I loved had put themselves in such a position, and begged for a copy of my letter, which, as writing to brethren, I had not kept.

It is not for me to state all that the inquiring brethren did, for I stayed perfectly quiet. I can only allude to some facts. They came to me once. Mr. N. was so anxious about his character that they had difficulty in getting at the question of principle, which all pretty much agreed, with more or less decision of conviction, had been departed from -- some most decidedly who had not before suspected it. The facts were proved which I had charged. Indeed, as to one there was only to compare the publication professing to be the letter six years ago, and the MS. The testimony as to what passed at the April meeting, was such that Mr. N. himself at last, said, he supposed he must have said what I stated, as all said so.

Here I would only remark as to the complaint of not going to Mr. Newton about it, that he had been gone to about it. Mr. Newton held no communication with me at the time. When the brethren urged me to wait in April, and grace and patience were to be continued, I went to call on Mr. Newton, and, not finding him, told him I had; but he never came to see me nor renewed any intercourse. I did not therefore go to him about it; it was indeed no wrong done to me, but Mr. H. and Mr N -- r did, and both told him that his account was an untrue one; and, in spite of this, he himself continued to circulate it, before even I brought it before the brethren, and that I never did (having mentioned it only to Messrs. H. and S.) till demanded my reasons for leaving.

However Mr. N. assembled by invitation the brethren who came from a distance at the house of one of his strongest partisans, to give his statements.⁺ Some demurred to this as not the fitting thing. Sir A.C., Mr. McA., and Mr. W. one evening would not go (I know not that they ever attended such an one). Mr. Nr urged they should, as statements and impressions might be made of which they would be unable to judge; but they would not. Mr. Nr went; Mr. N. sent out Mr. C -- w to hinder his coming in, and declared he would state nothing at all if he were present; and he had to go away. Mr. Nr went to Mr. Newton's the next day to know why, being one of the persons in the invitation, he was thus treated. Mr. Newton turned him (very civilly) out of his house, and told him that he did not want to have anything to say to him.⁺⁺ Mr. McA. was soon convinced that all was wrong. He lodged in the house where Mr. H. lived.⁺⁺⁺ Mr. Newton met him, and said to him, Mr. McA. I should like to know on what ground you are here: you are in very suspicious quarters; and declared with very great violence, that if he believed one of the charges⁺⁺⁺⁺ brought against him, he would have nothing more to say to him.

⁺At the moment of this meeting, Sir A.C. was not, I believe, in Plymouth

⁺⁺Mr. N -- r had been here before the other brethren, and had gone among the Ebrington Street people. They had as usual made all kinds of statements to him, but instead of taking their truth for granted as most have done (and no wonder) he had inquired in detail, and found many things to be wholly untrue; and hence he was very obnoxious.

⁺⁺⁺It is suggested that I should insert that I lodged in the house. Mr. McA. was not, however, with me, but in Mr. H.'s apartment Suspicious quarters may be corrected by "renders you liable to suspicion." Mr. Newton's friends who had come, were guests among his friends at Plymouth, which no one of course thought of calling in question, nor would it be noticed now but for the insertion of this correction, as explaining the force of the remark.

⁺⁺⁺⁺Delete "one of," and read simply "the charges."

There is one other important fact which I mention, as it bears on other points, such as the truth of Sir A.C.'s statements so publicly and carefully denied.⁺ At Mr. N.'s first meeting with the brethren, before he made his statement he declared to them that if they came to meddle in Plymouth affairs he would tell them nothing at all. If they came to inform themselves, he could go on, and on this ground he continued. I may here add what is more important, that at their last meeting Mr. Newton (having had now months to consider, and many meetings to see the bearing of things, and his statement in April discussed) stated that his object would be to produce in every gathering united hostility to the brethren's teaching who differed from him on the points discussed.

Several efforts were made by Mr. Newton and his friends to obtain a vindication of his character from the charges, which issued in nothing, as several declined signing them for different reasons: not merely because they were not satisfied, but because they felt that the church ought to judge such a case. This was the feeling of many or most of the brethren who came, even of those who were more particularly friends of Mr. Newton, as of all the rest. I will recur to this as a very material point, but to close the narrative as to vindication. After the refusal, for whatever reasons, of a joint signature of such justification, five brethren in order to settle this point, agreed to sign a paper, which was in fact printed with their signatures, Sir A.C., Lord C., Mr. R., C., and P -- r. Some refused, and I think I am authorized in saying that Mr. P -- r was glad when the paper was withdrawn, as being more favourable than his conscience really permitted. It stated that Mr. Newton had read a paper which convinced them that he had no evil motive in the papers on which the charges were founded, but that he had given occasion to them by what he had printed. Before the document appeared, Mr. Newton came with Mr. D. and declared in great earnestness that he was ruined if this came out, and that he should go to Canada. It was accordingly suppressed.

⁺It has been attempted to modify this denial. Any one conversant with the poor at Plymouth knows that the tracts of Sir A.C. being found to act on their consciences, it was publicly and privately declared to be entirely false, and by the secondary agents of these statements "willingly and wilfully," but by the principles everywhere declared to be false. Mr. Newton and Mr. S. both declared at the meetings they subsequently held, that if Sir A.C.'s statements were true, they themselves would have left Ebrington Street. As to the thing denied, it will come in by-and-by.

Immediately after, a declaration was communicated that as the brethren had been able to come to no conclusion, the brethren at Plymouth itself had drawn up and signed a document declaring their conviction that he was completely cleared. This was signed S., and the names of C -- w, B., D., -- , were added as concurring. I am informed on the authority of Mr. D., by a brother to whom he stated it, that it was he drew it up, not Mr. S. However that may be, being the parties concerned in the charge, it certainly was a strange document, more particularly as Mr. D. (to excuse Mr. Newton) had declared that he had suggested the addition of the matter to the letter printed as six years old, and Mr. C -- w present at the April meeting had had the other printed and circulated. So that two of them were personally concerned in the things they professed to examine and dear Mr. N. of. I had done nothing save be ready for every call of the brethren who came, and answer their questions when they came to question me. Mr. N. declined to meet me as I was in the position of an excommunicated person. At that time it was a common subject of triumph that I was so, and therefore could bring nothing before the church.

In connection with this I may proceed to mention what passed as to this bringing before the church. Mr. C., Mr. P -- r, I think Mr. R., Lord C., as well as others, as is known by their letters, felt that this was right. Yet it was not only resisted but effectually resisted. Mr. C., with whom was Mr. R., went and pressed it on Mr. Newton and alleged Matthew 18. Mr. N. answered, The church could not deliberate nor hear any question. Mr. C. quoted, "Tell it to the church." Mr. N. said, The church might hear it but could not act. Mr. C. quoted, "Hear the church." Mr. N. replied that they might come as individuals and express their conviction, but that was all. Lord C. and Messrs. P -- r and C. took it in hand. They came to me, and Lord C. stated that they could not get over the impression produced by my charges in the minds of others: would I meet the assembly if they could get it convoked, and undo the impression as to the charges? I said they must not ask me to state that my impression was not such, as I could not go beyond my conscience; but I would gladly meet the assembly, and urge upon them not to receive any impression from me; that I could do it with all my heart, as I earnestly desired that the conscience of the brethren should be aroused; that there was no good done, whatever judgment they arrived at, unless it was, that I thought the grand evil was that it had been deadened and dulled, and that they would be there to see whether I did it cordially; and that if these three brethren honestly brought before the assembly what they now admitted to be facts, and the assembly acquitted Mr. Newton of any evil in it, even if my individual judgment were not satisfied, I should acquiesce, because, being done as I should trust up rightly, the church's conscience would be clear before God. I left Plymouth to preach elsewhere, that this might be accomplished. Nothing was done. Sir A.C. made a subsequent attempt of which he has given an account. The church could not deliberate nor judge; nor could elders be judged by it. There was no person in the position of Timothy to do it. Since this has been formally denied (and persons authorized to contradict it) it was repeated amongst the poor,⁺ and put to a person whether it was right for the children to judge their fathers, and positively stated by one of the leaders at Plymouth, as it had been by others before, that teachers were the representatives of the church, and that they decided, and that then the church could act. This was to meet the case of 1 Corinthians, where the church were called upon to act. The case of Mr. G. was put to Mr. D. thus. There at present is but one brother prominently active in teaching. Supposing he were to fall into some gross sin, what is to be done? The case where the person inquiring knew of only one active teacher was put, because they would admit that elders in the place could take up cases and judge them.⁺⁺ The reply was, No, they could not judge him. If he had assumed such a place, they must leave him to the consequences of it. If it was so bad as to be unbearable, they must only leave.⁺⁺⁺

⁺It is now held amongst them avowedly, to my knowledge, where this influence extends, that the church itself cannot judge. They have told me that they did think it was right, and so understood Matthew 18, but now they understand it is not.

⁺⁺At Plymouth it was the persons who assumed the place of elders who were charged. One poor person on whom following the elders was urged, replied, But are not Mr. Darby and Mr. H elders as much as Mr. Newton? Which am I to follow? She was told it was not denied we were, but God had raised up Mr. Newton to a special and peculiar place in the church. A paper to this effect and assuming the place of Mr. N., of displacing leaders here and there by his own authority, was widely circulated at Exmouth.

⁺⁺⁺The last two lines are to be omitted. They are only an imperfect repetition of the preceding.

The paper signed by the Plymouth leaders to clear Mr. Newton did more harm than good to their cause at Plymouth, as they were known by all to be the parties implicated, and it implied that the strangers would not do it. But the brethren from a distance having in fact come to no conclusion, for whose inquiry I had waited to give time, I had no longer now any reason for delay, and I proposed breaking bread. I hesitated whether I should demand Raleigh Street and do it as a public testimony; but praying over it I felt the humble and more gracious way would be to do it for my own need. I procured a small room, knowing about six who wished to do it, for I had most carefully avoided seeking any, and had entirely ceased visiting since I left, lest I should have even the appearance of making a party, though my heart was in that work. Sir A.C. would no longer break bread; nor W., nor C., nor P -- r, nor McA. N -- r still I think at that time did, or might, though strong in his judgment, but left for Jersey; that is, excepting Nr, all who were not avowed supporters and partisans of Mr. Newton. Mr. W -- r had left. Mr. R. came to me on leaving, and while blaming my beginning to break bread said what I said as my reason was very strong, and that I ought instead of declining to invite Capt. H. and W. because they were considered hostile, to have got a number who took my view of it to balance the others. He left me saying that I had acted with the greatest forbearance.⁺

⁺Mr. R. did not hesitate then to declare to strangers to both parties that they had ceased to lean upon God, and that the Spirit of God was not practically owned. I have not had an opportunity of communicating this to Mr. R., but my informant is one whose authority is above suspicion, and respected alike by Mr. R. and myself.

This part was now closed. I began to break bread, and the first Sunday there were not six, but fifty or sixty.

As soon as the brethren were gone Mr. Newton began to hold tea meetings by invitation, at which he explained everything. The statements of Mr. W., Sir A.C., and myself were declared to be entirely untrue; and both Mr. Newton and Mr. S. declared that, if there had been any truth in them, they would have left themselves. This was carefully insisted on in private visits, and repeated by all those under them. Sir A.C. in particular was declared by these last "willingly and wilfully false." Mr. Newton also said, publicly and privately, he had never sanctioned but always objected to the Friday meeting; that it had been begun by a brother who had semi-Irvingite views, on a wrong ground, etc. Unhappily a letter of his was in existence, appealing to it after years of attendance as a proof of godly order. It was then said, it was not the meeting which was objected to, but the composition of it. But alas! this same letter speaks of the persons composing it as recognized and submitted to by all. Subsequently it was declared that he had never objected to the church judging, nor to the brethren from elsewhere interfering.

This certainly was astounding to those who knew what had passed, if anything was so at Plymouth, his opening declaration to the brethren on their inquiring his statements of the matter, and all he had repeatedly said, as well as his associates, to so many. He declared that all he had objected to was the manner of doing it -- that it ought to have been done scripturally: first come to himself, then take two or three more, and lastly the whole body put him out if need were. This was said at one of the last Monday tea meetings, a very large one.⁺ Mr. B. has stated the same thing to others -- it was only the manner which was objected to. Now, this scriptural manner which was declared to have been the only thing that would have been required, I had formally proposed, and had received a written refusal from the four persons employed by Mr. Newton, Lord C., Mr. M., Mr. W -- r, and a physician at Plymouth, which written refusal was communicated by them to Mr. Newton at the time.

⁺I know it to have been frequently repeated since, and recently.

At these meetings, at which being by invitation, of course there was no one to answer, though invited friends were allowed to put questions, and did before the poor, a justification of Mr. Newton is stated to have been produced from the remaining part of the brethren who came to inquire, who had advocated Mr. Newton's cause all through. Indeed one of those who were thus sent for by Mr. Newton had privately written⁺ to him to say he might count on his standing by him in any way, though inquiring now as if an impartial person. It was further most carefully repeated and urged at these meetings that we denied the Gospels were for the church, and equally took away the Hebrews and Revelation; that we denied redemption through the blood as to some, and denied the heavenly glory to the Old Testament saints.

These things drove from them many who knew it was not so, but were believed of course by others. These meetings were continued for many weeks, after each of which some came amongst us. Meanwhile a system, such as I never saw save in Popery, was carried on to influence the poor. Long utterly neglected, save as to the sisters' district rule, they were visited, caressed, and fed, threatened and literally worried, and what I must call open bribery employed, and the most positive and direct persecution. I declined visiting any who had not already come amongst us, unless a case of special invitation; and that there were not more than two or three of They did not dare. A few complained to others of my not doing it; but I had decided on my path, and declined exercising any kind of influence over them. This system went to such a pitch that, in one case under the exciting influence of sisters, a poor man refused to dine with his wife if she did not come to Ebrington Street, and when she wished to go and hear in the evening at Raleigh Street, said he would be master; she is now in Ebrington Street. The custom of the rich was withdrawn from the tradesmen also in general who came, though any they hoped to win back were sent for, caressed, and invited, and persecuted with solicitations. Soon after this, deacons were balloted for in Ebrington Street (though indeed the persons had been openly spoken of before), and there they are now.

⁺This letter was circulated, because it contained statements of all the errors the writer had been led into by the brethren.

I will now turn to the paper circulated privately to the number of three thousand -- not to answer it (it is its own best answer to every true and upright mind), but merely to notice one or two things in it which connect themselves with the history. Nor shall I say a word on the meanness of courting the pity of strangers by publishing every word they can scrape together out of its context, when for years they have been calumniating their brethren and undermining them everywhere as subverting Christianity, and it has been borne with; and when resisted openly and honestly, crying out as if they were persecuted and oppressed. Does any one believe that they have not accused of falsehood, for example, myself, W., Sir A.C., over and over again? Everyone knows publicly and privately that their charges of falsehood were the most violent: aye, and in print, whilst they ventured to answer in public. No one need fear that I shall rake together here the proofs. The truth is, there was not a matter of which conscience told them they would be accused, but they anticipated by charging it on me or others, that, if it did come out, it might seem like retaliation and lose its weight. They must forgive my now saying "they." They have clubbed together in it themselves. Here the gravest complaint is "veracity even is impeached." Why in a previous letter of Mr. Newton's, in the correspondence of which this forms a part, he declares "there have been falsehood and misrepresentation to an extent I could not have believed before the late events."

I could cite plenty of like things, but surely I shall not. Everyone that has been at Plymouth knows it. The difference is this, Mr. N. charges in general with misrepresentation. Of such a general charge he can quote no instance as against himself. In his case specific acts are charged with being untrue; his account of the April meeting is said to be untrue; his addition of a quantity of matter to a tract professed to be written six years ago is complained of; his charging me and others with teaching a heretical doctrine, which he himself, as he does not now deny, and he alone ever taught, and out of which he was brought by those he charges with it; his declaration that all he required was acting on the scriptural rule of Matthew 18, and that he never refused to be judged by the church when it was positively refused; his declaration that he had always objected to and never sanctioned, the Friday meeting, when we had and have his letter appealing to it as proof of godly order. These which refer to the public course of events here (for I pass over all private ones), and not vague charges, are what he has to answer. Mr. N. was asked, as he charged me everywhere with falsehood, what it was. He said, saying he denied the unity of the church, but this was all he alleged. I say so still. And further I here add, I have no expressions save "intellectual process," and "eking out an argument" already apologized for, to regret or expunge -- not one. If any, let them be produced with their context. The reader will say, but what of those quoted in this letter, and regularly between inverted commas? I answer, they are dishonestly charged. They are untrue, save that I do not own the table at Ebrington Street. The difficulty in this case is, that people have depended on idle statements of this kind, and it was impossible to answer them without charging the authors with untruth. This made me keep silence month after month. I did not know what to do. But the details I will enter into in their place.

Some phrases, though in inverted commas, are not in the tracts to which they are ascribed at all; others quoted and put into sentences which wholly alter their application (an application often expressly guarded against), in the tract referred to. In my judgment this letter signed by the five is perhaps the worst thing yet put out.

But to resume: it is a saddening and yet an instructive thing, to see at the moment that under the Lord's special leading, and surely without their own wisdom, the brethren from every quarter were humbling themselves before the Lord for their own individual and common failure, the leaders at Plymouth, having refused to come because it would turn to an investigation on their conduct, were making out a case for themselves. It is an epitome of the whole matter; but I leave it without any remark, to notice one or two statements merely. And first of all, what is the meaning of this joint disclaimer and declaration, saying, we do not hold such and such doctrines, unless the pure clubbing of a party, hand joining in hand? Who ever charged them with holding such and such doctrines? What has Mr. C -- w, or Mr. S., or Mr. B., or even Mr. D., to do with my charging Mr. Newton's book with denying the unity of the church? Mr. D. indeed has carefully in public and in private maintained the thing he here denies, as many intelligent Christians well know, but he never was charged with it. Many well know that he and Mr. Newton, as others, have assiduously maintained that the Epistle to the Ephesians refers to all saints from the beginning of the world; and 1 Corinthians 12 to a local perfect church, with some idea of a sort of model at the beginning; but that the unity of the church, as such, with Christ at its head on high, in this dispensation, was denied by the constant teaching at Plymouth.

But Mr. Newton has published certain views upon it. These views are plain enough. They have been answered. What have, save as uniting in a party spirit, these other persons to do, to come and say we do not hold? But to such an excess is this carried that these five proceed to say that "even personal veracity is impeached." And now let me ask whose? This is an unfortunate sentence in which to have talked of Jesuitism. While calling for sympathy for the five, and in a sentence beginning with "we," it is stated personal veracity is impeached. It is not ventured to state whose. Mr. Newton's has been openly and fairly. These four may of course identify themselves with him, if they please; but they cannot put their names as honest men to having their joint veracity impeached, because this impeaching is another's act, not theirs. Have they been charged with a joint lie, or have they been severally charged with one?

The same plan was resorted to at the April meeting. I was said by Mr. Newton to have charged all with sectarianism, because a person could not be a sectarian alone. This, though unfounded, had some semblance of reason in it; but a man may surely tell falsehoods alone. I charge Mr. Newton with sectarianism alone. He tried to make a party with the charge, as if others were accused by me of it. I charged none but him. Others might have helped him, but he could not say I charged them. I charged Mr. N. with untruth in certain definite acts; I believe him guilty of it still. But if others choose to take his part, and identify themselves with what I judge to be utter want of principle, do not let them, in signing an ambiguous expression say, or leave to be concluded that others have impeached the veracity of the five together. Mr. Newton's veracity has been impeached. I impeached it.⁺ He has declined all means of clearing himself where those who charge him could meet him unless before eight persons, half to be nominees of his own, shutting the church out. Does he mean to involve the other four who sign this letter in the charge to relieve himself? No one else has.

⁺Only however before brethren, of course.

Nobody doubts that I think the table in Ebrington Street one with which I cannot hold communion. I have left it. Can anything be plainer? The present narrative will say why: which I have never done yet. I have stated that they deny the real unity and holiness of the church of God; I say so still. The Lord will judge who is right in this. They may escape by the support of a party; but it is not the position of any one, nor the numbers which support him, which can make evil good or good evil, or clear the conscience of the church of God.

Mr. N. may talk of manner of doing this. It has been done in no manner; not at Plymouth, because the elders should take it in hand, and they had assumed that place; not by strangers down here, because they did not belong to Plymouth; not in London, because the gathered servants of the Lord had no right to judge them. What is the manner it could have been done in which Mr. Newton has not refused, with the aid of the co-signature of these same persons? I appeal to Mr. C., Lord C., Mr. P -- r, Sir A.C., Mr. R., and all who tried to effect it, whether they secured the investigation of alleged evil, as they sought it, before the church of God. The holiness of the church of God is then given up.

I think it a very sad thing, a very great evil, when any thing of the kind has to be brought before the church at large. It is the extreme case of discipline. I take this opportunity of saying, that I think the bringing every case of evil, or alleged evil, at once before the body wrong and unscriptural. "Tell it to the church" is the last resort in every way. I think it still sadder if the person in question be one who has been looked up to in the church. It tends to shake confidence in all. But judgment has been refused in every shape to save character.

If it be said that I after the April meeting, when sectarianism was avowed before fourteen of us, ought to have brought it before the body, I have indeed nothing to reply, but that I refrained at the instance of others, particularly Mr. R., to spare Mr. Newton. Here I have always felt I may have been wrong. Further, I still state that unity has been denied, practically denied. And it is in part because of the way in which this has been disclaimed in the letter I am considering that I notice it.

I will now examine the statement as to No. 1. If these brethren had stated what they held about it, we should have known what to think. The question is, what is taught in the Ephesians on this point, and whether they hold it. They tell us they hold it as revealed in the Epistle to the Ephesians. This is exceedingly satisfactory. But what they hold we are evidently as much in the dark about as before. Now I allege that they really merely mean unity in heaven of all saints since the creation. It is clear there can be no other unity of all saints since the creation than unity in heaven. And this is what they have most assiduously taught as to the Ephesians. They have insisted that prophets, in chapter 2, verse 20, means Old Testament prophets; and the whole Epistle to apply to all saints from beginning to end. It is quite clear therefore it has nothing to do with the present unity of the church by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. If they deny this teaching, the answer is, it is a dishonest denial. We have all heard it, whatever their partisans may say. Further, Messrs. S. and C -- w (in reply to the brother B -- i, who, from reading Mr. Newton's books, had come to the conclusion that he did deny the unity of the church as taught in scripture) stated distinctly to him that the unity he urged was in heaven. Each of them, that is, did, severally and distinctly. Further, when intelligent Christians began to be exercised about it, and referred to the teachers at Plymouth to clear their minds, not believing what I and others affirmed from what we had heard and read, they were in explanation distinctly taught the same thing, and it was stated by some that none at Plymouth had ever taught or held anything else, I among them. Now if public and private teaching, deliberate argument on the question, and explanation to clear the minds of those exercised, does not prove what men hold, what will? This second paragraph is then a fraud on the reader; because it conceals the fact that it only means a common unity in heaven, and has nothing to do with the church now more than with Abel, that is, that an individual now will be finally a member of the whole assembly of God. That is, it denies any special unity now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Hence we have a second paragraph for unity of the saints on earth, as by one Spirit baptized into one body. Here however church is not used. But of this just now.

There is another circumstance connected with this I may here record. Mr. Newton has publicly taught (strange for one who complains of Matthew 24 not being considered to be exclusively the church), and taught after being remonstrated with by Mr. H.⁺ when he taught it in private, that John 17 has no application now till you come to verse 22; which I beg the reader to note. Mr. H. urged the verse, "Sanctify them through thy truth." Mr. Newton replied, that a saint might appropriate it individually by special faith, but that it had no application to the present time. Evidently verse 22 applies to the future, and is absolute in its form, so that the denial of the unity of the church of God down here was confirmed in every way.⁺⁺ Indeed I would repeat here that in the teaching I heard from Mr. Newton one object was evident as the object, and this was teaching something contrary to the other brethren, so as to set them aside with those over whom he had influence, or who gradually took in his teaching. Nor was I the only one that remarked this. But as to the unity being in heaven, I had asked, Was the doctrine that the Gentile churches together constituted the one church St. Paul's statement of the unity of the church? Mr. N. answers (page 56, of his second letter), "I should think not, because St. Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the church in heaven." Can anything be plainer than such an answer where the charge was made, and, an explanation given? St. Paul's teaching, St. Paul's statement, is of the unity of the church in heaven! Mr. N. had "been speaking of the visible unity of the churches on earth." But "this visible unity of churches constitutes the one church of the living God." "The churches (page 60) were members of one body." "The Catholic unity of the body would have been marred and lost, the moment one church had forfeited its place and had its candlestick removed."

⁺Mr. H. remonstrated with others, and spoke very strongly about this teaching; but I cannot confirm the fact that he spoke directly to Mr. N. I give the statement therefore as to the remonstrance merely as I heard it just after, of which I have an absolute certainty. The fact of the teaching is unquestionable. I will add here the ground on which it was based: Christ's prayer could not but have been answered; hence He could have asked it only for the apostles in their time; that we have the heavenly blessing in this respect; they had the heavenly and earthly. It will be seen how entirely this confirms what is stated as to the assertions made as to unity in the letter of the five to the London brethren commented on.

⁺⁺Mr. Newton has also distinctly stated, as is well known to many resident at Plymouth, that as to the heavenly calling, or the unity of the church, no new light whatever had been developed from the word amongst brethren; that others, before the present movement, had held it just as clearly. The only fresh light given was to be found in the prophetic views he insisted on.

Now what is the good of five persons coming and saying we have not dropped the unity of the church into churches when one of them has printed it as plainly as words can be, save in the sense which is concealed in these numbered paragraphs, in the sense that the unity of the church, means its unity in heaven, "invisible unity in heaven"? And I ask here if St. Paul's statements refer, as Mr. N. has printed and published, to invisible unity in heaven, which are the passages in scripture which refer to the unity of the church in this dispensation on earth? It is totally untrue that St. Paul's statements refer only or properly to that (though of course it remains true), for he is speaking of joints of supply in the one body on earth. Which is right, or the truth, page 4 of the letter of these five, or page 56 of Mr. Newton's letter? Or, I repeat, what is the meaning of five persons coming and saying we do not hold what one of them has printed and published he does hold; and as every one who has heard it knows, taught constantly by word of mouth? Nay, the holding the contrary view, namely a special unity in this dispensation by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, was the very ground of the charges against brethren, and made the plea for accusing them of denying life and glory to Old Testament saints.

But further, as to these second and third paragraphs, they entirely avoid the question. No one says they deny the unity of the church, if it be meant of all saints from beginning to end in a glorious and heavenly state at the close of all things. But there is not a word in the second which would not be satisfied by this truth. The point in question, of the unity of the body by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven now, is entirely avoided. And so it is in the third, strange as such an assertion may seem to a simple-hearted saint. It is then changed into "unity of the saints upon earth"; not the body. But it will be said, but it is added as baptized into one body. So it is But what body is this? On earth is not added here. And the unity of the body here is not mentioned nor spoken of. There is the unity of the saints on earth (not as a body). Perhaps (as stated by Mr. N.) unity in faith, doctrine, manners, in independent churches, all alike, but all independent.⁺

⁺"Separate one from another -- all equal, all alike: connected by no visible bond, neither revolving round any common centre. They were independent one of another; but not independent of Him who invisibly walked amongst them, and who was able to preserve the likeness to Himself, and to one another, which His grace had given them; to keep them what He had made them alike in faith, manners, and testimony"; and again, "in faith, doctrines, manners [they] were emphatically one."

The body into which they were baptized is, as far as any one can tell here, the general universal assembly of all that surround Jesus eternally. Of this we all own they are. But the unity of the body, as by one Spirit sent down from heaven after the exaltation of Christ, is entirely avoided here. Now that is the whole practical question.

I may add that Mr. N. teaches, or did teach, that the Old Testament saints had received the Spirit as much as we, only that it was a spirit of bondage in them. He had taught of old, that the difference was, that it did not then abide in the saints.

On the fourth I shall say little. The Holy Ghost present and acting in the assembly is here avoided to be admitted. This is again the whole question. Any such action was denounced as impulse. It was stated that those at Ebrington Street went to meet God, and not the Holy Ghost, and we the Holy Ghost, and not God. But since even this letter the effect of the teaching on souls has been to make them believe that the Holy Ghost dwelt in individuals, but not in the body. When Capt. H. taught both, they were warned that they were likely to fall into Mr. Prince's snare. It was taught most positively that the Holy Spirit dwelt in individuals, and that the aggregate of these increased the blessing, but this was all. It was not taught that "the Holy Ghost resides only in the teachers"; but it was that the Holy Ghost worked by members, and that these members were the teachers, and that, though it was not a gift to pray or give out a hymn, none but gifted members would do it. It was stated, though here I believe the contrary was afterwards also stated, that the Holy Ghost was not in the assembly, but God over it to bless it. No intelligent brother can mistake the meaning of all this.

It was most distinctly taught, that it was wrong for the saints to meet, unless they had a responsible teacher to direct them; so much so, that a brother of known uprightness (who was never in communion, but had long known the brethren) said to his sister who was there, all the brethren's system is gone; because he had heard this statement from Mr. N. Nor were the most glaring facts wanting to demonstrate it.

Now turn, reader, to paragraph five. You would suppose that all these extracts were from "Darby's Remarks on the Tracts on Signs." You will be surprised, I trust at least, to learn that in the postscript to those "Remarks," which postscript is the statement alluded to, I have stated that the question had nothing to do with tradition. Mr. D. in that tract had appealed to "universal consent" as sustaining the doctrine taught at Plymouth. About this not a word is said in the paragraph; but tradition introduced which I said had nothing to do with it. I stated that "the demon of Popery is the active demon of the day"; and so I think, not that they were associated with it, and that in appealing to the principle of universal consent, and in addition to scripture, "its leading introductory principle was advanced" in that passage, referring to the wellknown canon of a father, always cited by high churchmen, who have a leaning towards Popery. I have spoken of a principle here printed and published, using these last words in the postscript. Is it not so? Why do they introduce extracts, I really know not whence, referring to tradition a subject I had expressly rejected as inapplicable, and put my name as the authority they quote, leaving out the point I did assail, and which is printed and published by one of their number in a tract on the express words of which I was commenting? Is it honest to conceal what was attacked and implicate me, trusting to the confidence which would be had, that quotations with inverted commas must be truly given, in charges which he perfectly well knew I had nothing to say to It was Mr. Newton drew this up. And even in what is found in that postscript the citations are garbled. I have stated the course clericalism takes and its issue in the full-blown Romish clericalism, but I have never charged it on them, but urged the danger of introducing its leading principle in the doctrine of universal consent. I have said I did not allude to them, but to a system.

The reader may also remark that "uphold" is not of the quotation, nor "associated with"; and that the use I have made of the words which are so, may be as different as possible from what is here stated. The truth is in the postscript, in the sentence quoted from, I have carefully set aside individuals. I have stated, that I have introduced other principles of Popery not advanced, as a matter of general warning, because this one of universal consent, which drew forth my comments, shewed the door was not closed against evil on this side. "Advance its leading principle," is a false quotation. I have said that its leading introductory principle is advanced in appealing to "universal consent."

As to the sixth, no one speaks of the doctrines of Independents. Mr. N. has stated that the churches are independent.

As to the seventh my answer is that it is, as regards Mr. Newton, a bold untruth. I appeal to Mr. C., Mr. P -- r, Lord C., Sir A.C. I ask the whole number of those who came whether Mr. Newton did not preface his communications to them by saying that, if they came to meddle in Plymouth affairs, he would tell them nothing at all. They all know that every opportunity was not given; that Mr. Newton would not meet me before those brethren, nor the brethren at large, nor a limited number of them. He told them what he pleased, but no other opportunity was or would be afforded. When was it afforded? Will it be afforded now, with this letter added to the subject of it, and the brethren who were there come down again? Either these five, or Sir A.C. and others, are guilty of flagrant untruth. That Mr. N. sought the presence of brethren who supported him is quite true, so that Mr. R. blamed me for not making a balance.

As to the eighth, how Mr. S. could sign this after his statements to Mr. R.H., for it is to him Mr. R.H. alludes in his tract, I leave him to answer. Everybody knows many were hindered, and many stopped. I may add an instance here. A sister went to one very gracious brother who has ministered both before and since with blessing to many, and told hum he must attend Mr. Newton's prophetic meetings. He replied that he did not wish to do so, that he felt pressing peculiar views on either side tended to division.⁺ He was told that then his ministry would not be allowed in any of the gatherings round. Of course he was shut up. But I will here give the sequel of what refers to him. He was offered his expenses and a weekly salary to go out and labour, which he refused.⁺⁺ Subsequently he left Ebrington Street. Whereupon it was circulated at Horrabridge that I had offered him a salary. Happily the brother at Horrabridge mentioned it to one who had just heard from the brother in question himself that it was just the opposite.

⁺The reason first given for not attending one of the more private meetings was somewhat different. This brother felt himself out of his place there; subsequently he ceased attending the more public meeting on the ground stated. The material fact however was rather stronger than stated here, that, unless he received Mr. N.'s views, his ministry would not be received here or in the meetings around.

⁺⁺I know myself a second instance of Mr. Newton's doing so; besides which penny-a-week collections have been a long while carried on for similar purposes. After I came, the collectors were desired not to go to persons I visited; a foolish direction, for I visited everybody. The sisters were the agents in this.

But to return to the paragraph. Mr. S. stated to Mr. R H as Mr. R.H. has stated in his tract (I only add Mr. S.'s name, as having now signed this), that he had said to Mr. Newton that he had participated in the sin of keeping brethren away, and instanced Mr. B -- t and asked Mr. N. if he could now receive him. Mr. N. with some hesitation, said, Yes. Mr. S asked him why there was this change. Mr. N. replied that the people, he thought, were now sufficiently made up⁺ to resist his teaching. Let any one only compare this with the eighth paragraph.

As to the ninth, I appeal solemnly to all the brethren who came to inquire. Either their statement to me, that is, of several of them, was an invented calumny, or this article is a direct positive falsehood. From first to last Mr. Newton took this ground.

As to the tenth, my answer is, You do. Mr. Newton has published in his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" what, as an expression of thought, is justly so designated. The grand doctrine of Buddhism is that a sort of absorption into Deity is perfect bliss; now Mr. N. states that the glorified saints will be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, using the terms; only they would still worship. And therefore I say, his doctrine does make a sort of Buddhism of Christianity. As to their views and opinions on open ministry, my object is not to discuss views but relate facts here, and I pass them by.

I have only one more statement to allude to. There is a scripture appropriate to everything, and I confess the one which at once suggested itself to me was, "The unjust knoweth no shame." "We are virtually excommunicated persons." Did any one ever dream that I excommunicated Mr. Hatchard, or Mr. Courtenay, and a thousand other saints, because I do not go to the Established Church? Was ever such nonsense palmed on people? And yet one of my reasons is because they do not judge evil nor exercise discipline, as it is as to Ebrington Street. Mr. Newton's alleged evil, and to my mind proved evil, deserved to be judged, and so did other evil, and it was not, but was avoided and refused to be judged. When the brethren, who certainly treated me with very little concern, whatever they did Mr. Newton, said I must be judged too, I made no difficulty; but nothing could induce Mr. Newton to allow it, and they had no courage to go any further. It was not to be. But this is not treating people as excommunicated. Mr. C -- w urged, at one time, walking in love as brethren still on me in Mr. R -- e's shop. Did I treat him as excommunicated, or Mr. S.?

⁺For "sufficiently made up," read "sufficiently instructed."

But this is not all. It is really not a shameful but a shameless statement. Mr. S. who signs first here, positively refused to dine at table with me. Will he deny it? Mr. Newton refused to meet me, when investigation was desired by our coming face to face, because I was an excommunicated person. It was the common ground of triumph that I could not bring the matter before the church, because I was an excommunicated person by leaving the assembly. Shall I say that Mr. D. lectured that, though Christians, yet all were not to be treated as such? Shall I name all those who, led by the example and instruction of Mr. Newton, refused to salute us in the street?⁺ those who by Mr. N.'s directions refused to see old friends they had previously sent for? Mr. N. began it to a sister, who stated she had proposed calling on him to assure him it was no want of good feeling towards him in leaving, by refusing to see her, and telling her in the name of the Lord Jesus he could have no more Christian intercourse with her. The oldest friends were first not visited at all and then were told that they visited as friends, but could not own them as Christians nor pray with them. And this was done so grossly by Mr. N. himself that the husband (not in communion) of one sister met Mr. Newton and told him that, had he been still of the world, he must have used his cane to him. One poor man excited by the sisters refused to eat with his own wife till he got her back to Ebrington Street.

⁺It will hardly be believed at Plymouth, that Mr. S. has stated in more than one place, that it was we who would not salute them!

It has been attempted since shame has fallen upon them about it, to say it was only to be done to leaders. Were the sisters, one of whom only came to hear in Raleigh Street, who sent to dear Mrs. Newton flowers and little things suited to the sick when she was ill, leaders? They were sent back as unreceivable from Mr. N.'s house. Captain H. was refused to be received into the house of one long accustomed to look up to him, but who had fallen under this miserable influence. And now I challenge them to produce an act of ungracious or evil dealing towards one of them. Why, will it be believed that many of them no longer dealt with the shops of those who went to Raleigh Street, as well as threatened to withdraw Christian kindness from the poor? and to deprive them of temporal advantages they enjoyed? Last of all, while I am writing this, they have been forbidden, had they desired it, in case of any wishing to shew it was no want of personal kindness, to attend dear Mrs. N.'s funeral⁺ -- a person who, though excited about this matter, had by her walk among the saints for many a year engaged the affections, I may safely say, of all, and who has been happily, may we not say taken from the evil to come, and we have excommunicated them!

I have done. I have gone over the public ground only, and I have only to add, that I was confirmed in the resolution not to swerve, because I found that the system of untruth and finesse was undermining the probity and truthfulness of mind of others, and demoralising God's dear children. And it is. I have refrained from the private facts, which yet operated of course with equal force on one's mind as to the state of things, though not as fit to be publicly brought forward.

It has been alleged by Mr. Newton himself, and received by some, that it could not be with an intention to deceive when refutation was so easy. Those who receive this do not know how these things worked. This last letter is the proof. Nine-tenths of the saints out of Plymouth would take the statement as true: and I should be very sorry to think that they would suppose it possible to be otherwise until forced to it. I have yet a difficulty myself in believing the things I know to be true. At Plymouth the majority were Mr. Newton's party at all cost. If any separated themselves from it, they were not spoken to nor owned as Christians; even their temporal interests injured as far as possible. In private statements, it was a similar case. An untrue one, suppose, was made. Probably the person believed it; a gracious mind is not the most suspicious. The effect was produced, the prejudice excited, and the person fell under Mr. N.'s influence. If not, in general persons, particularly females, who were especially subjected to this, do not like probing into evil and discreditable things, nor getting into conflict with persons who act in this way. If they took the trouble of inquiring, and stated what had been said, the statement was denied, and it was a question of their character and Mr. Newton's. Few 'liked this; perhaps their husbands did not. If it was proved, then it was said, It was not meant so, and it was uncharitable to fix on a man what he did not mean. If they were disgusted and left, no one was to speak to them. This was the operation of the Monday evening meetings, held after the brethren were gone, for Mr. N. to explain everything. The majority believed the statements without more. A few were driven out every time. They were no longer spoken to, unless to worry them to come back, if there was hope of that.

⁺It will hardly be believed that after having forbidden any to come to the funeral, saying, that we hastened Mrs. Newton's death and were not to come and trample on her grave, it was carefully circulated by them that we would not go to Mrs. N.'s funeral!

And now, as these five, as well as Mr. Newton speak of the manner of the investigation, and Mr. N. and others for him have repeatedly said it was only this he objected to, I shall repeat what I proposed to him. I refused to name four as my friends to investigate it, because it was taking it out of the hands of the church of God when already before it. I never heard of a person accused of evil in the church of God naming four to inquire into his case, and those who knew of it four more. It was taking it out of the church of God altogether. I declined to name them.

It is supposed that no one had been to Mr. N. This is a mistake. They had: two had as to the untruth (and first two -- besides myself by letter -- and then thirteen as to the sectarianism); and the whole had been before three hundred of the brethren. But in reply to this proposal I offered to meet the four he named individually, or together, to go before the whole body, or before a limited number, if that was a better way, or to let the four named by Mr. Newton collect the thirteen before whom the matters first had been; or Mr. Newton might act on the scripture rule of Matthew 18 if he considered it a wrong. I received for reply, that Matthew 18 did not apply because I had done the wrong publicly; that bringing it before the body of the brethren was only seeking to repeat the grievance; that my letter was an evasion; that it was evident I was unprepared to substantiate the charges; that my statements appeared unworthy of credit, and that copies of the letters were given to Mr. Newton

And two of the signers of this letter were among those who pursued the inquiry afterwards. One left almost immediately after signing it. It is generally known that these brethren refused to go up to the London meeting, too, because it must take the character of investigation.

In fine, when finesse and untruthfulness, when flattery of the rich with contempt and neglect of the poor, and then caresses and threatenings and appeals to their gratitude, attract the Spirit of Christ, then while under its influence I may return; or when avowed sectarianism and union in testimony against brethren is that to which I wish to be a party. Till then I can have no such thought. There are saints of God there who ought to be, and I can boldly say are, very dear to me. I would do all there every good I could. Nor have I the conscience of an unkindly feeling towards one. I should rejoice with unfeigned joy were every statement I have made proved to be wrong to my own shame. But, without pretending to apportion blame, to say who originated it or helped it on, supposing it possible (and I would hope true) that all have been only led in it ignorantly, I believe that there has been a direct work of the enemy, and this to subvert the blessed truth that Brethren were specially trusted with; a work which has shewn itself in doctrine, principle, and practice, as is always the case, very subtly and very gradually, but surely and constantly. I shall notice in their plain effects the doctrines.

First, practically the present hope and expectation of the Lord's coming was put off and set aside.

Secondly, the heavenly calling, which Brethren had specially been favoured to bring out, and the glory of the church with Christ, is confounded with earth, and subverted and set aside. Our Mother is declared to be the establishment of a system, which had been going on from the beginning in glory in the earth. "Christianity supreme in the earth in Mount Zion and Jerusalem" "identical with Zion arising in the moral grace and dignity of its high calling in the earth" (Thoughts on the Apocalypse, pages 138, 142). "This is our parent, the system to which we belong," Jerusalem.

Thirdly, unfeigned faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost to guide and minister in the assemblies of the saints was undermined and subverted.

Fourthly, the unity of the body of Christ, as gathered by the presence of the Holy Ghost in this present time of the church on earth, was undermined and subverted too.

Fifthly, the deification of the saints, that is, "Omniscient power of superintendence," Omnipotent power necessary to such execution"; and, referring to Ezekiel's vision but as a description of the power of the cherubim who symbolize the redeemed, "nowhere absent but everywhere present in the perfectness of undivided action," and they "will apply to the earth, the⁺ wisdom of the elders, and the throne."

And, as a sixth point, the constant extenuation of the evil of Popery, with the decided absence of Christ from the teaching, while the saints were exalted "almost into co-equality with God.'⁺⁺

I may add, as a seventh, the exaltation and beauty of a personal Antichrist in a way quite contrary to scripture, so as to alarm and shake the minds of the saints. As to principles and practice, I do not go over again the statements made in the preceding pages; statements more than confirmed by incidents arising from day to day which it is impossible to reduce to writing.

I have now sufficiently given the history of what has passed, as far as I have been concerned in it. Others must give what has passed behind the scenes. As I have already stated, private circumstances I have not mentioned. But it must not be supposed that they have not influenced those who dwell at Plymouth. If there had been remedy, they would not have been a reason for leaving; but they called for a remedy which, if refused, made it impossible to stay. This direct working of Satan few perhaps may distinctly estimate; but the Spirit of Christ will have no difficulty in judging the facts I have stated, and the course of things to which I have alluded.

⁺Mr. N. has since taught that the saints will have essential power. He states in the "Thoughts" that man will be blest in himself, and the source of blessing to others, page 56.

⁺⁺These are Mr. N.'s own words. This absence of Christ in the teaching was a very principal thing which drove the poor brethren out. They felt the effect, though knowing little of the cause, and felt justly. The way works were pressed and said to be offered by us to God because done in our new nature, statements (some of which are already mentioned) as to the Lord Jesus Himself, and the unsettling the mind as to truths relating to Him, would have made it impossible for me to have wished anyone I cared for to attend the ministry. As a mere question of ministry, it would have been sufficient to have driven me away. I add this while printing; for the more I have considered this point, the more I am satisfied of its importance and of its application to numberless statements made.

My word of unhesitating testimony is, Come out from among them, and be ye separate. They have sought to perplex the poor (clear in their judgment of where evil was, and where Christ was) by asking, Now on what scripture did you leave? They knew what they left by experience, and judged rightly about it; though, as a priest might come and puzzle a soul that knew well on what ground it stood, they could ill answer perhaps a cross-examination of what scripture they were on. My answer to them is simple, my text is plain: Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. If they would have yet more, I cite what they have sufficiently pressed upon others, "Cease to do evil." There is evil unconfessed and unjudged; evil (I judge) of the very worst kind, speaking of evil in a Christian assembly; and I suppose there must be scriptures for leaving it, or we should never have been gathered at all.

I will only add, as much has been said in print of Mr. S.'s asking Mr. H. to stay, that he asked Mr. H. to stay to help him to resist Mr. Newton, against whom he felt unable to make head alone, and he stated to Mr. R.H. that all the evil had come from letting him have his own way. Here you have the history of Plymouth. Whether Mr. S. is now able to do so and does so, others must judge. In its present form, Mr. Newton drew up the letter addressed to the brethren in London.⁺ Mr. S.'s name appears the first in the list of signatures. He had been free through the earlier scenes, from the want of candour which existed. I must sorrow that at the close, why the Lord must judge, he has placed his name first on what, on the whole I must judge, to be the worst and lowest of all the sad series of this unhappy history.

I am aware of the influence which Mr. N. exercises over many minds, but I do not hesitate to say, that I had rather see my child die than be under the moral influence that rules at Ebrington Street. Wherever its direct influence reaches, moral integrity is gone. I know it has been stated, that it is a mere personal question on my part. Now I appeal to this single assertion just as a proof of the destruction of integrity. Has not Mr. Newton, have not others, stated in public and in private, that we deny the Gospels and I know not what else, and that the foundations of Christianity are gone, if our doctrine is received? Is this a personal question? The fact is where it is hoped that consciences may be alarmed, it is stated we deny the Gospels, etc. When a soul is getting uneasy at the state of things among them or it is thoroughly known that all this is false, then it is stated to be mere personality. Mr. N. is named because he has been the public actor in this matter. And I am not writing here to give my private opinion as to who else may be as really guilty as he, it would be quite out of place. I give the brethren at large the facts which led to my leaving Ebrington Street.

⁺Mr. C -- w stated that he sat up all night, and drew it up that one night.

I have omitted to speak of the fasts. In doing this I add a circumstance early in the history, which I omitted to mention. There was very assiduous teaching from Revelation 1 on the stars, Christ holding the stars of ministerial authority in His hand. After a time during which I had ceased attending the prayer meeting, I think after the first fast (I am not quite sure), I thought there was some softening, and returned. The first thing I heard was one of the persons whose name appears in all these documents earnestly praying that Christ would uphold the stars which He had raised up and held in His right hand, and that we might own them. As to the fasts, at a very early stage of the business I urged that we might fast together. Mr. H. pressed it on them. I had conversed with Mr. D -- k, Sir A.C., etc., as to it, who desired it and wished to come, and that brethren might join in it. But all pressing it was useless. Mr. N. declared there was nothing to fast for, and that he would not have Plymouth made a plague spot of. It was anxiously explained over and over again, that it was meant to charge none, but that, as we were all in trial, we could go and cast ourselves before God, and I said I should go with all my heart and confess any want of spirituality in me that had helped it on; but it was useless. I could only weep and fast to myself.

At last on the occasion of the disorder of the aged brother's speaking above mentioned, Mr. Newton went down on Saturday to the coach to Mr. H., who went for the Lord's day elsewhere, and stated he should give out a fast the next day; which he did for circumstances which had occurred here and elsewhere. However, though I thought all this very bad indeed, and all understood what this meant, and other brethren were necessarily excluded, as it was given out for Wednesday that week, I went. The brethren who have since left mourned and confessed unfeignedly. Mr. N. blessed God for giving them the truth and prayed God to give them firmness to maintain their position. I thought the whole matter the very worst thing that had taken place. When Mr. C -- n came here, Mr. N. peremptorily refused to have any confession about Plymouth; Mr. C -- n stated in private that he would not hear of it, and that they could only have it general for all the church. This to me was far worse than nothing here.

Subsequent to Mr. C -- n's saying the evil was want of unity in judgment (he declined to me any inquiry into the circumstances here)⁺ and that love depended on it. Mr. N. took it up warmly, and stated that the Lord had sent Mr. C -- n; that brethren had all along differed as to redemption, Christ's offices, characters, and a fourth thing I do not now remember; and that there could not be union. After this they had other fasts which I of course did not attend; some, since out, did and part of it was so bad that I know those who had to leave the room. Since then I know nothing of what has passed there.

⁺Mr. C -- n's principle is that, where there exists a body of Christians, no false principle, even in the ground of their union, is a sufficient reason for leaving them.

LETTER TO THE SAINTS MEETING IN EBRINGTON STREET ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE RECENTLY OCCURRED THERE

My Brethren,

Though I felt reluctant to print anything as to what is passing, still now that all have stated (I suppose) what they think right, the excitement of it being somewhat passed, I shall, without returning to matters already discussed, give you my judgment on what interests us all here -- I trust in meekness and grace. Several brethren having come down here subsequent to my leaving Ebrington Street to inquire into the facts, I felt I owed it to them, however fully convinced I might be in my own mind, to give full time and opportunity to them to satisfy themselves as to everything that had passed. This opportunity has been given, and I have felt free to act on my own convictions before God. During the latter part of their stay here, three of these brethren, Lord C., P -- r, and C., having proposed to bring before the brethren at large certain charges which had mixed themselves up with the question, asked me if I would seek to remove the impression my previous statement to the brethren had made. I stated to them that I was perfectly ready to press upon the brethren not to receive any impression from me on the subject, and that they were bound to judge for themselves (these brethren having ascertained the facts, at least as to what I had stated, so that it could be put before the brethren at large); and, farther, that I was ready, if the facts as thus admitted by them were plainly set before the brethren, to abide by their judgment as to any intention or motive involved in these facts, inasmuch as the conscience of the body would then be clear as to them, though there might be other points which demanded inquiry. I left Plymouth for a fortnight, other motives also concurring, so as to give them time to arrange this while I worked elsewhere.

Nothing resulted. As to myself, all know that I have been at all times ready to meet the brethren as to any thing that concerned myself. Here I shall say nothing. I am conscious of nothing wrong in this matter, however imperfect in my ways: the judgment of man is of little moment, and I prefer committing myself to Him that judges righteously. I can bless and thank God heartily and unfeignedly for everything as to myself, and trust Him in it all.

To pursue the subsequent facts. You have all seen the letter of Sir A.C., and the way in which the judgment of the brethren was utterly rejected in principle. I need not repeat here his plain statement. Mr. C. on another occasion alleged the passage in Matthew 18. "Tell it to the church," and not only tell it to the church but "if he neglect to hear the church." This also was rejected. If told to the church, it was said they could not act on it as a body, though individuals might come and state their judgment. To Mr. W. the same principle was maintained, by another who acts as teacher and ruler, on the occasion of taking up the chapel in Raleigh Street. Mr. W. stated that if there could be any appeal to any from the alleged evil which had driven away many long-known brethren, he would seek still to go through with the matter in Ebrington Street. He was told there was none, he had only to submit if those who held the place of rulers were concerned and did not act, and this even if it were a crime they were charged with themselves. Since then it has been taught openly that it is wrong for the church to act judicially, and that it could call no one to its bar; and the other two, not included in the previous statements, who have assumed the place of teachers or rulers, or both, confirm the principle that it must be left to the rulers, and that the church must judge by its representatives. Such is the way godly conscientious persons have been met. At any rate it is notorious that, in whatever terms it may have been expressed, the principle has been deliberately and systematically acted upon, when there was evil enough judged to be there by many godly brethren to drive them away. There was no remedy. Here then I get at the broad principle of the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street: -- the church cannot judge evil.

Another has been brought clearly out by the presence of these brethren. They were not allowed to interfere because they were strangers and not of the congregation in Ebrington Street. This was distinctly asserted and maintained: -- the unity of the body is denied.

There is a third point which has been brought out by the visit of these brethren. Mr. Newton has declared, in substance, that he would pursue what would produce everywhere united hostility in every gathering to the teaching of the brethren whose doctrines he disapproved of. Now with this I can have no fellowship, nor sustain it by public association with those who seek it. Until it be openly and distinctly judged by the assembly, they are parties to it now that it is avowed either acquiescing in it under the plea of preserving unity, or at least helping it on unconsciously. I could be no party to their doing either.

But while party sectarianism is avowed, and for this alone I should feel bound (separate from evil, and identifying myself in heart with its low estate) to take my place in the unity of God's true church and away from what I believe to be thus avowedly sectarian, still I would not dwell farther on this now. There are other principles in the facts I have mentioned which I present to the consciences of brethren. The fact that these brethren known to all, who came from elsewhere, were not allowed to meddle with the affair here, because they were not of Plymouth or of the gathering in Ebrington Street, is a direct denial of the unity of the body of Christ.

It is not a question of deference for those habitually here: I never heard the brethren who came accused of want of that. It is a question of principle. From the outset their interference was rejected on this ground. The unity of the body is therefore denied, and any gift or wisdom which other brethren who do not reside here possess cannot be exercised freely in the body. The gathering in Ebrington Street is a sectarian party everywhere, or an independent church, and the true unity of the body of Christ is denied there. It is useless to say that all saints are admitted to communion. So they would be in any other independent church in the kingdom. The real unity of the body as a whole is denied.

Secondly, the judgment of evil is positively refused to the church in defiance of direct plain scriptures. "Do ye not judge them that are within?" "If he neglect to hear the church." "Put out from among yourselves that wicked person."

And here comes out another principle. The teacher and his authority are set above the written word. The word says "judge." The rulers say you must not judge, and the fact is no judgment takes place. Perhaps, if the rulers bring a member before the body, the body may be suffered to excommunicate him; they have, that is, an executive and not a deliberative capacity. That is, when the rulers have deliberated and resolved (for I suppose there is to be some deliberation), the body is to execute; but the exercise of conscience or spiritual judgment by the Holy Ghost working in the body is not for them at all. This is what in principle has actually taken place. If those who have assumed the place of rulers commit even a crime, there is no remedy but to leave it to the Lord -- none in any way. The body cannot judge: and if brethren, ever so gifted, come from elsewhere, they cannot be allowed to interfere, for they are strangers. There is an absolutely irresponsible body of rulers who have assumed the place to themselves (for who placed them there?) who can sin as they think fit till God is pleased to interfere. The gathering in Ebrington Street, besides being sectarian is really an independent church which has no power to judge evil, with irresponsible rulers who have assumed this place, and cannot be judged by anybody for anything they do.

For these two reasons, my brethren, I cannot own a table in Ebrington Street in any way. I look for two things especially as constituting distinctively the table of the Lord. First, the unity of the body of Christ -- we are one body as partakers of one bread; secondly, that it should be a holy table. Both are denied in Ebrington Street. I do not mean that there are not individuals who believe in the unity of the body, and who are holy persons and desire holiness; I do not the least doubt it. I speak of the principle for which they are responsible there.

Hence further, I fear nothing of the charge of a second table. There are many tables in Plymouth, and where dear saints too go conscientiously: but they do not, I judge, rightly own (in terms they would admit it as much as Ebrington Street) the unity of the body. Now I doubt that in any of them the friendly and gracious intervention of known brethren to help them through a trying case would have been rejected, as it has been in the gathering here; and certainly none would hold that there was no remedy at all for evil in their rulers but to leave it to the Lord. But I do not judge, we do not judge, they are what we seek for at the Lord's table; and I do not go there, and you do not go there. I act then as I acted seventeen years ago, believing that, where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, there He is. I do not speak of a second table as regards Ebrington Street, more than I should say a fifth or sixth, if I began to break bread where there were four or five other dissenting bodies already established in a place.

I have given, in principle, my reasons why I do not own Ebrington Street at all, though I love, and look to God for grace to continue to love, the saints who go there. God forbid I should not: for I count them members of Christ's body, however they may divide it. I appeal now to their judgment as saints. But while the unity of the body is denied in fact, and the judgment of any evil doers is refused to the body, I cannot recognize their way nor them as the body of Christ at all as to their actual position. Do you really think, beloved brethren, that absolute irresponsibility as to evil for all who can assume the place of rulers is the principle of the church of God, being neither remediable within, nor others allowed to interfere? "I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." You will find, and it is worthy of note, that in the first to the Corinthians, where directions are given as to these things, they are addressed to all saints, and no rulers or elders are mentioned in the matter. The point was to have the conscience of the body clear.

I believe then, that the two great principles of the church of God -- unity and holiness -- have been denied at Ebrington Street; not as to individuals, I mean nothing of that, but I speak of that on which the table spread there is based as a principle. I cannot therefore own it. I do not recur to what made me leave it, but to the judgment which what has passed since leads me to form of it. Till judgment of evil and unity were rejected I could be in suspense. Now they are rejected. But I shall say what I judge as to the whole matter, and as to the brethren who came here. As regards those who came here or who acted when here in a determined party spirit -- to them I say that all I desire is, that, if their consciences do ever recognize this, they may be assured that they have my full and hearty forgiveness, as I do not doubt that they will then have the Lord's: but as to the brethren in general who came -- there are several whom I love and value very highly, and whose judgment in ordinary cases I should be most thankful to have and generally would rather have had than my own; but I judge that with one or two exceptions, which of course I do not name, their faith⁺ was not equal to the emergency in which they found themselves. They might have confined themselves to obtaining information for the guidance of their own conduct, or they might, as members of the body of Christ, have identified themselves with the body here, and strengthened and acted in and with it according to their gift and grace. They did neither; they went beyond one, and they failed to do the other. They will forgive my putting this my judgment plainly before them and the brethren. Still the Lord ordered all for good, however painfully. Their coming has made the state of things and principles quite plain to every heedful conscience. The Lord is always faithful and cannot leave His people, however miserable they are. I believe He never shewed Himself so much in favour of the brethren and their principles as His, as in this matter, but it will decidedly sift all and elsewhere too in a great measure as well as here.

⁺ It is possible that I might have acted more in faith myself by leaving in April. But the Lord (I trust) has overruled all.

I feel bound to add another point. Indeed but for this I do not know that I should have written this. I am fully persuaded that there is a spirit of delusion from the enemy at work. I have feared it long. I have not myself the least doubt of it whatever now. Terrible as such a thing no doubt is, it is a comfort in one point of view that it accounts for otherwise unaccountable things, and it relieves the mind as to them, because one is sure that the power of the Deliverer is above it. wilful rejection of anything would evidently be a more hopeless case. The quiet rejection of the Gadarenes was far worse than the "what have I to do with thee?" of Legion himself. It may be comparatively in slight and less perceivable things, but I have the unhesitating conviction that it is at work. I do not say in all, though its effects may reach far, but over many. Finally, I recognise that many dear saints of God are in that which I have left. That they do not, many of them, see their way out I fully believe. They cannot of course act beyond whatever light they have in their consciences. All I ask them is to look earnestly to God their Father, through Jesus, that He may enlighten their consciences, and by the power of His Spirit give them power to act on His light; for that we need too. And we know that, if their eye be single in this, they will find light and power too, and be in the presence of God, where everything gets its true place. I commend them with all my heart to Him and to the word of His grace in the bowels of Jesus Christ.

Finally I admit that it is a very serious thing to quit any body of Christians; but it is equally serious to remain where the table is based on principles which make it not the Lord's in truth. Moreover unity with Ebrington Street is not unity with the body of Christ; nay, it is the contrary now to me. And the insisting on the doctrine of unity to prevent the judging of evil, and that by the consciences of the saints, and assuming it into the hands of the rulers, is one of the very worst forms of evil, if not the very worst form which exists. Unity is insisted on by Rome, and on that account evil within is not allowed to be judged by the consciences of the saints. The representatives and rulers have that in their hands, though they may and do associate to themselves the body in doing it.

It may be alleged that young saints are unfit to judge such things. I believe there are many things a young saint would, in these days, judge better than many an old one. But that is not the question. Individuals are not called on to judge as such. The objection brings out a further point -- the denial of the Holy Ghost acting in the body so as to guide it in a common act. And this is the real root of the whole matter.

One word more. The question may be and has been raised of returning to Ebrington Street. My answer is here simple. There is nothing there now for me to return to. If the saints who are there are delivered from what I believe to be evil, I boast of no superiority because I have been so before them. We are at once all one on common ground. It would be my most hearty joy. But there is nothing there for me to return to.

I take this opportunity to say, as others seem very anxious it should be said more publicly than it has, that I think the absence of the last two letters of the five of manuscript copy has been probably accounted for.

As to the appendix I shall state what was stated to me, as far as I can remember it. I attach not the smallest importance to it one way or other whatever; but as others do, here it is. I had remonstrated with Mr. Newton some five or six years ago as to these letters. He had been then, and it has been going on since, employing certain sisters in copying them, and the copies were sent to India, Canada, Ireland, etc. I wrote in a letter after the remonstrance certain objections to Mr. N. One of those sisters applied to Mr. Newton for any answer he might have to certain difficulties I presented on the subject, which she had heard at a meeting held at her sister's house. Mr. Newton gave her my letter to copy, desiring her not to copy a certain part which referred to personal matters, and, at the same time, his answers to the objections contained therein. This was introduced at the end of letter three as an appendix to letter one, under the title, "Appendix to letter 1. Some difficulties suggested to the interpretation in this letter with Mr. Newton's answer." The sister in question says, if I understand right, that Mr. Newton is not answerable for its being there. I have no remark to offer on this, because I attach no sort of importance to it; but as others do, I take this opportunity of giving additional publicity to this also. Any importance I attach to the appendix, which is more as a proof of the letters being still circulated after remonstrance than anything else, is scarcely in the smallest degree affected by it.

This has nothing whatever to do with the question of the printed documents to which the charges so often spoken of related, and on which I do not touch now at all in any way.

ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT RAWSTORNE STREET, IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1846, WITH AN ANSWER TO THE "REASONS" CIRCULATED IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE REFUSAL OF MR. NEWTON TO MEET THE BRETHREN

PART 1

If it be a sad thing to be engaged in such an affair as that which occupies the saints at this moment, it is a matter of great comfort to be directed of God in it. It has been the conviction of the saints in Rawstorne Street, that they could not enter into reasons for not clearing their own consciences in the matter of evil charged against a brother who had refused to meet them on those charges; and that they must act on the fact of his refusal, when every means had been used to induce that brother to retract it and meet them; the rather, as they understood, that these reasons, as is now evident, would force them into the whole question of what had passed at Plymouth, and the merits of the case, as it had occurred there. This they felt under the circumstances incompetent to enter into. Mr. Newton was not present to reply for himself; witnesses as to the facts were not there. Had I made a statement, they could have only judged of its correctness ex parte. Moreover it was not what they had to do. They had to act on the repeated refusal of Mr. Newton to satisfy their consciences; and on that ground and that alone they did act, having come to the conclusion that if he refused to satisfy them, he could not come to communion with them till he did. That refusal was finally given; and they thereupon wrote a letter to inform him, that he could not communicate till there was a full investigation.

I think they were bound to act so, and that the Lord guided them. Still I felt, having acted as the discipline of the church of God required, it would be satisfactory if the "Reasons" alleged for refusing to meet them came before the saints and were fairly examined; and I thought of applying to those who had attached their signatures to them to print them, and then I could reply. This thought was in my mind only the morning after the meeting at which the final letter to Mr. N. was drawn up, when I found, on going out, that they were already widely circulated in print among the brethren in London, before the letter communicating the judgment of the brethren had been closed by those entrusted to sign and send it. This publication of the "Reasons" has given full opportunity for entering into them; and it is to me a source of unfeigned satisfaction, though at the same time of sorrow, that the whole thing has come out into the light.

I now give the facts and papers, as they occurred connected with what took place in Rawstorne Street.

It was no volunteer whatever on the part of those meeting there. They had been advised, at the time Lord C. before them all had charged Mr. W. with schism,⁺ not to take any steps as to Plymouth, till the Lord made it a matter for their own consciences, and brought it before them; and accordingly they had remained entirely tranquil in the matter. I came up to town, on my way to France, got my passport signed, and orders on the continent for money, ready to start. At this moment Mr. Newton arrived in town, and held some private meetings at which he lectured. At the close of one of these meetings, held in the immediate neighbourhood of Rawstorne Street, at the house of three who usually attended there, at which our brother G -- h was present, Mr. N. took Mr. G -- h aside and said⁺⁺ that one object he had in coming up to town was, to satisfy the minds of any brethren as to the charges made against him. Mr. G -- h, hoping things were going to be cleared up, said he should soon see some of them, or words to that effect. Mr. G -- h communicated this to Dr. C. Dr. C. communicated it to the Saturday meeting, which is composed of brethren from different gatherings, whose communications for mutual edification, if there is no further service, tend to maintain unity of action in the gatherings (which are numerous) in and around London. At this meeting, cases of discipline and of persons desiring to be received into communion are named, that they may be known; and brethren can consult together in any matter that arises. Dr. C. at the same time communicated the judgment of Mr. R.H -- d who had been obliged to leave the meeting, that nothing would be satisfactory unless the parties concerned met and the matter were fully gone into. All concurred in the propriety of meeting the proposal of Mr. Newton. Dr. C. was asked to undertake this, together with Mr. R. H -- d, and any others it might be deemed wise to associate with them. Ultimately Mr. R.H -- d, Dr. C., and Mr. D -- n, communicated with Mr. Newton. Their efforts resulted in a failure of obtaining from Mr. Newton any satisfactory arrangement, for meeting the charges, or for satisfying brethren as proposed.

⁺Lord C., however, would not now break bread at Ebrington Street himself.

⁺⁺The above is Mr. G -- h's own statement, corrected from his lips.

There is a meeting at Rawstorne Street on Tuesday morning, at which any needed diaconal service is considered, if there be such, after a prayer-meeting of those who attend. At this meeting, Mr. G -- h being there, the matter was mentioned, and concurrently with, though independently of, the steps taken by the three above-named,⁺ it was agreed that the ten then present should write to Mr. N., and propose to him to meet the saints. The following letter was accordingly written: --

"Rawstorne Street, November 10th, 1846.

Dear Brother,

Having been informed at our meeting for prayer this morning, that some of our brethren⁺⁺ have invited you to attend a meeting of the saints (the importance and necessity of which for the Lord's honour we feel), for the purpose of considering before the Lord the unhappy circumstances that have arisen amongst us, and as it is understood that you have expressed your readiness to meet the saints and to answer any questions on the above subject, we earnestly request you to inform us when and where you will do so.

We are, dear brother, yours truly,

Thos. A.

Edw. G-E.

John U.

George P-N.

Joseph B-R.

Chas. Jas. H-N.

Henry G-H.

W. H-T.

Porter H-ND.

John E. W-D."

⁺The proposal of Mr. Newton was made after a lecture to saints attending Rawstorne Street, at the house of those who attended there, and to one of those who always meet there. Of course, persons attending other gatherings besides Rawstorne Street may have been and doubtless were there; though the house where the meeting was held is in that immediate neighbourhood.

⁺⁺This refers to what is mentioned above, which resulted in the meeting at Dr. C.'s house.

"P.S. -- your answer may be addressed to J.B -- r, College Street, Islington, or to any one of the brethren who have signed this note."

This was sent down the same evening to Dr. C.'s, where the meeting of Mr. Newton with Mr. H -- d, Dr. C., and Mr. D -- n took place; and Mr. N. said, he would answer it the next day in writing. His answer follows: --

"My dear Brother,

"My time is now very limited, but I hope to be at our brother G -- h's tomorrow afternoon, at three o'clock, when I should be happy to see any of the brethren who have signed the note to me, and to answer their inquiries as far as lies in my power.

"Yours in Christian regard,

(Signed) "B. W. Newton.

"Tuesday Eve."

To this Mr. B -- r replied in the name of the brethren: --

"College Street, November 11th.

"Dear Brother,

"The object of the note sent you from ten brethren yesterday morning was not to request that you would meet those who signed it, as your note seemed to infer (which, by the bye, did not reach me till twenty minutes to ten this morning, a period much too late to summon brethren for three o'clock, as they were all scattered to their several occupations), but that you would state when and where you intended to meet the saints publicly, 'for the purpose of considering, before the Lord, the unhappy circumstances that have arisen amongst us,' and to which they still request a direct reply.

"Yours truly,

"Mr. B. W. Newton." "Joseph B -- R.

Mr. Newton replied as follows: --

"November 11, 1846. "Dear Brethren,

"There were last year certain charges of moral dishonesty brought against me by Mr. Darby, at Plymouth in a public meeting, such charges having⁺ not first communicated to me. When I heard of these charges, I requested four brethren, of whom Lord C. was one, to wait on Mr. Darby and request him to nominate other four to investigate the truth. This was "declined. Besides this, I requested those brethren who are regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints there to treat the matter as they would any other matter that might seem to require discipline. This was done, and a paper published, stating that they had examined the case, and reporting thereon to the saints. This paper you may see. Besides this, I appeared twice before ten or twelve brethren from various places, such, for example, as R., Lord C., M. Sir A.C., C., and others. They entered into an examination of the charges fully; and Lord C. will tell you that all, with the exception of Mr. W., declared that I was free from the charge of moral dishonesty that had been brought against me. A written defence was prepared by me, and laid before these brethren. Mr. B -- er, of Hackney, has this defence, and can shew it to you. After all this, I feel that I cannot be properly asked to plead again. As regards other charges in the 'Narrative of Facts,' the others affect the whole gathering of Plymouth as well as myself,⁺⁺ and I hope to consider with them the desirable mode of satisfying our dear brethren that they are untrue. The personal charges against me will, I think, be sufficiently met by the papers in possession of Mr. B -- er.

"Yours in Christian love,

(Signed) "B. W. Newton."

⁺Read "not having been"; but, of course, I copy the original.

⁺⁺This is not in any way the case. Founded or unfounded, there are many charges which affect Mr. Newton alone.

Hereupon, the following paper was drawn up and signed: --

"The undersigned ten brethren, after the meeting for prayer usually held by some brothers on Tuesday morning, felt it laid on their consciences to write to Mr. Newton, requesting him to state when and where he would attend a meeting of the saints publicly, for the purpose of considering, before the Lord, the unhappy circumstances which have arisen amongst us.

"This Mr. Newton has refused to do.

"Having thus acted in obedience to what they felt to be the Lord's guidance in so solemn a matter, these brethren, in fellowship with others who have added their names hereto, now desire to leave it in testimony upon the consciences of the saints to act upon their responsibility to the Lord in so grave a matter.

"Henry G -- h. "John E. W -- d.

"Porter H -- nd. "John u.

"George P -- n. "Joseph B -- r.

"Thos. A. "Edward G -- e.

"Chas. James H -- n. "William H -- t.

"We have full fellowship with the act of these brethren.

"Frederick L.

"Matthew James S -- G.

Thursday evening is the weekly worship meeting at Rawstorne Street. There was a full attendance of the saints on the following Thursday, as it was understood the result arrived at would be communicated by Mr. D -- n. The ten brethren requested him to do this for them, as one who had long laboured in Rawstorne Street and enjoyed the confidence of all. He had also been associated with Mr. H -- d and Dr. C. in their meeting with Mr. Newton. Having enquired of Mr. G -- e if the letters were there, he read the paper to the meeting. Mr. S -- 11, who had never formally joined the brethren, but who constantly breaks bread in Rawstorne Street, urged that brethren should not deal unfairly and judge on a statement of the kind, and that Mr. N. ought not to be judged without being heard; that Mr. N.'s was not a direct negative, and that he gave his reasons, and the letters ought to be read.

Mr. D -- n replied, that Mr. S -- 11 had entirely mistaken the question; that they were not judging the matters at all; that, instead of not hearing Mr. Newton, what they complained of was, that he would not come and let them hear him; that, of course, he gave reasons, but that it was a direct refusal, though he gave reasons for that refusal; and that at the meeting at Dr. C.'s they had proposed everything they could think of as a means of getting Mr. N. to meet satisfactorily the charges made, and that he would agree to nothing they could propose; that he (D -- n) had merely taken the office of communicator, and that his service was now ended. The letters were read, and Mr. D -- n closed with prayer.

Mr. Newton had said, on leaving the three brethren, after refusing the different plans they had suggested, that they might write and propose something, and they at Plymouth would consider it. Mr. H -- d and Dr. C. thought that, not having said "No" at the time, they were under some obligation to do it, and they pressed it on Mr. D -- n. He wrote accordingly the following note to Mr. N.: --

"40, Southampton Street, Reading,

"November 20, 1846.

"Dear Brother,

"I now write a line to you in connection with the subject of our conference at our brother Dr. C.'s last week. I did not myself think it needful to press the matter any further upon you by letter, after the repeated negative you put, in that conference, upon every proposition to meet Mr. Darby and others connected with this sad business face to face. However other brethren think that in fairness you ought to be allowed, even now, an opportunity to retract that refusal, if you are disposed; and I am sure personally no one would more rejoice that you should do so than myself, convinced as I am that nothing but meeting the question in a fair and open way, in the presence of all concerned, will have the effect of clearing yourself, or of satisfying the consciences of the saints. Let me ask you therefore to say whether you are prepared to meet Mr. Darby and others concerned in this question, in the presence of the saints at Rawstorne Street, where your visit and expressions of willingness to meet investigation have brought it on. I beg to say very distinctly, I do not write to brethren at Plymouth for any opinion as to the scriptural mode of proceeding in this investigation; not because I despise their judgment, but because the only satisfactory course for me to pursue, if I am charged with evil, is openly and fairly to answer to those charges when I am required to do so by the church, whose province it is to judge the evil, and not to be raising questions about the competency of the tribunal. I may also further say, that I write to you simply as to your personal course in this matter, because the charges are brought against yourself and not against others. Dr. C. wishes me to say, that an immediate answer is desirable, as Mr. Darby has been requested to stay in London until your reply is received, in order to give you the opportunity of meeting him and others, as required.

"Yours affectionately in Christ,

"W. H. D -- n."

To this Mr. D -- n received the following reply: --

"7, Woodside, November 24th, 1846.

"My dear Brother,

"Newton having submitted to myself and other brethren your letter to him, we have requested him to allow us to answer it. This answer has been delayed by my own inability to write or to give due attention to the matter, owing to an inflammation in one of my eyes. Our letter is intended to assign our reasons for counselling our brother to decline your proposal to him.

"Hoping to write to you with the least possible delay,

"Believe me, yours affectionately in the Lord,

"Henry Wm. S.

"To W. H. D -- n."

Mr. D -- n declined waiting for any reasons, as the refusal to meet the saints was fully expressed in this note. Dr. C. wrote a separate note to Mr. Newton, making another proposal, namely, a meeting of brethren from different gatherings to enter into it with Mr. Darby present. Mr. Newton in his reply referred him to the above note of Mr. S. to Mr. D -- n.⁺

⁺ The following is Mr. D -- n's reply to a note of Mr. C -- w's referring to the reasons for not meeting the saints. The note itself is given first.

"Plymouth, 26th November 1846.

"Dear Brother in the Lord,

"We hoped to be able to send the letter which we are now writing to you, with an accompanying paper, by this day's post, but we cannot get it done in time; so I write a line to say that we purpose forwarding it by an early coach to-morrow -- and it will thus, we hope, reach Reading by the express train which leaves Exeter at 12 o'clock.

"I remain, your affectionate brother in the Lord,

"Joseph C -- W.

"40, Southampton Street, Reading,

"Dear Brother, November 27, I 846.

"On my return from London this evening I found your letter of yesterday, and at the first moment after the lecture I sit down to acknowledge the receipt of it. I need hardly say, as you are acquainted with the contents of my note to Mr. Newton, I was a good deal surprised to receive a letter in reply from Mr. S. and afterwards one from yourself. Under other circumstances, of course, it would have afforded me nothing but pleasure to hear from either of you. I have not yet received the papers you speak of; but I suppose they may reach me to-morrow, however unavailable in my hands for the purpose for which I suppose they are sent. Indeed I have already acted on Mr. S.'s note as definitive to my own mind, on the only point about which I communicated with Mr. Newton. He tells me that he and others have counselled Mr. Newton to decline my proposal; and this I communicated to the saints at Rawstorne Street (as I did his refusal to meet the request of ten brethren who had written to him on the preceding Thursday evening), expressing at the same time most fully my thoughts and judgment about such a course. I now leave the saints there to act further in the matter as the Lord may give them wisdom and grace. In entering upon this matter, which I did at the request of dear Dr. C., it was my determination by the Lord's grace to act simply if I could not act wisely: so that Mr. Newton may judge my surprise and disappointment at the way in which he has treated my letter. He might have remonstrated against it if he had thought fit; but at least he should not have supposed I would express a purpose as strongly as I knew how today, and then act upon the very opposite to-morrow. All I can say is, if he or the brethren thought fit to send reasons at all, it ought to have been evident to them that I was not the person to whose hands they should be committed. My letter was a sufficient warning as to that. I can quite understand the assigning of reasons against a person's being condemned unheard, or against partiality in judgment: but I see no place for reasons why a person who has been charged with guilt should not answer at all. At my declining, therefore, to read any reasons that may come to me to the saints at Rawstorne Street, you must not be grieved, as it is only declining in act what I had already done by letter. I might speak of the sorrow of my heart in this matter, but this is known to the Lord.

"Yours, affectionately, in Christ,

"W. H. D -- n.

"To Mr. C -- w.

"P.S. -- I add a line before posting this, to say the parcel has arrived. I cannot add more, if I would secure today's post."

Mr. D -- n met the saints at Rawstorne Street on the Thursday evening following, and communicated the refusal to them; adding that, without judging upon the charges, a person who refused to meet them must lie under them -- that he could not receive reasons for not meeting them; that he pressed no judgment by the brethren -- they would act for themselves in it; but that after what had passed, if Mr. Newton came to Reading or Oxford, where he was now labouring, he as an individual would not break bread with Mr. Newton. And having thus discharged his own conscience, he had done what he had to do in the matter, into which he had been introduced by the invitation of Mr. H -- d, Dr. C., etc.

In all these proceedings, though I had stayed in London at the particular request of brethren, I had taken no part whatever, nor been present at any meetings on the subject, save these two Thursdays, when I was at the regular worship and stayed, but took no part, save that a brother having urged that I should meet the saints and give full information, I said that of course I was ready to give any explanation, but felt it would be neither right nor gracious to bring in new matter at any such meeting.

On the Sunday morning following, it was given out that a meeting of brothers⁺ would be held to consider what ought to be done under the circumstances. They met on the Wednesday following, a very large body of brethren -- several from other gatherings beside Rawstorne Street being present and taking part in suggesting what they thought might minister to charity and godliness. At this meeting the great body were satisfied that all had been done that was needed, and that they must come to the conclusion that till Mr. N. satisfied them he could not come to communion. A few doubted whether they could be considered to have received a direct refusal, however right they might think the steps of the ten. A Kennington brother declared that Mr. N. had said to himself when calling on him on these points, that the church was not a judicial assembly, and that he would not answer to it.

Mr. G -- h also read thereon part of a letter of Mr. N. to Dr. C.,⁺⁺ stating that he would meet him as an individual, but positively refusing to meet the saints in a formal manner. The brethren who had some difficulty were satisfied by this; and it was then proposed, that though they adopted the act of the ten brethren, an appeal had not been made by the body; and, however hopeless they might be about it, still charity would try. Mr. D -- n who was present proposed this formally. A brother from Kennington said that, though he knew it did not apply in the letter, still the analogy of Matthew 18 might be used, and that the last step therein mentioned had not been taken; if that was taken, he should feel nothing more could be done but to refuse to receive him. This proposal was deferred to, Mr. G -- h thereon definitely presenting it to the meeting, and the following letter was written and agreed to. Mr. B -- e very graciously said, that he did not personally concur in the alternative stated in it, as, supposing there was a refusal on the part of Mr. Newton, he did not feel that it would hinder his breaking bread with him. It was settled that the letter should be read on Sunday morning to the whole congregation, which was accordingly done by Mr. G -- h, and it was despatched on Monday, no comment having been made on it on Sunday. I must say, nothing could exceed the grace and good order and deference for the feelings of the weakest, that characterised the meeting of Wednesday. Mr. S -- 11 (who as I understood, avowed himself a member of another body of Christians) rebuked Mr. D -- n for saying, when declaring that he could not read the reasons, that they had not satisfied him. Mr. D -- n acquiesced in the justice of it. Mr. W. objected to the fitness of Mr. S -- ll's taking a prominent part; but the brethren discountenanced the objection, and though silent till the close of the meeting, he spoke again the Friday week following. I should not mention these things, but that I would state nothing as to the character of the meeting without giving a general outline of all.

⁺ It was felt desirable not to connect the inquiry with the worship meetings again in this matter; indeed many sisters complained of being dragged into it after worship; and the brothers met to consider the matter, before mentioning it at the general meeting, as they had in other instances which presented difficulty in which the consciences of all were concerned. It was not without or against the wish of those who labour among them; but quite the contrary. In many cases those who do so have felt able to present the matter at once to the body, as being very simple: in other cases, where it involved in a more anxious way the consciences of all, this previous communication to all has been made. The whole facts of this case had been communicated already to the congregation -- brethren and sisters -- at the two previous Thursday meetings by Mr. D -- n.

⁺⁺The impression on Dr. C.'s mind had been, that Mr. N. had expressed his readiness to meet the saints, individually or collectively, and accordingly he pressed his seeing brethren. The following is the letter in answer to Dr. C: --

My dear Brother,

"I have never proposed, but entirely declined, a formal meeting. If you wish to see me as a Christian brother, and would ask me any questions that would tend to elucidate facts, I should feel obliged; but I would consent to nothing further, nor would I see any brethren without first being acquainted with their names. I will endeavour to call on you to-morrow at the time proposed; but it is only to see YOU, and to afford you an opportunity of satisfying your own mind as to facts, if you desire it. But I come to see you alone.

"Yours, in Christian love,

"B. W. Newton."

This letter having been publicly read by Mr. G -- h, it is given; as without it the account of the meeting would not be complete. The rest of the letters are in private hands.

The note addressed by the meeting was as follows: --

"London, Dec. 7, 1846.

"Beloved Brother,

"We beg to transmit to you the following communication from a meeting of brothers usually breaking bread at Rawstorne Street, with some brethren from other places present and concurring; and which was afterwards presented and concurred in by the saints met together in the name of the Lord at Rawstorne Street on Sunday morning last.

"Having been fully informed of your refusal to meet the saints at Rawstorne Street, to satisfy their consciences as to the truth or falsehood of the charges brought against you, in the 'Narrative of Facts,' in the presence of those concerned in the charges, we now make to you a last appeal as a body, in the hope that you may yet be moved to recall your expressed determination on this point, and that you will not force us to a formal expression of the only scriptural alternative left to us in such a case.

"We request that you will kindly send your answer, addressed to Mr. G -- h, 20, Trinidad Place, Liverpool Road, Islington, so as to reach him by the 11th inst., as it is the purpose of the brethren to meet on that day to receive it.

"Signed on behalf of those named above,

"Yours in true Christian love,

"H. G -- H.

"W. H. D -- N.

"To B. W. Newton."

The brethren met on Friday. W. A -- e gave out a hymn, and Mr. Darby prayed.

Mr. G -- h read the following reply: --

"Plymouth, 9th Dec., 1846.

"Beloved Brethren,

"Knowing, as you well do, our strong conviction so long and in such various ways expressed, that the meeting you propose is entirely opposed to the directions of the word of God, you cannot be surprised that we should again meet it with the most firm and decided negative.

"If you had allowed us a few more days, we should have completed the answer to your letter which we are now preparing, and which we hope to forward with the shortest possible delay."

We can scarcely expect that you will attach much value to the expression of our judgment; but we think it our duty simply to warn you against the course that you appear to be so precipitately pursuing.

"We are, beloved brethren,

"Yours affectionately in the Lord,

(Signed) "B. W. Newton.

"H.W.S.

"W.B.D.

"J. C -- w.

"J.E.B.

"To Messrs. W. H. D -- n and H. G -- h."

A letter from Mr. T. accompanied it, warning the brethren they were all wrong, which it is hardly necessary to insert. Part of it was, however, read by Mr. G -- h.

It will be seen from the letter previously addressed to Mr. Newton, that the meeting on Friday was to receive the answer and act on it if it was a refusal; and this was fully understood by the brethren. The brother who had urged Matthew 18, and pressed the brethren so to act as they accordingly did, put it on that ground, as indeed the passage would make evident.

However, at Friday's meeting, some of Mr. Newton's personal friends came (none of them having been at the preceding ones, but Mr. S -- 11) -- Mr. W -- s, who did not say much, but objected and left; Mr. W. B -- er, Mr. S -- 11, Mr. W -- n from Brixham in Devonshire, Mr. A -- e from Tottenham; Mr. O. from St. Austell, Cornwall -- and endeavoured to hinder the brethren from acting, declaring their incompetency to act, that Mr. Newton had never come⁺ among them at Rawstorne Street at all, and therefore they had no reason for acting; Mr. W -- n urging the reading a quantity of papers he had in his possession to prove Mr. N. innocent. Mr. D -- n replied to this last, that they would be quite proper to be read, if they were trying Mr. Newton, but they were not, nor passing judgment on his guilt, but clearing their own consciences as a gathering, acting solely on his refusal to meet them. And another brother also said that, if they heard these papers and the reasons, Mr. Darby might reply, and Mr. Newton was not there to meet it, so that they could not enter on that ground. It was said that they were as ready to judge Mr. Darby (if the charges were untrue, for then he was a calumniator) as Mr. N., but Mr. N. had made it impossible to enter on it. Mr. B -- er said Mr. N. had not refused to meet Mr. Darby under certain circumstances; that he had said, that if brethren declared it was absolutely necessary, he could not say whether he would refuse, but that it would be time enough to consider it when the case arose. Mr. D -- n replied to this, that Mr. N. had said at the meeting at Dr. C.'s that, if any brother would say solemnly before the Lord, that he felt it was necessary for the glory of God that he should meet Mr. Darby, he would do so; and that Dr. C. had replied that he did say solemnly before the Lord that it was necessary for the glory of God that he should; and Mr. N. replied then that Dr. C. would not say so if he knew all the circumstances.

⁺ Referring to his presenting himself at the table.

Other brethren of Rawstorne Street merely urged, that all this was not the question, that they had to act on the refusal to meet them and satisfy their consciences. Mr. O. said, were they right in judging that Mr. Newton had refused? He had seen Mr. N. within a week, and he had told himself that he did not refuse to meet the church. It was replied, that Mr. O., not having been at the meetings, was not aware of course of what had passed; that on Wednesday week preceding a letter had been read from Mr. N. himself, declaring that he would not. And Mr. G -- h was called on for the letter. A brother however said, "We all recollect it"; and nothing more was said on this point, and the brethren waited patiently till twelve o'clock, owing to the attempts of the above-named brethren to hinder their acting. One brother, E -- s, stated he felt difficulty on the ground of Mr. B -- er's statement, but on the letter being read at the close, which it was proposed to send, he rose and said, as he had made a difficulty, he felt called on to say he entirely assented to it. Mr. Frederick P -- x protested against the competency of the brethren to act, and questioned if Mr. N. had refused. Another brother made a difficulty as to the course of procedure on this ground, that I ought indeed to have left Ebrington Street, but to have retired to a neighbouring gathering, and got them to judge the whole conduct of Ebrington Street gathering, for not having judged the evil, and therefore I ought not to be listened to at all. Having graciously and quietly stated this, all in the gathering felt that this was a principle that could not be entertained a moment, just as they at this moment could not judge Ebrington Street. They judged unanimously, with the exception of this objection, and of Mr. P -- x (for it was an appeal made to all, "Whether any had any difficulty?" which had drawn out these objections), that a letter should be written to Mr. Newton, stating that they could not hold communion with him till he met the charges fully. The letter follows: --

"London, Dec. 13, 1846.

"Beloved Brother,

"The saints at Rawstorne Street, with some other brethren present and concurring, having received your refusal to meet their request, now communicate to you, with the utmost sorrow and pain, that they feel precluded meeting you in fellowship at the table of the Lord, until the matters in question have been fairly and fully investigated. In this communication the congregation at Rawstorne Street do not express any judgment on the matter charged, but simply on the fact of your refusal. They need not say, with what joy they would welcome any change in your disposition as to this matter.

"Signed on behalf of the saints above named,

"We remain, dear brother,

"Affectionately yours in Christ,

"W. H. D -- N.

"H. G -- H.

"To B. W. Newton."

Mr. W. prayed, and the letter was read a second time and approved. It was again read at the table on the following Sunday, and then sent.

I mentioned on Saturday morning, the statement of Mr. B -- er at the meeting on Friday evening, and I allude here to what passed, because, as Mr. B -- er's statement was made before a very large body of brethren, it is well that the explanation should be known. It did not affect the question before the saints at Rawstorne Street, because it referred to the interview of the three with Mr. N., whereas the brethren there acted on the refusal addressed to the ten brethren, confirmed by the letter of Mr. S. to Mr. D -- n, and on the final refusal of Mr. Newton to the joint application of the saints, and other communications which confirmed it. Indeed on one occasion, when allusion was made to the paper signed by Dr. C., Messrs. R. H -- d, and D -- n, knowing that Mr. B -- er was invalidating the authority of that document, I dissuaded the brethren from referring to it without saying more, than that that meeting was not before them, that they had not been there, and it would be better to act on what had been addressed to themselves. And it was not referred to. When on Saturday morning the above letter, signed on Friday night, was communicated to the Saturday meeting, it of course introduced the subject; I said, that what had passed shewed the entire uselessness of these private meetings: here was one at which brethren we all honoured and respected took part; as the responsible persons, they draw up a report as the result of it, and it is left to act upon the consciences of the saints (though happily they had acted independently of it); and, at the end of three weeks, a person present at the meeting, and present and admitting its truth when the report was drawn up, comes and seeks to hinder the saints acting by a statement invalidating the report. Mr. B -- er was asked by Mr. H -- nd, if the report had not, when drawn up, been read to him, word by word and paragraph by paragraph, and that he had stated it was true: he assented that he had agreed to it as true, and added, that he said now it was true, that is, as far as it went; but that what he had said since was true too. Mr. R. H -- d remarked, that Mr. Newton had said what Mr. B -- er referred to (namely, that on Mr. B -- er's pressing him to say, would he refuse to meet Mr. Darby if brethren insisted on it as necessary? Mr. N. replied, he could not say, that if the brethren insisted on it as necessary, he would in all circumstances refuse, but that it would be time enough to consider it when the case arose). Mr. R. H -- d added, that perhaps a better account than the one signed might be, that Mr. Newton had refused every actual proposition made to him,⁺ but made a reserve of hypothetical cases, which came to nothing. I said, that I did not understand how Mr. B -- er could consistently assent to, as true (fair had also, at the time, been urged by Mr. S -- r, and admitted by Mr. B -- er) an absolute statement, that Mr. Newton had refused, and then say, that he had not refused under all circumstances. Mr. B -- er said both were true. I said, I could not doubt a moment of the effect produced on D -- n, H -- d, and Dr. C.'s consciences, before whom the interview took place, which effect never appeared, and which was nullified by an invalidated report. Had it been before the saints themselves, their own consciences would have been under the impression. Mr. R. H -- d said, that the best thing perhaps to say was, that it was impossible to give a straightforward report of what was not straightforward. There the matter dropped.⁺⁺ Having given all this comment on it, so that it may have its just value, I add the report signed by these three brethren.

⁺Mr. R. H -- d had urged at the meeting, that Mr. N. could not reject the competency of the persons, for he had offered to meet and satisfy saints, and that all they wanted was that he should do so in the presence of those concerned. Mr. T. pressed for some scripture for accuser and accused meeting face to face.

⁺⁺Dr. C. confirmed the account given by Mr. D -- n, as above, of Mr. N.'s offer, Dr. C.'s saying that he deemed it necessary, and Mr. Newton's answer turning it aside. Mr. B -- er asked, if he had pressed it pin, after Mr. N.'s turning it aside; Dr. C. said, Yes, but he had got nothing by it.

"In the meeting at Dr. C.'s (10 November 1846), it was urged upon Mr. Newton, that there was need of a full and open investigation. He was challenged by some present (in accordance with the object of the meeting) to meet J.N.D. and others face to face openly, and to say before them what he had said privately, which he refused, giving reasons against it: but, at the conclusion of the meeting said, that if a proposition was made in writing, they at Plymouth would consider whether it was scriptural.

"Signed by "D -- n

"E.C.

"R. H -- d."

I found on going to this Saturday meeting, that the reasons for refusing to meet the saints, signed by Messrs. S., C -- w, B., and D., were circulated in print, by post, together with Mr. N.'s defence, as widely as had been possible among the saints composing the congregation in Rawstorne Street, and provision made for their gratuitous distribution. To these documents I now turn.

This report of these proceedings has been submitted to Messrs. D -- n, J. H -- d, and a considerable number of the saints who took part at Rawstorne Street, and has received their corrections. Mr. R. H -- d has corrected what relates to the part he was engaged in. He was not at the general meetings of the brethren, of which an account is given above. Many brethren wishing to sign it, as well as the two named above, it was thought undesirable to select on the one hand, or to delay it on the other. It would have taken several days to attach these signatures, and this notice is substituted.

98 Besides the corrections made, some of the brethren doubted whether Mr. S -- 11 had not said, he had been, not he was, a member of another body of Christians. Mr. W.'s objection to the fitness of his taking a prominent part in a case of discipline was on the ground that he still was, though often coming to Rawstorne Street. His feeling was overruled, as stated.

PART 2 -- BEING THE ANSWER TO THE "REASONS"

I am exceedingly thankful for the publication of these papers. The saints have now Mr. Newton's "Defence," and his friends' "Reasons" for his not meeting the saints. In a word they have the case before them. While the brethren in London were discussing the question of how to judge the case before them, I refrained from taking any part whatever. In the last two meetings, after Mr. Newton had refused to meet them at all, I felt free to take a part, because the merits of the case were not in question, but the competency of saints to clear their consciences of evil; but though provoked by multiplied assertions of proofs of innocence and reasons, I refrained from all answer whatever to these, and refused to say a word on the merits of the case or on the "Reasons" (though it was very trying to me), because it would not have been fair on my part. The printing and distribution of the "Reasons" and "Defence" have set me perfectly free as to this.

I shall consider, first, the "Reasons."

There are one or two general remarks which I would make. In the first place these documents set up my narrative on the highest ground of fairness. For this reason -- three things are here alleged⁺ as clearing Mr. Newton, namely, the acquittal by the brethren who went down, which he suppressed; the letter written by a certain number of them, here published; and the acquittal by the four who sign the "Reasons." Now I have stated all these things in the "Narrative." The letters of Mr. R. and Lord C. I could not give, because I had them not, but I have stated their existence. The alleged acquittal, suppressed by Mr. Newton himself as ruining him, so that he declared he would go to Canada if it came out, I felt to be the best thing for him which he had got, as he now feels it to be; and I stated that there was such a document, and its substance, although he had got it suppressed. I will discuss it farther on. I allude to it now as a proof of the fairness of the "Narrative." I have stated also the acquittal by the four who sign the "Reasons."

⁺Nothing else indeed is alleged save the fact of investigation by the four signers of the "Reasons," who present themselves as being the persons who addicted themselves at Plymouth to the ministry of the saints. On this two questions arise. Are they the persons who stand, and stand alone in this place as the persons to whom the conscience of the church is to be entrusted (they deny that the body itself can inquire)? Are they really those who exclusively could assume the place in which, without supposing a possibility of question by any, they set themselves up here? and secondly, if they are, did they really make such inquiry as they pretend? This I shall examine farther on. For the present I refer to the acquittals themselves, which Mr. Newton professes to have already received previously. I have stated these in the "Narrative" already. Whatever could be said in the "Narrative" in this way for Mr. N., all he has said here of acquittals given by others, I have stated there. (See pages 74, 79, and 80.) Their value we will inquire into here. If anything could place my "Narrative" above suspicion it is this defence. For all that is alleged here of testimony in Mr, Newton's favour is found there already.

I have now another remark to make which is of all importance. There is not the smallest attempt whatever made to meet the "Narrative," but merely the charges inquired into at Plymouth a year ago. Now the main charges in the "Narrative" were not before the brethren at all then. They had never been made. They inquired into certain charges made in a public meeting in Ebrington Street in November, 1845, and none others. Now at that meeting I was called on by the saints to say why I had left Ebrington Street. In giving the account to them of the matter, I stated certain things (amongst many other facts) which had stopped me from ministering three months before I left. These particular things affected Mr. N., and these particular things alone were inquired into; but they are by no means the only ones, nor are they in my judgment by any means the gravest. There is not a pretence that the others have been inquired into in any way whatever. The "Reasons" of 1846, as well as the "Defence" of 1845, confine themselves to the inquiry carried on at Plymouth in the year I 845, and leave the main allegations of the "Narrative" untouched, I would I could say unobserved upon. They fix the reader's attention on the Plymouth inquiry, and take it off the "Narrative."

But I must now draw the saints' attention to what they do say. After stating that the four who sign are implicated in the main bulk of the charges in the "Narrative," they continue: -- "The only exception is in the case of the charges of personal untruthfulness. Of these specific charges our brother Newton is the only object. Now as to these: it might be quite sufficient for us to refer you to his own paper, entitled 'A Defence⁺ in Reply to the Personal Accusations of Mr. Darby,' a copy of which accompanies this letter." ... "Now we understand your letter to refer only to these last-mentioned charges." ... "These charges were" -- and then they give their statement of the charges alleged to have been made at the meeting at Ebrington Street in November, 1845, and never notice the charges in the "Narrative" at all. God is my witness, brethren, that I wish I had never heard of them again, and that they were all proved untrue. I would bear the shame with joy, if it could be so; but that is not the question here. The plea here against meeting them is, that they have been inquired into, and the accused acquitted of them. Of what? Of the charges in the "Narrative"? No: but of the charges at Plymouth in 1845, which appear⁺⁺ indeed in the "Narrative," but are by far the smallest part of the matter. And the reason why these only were mentioned then is evident. These particular matters were the reason for my leaving, and therefore I mentioned them alone at the meeting in Ebrington Street. I avoided anxiously every aggravation, and stated only what had led to my leaving, for this was what I was called upon to state. In my "Narrative" I stated the facts in general, avoiding private ones. In the "Reasons" these four go back to the Ebrington Street meeting, and declare that the charges made there were disposed of, and never make the smallest allusion to the charges in the "Narrative." These remain untouched; the most important of them were not alluded to in the meeting at Ebrington Street, nor in the inquiry which followed; and some of them happened after both 'the meeting' and 'the inquiry,' though in the affairs connected with them.

⁺You would suppose, reader, I dare say, that this "Defence" referred to the contents of the "Narrative." Not at all. It was written nearly a year before the "Narrative" came out, and alludes to only two of the charges contained in it. The word "these" in paragraph 3 of page 1 of the "Reasons" refers to the charges in the "Narrative." But "these" in "Now as to these," in paragraph 4, which would be supposed to be the same, refers only to those alluded to in the meeting at Plymouth in 1845, and not to those in the "Narrative." The unsuspecting reader thinks that they are the same, and that he has in the "Defence" an answer to the charges in the "Narrative," whereas about a quarter of them only are referred to. The others had not then been made, the "Defence" having been written nearly a year before the charges in the "Narrative" came out. The reader must judge for himself of such a procedure.

⁺⁺Indeed only two of those found in the "Reasons" appear as charges in the "Narrative." Four are alleged to have been made in 1845. As to two of them (which I disown however as charges) so far from being acquitted, one of the reasons for which Mr. N. got the paper (now alleged to be an acquittal by the ten brethren) suppressed was, that he was not cleared of these two. Of course these two do not appear as charges in the "Narrative," for I have never allowed them to be such. So that it is only two out of the charges mentioned in the "Reasons," which appear amongst those found in the "Narrative" from which Mr. N. is said to be acquitted.

Mr. Newton took the same ground in his reply to the ten brethren. After urging his acquittal from the charges made in the meeting at Ebrington Street, he adds: "As regards other charges in the 'Narrative of Facts,' the others affect the whole gathering of Plymouth as well as myself." The answer to this statement is, it is wholly untrue. Mr. N. must really draw largely on the credulity of his readers. He is charged with several cases of want of truthfulness, in which he alone (would he were not either!) is concerned. For example to cite only one: the imputing to myself and others a certain heretical doctrine in a tract written by himself alone -- when he, and he alone, had taught it in a worse shape, and that after explanation had on the subject; and then denying that he had charged us, though the charge was in print.

I repeat twenty times were it needed, I would to God he could disprove it, were I put to utter shame; but believing not only that the church of God, the saints beloved of Christ are concerned, but that Satan is seeking to ruin the blessing with which God had entrusted us, it cannot now be so passed over. I am ready (I have ever said and felt so) to confess my share as the first among those whose unfaithfulness and want of spirituality gave occasion to the inroad. Moreover, in general I stand as a poor sinner, with no hope at all but mercy myself; and I read, "he shall have judgment without mercy who shewed no mercy." But I cannot (even though my failing may have helped to give occasion to the ruin coming in) acquiesce in it, when it is come in and is manifest. Nor do I think it mercy to leave the poor and simple saints exposed to it (Brethren may judge me as they think right): I cannot do so before God. I am reproached now with not bringing the first charges against Mr. Newton openly before the whole church. I did bring what was a practical point of clerical assumption and the instrument of sectarianism, and pressed it on their consciences much before I left, and they would not stir. I avoided bringing the charges personally disgraceful to himself. My heart resisted it. I am now reproached with it. Perhaps I was wrong. I do not envy his friends who reproach me with it, and take it up as a ground why nothing can be done now. When the evil was sought to be spread afresh, so that I felt forced to come out with a statement of what passed, that is resisted. My answer is simple. God knows the end, and will bring it about to His own glory. But I resume.

The reader may here mark the difference of the two replies one has to deal with. Mr. Newton (in the letter to the ten) comes forward with a plain untruth, namely, that the other charges affect all at Plymouth. It will be answered, that the detection is so evident that he could not mean to deceive. (Mr. Newton uses this same plea in his defence.) But this is a mistake. Few carry the facts in their mind so as to detect the falsehood. If Mr. Newton's plausible statement is accredited, he appears an injured and aggrieved man; the fairest words are used: the person gets under his influence; once there no contradiction is listened to, no exposure read, a partisan is gained. The tact of the writer of the "Reasons" is more subtle. He states generally, "The only exception is, in the case of the charges of personal untruthfulness. Of these specific charges our brother Newton is the only object." This seems fair enough. Then in page 2 a history is given of my conduct and charges at Plymouth in 1845, as to prophecy, sectarianism, and, finally, Mr. Newton's veracity. And then it is said, "Now we understand your letter to refer only to these last-mentioned charges. For of none others could it, in any way, be said that they are brought against our brother Newton only, and not against others. It is to satisfy the consciences of the saints as to the things charged against his veracity⁺ therefore, that we suppose you ask our brother Newton to appear before the saints in Rawstorne Street, etc. Now, we think it impossible that such a proposition could have been made by you, had you been aware of the way in which these charges have already been met and examined into in this place. These charges were," etc.; and then comes an elaborate account of what they allege to have been my charges in 1845 at Plymouth. Now the reader will naturally suppose -- he is left to suppose -- that the charges in page 2, thus entered on, are the same as those spoken of in page 1, and that Rawstorne Street had specifically these, and these only, before it. He would hardly suppose that "these specific charges" in page 1⁺⁺, and "these charges were" in page 2, are quite a different matter, two only of the latter being found amongst the former. Page It refers to the charges in the "Narrative of Facts," which is thus subtly attempted to be swamped in what passed at Plymouth in 1845, where, as I have said, I confined myself (when called upon to state what led to my leaving) entirely to what had led to this, not wishing to bring charges, though I already knew of many other things; but they had not led to my leaving, and I said nothing about them. The alleged charges of 1845 are thus quietly assumed to be "the things charged against his veracity," and that "of none others could it be said that they are brought against Mr. Newton only." But I turn to page 1, and I say with it there are "specific charges" in the "Narrative of Facts" -- of which three (besides two of those found here) may be read in one page of the "Narrative," besides others in other parts of it. And in a following page of the "Narrative" it is distinctly urged that they regard Mr Newton alone.

⁺The words "veracity," etc., seem to carry on the connection with the first part: (through the phrase "last mentioned" which seems to distinguish them from questions on "ministry," etc.), but there has been quietly slipped in" March, 1845, etc., etc."; so that "these charges" after this passage, only mean the charges made in 1845, not those in the "Narrative"; and "none others" now apply not to all those of the "Narrative," but confine the attention of the reader exclusively to the charges made in 1845 at Plymouth; whereas in the beginning of what I have quoted, the like expressions refer to the whole of the charges in the "Narrative," which the unsuspecting reader supposes, consequently, he is dealing with all through. See the "Reasons."

⁺⁺Except the last "these," as explained in a previous note.

These first two pages then are a mere attempt⁺ to merge the "Narrative" in what passed at Plymouth in 1845, and the charges then made; to which alone the alleged acquittal can be pretended to apply. As to them, it is attempted to shew there has been an acquittal (the force of which I shall just now examine), but this acquittal does not in any way apply to the great body of charges in the "Narrative" at all. What shall we say to such a defence as this?

Having now shewn that the "Reasons" do not really touch upon or treat of the great body of charges as to truthfulness contained in the "Narrative," the whole case is really disposed of (viewed as taken up by those to whom the paper has been addressed). The "Defence" does not even allude to these charges, having been written before the "Narrative" came out. But I will, for the satisfaction of the saints, go through as briefly as I can the "Defence" of acquittal set up as to what is touched upon.

It is stated (page 2) that my complaints were directed against certain writings on prophetic and kindred subjects, and the way they had been disseminated. As every one knows, I do not agree with these prophetic views; I think them wrong in the most really important points; I do object to the manner in which they are disseminated. But, instead of beginning with this, I positively refused to enter on it as a ground of complaint. I said my ground was a moral ground. There can be no dispute as to this, because there is proof in writing. Here is Mr. Newton's account of the charge I made.

⁺From the effect this produces on my own mind, as to those who could concoct such a statement as that contained in these reasons, I feel bound to say, not for the purpose of charging one, but of clearing others, that I am satisfied that Messrs. S. and C -- w are incapable of it, are mere victims and instruments in this, and never would have done such a thing of themselves; and further, that there is but one of all the four, who is really concerned in it as originating it, and that is Mr. D. This of course is merely my judgment. Every one will heed it or not as they please, but I felt bound to say that (sadly as they have been dragged in) I do not believe Mr. S. or C -- w would of themselves have been capable of it. Nor do I charge Mr. B. with it. But as they have signed it, of course I must leave it here on their common responsibility.

"The charge preferred against me in the meeting was a systematic effort to form a sect, and discrediting and denouncing those who do not adopt the opinions which form its basis." This, though not the terms used at the meeting, is correct; it is taken from a previous note of mine to Mr. Newton. The first terms of the charge made, which, as well as this, was privately to Mr. Newton (I quote from his own note) were that he had "acted very badly towards many beloved brethren, and in the sight of God."⁺

Secondly, my attention was called to the subject of clericalism by an expression in Mr. Newton's first note, and I took it up with him, whereupon he withdrew his kindly written one. It is perfectly true, that the way in which the scheme had ripened I had at first no idea of. It is equally true, that it was "afterwards" I made the charges against his veracity: for the simplest reason; he had not made the statements on which they were founded till afterwards. I will here repeat, that though I did not go to Mr. Newton about them (he declined intercourse with me at that time, though I had called on him in order to renew it, and, not finding him, told him so); I did speak of them to Mr. H. and S., who were intimate with him, and in whom I had confidence. Mr. H. as well as Mr. N -- r did go to him, at any rate about one of these charges, before ever they were brought forward, and he persisted in the thing in spite of remonstrance. The whole paragraph therefore is a misrepresentation, save that I did not make the charges before they were called for. My purpose in going to Plymouth was anything but making charges.

⁺This was not a volunteer charge; it was in reply to a note of Mr. Newton, admitting that "his manner had been marked with so much distance, when we first met." Mine certainly had not. Three brethren had come down to ask me subsequently what I came to Plymouth for. Mr. Newton states on their report, that we should go on in separate paths, but uniting in all that we can in love. In answer to this I stated my complaint to him, whereupon he withdrew, in his reply, all the kindness expressed in his first. My note had accepted and returned the kindness, and stated "with sorrow of heart" the complaint I had to make; declaring that "as to difference of interpretation on points of scripture," objections could be stated if needed, but that when the need did not exist, I felt "a measure of difference comparatively immaterial, and but an exercise of grace." I quote this now, merely as a proof that the way the matter is stated here, is entirely incorrect.

Next, as to the charges; they are stated to be four. Now I deny absolutely that I ever made more than two at the meeting in Ebrington Street in 1845. The parading the two first is merely to make out a case. None of the four who sign were there. Mr. N -- r, who was, bore me out as to the terms I used in the meeting. The charge made behind my back was, that I accused Mr. Newton of altering the letters, after being told he had not. The charge made to myself by Mr. Newton was, that I had charged him with suppressing two out of five. This statement, as I shall shew, is the only plausible one, even from his own account. Here is the charge forwarded by him to me: "first, That of five manuscript letters (which it is not needful more particularly to describe), Mr. Newton had suppressed some."

This is his written complaint sent to me by the four persons mentioned in page 3 of the "Reasons." To aggravate and attach importance to this, the four, who here reproduce them, add "secret" suppression; and to make it square with the charge made behind my back of altering the letters, it is added, "or parts of them." In page 16 of the "Defence," made in 1845, Mr. Newton, referring to a book now lying before me, says, "This book Mr. Darby appears to have seen, and to have inferred that the two last letters were suppressed," etc. This statement then, in the "Reasons," is itself an entirely unjustifiable one on any ground. As to the second, I do not exactly see how the addition of an appendix constitutes, or can constitute, a charge of moral dishonesty. There may be a want of fairness in the manner of it. Whatever the charge is worth, the fact is so. An appendix was added, at the close of letter 3, with this title, "Appendix to Letter 1. Some difficulties suggested to the Interpretation in this Letter with Mr. Newton's answer."

Since the meeting at which this was alluded to, Miss J. has declared she is answerable for this, and that she put it in; that she had asked (being employed, note, to copy and circulate these letters) Mr. Newton whether he had an answer to certain difficulties I had raised to his views⁺ expounded in these letters. Mr. Newton supplied her with my letter to him (telling her what part she might copy, and what part she might not), and with answers thereto from himself Miss J. declares that, though authorised to copy it, she was not expressly authorised to put it in the letters. This was communicated to me subsequently to my statement at the meeting, and I published it at their request in the first tract I printed. I do so again now.

⁺ These events were about five years ago, since which time these letters have been circulated. At that time I had, at the instance of brethren, remonstrated with Mr. Newton about them, but he persevered. As this matter is referred to in the "Defence," I shall state the circumstances, and give Miss J.'s account to me, which differs in its moral bearing from Mr. N.'s. I was invited to spend the evening at a married sister's of Miss J., which I accepted, as for common edification. When there, I found a large meeting, to my great surprise, exclusively of sisters. Brethren who came were sent away unknown to me. Miss J. said to me, You will speak to us on such prophetic points (those contained in the MS. letters). I was rather disgusted, and replied, Whatever the Lord may lead me to. Finding however their minds bent upon this, I thought well to let it go on, and presented the difficulties I had in receiving their views, ascertaining clearly myself that they had learned them from man and not God. Miss J., in my interview with her, after the meeting in 1845, told me she had met Mr. N. in Frankfort Street after the meeting at her sister's, and told him there were difficulties raised she should like to be satisfied about. Could Mr. N. furnish her with answers to them? Mr. N. thereupon furnished her with my letter to him containing the different objections, and shewed her how much she might copy, and gave her his answers. These objections and answers form the Appendix. Miss J.'s account of the copy books, which I first suggested to her however did not satisfy me, but as I attached no importance to it, I left it as it was, and published it at the end of the next thing I printed.

All I said at the meeting was this, that "the first thing that made me uncomfortable was the renewed circulation of these letters, two of them being wanting" (I cannot answer for the word "suppressed"; I may have said in a copy in which two of them were "suppressed"), and in which an appendix was added as belonging to the first letter, which referred in a material part to one of the letters which was not in the book. My only words in pursuing the history of what led to my leaving were, "the first thing that made uncomfortable." The facts are just exactly as I stated them. My charges were quite distinct. I shall go into them in a moment. It is possible this rested on Mr. N.'s mind with pain, as a charge, from Miss H.'s writing to him about it. I will touch on this when I come to it.

I shall now state, as to the details, how the question of the place of the appendix came in. My grand objection was the circulation, in spite of remonstrance, of the letters denouncing the brethren's teaching. Miss J. states, she left the two out to circulate them in another book, and thus among twice as many people. Now in one of the two last Mr. N. makes this statement, that before the tares are judged on the earth, the saints will be raised and stay on the earth for an interval (probably a brief one), and that their being seen in their changed bodies must be an awful and terrible sight to the ungodly, and that while they were there the tares would be separated from among them;⁺ that at that time risen saints alone were the wheat, and that gathering the tares from among the wheat meant gathering sinners from among risen saints on earth. I had (no one, I think, will be surprised) objected to this statement, and I do think it a little unreasonable to declare, as Mr. N. does in these letters, that "the foundations of Christianity are gone," if people do not fall in with a system involving such absurdities as this.

⁺This has been publicly preached in the streets.

Mr. N. in the Appendix added by Miss J., as belonging to Letter I, denies some of my remarks being correct, as for instance, that he had said the tares were burned while the risen saints were there. It is possible he had not said so; but if I may judge from Mr. Newton's extract of my letter in the Appendix, I said no such thing, but gave the quotation in terms from his letter, though he seems to imply I did, by denying it. However this may be, I felt it objectionable to declare that the comment referred to Letter I, which did not contain all this, whilst my objection was based on Letter 4 or 5, which was not there to be referred to, this point being the first and leading one given. This objection, I dare say, may have been taken by Mrs. B -- h, whose kindness and integrity no one will question, to be a charge of altering the letters. If she said so, I am sure she thought so; but it is evident it had nothing to say to it. I have given these details, as so much has been said about it. But the fact is, I entered into none of them at all at the meeting. I said nothing whatever but that the circulation of these three letters, with the Appendix, without the other two was "the first thing that made me uncomfortable" -- and so it did.

Mr. N. had been remonstrated with about these letters at least four years before, and this was a kind of new edition; and I referred to the matter in some such terms, stating merely the fact as to the other point, Mr. N.'s name not being even mentioned, though I do not doubt it was referred to him, though a vast body of the statement did not exclusively. I knew it was Miss J.'s hand. I had been asked, previously, to the meeting, how I knew the Appendix was from Mr. Newton, and I shewed its heading.

I made a long preface then as to the disastrousness of having to make charges against one accustomed to be looked up to, and then stated those found as the third and fourth in page 3 of the "Reasons"; which, though not in the terms, amount to the matter of the charges. As Mr. N. refers to them in his "Defence," I will refer to them there; and will now take up the allegation of their having been inquired into, and Mr. N. acquitted.

First, as to the fact of the investigation by these four; they allege an investigation by the natural guides of Plymouth, and besides that by other brethren. There is a long statement contained in pages 3 to 8, to the effect that those co-operating in ministry (designated in the rest of the statement by the word "we," that is, the four who sign the "Reasons") felt that the charges "demanded a prompt and searching inquisition," and that this was gone into. It is then added in page 8, "But investigation into this matter has not been confined to the saints living here. The presence here, in December, 1845, of many brethren from other places (who came indeed expressly to investigate what was transpiring here) afforded an opportunity for yet farther inquisition into these personal charges; and these brethren did in a very patient protracted way go into the whole matter."

So that there was a prompt and searching inquisition by the four ministering brethren at Plymouth,⁺ which proved the charges were so groundless they were not worth communicating to the church, but the result of which was at last communicated to them, and satisfied the church; and there was a yet farther inquisition, in which other brethren did in a very patient and protracted way go into the whole matter. Now let us see on their own shewing how it was done. And let us consider first "the prompt and searching inquisition" by those who co-operated with Mr. Newton in ministry, that is, the four who sign the "Reasons," before we touch on the yet farther inquisition. Turn to page 3. "The first step towards such an inquiry (that is by the four ministers) was indeed taken by our brother Newton himself, though with our full and entire concurrence. He proposed that he should name four brethren, and our brother Darby other four, and that these eight should investigate the case, and report the result of their investigation to the church.⁺⁺ Our brother Newton accordingly nominated four -- our brethren M., Lord C., Dr. C -- y, and W -- r; but our brother Darby declined to accede to this mode of investigation."

⁺Note here in passing the startling proposition, that an investigation by Messrs. C -- w, B., S., and D. (who themselves in these or other documents declare too that they were accused with Mr. N.), to the exclusion of Mr. H. and all else, was the solemn, final, and conclusive investigation of the church of God.

⁺⁺This is not true. It was a proposal "to meet four nominated by him," and there is nothing said about the church; the words are "and report on the charges." On Mr. N.'s principles it could not be to the church as thereon judging it. Indeed, as appears in a subsequent letter, there was no thought of the church. They say, "We also differ from you entirely in thinking this a question of conscience to be referred only to the church of God. We regard it as a matter of fact, a simple question of evidence to be best dealt with by a few competent persons." Thus is just what I felt was the object, and to which I could not agree. In the same letter also, they say, "a given number of persons, one half to be named by yourself, the other by him." It will be at once seen by the letters given farther on, how this attempt to withdraw it from the church acted on my mind.

I confess I was astounded at this (not at the fact, which, corrected as in the note, is true, unless it be the concurrence of the four who sign the reasons, which I know nothing about; but) that the first step of the co-operating ministers to make a prompt and searching inquisition was Mr. Newton's nominating four other persons to conduct it (a step taken by himself), and with four to be named by me, to report it, when closed to the church. That can hardly mean the inquiring ministers.

But note yet another thing, how prompt it was. For I press attention (because there are loose words afterwards in which this is sought to be wrapped up), I press attention, I say, to the words "the first step." Now who are the four named by Mr. Newton? Three of them are of the number of the brethren who came to carry on the "yet farther inquisition" in the most patient and protracted way. That is, not a single step whatever was taken before the brethren had come from a distance to inquire into what had transpired. And then the first step of the inquiry of these co-operating ministers was taken by Mr. Newton himself nominating four other persons, three being the brethren from a distance. But then it may be alleged that it is said, "But before this proposition was declined, indeed, AS SOON as the charges became known to us, our brother Newton conversed with some of us," etc. "The propriety of this was felt by all," and then "we felt that we had nothing to lay before the saints." Now, still as to date, it is clear that this could not be before the first step was taken. This was taken by Mr. Newton; as he himself confirms. His letter to the ten brethren in Rawstorne Street who wrote to hum says: "When I heard of these charges, I requested four brethren, of whom Lord C. was one, to wait on Mr. Darby, and request him to nominate other four, to investigate the truth. This was declined. Besides this I requested those brethren who are regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints there, to treat the matter as they would any other matter that might seem to require discipline," etc.

"Before the proposition was declined, indeed, as soon as the charges became known to us," does not give thus one instant before the first step which put it into other hands. The reader may think that "before" includes some considerable period. But "the first step," when Mr. Newton heard of the charges, was Mr. Newton's speaking to Lord C., etc., so that this "indeed as soon" is no time at all, though it may look like some preceding act. And how much was the lapse before Mr. Darby's declining the proposition to put it in other hands? -- the brethren from a distance being then come to investigate, before which, as we have seen, nothing was done at all, the first step being taken with three of them. The proposition of Mr. Newton's nominees to me after hearing Mr. Newton's statement is dated November 26, 1845. My answer declining it is November 27, 1845; their final reply to me, November 28, 1845, at which time the patient investigation of the other brethren was in hand. On the 14th of December Lord C. signs a paper acquitting Mr. Newton as the result of it. And Mr. S.'s letter of acquittal given in the "Reasons" is dated December 17, at which time, as every one knows, the inquiry of the brethren had closed, and several were already gone. So that we get the plain fact, that not one step was taken of the prompt and searching inquisition before the brethren came from afar, and that then it was put, with the concurrence of the four, into the hands of some of those who came and who were to report to the church; and that then whatever it was worth, or however consistent, Mr. Newton put it into the hands of those four, as those who were regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints; who, before his putting it into their hands and telling them they might do it, never took a single step whatever. And at this time, it was under the investigation of the brethren from afar.

And now the question arises, why Mr. Newton spoke to some of us," and who are the "all" by whom it was felt. Was Mr. H. not co-operating in ministry at Plymouth? Where were Mr. R -- e and Mr. S -- s, who used to co-operate, or Mr. R.H. or others, who once "addicted themselves to ministry" there? Well, they were not co-operating may be said by the four who sign this paper. Messrs. R -- e and S -- s were. (They had joined in requesting Mr. H. to say why he could not minister, if it was so. Mr. R.H. had retired to Plymstock, disgusted, it is true.) Mr. H. indeed was not; he had, exactly at this time, declared before seven hundred brethren in and around Plymouth, that he could not minister any more, because of the conduct of Mr. Newton and his friends; and he went to Mr. Newton, as to one of the charges of untruth, to say he was sorry for Mr. N.'s credit and character that he had made the statements, for if he was asked, he must say they were untrue. Is it not singular, that the names of these persons are not mentioned in connection with the saints at Plymouth, when this inquiry was to go on, nor such a fact as the statement of Mr. H. (who above all was looked up to by the body of saints there) to the whole gathering, which statement happened just three days before I made the charges alluded to? This is not even mentioned. This is on the face of the document

The fact is, and I feel free here to add, that there is not one at Plymouth but knows that the four who sign this paper were the associates and instruments of Mr. Newton; and as to Mr. C -- w and Mr. D (though every one will own dear C -- w as in other circumstances, an amiable and upright brother) had their names been previously mentioned as responsible for the consciences of the saints, it would have excited the smile or the indignation of nine-tenths of the congregation of Ebrington Street.⁺ Moreover these four appear in a singularly unhappy position here, because they have months ago signed a joint paper with Mr. Newton, in which they declare that in all that has passed they have been accused together (that is, in the letter of the five to the four brethren in London, who invited them to the London meeting in April); and even in these very "Reasons" they say, that in the great bulk of the charges they are implicated as much as Mr. Newton, though not in these particular ones. And note here, that the investigation by the church is confined to their investigation. "This 1 the church does, we believe through those of its members capacitated by God for such service," that is themselves; they being, as they confessed afterwards, the accused persons. Can they present themselves as independent elders charged with judging Mr. N.'s case for the church today, and complain along with him of lying under a common accusation of these same charges to-morrow?

⁺On a particular occasion related in the "Narrative," Mr. N. had mentioned those whom God had raised up to exercise authority in the church; they were himself, H., S., and B. D. and C -- w were not mentioned.

But, however, we have their own testimony that there was no inquiry by them till Mr. Newton had put it into the hands of four other persons who were to inquire and report to the church. Further, the statement in page 5, "that they had in company with them (the brethren from other places) the fullest opportunities of again and again sifting all that could be said on it," is wholly untrue. They had nothing of the kind. They appeared with Mr. Newton before them when he answered and the brethren examined them, but they were never in company with them in other examinations -- not at mine, nor at H.'s. They had not such opportunity. I ask here, at whose examination were they in company with them? They were in company with Mr. Newton when he was examined. I shall now give the letters of these four, and my answers, in which I declined acceding. I thought this part of the case so very bad, that I did not do so in the "Narrative"; but as it has been thought proper to print the letters of acquittal, let all come out fairly. I sorrow to be obliged to do it, for brethren I count otherwise gracious and godly are implicated. It is no fault of mine if they have chosen to identify themselves with those who have brought them into such a position.

"Plymouth, 26 November, 1845.

"Dear Brother,

"We are desired by Mr. Newton to request that you will name four brethren to meet an equal number nominated by him, to inquire into, and report on, the charges said to have | been made by you on Monday the 17th instant,⁺ at a meeting in Ebrington Street which appear very seriously to affect Mr. Newton's moral character.

⁺This shews that ten days had elapsed from my statement, and about a fortnight from Mr. H.'s explanation; during which no step whatever was taken by those who "felt that such accusations must be instantly dealt with, and then, as we have seen, it was not they, but Mr. Newton took it up with other persons. As to Mr. H., steps were taken; that is S -- s and R -- e having proposed to the assembly after Mr. H.'s statement that they should meet to know what could be done to hinder Mr. H.'s ceasing to minister, every engine was set in motion to hinder brethren coming, and not one of those here named was there. This further shews that Mr. Newton did not take his step when he heard of it: he had heard of it ten days before.

"We understand you to have stated: --

"1st. That of 'Five Manuscript Letters' (which it is not needful more particularly to describe), Mr. Newton had suppressed some;

"2ndly. That Mr. Newton is the author⁺ of an appendix which you have seen subjoined to one of them;

"3rdly. That a tract recently printed, purporting to be a publication of the above-mentioned letters, 'with some omissions and alterations,' is so changed by additions, that it no longer 'remains in substance the same'; and --

"4thly. That a letter addressed to Mr. C -- w, professing to be the substance of what Mr. Newton had stated at a meeting held here in the beginning of the present year, is not the substance of what was spoken by him on that occasion.

"Not doubting your ready acquiescence with our request, we will thank you to make your nomination known to us at your earliest convenience.

"We remain, dear brother,

"Yours with Christian regard,

(Signed) [Lord] C.

"John M.

"George I. W -- r.

"To Mr. J. N. Darby."

⁺He is the author of it. It consists of his answers to extracts of my letter which he gives.

This letter distressed me, because it was an evident effort to take the matter really out of the hands of the church, and even out of the hands of the brethren who were come down to inquire; and, if I did not accede, to give me the appearance of refusing investigation. But I trusted God. It spoke of reporting on the charges. It is said in the "Reasons," "and report the result of the investigation to the church." Now there is not, we have seen, a word about the church in the letter; and if one could have trusted that it meant this, it actually was taking the matter then away from the church, where it really was. And four named by Mr. Newton could easily, as they actually did, seek to swamp the matter, so as to hinder investigation. The four (though I suppose those who signed might be the ones) were not nominated, as the choice was still left open. I thought the mode an objectionable one, and that the only possible result and meaning of it was hushing the matter up. Subsequent events have proved how rightly I judged. Had I named four, it would have at once stamped them as my friends and partisans. It may be as well here to recall what brought the ten brethren down. Mr. P -- r and Capt. H. had written to me urgently about the matter, the former pressing the assembling brethren from elsewhere; I said to him, "If you think so, you had better come." I communicated this to Sir A.C., Capt. H., and Lord C. Mr. Newton and his friends thereon sent for those whose support they relied on; namely, R., M., M -- s, R -- s, and W -- r. Of course I do not pretend to know in what terms they were written to.

My answer follows.

"Dear Brethren,

"I am perfectly ready to enter before brethren into the statements I made at the Monday meeting (and I can only add, I should rejoice more than I can say, to be proved entirely wrong), but in a way which is righteous before God.

"None of you were at that meeting, and you cannot know what I stated; and no one could have made the statements which are contained in your letter from what he heard at that meeting.

"I was called on by my brethren to say why I left communion in Ebrington Street, which I had laid upon three grounds, one of which was an accessory one only.

"It is true, that in stating one of these, I was obliged to state two things which did affect Mr. Newton's conduct. I did so with pain before God, and I did it before the saints, whose consciences were concerned in it. I acted before God and them, in leaving them on grounds of which these two things formed a part. I did so in stating them. I stand before God, and owing it to His saints to render an account of what I stated. I am perfectly ready to do so, but I shall name no four persons, as if they were friends of mine, and it was a worldly question to be settled by arbitration. It is a matter of conscience before God. Let it be before Him. Are not the brethren interested in this? Have they not heard it? Let it be before them. It is spreading nothing, for that would not be charity; but the statement has been made; let it be proved where it was made. And were I to name four, it would be even useless. Where would be the twelve or fifteen brethren who heard the statement in question? God's place of conscience is the church of God. Let this, which is a question of conscience, be judged there. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be. I know of no other tribunal but His, and His now in the church. It seems to me that that which you propose is a mere worldly tribunal. Of course the brethren who sign it, if as individual brethren they wish to inquire into it really as a matter of their conscience (not of curiosity), are free to do so, and if really of their conscience, in charity, I will tell them everything; but I shall name none, nor take it out of the place where I believe God has set it -- the judgment of the church of God, under responsibility to Him as such, looking for His presence, and able to count upon it.

"There are many more than four cognisant of all the circumstances, and many more godly sober saints interested in it. Let the conscience of those concerned be informed in it. Besides, these are a part of a long train of facts which have been going on for years, and which form a most important part of the bearing of both the papers alluded to, and the statements I made about them.

"Let it not be supposed I seek any popular meeting as such. I have no such thought. I ask only that the consciences of those whom God has given an interest in these things be informed and made clear about them. I desire all to be there. If the brethren at large are content that a more limited number be there, as more really conducive to their own satisfaction in the matter, it is to me all the same; but I shall act before the conscience of the church of God. There I can own Him and look for His presence; but I shall name none as my friends, as the world. If the four brethren who have signed this think right to come to me together and investigate for themselves (trusting that they will come as before God), I am ready to state all I have to state.

"It is a matter of deep, deep sorrow; but I demand that it may be done openly and fully before God and those concerned, and where the consciences of those concerned can bear witness, or the contrary, to what is brought forward. Nor would indeed the investigation of the points named solve in the least the questions in which the saints are concerned. 'I may be, and am, ready to go into these; but there is a long train of other facts and circumstances, which cannot be separated from them, must be inquired into, before the consciences of those who have a right to have them clear of all evil could be righteously satisfied. These must be inquired into too. I desire to produce none (God forbid) which have not in one way or other, acted already on the saints; but let all be fairly out before the consciences of the saints. I repeat it, before God's church, as far as it is already concerned in it. Anything that is really meant to bring it scripturally before them, I will gladly, though sorrowfully, acquiesce in.

"Your affectionate brother in Christ,

"J. N. Darby."

"If Mr. Newton prefers to take it up as a personal wrong to him, let him act according to the scripture rule in such case. But this evidently is not my part to act in. I may just add that the two points in which my statements did affect Mr. Newton, as alluded to, are as simple as possible. If the brethren who write to me desire to inform themselves, they have nothing to do but to go to the brethren who were present at the meeting,⁺ and inquire as to one of the matters; and, as to the other, to compare the documents, only informing themselves to what the statement alludes.

"I ask to bring no persons at all. I am accused of wronging Mr. Newton. I ask in this to bring no one. Let the four who signed the paper get those who were present together and inform themselves. Nothing can be easier to them. If they wish to satisfy the consciences of others, let the others be there to be satisfied. I am ready of course to state (before them and those who were then present) what my objection is.

"John M.,

"Mr. C -- w's, 1, Boon's Place.

"November 27, 1845."

⁺This refers to the meeting of fifteen in April previous, the account of which I alleged to be incorrect.

The following is the answer to my letter:

"Plymouth, 28 Nov., 1845.

"Dear Brother,

"We have received your letter in reply to our note of the 26th inst., and have given to it our prayerful and best attention.

"We informed you, that you were reported to have made certain statements very derogatory to Mr. Newton's personal character, and that Mr. Newton was desirous to submit them to the scrutiny of a given number of brethren, one half to be named by yourself, the other by him.

"We did hope that you would either have denied having made the statements at all, or have withdrawn them as made in mistake, and have expressed regret at having been led into error; or that you would have been willing to have them investigated; but although you acknowledge having stated 'two things that did affect Mr. Newton's conduct,' we infer, from the tenor of your letter, that you are not prepared to sustain them.

"Had the wrong of which Mr. Newton complains been done to him privately, the course prescribed in Matthew 18 (to which we suppose you refer when using the words 'scripture rule') might have been taken by him; but after availing ourselves of such sources of information as lie open to us, we feel satisfied that charges against Mr. Newton's moral character were made by you at a meeting consisting (in the opinion of some) of scarcely less than three hundred persons. Under such circumstances, we think the plan proposed by Mr Newton unobjectionable. You call it 'a mere worldly tribunal.; We see in it nothing unscriptural; and certain we are that it is not according to 'scripture rule'⁺ to publish charges against an individual without having first given him an opportunity of clearing himself from them.

⁺I had pressed them on Mr. H. and Mr. S. privately months before. Mr. H. (and Mr. N -- r) had spoken to Mr. N. as to one, and he went on with it. Mr. N. declined intercourse with me at the time. It is well to remark, that I had no more to do with these untruths then than any one else. My having made a stand afterwards may now make me responsible for shewing that I had reason to do so.

"We also differ from you entirely in thinking this is 'a question of conscience,' to be referred only to 'the church of God.' We regard it as a matter of fact -- a simple question of evidence, to be best dealt with by a few competent persons; and we think a public meeting the place of all others the least fitted for cool dispassionate inquiry. It is true, you disclaim all idea of appealing to 'a popular meeting, as such,' whilst the language of your letter is unintelligible, if you do not really seek a public assembly there to repeat the grievance.

"We are therefore under the sad and painful necessity of saying, that we can only regard your letter as an evasion; and we feel that, as the matter now rests, the charges you have brought against Mr. Newton's personal character are not entitled to credit, and ought not to detract from the esteem and respect in which he has always been held.

"It is our intention to give to Mr. Newton a copy of this correspondence, leaving it with him to use it as he may think best.

"We remain, dear brother, your's faithfully,

(Signed) "George I. W -- r.

"[Lord] C.

"John M. "J. C. -- y.

"To Mr. J. N. Darby."

I beg the reader to read my previous letter. The four who sign this had never asked me a single question on the matter. Three of them I had not even seen, nor had they been near Messrs. H., R.H., C.P., N -- r, McA., who were all at Plymouth, and had been at the April meeting, the account of which was called in question as untrue; the only others present in Plymouth who had been at that meeting being Mr. Newton s personal friends, brought there by him.

The following was my answer: --

"Dear Brethren,

"On the whole, however painful, I am thankful for your letter. Still it is with very deep sorrow as to the subject. You are brethren, and some at least known as well as beloved. I only sorrow over some things in the position you have put yourselves in; but it would be out of place for me to express it now, after the letter you have sent me. I might complain of some things. You were none of you here, or present in March or April, when that took place to which one of the charges refers, or aware of the circumstances to which the other alludes. You did not even ask me what the charges were which I made at the large meeting on Monday; and even Lord C., who spoke about the grounds of my leaving, had no detail from me of what the charges were. But I shall not trouble you with these points. It was suggested to me to keep a copy of my last letter. I said that I was acting before God, and would trust Him, and not deal thus with brethren. I have now to beg you will send me the original of my letter that I may copy it; you shall of course have it again. The person you trust it to can stay till I return it to him. I have in one sense evaded this miserable subject, but it certainly was not in that letter (I happily read it to the brethren⁺ H. and McA. before it went, to know if it was quite clear on the point). But it can now be evaded no longer; and my heart just sinks while I say it. As far as the saints go, it is made unavoidably a church matter. I only regret that names I much love should be mixed up with it, as your letter has done. I am, with however much sorrow,

"Still affectionately yours in the Lord,

"J.N.D."

⁺I had shewn the original proposal to Mr. H. and Mr. McA., with whom I happened to drink tea at Mr. H.'s that day, who both thought (as every other saint I met about it afterwards) that I ought not to act on it They had been present, and H. said, "What is the good of eight inquiring now for us, when we were at the meeting in question with eleven more (that is, at the April meeting, the account of which I said was untrue)?" but H. said, "Take care you do not seem to avoid an investigation." I shewed them therefore my answer, and they said there could be no mistake as to it.

The following note closed the correspondence.

30th November.

"Dear Brother,

"When you have taken a copy of the enclosed [my letter], will you be kind enough to return it to me at your convenience, either today or to-morrow?

"Believe me, yours faithfully,

"George J. W -- R."

Mr. W -- r was called away by the illness of his child, and saved the pretence of carrying on an investigation, after writing a letter saying my charges were not worthy of credit. Lord C. and Mr. M. pursued it, however, and they are two of the persons whose certificates of acquittal were given in December 14 and December 30, as having made up their minds subsequently to the inquiry. It is quite evident they need not have waited quite so long.⁺ Mr. M -- s had written⁺⁺ long before to Mr. Newton, that he might count on him to stand by him in any way. Mr. R -- s' and Mr. R.'s testimony remain: that the latter has sought to clear Mr. Newton all through cannot be doubted. I will consider the value of his acquittal, which is on the same ground as the other alleged on by all the brethren, when I come to the defence of Mr. Newton. The inquiry by the ten went on, and they separated without any joint testimony of guilt or innocence. That is a clear fact; or a letter from Mr. R. answering for three others, and another from Lord C., need not have been produced when the rest were all gone. But I will close as to the alleged inquisition of the four who sign the "Reasons," as their last act comes in here. A paper of acquittal was put forth with their signature. Let it be remembered, that the first act of any inquiry was Mr. Newton's putting it into the hands of three of the brethren from a distance, and one of Plymouth. The four Plymouth ministers had done nothing before this. This was the "first step." Their inquiry, if any, must have been while that of the brethren from a distance was going on. No one certainly ever heard of it then. Not only so; they were (so they state in the "Reasons") examined themselves by the brethren who came,⁺⁺⁺ and the fact is, they always appeared with Mr. Newton as his associates when he was before the brethren from a distance.

⁺If it is miserable to read through such a course of things I beg the reader to consider what it was to go through it. I do not charge the individuals here. I have been long convinced (and declared it) of a direct delusive influence of Satan at Plymouth.

⁺⁺This letter was circulated everywhere, because it stated a vast number of dreadful errors into which Mr. M -- s had been led by listening to brethren who differed from Mr. Newton's views. I understand Mr. M -- s is changed a good deal in this respect, but I have no certain information. While at Plymouth, and for some tune after, no one spoke so strongly as to Mr. Newton's tyranny in hindering people's ministry.

⁺⁺⁺They also state they investigated in company with them.

And now, having stated these circumstances, let us turn to the document itself, and see what pretension it has to be a joint result of a common investigation carried on by ministers together in behalf of the church. It is in page 6, where you will find it an individual testimony of Mr. S. "What I now state" is what he says; not a word about a prompt, solemn, or any inquisition of the elders at Plymouth. "He believes" Mr. N. "entirely innocent," etc., and adds, "Should any of you desire to know the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion stated above, I shall be happy," etc. The three others say they unite in the testimony, because they have come to the same conclusion, signing their names in a postscript. Mr. S. says he does it to allay agitation. Is this a joint report to the church of a solemn investigation carried on by elders? Its real effect on a vast number was just to prove that the brethren from a distance had not come to such conclusion; and further, these four were known to all as Mr. N.'s instruments in what had produced all the confusion, and it recoiled on their own heads, and that was all. It was felt by many as ruining Mr. N.'s cause and their own on these two grounds.

And now I may repeat circumstances connected with it here, which will lead us to another of the alleged acquittals -- the suppressed one.

Mr. Newton (as is admitted, nay asserted by himself) got the paper which had been drawn up by Sir A.C., and signed by others, suppressed. This having been done, the countersigned letter of Mr. S. was produced, saying, as the brethren have given no conclusion on the charges, they had drawn one up themselves, and now sent it forth. And I think I may say, that the way in which the one was suppressed, under a threat to go to Canada, as ruinous to Mr. N.'s character, and, as soon as they had succeeded in this, producing and issuing their own entire acquittal, opened Mr. P -- r's eyes (one of those who are said to have entirely acquitted him) more than anything else to the misconduct of the party. He is reported to have said, that he never saw such things among Christians in his life. Now these two documents, one of which supplanted the other, are the two things which are said to be, one the solemn acquittal of the church of God at Plymouth, and the other that of impartial brethren from elsewhere. And now I will consider this last.⁺ First, it is a strange thing for Mr. Newton to allege now as an entire acquittal a paper which he says himself he got suppressed then. He did get it suppressed; that is, the four who had added their names to Sir A.C.'s withdrew them, and the latter gave it up. And why suppress this entire acquittal? The fact was, he said then he should be ruined by it, and that if it came out he should go to Canada. Sir A.C.'s account of the matter to me was that, when it was shewn to Mr. N., he was beside himself; that he declared that I had made four charges, whereas this paper applied only to two (all I really had made), and that he had given no occasion for the charges which the paper said he had.

⁺That is, the circumstances connected with it. The paper itself never came out, having been suppressed at the time.

What I believe⁺ to have been the fact as to the paper, is this: -- Most of the brethren were satisfied as to the sectarianism, and thought it might be got rid of, but found the moral charges stood in the way -- Mr. Newton would listen to nothing else. I do not say all the brethren. M -- s and R -- s insisted after this on the clerical principle; and the latter openly deprecated the principles of brethren. But Lord C. says now, to all who will hear him, that he would not go to Ebrington Street, though he condemns my proceedings. He has declared to me, that he had not believed the sectarianism and clericalism charged till he went down, but then he did; and that he would not break bread there now. This being more or less felt by several, and the moral charges, "a dreadful encumbrance to the real question," several of the brethren having left, Sir A.C. thought he could bring it to an issue by going as far as possible in clearing Mr. Newton; and at the same time quieting me by saying he had laid himself open to the charges; and insisting besides on a full investigation before the church, which, in a subsequently published tract, he has stated he did, and indeed so informed me soon after the transaction, during which I was myself absent, the investigation being over. It was in my judgment an unadvised act, though with a godly intention, and God in fact set it aside altogether. I was not at Plymouth. I left it all to the Lord when not called to answer, which I seldom was -- only once by the whole number of brethren. Indeed (while many of these brethren I look up to and love most dearly and value much for both godliness and a wisdom I should far prefer to my own in their service in the church in most cases) in this matter my sober judgment is, that they came without the wisdom of God, remained without the strength of God with them, and departed without the honour of God upon them. How far my answer to P -- r contributed to this I do not pretend to say. However God interfered, as He overrules all; and though it went, no doubt, far beyond any other document in Mr. N.'s favour, he insisted on the suppression⁺⁺ of this paper. Sir A.C. withdrew it -- a strange procedure, if it were a solemn act of acquittal by the ten brethren.

⁺I pretend to give no more than my own judgment as to it, from all that passed then and since.

⁺⁺Let me notice a little here two things to the saint who reads this First, what was going on. A verdict is drawn up (now alleged by Mr Newton to be an acquittal of him by all) and signed by some of those inquiring, and then submitted to Mr. Newton for his judgment on it. [I do not know that Sir A.C. joined in this.] He rejects it as not good enough for him, and it is withdrawn! I am not impugning the integrity of the persons concerned; I have no more doubt of it than of my own. But any one will feel that it must have been a tolerable trial to have seen what I had been anxiously seeking to serve God in get on this kind of ground. Did they ever think of submitting anything to me? Never a moment, and they were quite right. I complain nothing of this. And now see, secondly, the good of trusting God. These brethren never troubled themselves about me in the matter. They were anxious to get rid of the charges of untruth, in order to deal with the sectarianism they met with; and prepared to swamp the other question as an encumbrance, and quiet me, without consulting me, by some general expressions, at the same time Sir A.C. quieting his own conscience by demanding, as he has publicly stated he did, an open investigation. All this I knew nothing of, good or bad, till afterwards, nor indeed of anything that passed. One would have thought it a fine opportunity for Mr. Newton to quash the charges and all inquiry. These brethren were anxious to get rid of them (indeed they told me so twenty times, that they stood altogether in the way). God would not allow it, and employs Mr. Newton himself to suppress it. They would have gone as far as ever they could to clear him, in order to get rid of the question: God steps in, and the very person they were going to clear He employs to set aside all their plan. How wonderful are His ways!

I will now see how far as a matter of fact it is true that there was really an acquittal by all. Sir A.C. subsequently published a tract, in which he declares in italics, "Anything like an open investigation of his [that is, my] statements, is positively denied." I know not what the four who have signed the "Reasons" judge of this statement coming from one of those who they say fully investigated it. Mr. P -- r told me that he did not attach much weight to the charge as to the letter to C -- w, but he thought the other very grave. He, it is not denied, went to urge Mr. N. to confess it. I do not state what passed, though I have heard it. I cite it merely as to the notion of a full acquittal. Mr. W. refused to sign it at the time, whatever it was. Mr. McA. had gone away, on the ground that he was satisfied as to the evil existing, and would not have the appearance of staying to inquire as if he doubted. Mr. N -- r was gone; and he says to me (having gone through all the inquiry) as to the "Narrative of Facts," "so far as I am able to speak, I believe the pamphlet is what it professes to be, a statement of facts sad and humbling indeed (and who that has had anything to do with the enacting of them, does not feel his own place that of self-judgment as well as of identification with the sin of his brother?) yet facts. My own judgment with respect to Ebrington Street, though other things have their weight, is mainly based on the way in which conscience has been blunted and inquiry stifled." Now I do not produce this as proving that Mr. N -- r holds Mr. N. guilty, nor anything of the kind. It is not the question. I am not proving him so myself; but I ask, Is this the language of a man who has pronounced a full acquittal of charges found in the "Narrative"? I speak only of the two inquired into in 1845. As to any others there is no pretence of an acquittal. I have then, as to this acquittal, the fact that it was suppressed by Mr. N. himself as ruinous to him. Further, the person who drew it up declares, in a subsequently published paper, that anything like an open investigation of my statements was positively denied; another refusing to sign it at the time; another gone because he was convinced of the evil; another declaring the "Narrative" true; another urging confession of one of the charges on Mr. N.

I may add that, when Mr. C -- n proposed giving a paper to Mr. N. clearing him, on Mr. N.'s complaint that he could not get one, Messrs. P -- r and C. declined signing it. I do not pretend to say on what ground.

As to Lord C., he had acquitted him before the inquiry began; so had M. and W -- r (the last had nothing to say to this last matter); M -- s, R -- s, and R. remain, all three of whom were there as Mr. N.'s friends. We have their testimony, and what it was founded on, in the "Reasons"; and these form the third alleged acquittal, which will lead us, we shall see, to our closing matter.

Mr. R., in stating (page 9 of "Reasons") that he, with R -- s, M., and M -- s,⁺ was perfectly satisfied that Mr. N. was entirely free from the charge of moral dishonesty, adds, that if Mr. N. "would lay before the saints an explanation similar to that you have read to us, either by printing or otherwise, they will then see for themselves the reasons of our having arrived at the conclusion above stated." This Mr. N. has now done in printing the "Defence" then read, so that we can fully judge of the ground of any alleged acquittal as to these two points, for this paper was the avowed ground of it, and of any satisfaction afforded as to the charges to these three or indeed to any one else. We have only therefore to examine the defence. Whatever it is worth, Mr. R.'s acquittal is worth, and no more. This "Defence" we will now examine before closing with the "Reasons."

First, as to the suppression of letters and appendix, I have stated the real facts as to this. Miss H.'s letter, etc., only remain. First Mr. N. states (page 14), to make out the charge heavy, that at Exeter after the reading meeting I there repeated the charge. Miss H. replied, many persons being present, etc. You will think, doubtless, this is at the close of the meeting, a sort of public accusation. "Mr. and Mrs. McA.", Miss H. states (page 17), "remained to dine at Mr. W -- n's with Mr. Darby. After dinner, the conversation turned on Matthew 24." It was after the reading meeting to be sure; but what had it to do with it? The whole force of Mr. N.'s complaint is gone in Miss H.'s statement. It was a conversation among private friends. What was said there? I charged Mr. N. with altering the letters (page 17). Mr. N. however gives a different account, and, so far, a just one, in page 16. "This book Mr. Darby appears to have seen, and to have inferred that the two last letters were suppressed." So that Mr. N. fully bears me out in my contradiction of Miss H.'s statement as to altering the letters. I refer to this because an immense handle was made of this for months. We have seen that the four who sign the "Reasons" try, by inventing a new⁺⁺ statement of my charge at the end of a year and three-quarters, to bring in both Mr. N.'s and Miss H.'s statements. I have already said that I did not really make this charge in Ebrington Street at all, though I alluded to the fact as above explained. Farther, I also have an account of Miss H.'s as to this conversation, in which she endeavours to convince me of her accuracy. She has entirely convinced me of the contrary: I shall here say why. The proof she gives is, that I stated that I supposed that the tract entitled "Signs of the Coming of the Lord, for whom are they given?" was Mr. Newton's, and that she informed me it was Mr. D.'s. This was a most unhappy proof of her accuracy. Mr. D.'s initials are on the tract. Further, I had written an answer to it, since published. Mr. N -- r urged me not to do so, as it would only puff him up more, and do him harm. Not only so: but it was in this tract we were charged with subverting the first elements of Christianity. Mr. D. having said in the April meeting of fifteen, that I was putting my interpretation on the denunciations made against brethren, I replied, "Well, you shall have your own," and pulled his tract out of my pocket. The reader may judge of how accurate Miss H.'s account must be, when her proof of it is that I did not know whose tract this was. I regret sincerely that Miss H. should thus have allowed herself to be dragged into publicity. Miss H. upsets Mr. Newton's attempt to aggravate whatever did pass by saying it was after the reading meeting; though his authority is the letter that upsets it. Mr. N. refutes Miss H.'s charge by his own account of the real state of the case; namely, that it was the absence of the last two letters which was in question, as indeed he did not venture⁺⁺⁺ to impute Miss H.'s account to me in the already cited letters of his four nominees; and Miss H.'s proofs to me that her memory is accurate proves to me how exceedingly inaccurate it must be; while I entirely deny, as Mr. Newton confirms me here in doing though he charged me with it fiercely elsewhere, that I ever said a word about altering letters at all.

⁺It is well that the reader should be aware that these, as well as Mr. W -- r, were brought down by Mr. Newton and his friends to stand by him in this matter.

⁺⁺"Reasons," page 2. "Secret suppression of certain MS. letters" gives Mr. N.'s account, adding "secret." "Certain parts of them" gives Miss H.'s. Aware of the two accounts not tallying, they have inserted both with an "or."

⁺⁺⁺It was however in the tea-meetings, held on Monday evenings, and on other occasions, after this "Defence" was read, and the brethren gone, that the charge of altering the letters, after denial of having done so, was made. A curious reason was given to satisfy the minds of those who attended as to the Irish brethren never coming to Plymouth. They were informed, that the enemies of Plymouth had told them that the saints at Plymouth were an idle newspaper-reading people, and it was no wonder therefore they had not come there.

As to the Appendix being a substitution for the letters, it is mere nonsense. I do not even understand what is meant by it. But all this is very immaterial: it served to distract from the real charges. These begin with the third: that is, that a letter, professing to remain in substance the same, did not remain the same. Mr. N. justifies his omissions. He has perfect right to do so. Nobody complained of them. He said he -- had made omissions, and of course had a right to make any he liked. The additions are the thing in question. He states he added two paragraphs: he has added about five pages and a half to a tract of twenty-four pages. But the quantity is not the material point. It is the contents and manner of it. And first, note here, the fact is not denied. What I charged is, as a fact, admitted. Now I do not enter into intention. The question is, Is it honest?

I go further: had Mr. N. said at the end, "I take the opportunity of denying," etc., though this matter had been added, no charge could have been grounded on it. Anybody could have understood, that it was no part of the original tract. He has not done anything of the kind. He has not, as he says he has in the "Defence," even negatived the two evil doctrines imputed, as he says, to them. He has interwoven with the most assiduous care into the subjects of the tract itself, statements which go to charge the things he was accused of rather on others, or at least to disburden himself of them, in such a manner as would make it impossible for a reader of the tract to suppose that it was not a part of the letter written six years ago; so that he appeared as an indignant refuter six years ago (before he was conscious of such imputations) of the things he was charged with now. Surely, if I say it remains the same in substance, the substance of the published tract ought to coincide with the original. But here the substance of near a quarter of the tract is on topics agitated at the time, interwoven into the old matter, so that it required very close examination to find it out; and matter on the old subject added in the new part, so as to make it look like an original part of the tract. It requires an actual examination to demonstrate this. I refer to passages to indicate it; page 20, he had been speaking in the old part of the body gathered on the Abrahamic basis. Thus begins the new, "It would be happy if we could pursue the history of this new family of faith, and find that it preserved its likeness to Abraham its father." "The succeeding chapter, the thirteenth of Matthew," etc. "The commencement of the history of the present professing Christian body by the personal ministry of the Lord," etc. "It would be strange if such a parable should belong to some other body, and not to the visible church at all ... . I may also observe, before I conclude, that the almost invariable effect of the Jewish principle of interpretation [the general topic is here continued of the tract], is to throw into such a state of perplexity, etc., into felt inability to divide the word, etc., or else induces the adoption of the dictum of some favourite teacher under the shelter of whose name, etc., and what is more to be deprecated than this? It would be, as if the Spirit of God resided only in the teachers, as if the saints could not for themselves prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. It would introduce one of the worst forms of Popish evil." The tract then goes on warning against upsetting universal consent; thus gradually interweaving the original six-years-old subject had done it six years ago, the charge of shutting out the Spirit; and sustaining the doctrine of universal consent. Now, while spun out of the old, all this is new matter. I repeat again, I say nothing of intention; but is the thing honest at a moment of controversy on these points, in which he says he was charged with these very things? Others may think it honest; I confess, I have not much respect for his judgment of honesty who thinks it is. But the truth is, we have no need to speak of any judgment of honesty. Mr. N. first speaks largely of his charity in making the omissions which nobody said anything about, and then says, he added two paragraphs negativing charges made. Now any person accepting this answer could not (assuming him to be honest) have examined for himself the tract, because there is nothing to be negatived at all. The writer continues his discussion of the principles he is treating of in the tract, and his arguments against the principles of interpretation he is opposing, and, as illustrating this, shews that certain consequences follow in the mind which demonstrate the danger: which consequences (here of course to be taken as very evil) were the things he was charged (or says he was charged) with; and it was left to be supposed that he could not hold doctrines which he here treated as serious evil consequences. But though it really was another subject, it is carefully linked into the matter of the tract as a whole. There is no negative of anything; and then the doctrine of universal consent as a rule of faith, which had been objected to as of Popish tendency, is not negatived, but set up upon its legs again in a more subtle covert way, it having damaged their position when openly avowed previously. Now that I have the "Defence" to read, and have re-read that which I charged with unfairness, I have only to say, that I think very much worse, and on deeper grounds, of the thing I so charged: but I do see reason to credit what Mr. D. stated at the time, that it was he got Mr. Newton to add it; for the closing paragraph is very subtilely and covertly propping up Mr. D.'s argument in favour of universal consent as a rule of faith.

And now a few words as to the charges negatived: Mr. Newton says, that I brought against him a false and most injurious charge, in order to destroy his character as a teacher. I print, he says, that charge. He replies by simply negativing the doctrines imputed. This is an entire misrepresentation. We have seen what "simply negativing" means. Now, as to the charge. Popish principles were secretly spreading. I was urged by brethren to make a stand. This I did in an answer I wrote to a tract of Mr. D.'s, because Mr. D. had openly appealed in his to the doctrine of universal consent, as a ground of receiving truth, and as a rule by which to judge. I then alluded to popish principles in general, inasmuch as this appeal to universal consent proved that we were not secure on that side. The doctrine as to teachers may have been imperfectly stated; but it was the real substantial fact, deny it who may. Mr. Newton is not alluded to in the tract. I have said on the contrary, "Let no one suppose I allude here to individuals. On the contrary, I am very anxious to draw attention to a system," etc. "The demon of popery is the active demon of the day. Its leading introductory principle is advanced in the passage on which I comment. I have noticed some of its other elements, because the introduction of this general one shews that the door has not been kept closed against it." This is at the close of the reply to Mr. D. Is this printing a charge against Mr. Newton? I believe that these two have been the persons who introduced it. But I was thinking a great deal more about the system than about them.

Saints will judge whether there was need of being on one's guard, when I repeat to them the fact that, when, on urging the authority of teachers in one place, a brother replied, "But, after all, it is said, they were more noble, because they searched the scriptures whether these things were so," it was answered, that this was Jews searching Jewish scriptures; but that now that God had established gifts in the church, and raised up teachers, all that was changed. When the Plymouth system had reached this point, I judge it was high time to talk about popery. The truth is, it had ripened out of Plymouth more than the cautious leaders in Plymouth would put forward there; and I put the brethren on guard against the system. My attention had really in this been drawn to facts elsewhere, and not to Mr. Newton, as many brethren know. If Mr. Newton's conscience tells him that he was the guilty person, I shall not dispute it; for I believe, and have no doubt he was the source of it, but not a single word is said about it in the tract which is in answer to Mr. D., but the contrary: and that is the question here. Mr. Newton's statement in the "Defence" is not true. I printed no charge against him. I was really thinking of something else much more important than charging him -- the safety of saints against an evil system which was ripening elsewhere. As to insinuations, I do not think anybody will charge me with its being my way. Mr. Newton's easy way of avoiding them would be to face the saints, and have it all out before himself. He has certainly thus far succeeded in putting one into a difficult position. One must let him go on, doing every kind of mischief, without taking notice of it, or speak of it behind his back; for as to coming fairly forward, he cannot be got to do it. If he thinks, that when saints see infinite mischief doing, they are not to speak what they think about it, he is mistaken. Or if he thinks his denial of it will be of any avail, when they know that it has been going on, he is mistaken in that too. Hundreds of saints are not to be exposed to subtle evil, because the person implicated in it chooses to complain of its being charged upon him when he denies it. I admit the difficulty is greater; that it is harder to walk in the fear of God, and not to step out of a perfectly just path. When one is dealing with such a course, one has to watch oneself the more as to the means used in convicting those guilty of it. But faith, which will always feel our own unworthiness, and not dare to walk out of the covert of God, will find the way, because it trusts God, who will bring every secret work into judgment, whether in our own consciences or otherwise, and make manifest the counsels of the heart, and take care of His beloved people.

As to the fourth charge -- that is, the second I really made -- the statement of the fact will be sufficient.

Mr. Newton was charged with making a sect at Plymouth, of course extending it if he could. But everybody knows that Plymouth was the central scene of operations. His own statement (I give Mr. R.'s account of it, which will not be suspected: my own was identical, save the form of the last few words) was this: --

He said he was making a focus of Plymouth, and seeking to establish union in testimony against the teaching of brethren (that is, those opposed to his views of course); and that wherever he could get influence in Devonshire, Somerset, and Cornwall, he should do the same thing. This, I need not say, at once arrested attention. Mr. H. said, it was difficult to work with him after this. Others demanded that brethren should declare whether they meant to act on this. Mr. Y. and A.P., who had been to Newton, declared they need say nothing, as Mr. N. had avowed all about which they had remonstrated with him. Mr. D. tells him in private, going out, that he ought to explain himself, or his meaning would be mistaken. He refused, saying it was plain enough. Interviews are had, etc., etc., on these words. I stopped dead at them. I felt that God had acted, and brought the matter out to light; but I allowed myself to be over-persuaded by brethren, in particular by Mr. R., who begged me, as so much good had been done, to wait and see, and not press it farther, or it might make a rupture with Newton. I acquiesced. After some time, a report of the meeting comes out by Mr. Newton, "because an open and explicit statement is deeply important at such an hour as this." His "Defence" says of this report, "these words are stronger than those I am said to have used"; that there is no reason, in a word, to charge any want of truth on the statement. I now give the statement of the report.

"I desire to produce in the minds of the dear brethren everywhere the same strong sense that pervades my own of the evil of this system: and this is one object of my labour everywhere; at the same time my hostility is against a system, not against individuals." Now this is sad and painful enough, I admit. But on the point of making a sect at Plymouth, he declares he will act in testimony against a certain system of doctrine everywhere. I should grieve at such a course. He would act so; he would desire that others should have the same sense of the evil as he had. Be it so. I ask any honest man in the world, is this the same thing when making a sect is spoken of, in judging the state of Plymouth, as saying that he was making a focus of Plymouth, and seeking to have union in testimony against the teaching of other brethren, which words were what arrested everybody's attention and judgment at the time, even the only ones discussed, and which are wholly omitted? There is not a word about a focus at Plymouth; not a word about union in testimony. He would work hard against a doctrine. I may regret, but cannot help it: but in coming forward to circulate an open and explicit statement, is it fair to omit the whole statement which arrested every mind, and substitute another for it? Was it not really a covering up what had thus openly come out,⁺ and putting forward what was more convenient to put forward before the minds of others? It is urged that, I was told I was free to urge my own views as much. What comfort is that to me? I do not ask to do it. But, supposing it were so, what has that to do with making a focus of Plymouth, and getting union in testimony against the teaching of other brethren?

⁺It was what he was seeking, and he thought he had arrived at his end; and hence, when I came down, his first act was to hold a meeting of the leaders in private to get them to sign a paper, denouncing me as a heretic. It was not this declaration which convinced me of it; but it was the avowal of it.

There then it is. There is Mr. Newton's defence. There is what Mr. R. states to be the reasons of his, R -- s, M., and M -- s, arriving at the conclusion that they are perfectly satisfied that Mr. N. was entirely free from every charge. If I know my own heart, I desire more earnestly than any of them he were. But this is not the question now. I desire to add no farther grievance. I should never have touched the subject again, but that I found incessant subtle engines at work in influencing, and I am satisfied, bringing under the enemy's influence, every weak-minded saint. I have since then repeated confirmation of it. And I therefore say (now that we have Mr. R.'s "Reasons," and Mr. Newton's "Defence," on which they rest) you can judge for yourselves as well as Mr. R. or any one else. God has taken care of that, in spite of all their efforts to keep things under a bushel; and taken care of it, I pray you to note, for it marks God's hand, by their own act in bringing it before you. I repeat my judgment therefore, now that the means of judging are before you, that the two matters I charged at Plymouth, as one unfair, the other untrue, are such as I then thought them. The addition to the tract is not a fair thing, and the account of the April meeting is not a true account. It concealed and changed the whole important point, which God had brought to an avowal at that meeting. And note here, the facts are not denied. Every one can judge for himself of their honesty. Our judgments, beloved brethren, sometimes, nay always, prove our own state as much, and more than that of which we judge. They may be unjust. They may be sound. They may be righteous, and not charitable. They may be the true righteousness of God, and zeal for Him, in contrast with false appearances of charity. God will judge every one of us in all this. To Him we have to commend ourselves. The facts are now before you.

There yet remain but few points more that I am aware of, for I have refrained from any new matter, though, were it a mere matter of discipline, I should insist on other facts connected with it being considered. It is stated (page 16), on the authority of Lord C., "that many of the brethren engaged in this investigation came to the Lord's table at Ebrington Street, after their investigation was concluded, for the express object of shewing what their judgment was. You have, perhaps, observed that in his 'Narrative of Facts,' our brother Darby affirms, or implies [which?] otherwise, but yet the fact is as we here state it." Now this is all dishonest mystification. I must be forgiven speaking plainly. Would it not have been well to have said where I have affirmed or implied it? This they take care not to do. The reader will "have, perhaps observed" it; if not, he will have taken for granted, that these four tell the truth. Now I might have some difficulty in charging my memory with everything in the "Narrative"; but I have some clue here, because Lord C. came to me and urged this point, which I suppose therefore must be the same. I say then, that in what Lord C. has referred to (and I know of no other passage which touches on the subject, save one in page 78, to the same effect, incidentally), I have neither affirmed nor implied anything of the kind. I have stated, that McA., Sir A.C., P -- r, C., W., did not break bread any longer. I have positively excepted those who were partisans of Mr. Newton, and expressed uncertainty as to Mr. N -- r. I have no doubt that Messrs. R., M -- s, R -- s, M., and Lord C., might then and would at any time have done so, though the latter would not now on the ground of sectarianism and clericalism. Mr. R. had agreed to stand up during the investigation, and declare he was satisfied. Another of the inquiring brethren said, if he did, he should stand up and say he was not; and Mr. Newton then got him not to do it. So that, instead of denying that many did, I have (in the way of excepting them from others) rather said they would. What they did, I know nothing about. I have given no reasons for those not doing so who would not. It is in no way connected with the charges of untruth. I mention, at the starting-point of my account of their inquiry into the whole matter, that, as a present fact, when the matter was over, none but Mr. Newton's partisans would break bread. And that is the fact. I shall add another startling one here. Not one of the original labourers at Plymouth but has been driven away by Mr. Newton. Not one of them would break bread there now; I mean H., Capt. H., W., Sir A.C., and myself. I might add, as some of the earliest taking part, R -- e, S -- s, L -- n, R.H.

The four who pretend to be guides and elders here are all new men. Mr. C -- w is of the longest standing; but, however amiable a brother as he really is, no one ever dreamt of his being a guide till now. S. was not converted for years after we met. B. and D. joined from a Baptist church years after we met at Plymouth. To return, then; the statement in the "Reasons" is untrue (see page 66 of the "Narrative"). I will turn now to what is said in the "Narrative," and Lord C.'s authority, and I shall relate his interview. He came to me, I thank God, with more friendliness than heretofore, though of course blaming me, and I was very glad to see him. He declared he had been distressed, but had got quite happy on taking up Matthew 18, and meant to bring me before the church. Well, I had had a good dose of all these things; but however I said, of course he could do what he thought right. He called on me to retract certain things in the "Narrative." Two were mere misunderstandings -- one a mere mis-stopping, and the other easily explained. The others I declined retracting, though willing to explain anything, and not doubting additional circumstances could be added. He said he should go, and bring others. He came with Mr. G -- h. I told him then, his acting on Matthew could not be sustained, he was not the person wronged, and the real difference was obvious. If I refused to retract to Mr. N., who said he was wronged, and then to two or three more, Mr. N. must then go before the church, which was just what he would not do. Mr. G -- h also told him it did not apply. He said he had given up doing it, they would not hear him before. I said, I was ready to answer them anything. In result, Mr. G -- h told him, that he had confirmed all he had impugned, save the letter of one passage -- that was, the words "any longer," in page 66⁺ of the "Narrative." Lord C. admitted that they ceased breaking bread before they left Plymouth, but said they had, one Sunday after the investigation. I said, Mr. McA. certainly did not; Mr. W. certainly did not; Sir A. C. did break bread one Sunday, for I remembered he had said, he would not (I have his letter, which I looked at since), and then took one Sunday to consider before acting so decidedly, that Mr. P -- r told me before he left, he could not break bread in Ebrington Street any longer, yet was not prepared to set up a new table, and so he should leave. And Mr. C. wrote to me to the same effect, and in fact would not. He happened to be laid up, but meant to go off. That as to the words "any longer" being set aside by their taking a Sunday to consider, etc., he might of course make any use of it he pleased, as he confessed they ceased to do so before they left Plymouth. All his other objections resulted in confirming my statements.⁺⁺

⁺[These and similar references apply to the pages of the "Narrative" in this volume, and not to the original tract.]

⁺⁺This interview with Lord C., it will be seen, meets the statement in page 10 of the "Reasons."

Further, it is stated, that there were meetings of the saints to inform them respecting these painful charges; and this is held to be a judgment by the church. Well, reader, there were. Every Monday evening, for a length of time, there were tea meetings by invitation, the object not being even avowed in instances where it was desired to have people who might not have wished knowingly to come, while, being by invitation, of course those could not go who could have met the statements. Mr. Newton was questioned, these persons say; and he answered too of course. And what then? Sir A.C.'s statements being in print could not be avoided, and they were boldly stated to be false.

I have now gone through the "Defence," as to the two charges of November, 1845; and I recall to the saints, that the "Reasons" and "Defence" do not touch anything beyond, nor enter at all upon the body of the statements in the "Narrative." Others could enter much more largely, if they were willing to take the burden, into the statements in these "Reasons."

I have been able to give enough, I suppose, to satisfy such as might be troubled by them, and to enable them to judge what their weight is.

PART 3 -- THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED

An important general principle yet remains. In page 12 of the "Reasons," we find the following: "It is well known that we have always refused to acknowledge that the scripture recognises the whole body of assembled saints, as invested with authority and capacity to examine witnesses and debate⁺ their verdict. This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service. It is in the sense just defined, that we have always denied that the congregated church is a deliberative assembly. Thus we have always maintained a testimony against the principles of the dissenters. If therefore from the period of our first gathering together in this place until now, we have steadily and invariably acted on this principle, can it be expected that we should depart from it in this matter?" It is evident this is of all importance.

And first, let me recall the fact, already noticed, that these four persons (who are quietly telling us what they did from the beginning) were not there in the beginning. Mr. S. was not converted till years after; and Mr. B. and Mr. D. joined years after; Mr. C -- w earlier, but a considerable time after, and he, for a very long time certainly, did not "addict himself to the ministry." That is quite a new thing. So that "we" may pass with those who know nothing of Plymouth; but with me, who was there before the beginning and at it and after it, their putting themselves in such a place bears a very strange aspect. And there is another thing somewhat strange.

⁺The force of this word "debate" will be considered farther on.

These four were the persons charged, not indeed with the particular points of untruth -- but they were involved in all that which was connected with them, led to them, and followed them, and as to which these two charges of honesty were merely collateral. If the reader is not sure of this, I beg him to refer to page 1 of the "Reasons": "The main bulk of the charges affect us as much as they do him"; nay, as to the whole case, they say more, "We are, and we wish to be, closely identified with our brother in his present position." They spoke too of the accusations, personal and others, as being made against them all, in their first letter to the four brethren who invited them to the London meeting, which was held in April last; alleging these accusations as a ground for not coming up and joining in it. And the fact is, at the time in which in these "Reasons" they profess to have been inquiring -- that is, as we have seen, while the brethren were down at Plymouth to do so -- these four appeared before them as associated with Mr. N. If I am not misinformed, he did not and would not appear without them. This inquiry included the charges of untruth. Is it not a little singular that persons, as to the bulk of the things charged, implicated as much as Mr. N. -- and, as to all of them, then associated and now closely identified with him -- should be the persons who were solemnly to investigate these very charges, so as to bind the church of God that it could not even debate its verdict? And let the reader note who it was that asked them. They state, and Mr. N. confirms it in letters already given, that he did. Everybody knows, that with the exception certain particular untruths, they were involved as accessories in the charges; nay, as to the letter on which one of the charges was made, one of them, Mr. C -- w, had got it written to himself, and got it printed (having been at the April meeting too, of which it gave an account); and Mr. D. declared that he got Mr. Newton to put the addition complained of in the charge as to the other printed letter; and that they had gone down to Mr. R -- e's, and had it added while the letter was in the press.

Are not these strange persons to pronounce a verdict on the case, which the church cannot even debate? Would any worldly man recognize such a proceeding? What would an upright worldly man say of those engaged in it? All I can say is, I sorrow to the heart's core for some of them: I trust as a Christian for all. Where was Mr. H.? Where were R -- e, S -- s, R.H., or other brethren needless to name, who had certainly as much competency as some of them, and even addicted themselves to the ministry?

But now as to the principle. I deny unqualifiedly that such was the method from the beginning; and I was conversant with it a long time before even Mr. Newton himself; who, though there indeed in the vacation and taking part, remained a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford a considerable time -- I cannot be precise as to how long. It is quite true that verdicts were not always, nay, very seldom debated, never debated that I know of. There was most happy confidence in those labouring; and, the Spirit of God working in them and the body happily, their judgment commended itself habitually to the consciences of all; and the cases of discipline were simple. But such a thought never was entertained (I cannot answer for Mr. N.) as imposing a verdict on the body, which it could not debate.

And here I would indeed remark, that Mr. Newton avowed to me, both alone, and as it has been recalled since to me, in the presence of Mr. Edward W -- d of Kendal, that his principles were entirely changed as to those very points of ministry, rule, and government.⁺ How then can those who now adopt his present ones have had those of the body from the beginning? But the fact is, the labouring brethren did habitually inquire, for to them the cases were constantly brought; and they used to meet on Friday; and all this seems very blameless and desirable. But they always communicated the result of their inquiries to the body, and their convictions, or the conclusion they came to; but as to imposing it as an undebatable verdict, it is wholly false.

⁺It has been stated to me that Mr. S. declared that, had the principles on these points been what they were at first, he would not have stayed. I have referred in the "Narrative" to an intelligent member of Ebrington Street, who declared that ten years ago Mr. N. urged on him the principles which now I am urging, and Mr. N. resisting; but that he never received them, but joined Ebrington Street as a sect, and stayed in it as such.

I remember two cases of discipline. In one, a brother rose, and said he thought there had not been proper inquiry, and that there was a feeling against the person. The brother who communicated the case said, he thought the brother who rose could hardly be acquainted with the facts and say so. The latter at once felt himself alone in the meeting (as indeed, the case was a dreadful one, and most patiently investigated), and he sat down at once. In another case, a godly grave brother said, there was a want of clear information on one part of the case, or a deficiency of it, which could be supplied, and the case was suspended and nothing done. I repeat, the imposition of a verdict was never thought of. General acquiescence was true in fact; and it is happy when it is so. Indeed, most cases are known and simple, and have only to be communicated to the body, and there can be no question with any, if they believe the testimony of those who have taken it up. At Plymouth, those who laboured had confidence in the Lord, and in the body, and acted towards it with confidence, and hence the body had confidence in them. That this may have been abused by Mr. N. to the assumption of unscriptural authority, when he had driven away the counterpoise of others, is very likely, and, to my mind, an undoubted fact.

Further, I recognize that guides, elders if you please in principle, can inform and clear up the consciences of a body of Christians. No doubt, if by reason of use they have their senses exercised to discern good and evil, and are deeply acquainted with God's ways in the scriptures and with the human heart, it is just their service in such case, and, I believe, God's order; and saints will be always thankful for it, as far as I have seen. One may have spiritual discernment to suggest what all may have spirituality enough to see is right when suggested, but never would themselves have thought of. An engineer makes a road of which every waggoner understands as well as he the goodness when it is made, though he could not have made it. But it is by no means necessarily a teacher that does this. I know brethren who never teach, whose spiritual judgment I would far rather have than that of any teachers I know. It used to be the effort, I well remember, to insist strongly against the absorption of all gift into the teacher and teaching, as may be seen in the "Christian Witness" -- a book Mr. N. justly designated for his purposes the most mischievous book that ever was written. But to impose a verdict which cannot be debated is the most monstrous thing that ever was heard of. It is pure unmasked popery -- the clergy dictating to the conscience of the church, which can only register and give their weight to its decrees. Is the conscience of the church to be disposed of thus by others, be they ever so wise? A thing may be urged on the church, insisted on; let it be that rebuke be given; but it is always to bring the conscience of the church up to the right level. This Paul did with Corinth, where, note, elders never appear at all; but he never acts for them without it. "You have proved yourselves clear in this matter." This is the principle the apostle goes on. No doubt he could guide and rebuke them too, and tell them that he had judged the case already; but to impose a verdict on their consciences⁺ they could not debate, not an apostle even attempts. How could that be proving themselves clear? It is monstrous. No one who reads scripture can question, however weak we may be now, that there were guides, leaders, who watched for souls as accountable to do it, men of reputation, and at that time appointed elders. But it is a very different thing to govern, or rule, or guide the church, which is scriptural, and to govern instead of and for the church, which is popish (and this is the claim these principles very distinctly set up), and then call the scriptural principles democracy. And even so the apostle declares he was as a nursing mother with the saints. And the government of the church is not a setting of points right, but of souls right, and therefore nothing is done unless the conscience of the church is carried into the act. It is evident that the apostle did bring the whole church round to separate from evil which he had already judged himself. Had he not done it, the Corinthians would not have been set right at all, they would have remained associated with the incestuous person. Had their consciences not heeded his appeal, he might in the exercise of apostolic authority have used severer means, and come with a rod. But he is anxious to shew, that whom they forgave he forgave; and if he forgave, it was for their sakes, so that they might act together, and Satan get no advantage over them by dividing them from him about a point of discipline.⁺⁺

⁺I shall here give an extract of a letter of Mr. N.'s, intended for the perusal of others, and read publicly in a gathering of saints. "It may however be well to inform you of the outline of circumstances that followed on Mr. Darby's personal accusations of me. When I heard of their having been publicly made in the meeting at Ebrington Street, I felt that it was open to the brethren watching over the saints to interfere, if they pleased, in their church capacity. If there was a case of discipline against me, it was quite open to them, after investigation, to bring it before the church, and require that I should be withdrawn from or excommunicated." The nicest casuist could not draw a line between this and the daily conduct of the popish priesthood in Ireland.

⁺⁺It may be said this is what failed of being done at Plymouth. I have noticed this farther on.

And now as to the dissenters' principle. I do not doubt many dear conscientious saints, from whom we might learn much, are amongst them. But the principle here alluded to, I believe should be utterly and entirely rejected, for the same reason that I reject that here proposed, namely, that the presence of the Spirit in the body is not owned by it. Among the dissenters they vote, and though there may be happy unanimity, and the Lord guide them, as I doubt not He often may, yet they do vote on the questions, and a majority determines the matter. Now it is quite evident a minority may be the most spiritual. In the case of Corinth all, as far as appears in public, were gone wrong, and allowed, and were puffed up about, evil. A majority, judging as such, cannot be said to have the Holy Ghost guiding them, because they are a majority.⁺ This is quite manifest. It is a mere human principle, such as the world is obliged to act on, because it has no other way of getting out of its difficulties. But the church of God has. It has the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The dissenting principle (for I doubt not in practice they are often guided by the Spirit according to the grace of the gospel), their principle, I say, denied this presence and guidance; they acted on another. The brethren believed this guidance of God could be reckoned upon. Hence they denied the necessity of the other human extreme -- the popish one of a clergy settling the matter among themselves, and announcing it publicly, and the church having nothing to do but add its weight by its acts to a decision pronounced by the authority of others, which they were bound to receive implicitly, and as a conclusion arrived at for them, which could not be debated.

⁺It is worthy of note that this is the ground taken in the "Reasons." These are their words, page 7: "And the fact that the great majority of those then in communion were fully satisfied, that the judgment their brethren had formed was a sound one; and have from that hour to this regarded our brother Newton with unaltered affection and confidence is, it appears to us, a public and sufficient expression of the judgment of the church on this question." The truth is, even unanimity is not in itself a proof of the mind of God's Spirit. At Corinth they were, till roused by the testimony of that Spirit by the apostle, unanimous in letting the incestuous person go on. Nor would two or three evidently carnal persons rightly hinder the body in acting in any given case. were it so, two or three undetected accomplices in sin might hinder the bounden judgment of the church of God in the case of murder or incest. The apostle declares, having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your "obedience is accomplished": that is, when the full work of the spirit had had its way, he would treat the others still resisting as disobedient to the Spirit, negativing the doctrine of unanimity as well as of a majority, on which those who sign the "Reasons" profess here to have acted. The truth is, the body must answer to God for following the guidance of the Spirit in these cases. Those who do, God will justify. If the body do not, God will not sanction their act. We have not the apostle's power, it is true, but we have the promise of God by His Spirit to help and certainly guide us if we wait upon Him. God must be ultimately the judge.

In the case before us they had the most slender ground to go upon. All those who originally laboured at Plymouth decline to break bread at Ebrington Street; and some 150 or 200 left, unable to endure the state of things any longer. Four persons, who came amongst them comparatively recently, declare that they, being supported by a "great majority," have in their own act a public and sufficient judgment of the church of God. I press the question of principle on these plain facts on brethren's consciences. It might seem inconsistent to base the judgment of the church on a majority; and yet maintain the principles of popery. But the fact is so, and very simple. They assert as a doctrine, that the elders in their church capacity are to debate the verdict, and that the church cannot. But as a fact, though in doing this, and by the means they used for it, they drove away all the original labourers still at Plymouth, and some 200 others; they did keep the majority, of whom many were thoroughly imbued with their principles or under their influence, and some did not know what to do; and then they as a fact claim the acquiescence of this majority as the judgment of the church. There is no consistency in evil. They seek much to distract the minds of brethren from their subversion of principle; but time will open the eyes of those whose eye is single towards God.

The brethren denied the necessity of this alternative. They affirmed that the presence of the Spirit of God was in the church, and that He would guide them in the faithful love of Christ to a right mind; that it might require, especially in the present state of things, patience, humble waiting upon God in the sense of weakness, a working out as in the absence of apostolic power, with fear and trembling; but they believed that it could be because GOD worked in them to will and to do. They did not deny in the least that there were those among them, who through greater spiritual wisdom and maturity could help and guide them in this -- it would have been quarrelling with their own mercies; nor would they refuse the help and godly assistance of any brother of spiritual attainments and wisdom from elsewhere -- it would have been resisting the unity of the Spirit and body, and God's authority in the church, and the common comfort of the saints, the increase of God by what every joint supplied. They might not see clearly all at once, and they would have to wait in any given case; but they believed in the faithfulness of the Lord to guide them. Their being obliged to wait might shew them the failure of their own state of conscience in spiritual power and do them good. Now the principle of these Plymouth leaders denies all this. It declares positively and openly here, that this is the alternative, either the dissenting principle of debating, voting, and majorities, or a verdict imposed by the clergy without any debate at all. That is, they entirely deny the guidance of the body by the Holy Ghost -- His practical presence there -- the very point as to this, which the brethren were called out of God to bear witness to, alike against the dissenting and popish principles.

It is vain for them to say that they do not deny it. We have, not the honest confession of it in terms, it is true, but we have the thing itself, and in their own statement. The guides pass the verdict; the body are to register it without a debate. The judgment of their consciences is in the hands of a self-appointed clergy. I can well suppose this reply to the plain and evident truth as to the state of the case: "We do not deny the presence of the Spirit in the body. But, God having put this office into the hands of those who have addicted themselves to the ministry, the proof of the Spirit being in the body is their submission⁺ to the judgment of those whom God has placed over them. And thus the verdict is the verdict of the body by the Spirit." This is what is claimed (page 12), "This the church does: it debates its verdict, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service." Now this is exactly popery. The verdict there is alleged to be the verdict of the church, and the body are called upon ["required"] to act, and do act, as a body upon it. But it is arrived at by the clergy. It is in vain to say that it is presented, on these new principles, to the body when arrived at, which the Roman clergy do not. Even admitting this, the body cannot debate it. In this particular case, in tea-meetings in private,⁺⁺ they were allowed to question Mr. Newton. And this is called in to screen the flagrancy of the principle. The exclusive nature of the meetings is too barefaced to call it the action of the church. Were it so, the principle is wholly abandoned. The church question and examine Mr. Newton; and suppose someone had said, "Well, now we should like to hear the other side too; let us call Mr. Darby, Mr. H., and Mr. R -- e, and Mr. S -- s." "Oh no," is the answer, "the church cannot hear witnesses, and debate its verdict." Would not any honest man in the world be ashamed to be associated with such a transaction? Would not any spiritual one have revolted against calling such a thing the acting of the church of God, as an insult against God Himself? I have been obliged to notice this, because otherwise it would have been alleged that it was brought before the saints in the right way. Now, either they were forced to hear one side only, and there was liberty only for that, or they would hear witnesses; and this is what is refused them. Besides, after all, they must not debate their verdict. They must take what is given them. For, supposing that they are dissatisfied with the verdict stated, what can they do? Debate it before they make it theirs? No, this is positively refused. Examine witnesses? No, this is denied them. What then? Submit, or leave.⁺⁺⁺ The answer will be, "But God is with His church; and He will guide the leaders into a right judgment, and they will only propose clear evident cases." That is, the clergy are not only to be guides but infallible guides, for they have come to the conclusion, which is to be taken to be by the leading of God Himself. If the verdict be undebateable, it certainly ought to be infallible.

⁺I say submission, not accordance, because if they cannot call it in question, it is idle to call it accordance. Paul leads the body to act, however decided he was, by divine light. "Do not ye judge them that are within?" And again note, that there is no question of elders in 1 Corinthians at all. Paul addresses himself to the body. I doubt not he did it of God, to guard this very point, and shew the conscience of the body, the state of that conscience, to be the very point, the real matter in question. And here a very grave question arises: -- Is not every one in Ebrington Street answerable for whatever evil has been there which is not put away? I clearly judge they are. I pressed this on them in speaking to them before I left.

⁺⁺I beg a particular comparison here of the above extract from page 12 of the "Reasons," with the following, from page 10: -- "The church here therefore has not only itself searched into and judged of this matter, but," etc. And, "It has been gone into before the Lord, and by His church, both that portion of it meeting in Ebrington Street," etc. They declare positively the church has itself searched into it, when the leaders have announced their verdict. It is bound up in what it cannot question. Private meetings were held (public are refused), in which certain things were read for, and answers given by the accused party: but inquiry, or other testimony, is positively, on principle, refused. And then the church is declared to have itself searched. What were Mr. R. and Lord C. but witnesses on one side, if they were anything? Again, page 5: -- "It soon became evident ... that it would be absolutely necessary to inform the saints of all we knew and thought on the subject." Now, this is given in (what is presented as the judgment of the guides on a full investigation, though it was really no such thing) a letter of Mr. S., countersigned by the three others, set up as a definite verdict of acquittal by the guides, to be received by the body. Any one can see it was no such thing; but it is now given as such.

⁺⁺⁺In fact, many at these tea-meetings were so satisfied of false statements or evil principles, that not one took place but led to the secession of some half-dozen persons; the most, taking all that was told them for truth, or quieted in some way, stayed where they were.

Is debate⁺ to be desired then? It is just this alternative which is denied. The conscience of the church must be satisfied, for it to act for God and before God. If it is not, the conscience of the body is not clear. It may be gracious to do some act not yet done. It may be right, at the suggestion of some, nay, one godly brother, to prosecute the inquiry farther by the persons who originally inquired, as I have seen done at Plymouth. God is in the assembly without having any debate at all.⁺⁺ The Holy Ghost may there suggest some step not yet thought of, the neglect of which would destroy the weight of the judgment, even if a right one. It is specially when speaking of discipline, and looking to the Lord for producing the unity of mind of two or three, that the Lord says, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The result was not produced when I was down at Plymouth. Assuming that the evil existed, the conscience of the body was not brought to judge it. This may have been from two causes -- want of spiritual power in me in acting on the consciences of the saints, or a denial of the principles on which their consciences could act. Now I do not pretend there was no want of spiritual power in me; I do not doubt there was. But while I concealed for months (till the saints demanded an account from me) the personal charges against Mr. Newton, I brought before the whole body, and pressed on their conscience, what involved the principles and the godly action of the whole body, and which was avowedly required. They would not stir. My having done so was said to be a dissenting principle. I judged therefore, that the principles of the gathering were gone and denied; and I left without saying a word of Mr. N.'s personal evil⁺⁺⁺ (and this is now unworthily, I think, turned by some to my reproach). Sir A.C. has confirmed, in the plainest manner, the fact that they were denied. Others bore testimony of it then to me, whatever silence they may keep now. Lord C. fully admits it now; and it is at last put beyond all controversy by the printed avowal of the leaders themselves.

⁺The word debate is just used as alarming a quiet godly conscientious mind -- innocent in the hands of the leaders where it is assumed to be a godly spiritual weighing of the matter, and implying a discussion in the case of the assembly; but, guides or assembly, the godly weighing together before God what is His will where our conscience is concerned, is debate neither in one nor the other.

⁺⁺As a fact, it may be well to notice, that there was a good deal of debate, on subjects involving a mixture of discipline and principle, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles -- debate which Paul (for so God ordered it for larger purposes of His wisdom and grace) himself could not terminate.

⁺⁺⁺I stated generally there was evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged. This, while including Mr. N. without naming him, was by no means confined to him; nor was it, as to him, confined to charges of untruth.

Those who have been where I have been lately may have seen, in a very trying case, a body of brethren, without any debate (and yet, when it was felt necessary that every conscience should have full exercise for itself) act in full patience and grace, and defer to the feelings of a very small minority who desired an act⁺ which (though the judgment of all the rest might have proved greater strength in the Spirit, if it had carried all with it, yet) was rightly deferred to as that feeling existed, and will never be regretted, I believe, by one. Under the circumstances God's guidance was in it, and entire and happy unanimity preserved. They have seen, on a subsequent evening (when, as I undoubtedly judge,⁺⁺ Satan made a seemingly overpowering effort to upset all they were doing, and hinder, by distracting and speaking them down, their acting on what they had been led to), that the same brethren, after listening to all those who came thus to interrupt them from other places (proving they rejected none), could adhere, as led and guided of God, with firmness to that which they had been led to by Him; and could prove, when thus put to the severest test, with little or nothing really to help them from without, that God's blessed presence in their weakness could give patience and grace, and deference to the weakest within, and resist the noisiest and most clamorous⁺⁺⁺ from without: nor was there the slightest idea of rejecting the help, and assistance, and spiritual wisdom, of those whose experience and faithfulness they trusted in, but the glad acceptance of it; as such as bore more or less that character acted just in setting the matter before their conscience. I allude (that there may be no mistake) more particularly, though not exclusively, to Mr. D -- n here, who, though now at Reading, had laboured for years among them, and was now in London, brought up by another in reference to this.⁺⁺⁺⁺

⁺Or rather act on the suggestion of a brother from another gathering, after the consciences of two or three who felt difficulty were satisfied, and the same act was proposed as an act of grace and as giving scriptural weight to their dealings.

⁺⁺Six brethren, from different and some very distant places, friends of Mr. Newton, or of his principles, came and kept the brethren till near twelve o'clock at night, with the avowed desire and object of hindering their acting on what they had patiently resolved on previously, but had waited ten days, hoping another appeal might have effect, if coming from the whole gathering. Only one of these six had been at any previous meeting. [There was besides present, at that meeting, one brother from Plymouth, but now of the gathering, who objected. One who is of Moravian principles, though judging the evil at Plymouth, thought the mode wrong from the beginning. See Part I.] Now I do not believe these six had the least concerted among themselves their appearance that evening. Nobody suspected it. It was a hand behind moved the springs: first, the enemy, I believe, to destroy; but, behind that, I believe, God, to approve and vindicate the cardinal principle -- that the church must judge evil if it comes before it, or that it ceases to be the church before Him, must prove itself clear -- and to shew Himself with them in it however weak. This God has done in mercy in the midst of our weakness: a far more important thing than any individual case.

⁺⁺⁺I do not speak of all as clamorous. As to several, there was nothing to object to in manner.

⁺⁺⁺⁺Mr. W., though there, from circumstances, took comparatively no active part in it.

I have now, in three parts, recorded briefly the facts and correspondence which took place. I have shewn that the "Reasons" and "Defence," which were sent up as proving an acquittal of the charges, so as to preclude farther inquiry, do not touch at all, nor treat of, the body of those in the "Narrative," which were in question here:⁺ the transactions at Plymouth, which they allege as conclusive, not having reference to the greater part of them. I have given, as to those which were investigated at Plymouth, an answer to the defence set up -- a thing I could never do before, as it was never printed; and the rather, as the certificate of acquittal given by Mr. R., in his own name and that of Messrs. R -- s, M -- s, and M., is professedly based entirely on this "Defence," and desires its publication, that others may be satisfied by it, as "affording," they say, "the reasons of our arriving at the conclusion above stated."

⁺I press this point, because it is the tact of those who labour to discredit the saints in London to make it appear, first, that Mr. N. was cited to London. He was not. He was in London. Even then the brethren took no step. He proposed to satisfy brethren. They said, when it was communicated to them by Dr. C., "If we let this pass, it will be as if he was ready to clear himself, and we would not hear him"; and they thereupon took it up. Secondly, the "Reasons" seek to make it appear that the saints in London applied themselves to the charges in question at Plymouth in 1845: as to which Mr. N.'s friends think they can allege a previous examination. This is wholly without foundation -- an unworthy attempt. The brethren referred to the whole case, "considering before the Lord the unhappy circumstances that have arisen among us." Mr. Newton brought it in his answer to the two charges at Plymouth; no one at London did.

You have thus the grounds on which they came to it; and you can judge how far the "Defence" is of any force as to these, the two charges therein treated of.⁺ The acquittal by these brethren in letters given in the "Reasons," is merely their estimate of the validity of this "Defence," which you have. As to the other charges in the "Narrative," besides these two, no answer is attempted to be given whatever.

I have taken up, lastly, the great principle of church discipline now avowed in a tangible shape. A vast body of facts as to the general course at Plymouth are not entered on here. It would have been repeating the "Narrative." But you have an account, as far as was called for by the "Reasons," of what related to the alleged investigation and acquittal both by the church of God and the brethren from afar, and these are the other grounds alleged to preclude inquiry. It will still be remembered that these relate only to the two charges made and inquired into at Plymouth, and two alleged charges which I do not admit to be charges at all, and not to any others. I may, in so long a document, drawn up in two or three days, have omitted some point, but I do not think I have any material one. I must leave, to those who read this, the judgment which it becomes them to give upon a document such as the "Reasons," when they have read this examination of it.

⁺I say two, because it is only the two last which were really charges. Making the existence of the Appendix a charge is ridiculous; and, in fact, it does exist.

Charity demands that I should make this one remark. As regards the individuals (whatever may be demanded as to what I may call official relations), I repeat, I have no doubt that a proper, positive, work of Satan has been going on, with far deeper principles and power than anything that has come out in public evidence even as to sectarianism.⁺ Under this, I doubt not, whoever the human instrument, conscious or unconscious, may be, those, whom I believe to be beloved children of God, have fallen, and I do not attribute to them as individuals as deliberate acts of sin what they have so done. This makes me more determined in the stand I make -- I have no terms with what is going on -- but more reluctant, and even to refuse to attribute to them as properly a matter of evil conscience what they have thus been led into.

God, I believe, has directed you, beloved brethren, in London, in acting in clearing yourselves -- in acting in the sphere in which you were responsible to Him. There you were bound in love to the saints to act to make a barrier. It may require much spiritual competency to discern between those who are ensnared and those who are guilty in this matter. Many even of the most active instruments have already been delivered. Others may be, and shine out again as dear children, and, I trust, servants of God. We have to wait, and, while decided and faithful in our sphere, not to step beyond it; not in anything to act beyond the light which God has given us for duty, passive or active. There we have to be firm and earnest if called on. I believe people will be blessed according to their decision, and insecure in proportion to their hesitation; though we may hope the help of our God as to such, if it be in humbleness of heart and uprightness.

Further, let us not suppose, if there be such a power of the enemy, that we can cope with it out of the path of duty, and adventuring ourselves under its influence, when God does not call us there. In His ways we have all security against it; it cannot touch us: out of them, we are sure to fall into the temptation as Peter did. Honesty of intention is no security here. I have seen this in Irvingism; I have seen it, I judge, in this case. I distrust the constant desire to get people to Plymouth. I have known scarce one who inquired beyond the first half-hour, or who inquired beyond one side, who had volunteered to do it; though God kept a few little ones brought there unwittingly. If the judgment I have formed of these "Reasons" is just, they must be wicked people, or blinded people. Now I do not believe as to several of them (I speak generally of those more or less active in it), that they are wicked people. I feel certain then that there is a direct influence of the enemy, and I warn solemnly the saints against it. I think I can discern in many cases how and why several have fallen under it. It might seem presumptuous in me to state it, and I refrain, though free to do it when charity calls for it, if permitted for their good. I am sure if I and you, reader, have been spared this, or perhaps worse, it is sovereign grace alone which has kept us; and, perhaps our carelessness has helped on the evil; but God is good and faithful. I am thankful for having the conviction I have stated above, because it enables me to maintain in my heart unhindered love towards several persons whom, otherwise, I really should not know what to think of, and to hope for others too. But it should evidently make one firmer as to the stand one makes, and one's determination in it. We have all to be thankful for being kept, for very abundant mercy in this matter, and to humble ourselves, and myself above all, for little power in being able to keep out the evil, or to deliver others from it. While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares. Let us look to our God, and He will help us to the end of the sorrow, and restore the fellowship of many who are separated by it. I am sure my feeling is (well may I say it!) that He has been most good to us in it.

⁺I judge the sectarianism itself to have been merely a means resulting from the effort to get rid of every one who could have hindered the coming in of far deeper principles of evil in doctrine and walk, which were sought to be established.

I have only to add (while repeating that I dare say inaccuracies of detail may be discovered, as would be to be expected in a narrative reaching over near a year and a half of anxious work) that, after the sifting given by recent circumstances, the "Reasons," the "Defence," and all the rest, I have nothing at all, that I know of, to retract. The only definite attempt to impugn has resulted in distinct confirmation. The "Reasons" would add serious -- very serious -- ground for additional charges; but these I refrain from making. I think them considerably the worst thing that has yet come out. The reader can, on several points, judge of the matter himself, when he has examined the answer to the "Reasons"; but there are many, if they spoke out, who could answer the detail far more fully than myself.

SUPPLEMENT -- NOTES ON THE "CORRESPONDENCE" AND "REMONSTRANCE"

The detail of facts already given is the best answer to the "Remonstrance." I do not therefore go into it at large here. A very few remarks will be needed. The total absence of conscience is so marked in the following passage, that I note it as helping to judge the whole paper: "You consider his refusal to meet a request of yours a sin sufficient to warrant excommunication." Passion alone can be alleged as any answer to a charge of want of conscience in such a passage as this. They call the letter of the 20th of November "Your first letter of summons." They must be perfectly aware (for Mr. Newton had answered them both) that, besides Dr. C.'s correspondence, two letters had been addressed to Mr. Newton, asking him to meet the saints in Rawstorne Street before this. This, called the first, resulted from the interview at Dr. C.'s and was not from Rawstorne Street. What is called the second here was consequent upon their repeated refusals, a final act of the whole body.

A few words as to the general contents of these documents will enable the reader to form an estimate of their character. It purports to be a correspondence relating to a refusal to meet certain citations which are presented as summoning Mr. N. from Plymouth up to London, and a certain letter as the first of them. Now what are the facts? It is true to the letter that this is the correspondence relating to the refusal. And this was the first letter written to Plymouth. But was this the beginning of correspondence? What about the proposal refused? Mr. Newton had been in London, and offered to satisfy brethren. A long correspondence -- nay two, with two different parties -- had taken place in consequence. All this is entirely suppressed. The first letter here alludes to an interview indeed, and therefore seems very fair; but correspondences had taken place about the proposal refused, and about meeting to consider it. And how came this letter to be written to Plymouth which is produced now, as citing Mr. N. from thence to London? At his own suggestion on leaving London, that they at Plymouth might consider it; and hence the reference in Mr. D -- n's letter, who thought it useless, but deferred to Messrs. H. and C., who judged that, not having the presence of mind to reject the proposal of Mr. N. at the time as they ought to have done, it might seem unfair not to act upon it afterwards. And this letter, written at his suggestion after the conclusion of what passed in London, is treated as the first, and as a citation from Plymouth up to London. But further: another letter, making a different proposal from Mr. D -- n's, was written by Dr. C. in consequence of the same suggestion. This also is suppressed, though the answer referred to the reply to Mr. D -- n's.

Further, under colour of its arriving only when they were finishing theirs, a letter of December 13⁺ is placed in the correspondence after theirs of December 15, as if it closed the correspondence: it did not, however. There was an answer: this answer I shall here give.

"London, December 22, 1846.

"Dear Brethren,

"We write to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated December 15; and we beg to say that many of its statements are so entirely untrue, and its perversions regarding the course of action in question so very sad, that, for ourselves, we do not think it would be the path of godly wisdom to read it to the saints at Rawstorne Street. We have also submitted it to the brethren here who are watching and caring for the saints, and they, for the same reasons we have assigned, have counselled us to decline reading it. In addition to your letter a communication has been received from Mr. T. by the same post, in which also we are jointly concerned, and, we may add, that our remarks above, relative to the document received from yourselves, apply in a much stronger degree to his communication. We feel persuaded that if he had been better informed on the facts about which he has written, such statements and allegations as his letter contains could never have been written.

"We remain, dear brethren,

"Yours in Christian regard,

"William Henry D -- N.

"Henry G -- H,

"To Messrs. C -- w, Newton, S., B., and D."

⁺The date of this is omitted in the Table of Contents, where it would attract attention: it is the only one that is.

It may be well to add that the printed correspondence did not arrive in town for a fortnight after the date of this letter, so that there was ample time for its insertion. The real truth was that the conduct of the five above named had produced entire distrust; and hence the briefness of the reply. But the "Correspondence" and "Remonstrance" were. so very bad as to draw forth from Messrs. D -- n and G -- h a letter, which I have since seen, of a very different character; that is, couched in terms of severity quite unusual with either, and declining, from their estimate of the proceedings of these five, any further correspondence. This, from its date, could not have found a place in the Plymouth publication.⁺ The one just read belonged to it, and hence I have added it here.

There are two or three points in the "Reasons" it may be advisable not to leave unnoticed.

To say that silence (page 4) was the ordinary mode of acting in ordinary cases of unfounded accusation is surely monstrous: I mean, the pretence that they acted on this ground, when there had been repeated meetings of fifteen brethren about matters out of which this arose. Mr. H. had refused ministering; I had left communion; Messrs. H. and N -- r had gone and told Mr. N. his account was untrue; ten brethren were there from a distance for investigation; some two hundred or so, though not having formally separated, had ceased going to the Lord's table; and these four (who, if you will believe them, ought to govern the consciences of the congregation without a debate) feel, after a public statement to three hundred impugning Mr. N.'s moral character, that they had nothing to do. The pretension indeed 'of these four to be in this position is quite sufficient to make any statement after it possible.

Next it is said Mr. Newton had in such things the confidence of the whole body. As to those without, I say nothing: people must ask those without. But this I affirm, he had not in such things the confidence of the whole body. The fact was this: very many took all he said in statement or doctrine;⁺⁺ the majority exercised no conscience at all. But there were intelligent, godly, independent minds, who were long and thoroughly dissatisfied "in such things": and this the signers of these "Reasons" know as well as I do.

⁺The brethren D -- n and G -- h thinking it desirable that all should appear, it is printed at the close of this.

⁺⁺It was said by a most active sister that, if Mr. N. taught what she could not find in the Bible, she should believe it on this ground -- that, he being a teacher raised up of God, she should suppose he had found it, though she had not.

(page 7) "The fact that the great majority of those in communion were fully satisfied ... is, it appears to us, a public and sufficient expression of the judgment of the church in this question."

"Remonstrance" (page 5). "4. It must be the universal act of the whole church, so that no question could arise in the conscience of any godly saint as to the propriety and necessity of the sentence."

"If valid at all, this act is the result of the Holy Spirit's presence in the body, preserving holiness in its midst. It is because God refuses to have a defiled temple -- it is at His command -- it is through His power that the evil person is put away. Where His Spirit acts, there must be unanimity." Is it not singular that a majority appears to them to be a public and sufficient expression of the judgment of the church in the "Reasons"? And that "where the Spirit acts there must be unanimity" in the "Remonstrance"? Or is there any real principle at all, when one principle is taken to clear themselves, and another to condemn Rawstorne Street? At Ebrington Street all who originally laboured (and some two hundred more) have left; but there a majority suffices. Here, where there really was extraordinary unanimity, it must be absolute for the Spirit to have acted. Both their principles are wrong; but he who professes two for his convenience has none. But to do this in so solemn a matter as God's presence, is such trifling with the subject as, if not judged, will be judged of the Lord in those who do not.

(page 12.) The impartiality of the tribunal at Ebrington Street I pass over. It was there the accused themselves.

(page 18.) Mr. N. in the MS. letter referred to, after urging very strongly the ruinous character of certain teaching, and stating that if it was once admitted "the foundations of Christianity were gone," says, "that with respect to such passages we have a right to expect a clear unhesitating answer from all who teach in the church." He now declares, "I had no conception that it ever would or could be interpreted to mean that I wished none to be received as teachers who held the system of interpretation therein objected to." And what did he mean? Did he mean that he did wish that teaching which subverted the foundations of Christianity should continue, and that the teachers of the doctrine should be received? Were the saints to get a clear unhesitating answer that a person was teaching what subverted the foundations of Christianity, and, after having got it, to receive such as teachers? Is there any sense in that? It has been attempted to be said that these letters universally circulated in MS. were not so bad; that they merely stated that those doctrines led to these results when pushed to their legitimate consequences, etc. This is not the case. The statement is, "if it be once admitted [that is, the interpretation of Matthew 24 contrary to Mr. N.'s], the foundations of Christianity are gone." Why, in his account of severe expressions, has he omitted this from the same passage? Why another, that we deny all the gospels? "And thus this passage, and with it the whole gospel, and all the gospels, are swept away as not properly belonging to the church." That we denied the gospels was carefully instilled into the poor and persons of the Established Church. Tracts were sold at the tract shop, declaring it might be easily shewn we subverted the first elements of Christianity.

But it was easy to settle things with most of the brethren who went down. I was not allowed to be present. Such an investigation as that, I do not doubt, will always be desired, let it have been decided by the church publicly, as alleged, twenty times. If someone, having the facts in his mind, be not there to check the statements, any may be made, denied, explained, and gone, before their character is sifted.

Lastly, it must not be supposed that this "Remonstrance" was really addressed to Rawstorne Street. A very few days after it arrived there, and before any answer was sent, it was on sale at the tract shop in London.

I would now add a few words as to a general principle, or point of practice, of some importance, in the actual path of the gathered saints.

One would have thought that if a person were seriously and credibly charged with evil, and he refused, when called on, to satisfy the conscience of the church of God, it would have been sufficiently simple to the mind of every one that he could not come to the table till it was cleared up. Such a course was certainly plainly understood and acted upon, till prejudice as to persons interfered with moral understanding. The truth is, the person has himself practically refused to hear the church. Put the contrary case: a person is credibly charged with thieving, or with murder, or with drunkenness, and instances are alleged. The church take it up, feeling that it must be investigated. This is refused. It is alleged that the party's conscience is to be respected, and that it is against his conscience to be judged by the church. If every one could say this, it is very clear there is an end of all discipline. A person has only to plead conscience as to any mode of investigation, and every kind of sinner can maintain his place at the Lord's table in spite of the church of God. Such a principle is monstrous upon the face of it. There may be cases so clear as, for example, a person caught in the fact of sin -- that no inquiry is called for, unless to discriminate as to the circumstances, how far they are to be dealt with in compassion, or with fear; or the church may be satisfied of the guilt of the party without his appearing, or in spite of his denial of it, and act on that guilt.⁺ But further, if the case be not so clear, or be denied, the church of God is entitled, nay bound, to use every means, not in themselves unrighteous, so that it may have a just and holy conscience in acting. No doubt it has to act in grace, and with consideration, in this; but it is bound to act for God in truth. It may be able to judge without parties and witnesses meeting: if not, it is bound to have them. The refusal of the party accused is really of no weight at all, save against himself. The offer of the party accused to give his own account of the matter, and the plea that this should satisfy the church of God, is too great an outrage on common decency of dealing between man and man (not to speak of the holier judgment of the church of God) to be listened to. But, further, it may become impossible to excommunicate such a person for his guilt. The church, by a just feeling, may refuse, in given circumstances, to conclude absolutely that he is guilty, without hearing him; but he refuses to come.

⁺Innocence would not be a reason for not satisfying the conscience of the church.

It cannot therefore receive him, till he either comes before them, or the matter is fully investigated, or cleared up. The act in such a case amounts to this: "You must come, if at all, through an investigation, to the table." Now this is what has been done. The church is bound to be satisfied where such charges lie. They have said, "Satisfy us." It is replied, "No." Now it is clear that if the party were proved innocent in any other way, to the satisfaction of the conscience of the body so acting, the barrier is gone.⁺ And this is what has been said: "they feel precluded meeting you at the table of the Lord, till the matters in question have been fairly and fully investigated." This, as has been shewn, they never have been: the greatest part of them were in no way whatever inquired into.

Take, in the case before us, what is declared in the "Remonstrance" to be necessary for excommunication. "The sin must have been palpably and distinctly proved against the individual." A person, by refusing to appear, makes it not possible in many cases to do this in a satisfactory way. The church does not therefore excommunicate the party as proved to be guilty. But it maintains, as it is bound to do, in God's name, its title, its obligation, to judge sin and the sinner, when the case is brought before it (otherwise it is partaker in it) and declares he can come on no other terms than that which it is bound to, namely, the maintenance of the holiness of the Lord's table in the Lord's name.

This then is what has been done. There has not been an excommunication upon proved guilt, but there has been, when the occasion arose, the maintenance of that judgment of evil by the church, without which it ceases to exist as the church of God at all. And I now solemnly declare -- though I never did while it might have looked like a threat, or like pressing the point, or using personal influence, which I should account a sin -- that had Rawstorne Street not done so, I should have left Rawstorne Street as I left Ebrington Street. They acted -- and I bless God for it -- happily, freely, and under the Lord's guidance: but the question had come evidently to a solemn point, in which God would direct the state of things one way or another; and my mind was made up. Most thankful I am that the very opposite of such a step was called for. Poor and feeble as the brethren may have been, God was with them: and He whose strength is made perfect in weakness has vindicated His own ways.

⁺Though reproof might be called for, and just humiliation, for so refusing.

In saying this, I have no wish to wrong Ebrington Street, where I know there are many dear saints, nor to flatter Rawstorne Street. Every individual there might have gone wrong as an individual had they had to act: I only speak of their public position. God has guided them as a body: for this they are debtors, not to be exalted in themselves.

There is not a doubt, in the case before us, that a very large body had such convictions as to Mr. N. as would have precluded them from breaking bread with him on much fuller grounds than the one on which they acted as a body. The eyes of many were opened by what they had themselves witnessed in London: but they would not step beyond what they had (of God) before them as a body of saints; and it has, and will have, its weight. Already it has. For a length of time those at Plymouth could not be got to print anything, though they circulated it in private. They alleged this was grace. What has become of this grace? God is with the church, with His poor saints, when they act humbly and faithfully before Him. He has contrasted the path of Ebrington Street and that of Rawstorne Street. The latter has patiently, peacefully, cleared itself from partaking in evil. And what is the condition of Ebrington Street? It has for its exclusive guides five persons, whose communications have really lost them, at any rate for the moment, the moral respect of spiritual, informed, and unprejudiced brethren elsewhere, whatever affection or compassion they may feel for the individuals, or however they may think some of them to be merely misled and not misleading. And these five persons avowedly claim in print the right of judging every case that arises, without the saints (whatever they may think) being at liberty to debate the verdict which may have been announced to them. The applicability of that passage, "Ye suffer if a man beat you, if a man take of you, If a man bring you into bondage," has constantly struck me in this case.

I pressed this matter on their consciences as a body at Ebrington Street. No one stirred: it was treated as a dissenting movement on my part. The church consequently has now been openly declared not to be a judicial assembly, and the verdict passed by four persons -- Messrs. C -- w, S., B., and D. -- concludes the whole assembly, without the possibility of calling it in question. This is now avowed by them. Whether the body at Ebrington Street acquiesce in it I know not. One thing is certain; if they leave it where it is, they are bound by this principle. It has been published plainly enough. Be their conscience ever so troubled, they are not capacitated of God to inquire more into the matter. Sorry I should be to have my conscience so bound by any men. Nor are those who assume such a place here such as would commend such a principle to me. The principles we have been discussing at the opening of these remarks apply directly to Mr. Newton's case. He was accused, to state it in few words, of clericalism, sectarianism, and untruth. Of the two first, and consequently of subverting the very principles on which brethren met, even some of his best friends declare he is guilty; of the latter, many godly persons also. He refuses to satisfy the saints. They are bound not to receive him till he clears it up. As to a poor saint no one would have hesitated an instant. Let it be said that he is an elder: more than two or three grave persons think that he is guilty.

I do not think sectarianism the main point, though an important one: and by sectarianism is here meant having actually made a sect of Plymouth, that is, of Ebrington Street. Not to speak of deeper principles evidently involved, the broad fact that the claim is now openly put forth, that four persons who think proper to claim the ministry among themselves can form a judgment among themselves of every case, and can impose this on the church as binding and conclusive judgment, is of yet greater moral importance, and involves much deeper consequences. In letters not published, not to speak of well-known teachings, the same thing is fully claimed as to ministry, even for a single minister. I have seen one with a long and subtle preface, condemning all the early course at Plymouth, as if it were modest self-condemnation, and seeming to own the Holy Ghost in gift, but assuming the regulation into a single minister's hands, so that not a hymn should be given out, nor a chapter read, nor any one pray, till parties had the minister's allowance on his ascertaining their qualifications.

This then is the state of Ebrington Street. The two things which drove from the Establishment on one side and from Dissent on the other are unitedly established there: one of them avowedly, and the other recognised by every impartial mind. How brethren can expect a person of any principle to remain there is very strange. Why should they have left systems where a thousand ties kept them, because one of these principles was found, and remain where both are established in the face of clearer light -- and this, where it has been done, not openly and honestly, but by means which would establish unity at the expense of straightforwardness, and make the establishment of authority sanction every evil, if it be a means to it? And such is the brief picture of genuine clericalism in every place. A man who keeps another's conscience by authority will soon be found to have very little of his own. We have all to watch against it. An attempt to establish it will never find me as an associate in the work.

And now, my brethren, one word more. The case, under God's wonderful hand, has been sufficiently brought forward to put it on the conscience of the brethren at large, through the quiet conduct, followed as a matter of duty, of some brethren in London. I have not acted myself in the matter, save as needed for my own conscience, in leaving, or as bound by circumstances. I have remained here in London, as subject to the brethren's judgment, when called upon to do so. I have acted as the servant of the brethren involved in quiet faithfulness in the case, so far as to make it plain as far as the published documents required it; I mean in this publication. I now retire again to take my own position in respect of it. There is, I judge, quite sufficient before brethren, to have their conscience clear as to the path they are to walk in. In respect to the matter itself my path would be a decided one; in my judgment of myself a humble one becomes me. Both lead me to the same way before the Lord. Brethren, I believe, have to get clear of a snare of Satan. I am not aware that I have any more service to perform in this respect which the Lord would have me to do. If there be, I should not, I trust, shrink from it. Had I been more spiritual and faithful, perhaps there might: actually I do not think there is. As regards my conscience I shall always treat it as a work of Satan: doubtless demanding patience as regards those unawares caught, but not allowing an instant's compromise with even the slightest acquiescence in it. I leave in the Lord's hands the path of the brethren concerning it, happy to walk with them where it is open to me to do so, and they allow me; the Spirit having its just power, and I holding fast the principles which I have avowed to them here.

For my own part, while conscious in this affair of no fault nor want of charity (I do not say no want of power), I have ever found that dealing with the sin of others awakens my conscience to all my own before God; and while, through mercy, enjoying that mercy unclouded, the very thought of want of power itself, and the whole course of the matter, has served most healthfully to sift my own soul, and to cause it to repass before God all that may have contributed to it, and discover to me all my own failures. Here I have found abundant cause for humiliation, though yet more for admiring and owning and adoring the faithfulness and grace of God. As between me and the brethren who judge my path in this particular matter, I can appeal, without a shade of distrust in my heart, to the judgment of One above us both; I shall not accuse them in it; I await the grace and work of God.

The sifting we have all received will, if we are spared, bring us together again in spiritual energy and power, according as we bow to it and let it have its perfect work in ourselves. If we balance the unjustifiable charge of others with what God has given us, we shall soon find our own repose in peace as to anything which may be even unjustly charged upon us.

As completing this account, I add, at the desire of the brethren, the final answer to the last communication from Plymouth

"London, January 4th, 1847.

"Dear Brethren,

"It is only right and courteous to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of December to the saints at Rawstorne Street, though brethren labouring there have decided not to read it publicly, on the ground (amongst other reasons) of its not being a truthful statement of the matters on which it treats, and which are now before the saints.

"We can assure you it is a very painful and humbling thing to be constrained to communicate such an expression of the minds of brethren in the Lord, and much more so, to be obliged to express our own conviction that this last letter (to say nothing of former ones that had passed through our hands) has not been written in good faith, much less in Christian simplicity.

"In the first place, you know that Mr. Newton has not been excommunicated by the brethren in Rawstorne Street; and therefore what you have said professedly in so solemn a manner about excommunication could not have had weight with your own minds any more than with ours.

163"But, if Mr. N. was serious in what he wrote, he was excommunicated as long since as March 20th, 1846, before anything was thought of at Rawstorne Street; for he thus wrote: 'We have been excommunicated by certain brethren'; and consequently all the effects of excommunication on which you dilate so largely were in action then without any reference whatever to what has since transpired.

"But, beside this, it is well known to you that Mr. Newton gave, as a reason for declining to meet Mr. Darby after he had retired from Ebrington Street, that he was an excommunicated person; and therefore all his relations to him as a Christian brother had ceased. Now you will pardon us, dear brethren, if, in the face of these things, we express our belief that Mr. Newton did not think that he and others with him were excommunicated as long back as the 20th of March, although he said so; and that he did not think at an earlier period Mr. Darby was excommunicated, though he said so; and that you do not think that Mr. Newton has been excommunicated by the saints at Rawstorne Street, though you have said so. Under such an impression, you will not wonder at our saying we do not desire a continuance of the present correspondence. It is too painful a thing to continue it in its present form. It is on the ground above stated that we have forborne to touch on other things which called for remark in your letter. If we have unduly identified you with Mr. Newton, it is because you have made us feel that what he thinks you think, and so of his acts. With unfeigned sorrow of heart, we remain,

"Yours in Christian regard,

(Signed) "W. H. D -- N.

"Henry G -- H.

"To Messrs. S., B., D., and C -- w.

"P.S. This letter has been delayed a day or two accidentally since it was written."

A letter, consequent on this, has been written by a considerable number of brethren, including those to whom letters recommending persons as in communion are habitually communicated, declining any longer receiving such letters from Messrs. C -- w, S., B., and D.; but expressing at the same time their anxious desire that it should be understood that it would be their joy to receive, in any way, any Christian known as such from thence as from elsewhere. I have not been able to get an exact copy of the letter; and hence I merely give its substance.

While these pages were in my possession for correcting the press, the letter of Mr. T. was put into my hands in print. I do not think it necessary to answer so violent an attack on the whole body of the saints at Rawstorne Street. The letter itself will be its best answer to every well-judging mind. I have only to remind the reader that it is to this document that the letter of Messrs. D -- n and G -- h (suppressed in the Plymouth correspondence, but given above) refers, where it says, that the declaration of being "in many of its statements entirely untrue, and its perversions as to the course of action very sad," applies to Mr. T.'s letter more strongly than to the answer of the four which it accompanied. This statement of Messrs. D -- n and G -- h has been fully adopted by a considerable number of brethren present, in the letter declining to receive testimonials from Messrs. C -- w, S., B., and D.: and to this, of whatever weight it may be, I beg to add my most unequivocal testimony.

There is a renewed attempt to get rid of the "Narrative of Facts" as in question at Rawstorne Street, where every one knows it was what occupied the saints. But this, though having the advantage of preceding documents, is doubly lame, from being so late in the business; because, in the "Reasons" published by the Plymouth leaders themselves, the charges in the "Narrative of Facts" are stated in the first page to be the subject in question. The statement of Appendix A will, I suppose, be answered by Mr. H -- d and Dr. C., as that which they know to be wholly untrue.

I have only here to add, on Mr. G -- h's part, that the statement that "the former of these meetings originated in a request, on Mr. G -- h's part, that Mr. Newton would meet Dr. C.", is entirely false.

As to Appendix B, the charges were not mentioned, because the brethren acted on Mr. Newton's refusal to go into them. They did not go into the charges against Mr. Newton, nor did they hear reasons for refusing to answer them; but the "Narrative" was repeatedly referred to as the subject in question. The fact is, it had been pressed some time before on the conscience of the whole body, to the regret of many, by a brother one Sunday morning after worship was over, when neither Mr. W. nor myself was there, and done without communication with any, that no appearance of influence might exist. I have already answered the attempt renewed here to mislead as to the charges. The "Reasons" themselves refer to the charges in the "Narrative."

As to Appendix C, Mr. T. has undertaken to give a minute account of what passed at meetings at which he was not present. That account, I affirm, in most respects, to be totally false; for instance, Sir A.C.'s suppressed letter was neither offered nor refused. This I state, not only on my own authority, but I am confirmed by every person present at the meeting whom I have met; unless indeed it were included under the general expression of "Papers proving Mr. N.'s innocence," offered by Mr. W -- n, as already stated in the published account of what passed. But that is a separate item in Mr. T.'s account.

On recurring to Appendix C, I perceive that one would be led to suppose that Mr. T. meant that his brother-in-law (Mr. F.P -- x) offered it. Mr. P -- x asked me, had I not agreed to submit to the judgment of the ten who went down; which I positively denied. But he most certainly proffered no paper nor any letter from Mr. Newton. Whether he had directions from Plymouth to do so, which he thought it no use to follow when I denied an agreement to submit, I cannot tell. I do not think he will accuse me of any want of courtesy in my reply to him, for I had no notion but that he was acting with kindly feeling, very natural towards a friend and relative; and I so expressed myself. Nor will I suppose that he has made this statement to Mr. T. If he has done either, I am sorry for him. As far as I was concerned, his conduct at the meeting (though painful as to position for so young a man) only made me feel for him.

All the three who have been led to put themselves forward here will find their names fully given in the authentic account as objecting to what took place. Mr. B -- e was away from London at the final meeting. It is a happy feeling when attacks on statements in a painful matter corroborate and confirm them all. It may be well to notice one other circumstance on the part of the brethren at Rawstorne Street. They were fully informed of the refusal, as stated in their letter, of Mr. Newton to meet them, to satisfy their consciences. They do not speak of being fully informed of the reasons for refusing. But, further, the brethren were most fully informed of the existence of the "Reasons," which was communicated to the brethren, and the propriety of reading them considered. But they declined doing so. One ground is evident: the going into the whole matter at Plymouth in the absence of Mr. Newton and the witnesses of the facts. Moreover I hold very plainly that, if a thing was wrong to be done, no reasons ought to be listened to for doing it.

It will be observed that the three who sign the preface to Mr. T.'s letter do not, in the smallest degree, verify the truth of the statements contained in it. I have the best possible reason for saying this.

The reader may remark that the acquittal insisted on in London is now "a defective paper, which could not be called a formal verdict ... it was so inaccurately worded!"

Finally, the body of Mr. T.'s statements are so very bad, that I can only hope that they are the result of the blinding of passion, and not want of principle. I decline therefore entering into further detail.

WHAT INVESTIGATION HAS THERE BEEN AT PLYMOUTH?

If there be one thing more painful than holding those you care for to be guilty of any evil, it is being called upon to do anything which proves them so. I have this consolation that in writing this I do not volunteer. It is well known that the congregation at Rawstorne Street, after many previous steps being taken, declined to receive Mr. Newton at the Lord's table until a satisfactory clearing up of certain charges: their act being grounded on his refusal to satisfy their consciences or to meet them for the purpose. Three brethren, not of Rawstorne Street, who met Mr. Newton on the subject (who did not ask him to meet the saints in Rawstorne Street, but who urged him as he had offered to satisfy brethren to do so in the presence of those concerned, such as myself and others, urging that he could not object to the tribunal as he had offered to satisfy brethren, and all they asked was his doing it in the presence of those concerned in the matters), received a like refusal of their proposals. Mr. Newton's friends have printed and circulated reasons for not meeting the saints in Rawstorne Street: reasons which apply in part to any investigation whatever, in part to the principle on which it should be carried on.

These "Reasons" then I proceed as briefly as possible to answer, feeling that it is due to the consciences of the saints. And I shall confine myself to reasons which apply to any investigation. I have written at large on them in general elsewhere.

The reasons amount to this. The matter has been investigated, and that doubly, and Mr. Newton received an acquittal, and that, besides personal testimonies, by the church of God. And this is the form of the latter. Four persons say they have inquired, and that their acquittal having been communicated to the saints is to be held to be final as the decision of the church of God in the matter. These four persons are Messrs. S., C -- w, B., and D.

I shall consider the validity of this under three heads:

The persons who acquit;

The fact of investigation by them, and what they say they investigated;

And the manner of it, which will introduce collaterally the other alleged acquittal.

As to the persons who acquit. It is alleged they were the persons recognized as addicted to the ministry, practically therefore the known guides or elders of the congregation, above all question of partiality, party-spirit, or bias from circumstances, having no concern in it but truth, competent to settle the consciences of the congregation. This is clear. They say (page 12), "This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service." This would evidently be called for, or it would be a revolting use of the name of the church of God and of the case of His people. Now the fact is, these four were the known partisans and instruments of Mr. Newton; they were and are, as every one knows at Plymouth, his instruments in carrying on his plans. I do not hesitate to say that, had Mr. D. professed to be at that time what he professes himself to have been owned to be, it would have only excited the indignation or utter discomfort of even Mr. Newton's own friends.⁺ At that time they could hardly bear his speaking even. As to dear C -- w, though I doubt not beloved by many and justly, the idea of his being a responsible guide, or being the person to settle the conscience of the body in a grave matter, is the very last thing that would have entered into anybody's head. Nobody really would have tolerated (unless as submitting to some power they could not resist) the thought of either being in such a place -- not even Mr. Newton's friends. As to other spiritual persons, their judgment would have gone and did go very much farther indeed. But one thing is certain, they were Mr. Newton's known instruments.

There was one who was universally looked up to as pastor, who visited and was trusted and beloved, Mr. H. How comes it his name does not appear? Is not this singular in so solemn and public an act as this investigation? There were others, as R.H., S -- s, R -- e, who used to take a part in what went on. How came Mr. Newton to select the four who were to act in this solemn investigation? Mr. N. did not perhaps recognize the others I have just named; but were those whom he thought proper to recognize⁺⁺ the proper persons for him to refer his own case to? Indeed Messrs. D. and C -- w he did not venture to name on another occasion when he declared who had authority in the gathering; Mr. H. he then did. It may be said Mr. H. was not then ministering. But is not this a serious fact? Why not mention it? Why was he not? The real fact is that, three days before the charges were made, he had declined further ministry because the conduct of Mr. Newton and the chief of these four was so very bad. And Messrs. R -- e and S -- s had begged the saints to assemble to know what was to be done to hinder their losing Mr. H. (Mr. R.H. had previously left disgusted). At that very assembly the charges were made.

⁺I dare say it may be different now that the party is formed; I speak of what every one knew to be the case then.

⁺⁺I beg attention to this, as the principle when Mr. N.'s views become fully known is exceedingly important as well as the propriety of it.

And then about a fortnight after, Mr. Newton put, it is said, into the hands of these four as the persons regarded by all as the guides of the body, the investigation of his conduct. Further, these four themselves declare to the reader here, that they were implicated in the great bulk of the charges made: not indeed in these particular untruths which were alleged to be told to screen Mr. N. from the other charges, but in the bulk of those which they were about. Did this fit them for binding the church of God by their investigation? Further, the letter whose truth was in question was written at Mr. C -- w's request by Mr. Newton, and published or circulated by Mr. C -- w. Mr. D. declared that it was at his suggestion Mr. Newton made the additions which constituted the other charge. Further, in the letter of the five⁺ in answer to the invitation to London they all declare that they in common were charged, and exculpate themselves together from these very charges, veracity and all, which in their "Reasons" they profess to have solemnly examined, as independent persons, Mr. Newton's guilt in, so as to bind the church of God by their decision.

Further, when Mr. Newton was examined by the brethren who came down they appeared regularly⁺⁺ with him. And this was at the very time they profess to have been making their independent inquiry. I am told he declared he would not appear without them. Are these the persons who are to make and conclude this solemn inquiry so as to bind the church of God?⁺⁺⁺ At Plymouth they are and were the known and notorious partisans of Mr. Newton, though Mr. S. was shaken for a moment by what took place. I dare say Mr. Newton asked them to inquire into the matter. But what will others say to such an inquiry?

⁺That is, these four and Mr. Newton.

⁺⁺On one occasion, I am informed, Mr. D. was wanting.

⁺⁺⁺The following is Sir A.C.'s remark on this point in his published tract: "Who are the rulers in this case first to investigate and then to lay the evidence before the body? They are the principal persons charged with the things complained of," though it is not really evidence but their decision.

But did they indeed inquire? It is the first time any one ever heard of such an inquiry by these elders -- this only scriptural mode. What is the fact stated in the "Reasons"? "The first step towards such an inquiry was taken by Mr. Newton himself" (page 3). And what was this? He nominated⁺ four other persons to investigate the case. Is not this a singular step towards such an inquiry? They ascertain, they say, that two were not facts. Next, as to the other two charges, the only ones I admit to have made then, their assertion is that they were themselves "as thoroughly acquainted as our brother Darby himself could be with" them. And they felt they had nothing to lay before the saints: that is, they knew it of themselves and did nothing. They had been brought by Mr. Newton as his friends to the meeting which gave rise to one charge; and the other rested on a printed document which, it is true, any one can judge of, that can compare it with the MS.

But is it not a strange inquiry to have thorough acquaintance oneself and report nothing? They never came to me. They never came to Mr. H. who had been to Mr. Newton about his untruth, and urged him to suppress the letter, nor to any one else concerned; and subsequently the two facts were admitted Every one can judge of their value; at least a man's opinion acquainted with the circumstances will prove his estimate of what is honest and honourable and very little else. They state indeed, that they had, in company with the ten saints who came from a distance, an opportunity of again and again sifting all that could be said on it. Does this look like persons who made an independent investigation? Now this is moreover wholly untrue: they made no such investigation in company They came with Mr. Newton when he was examined; but that is all the company they had unless with those of the ten who were Mr. N.'s avowed partisans. They never were near me with them nor Mr. H., nor I believe, any independent witness whatever. They were known to be charged as accessories.