In this book an attempt has been made to meet a desire, often expressed, for an account of the way the Lord has taken, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, to recover the truth of the assembly given to the apostle Paul -- which was so soon lost in accordance with the Spirit's express warning as given us in 1 Timothy 4:1 - 3 and 2 Timothy 3:1 - 5 -- and to maintain it against successive efforts of Satan to overthrow it. A very useful book on these lines was issued by the late Mr. G. W. Ware, but it had only a private and limited circulation, and is not now generally available, besides which the course of time since it was issued has brought further recovery of truth, and further opposition to it, which have been treated of in the following pages.
The object in view has been, as far as possible, to emphasize the particular truth that was involved in each conflict, rather than to dwell unnecessarily on history and personalities, and the method adopted has been to draw largely on letters written by those who were alive at the time of the occurrences in question, or who were well acquainted with them. In the process of compiling this history, much assistance has been derived from the book by Mr. Ware above referred to.
It is hoped that the perusal of this history will have the effect of stimulating faithfulness to the truth of God on the part of all who read it, the history itself affording the most encouraging evidence of the faithfulness of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, through all the years of conflict, in maintaining the truth in its purity notwithstanding every attack upon it.
A.J.G. 1951
It was in 1827 and the years immediately following that there first came into evidence the existence in many different places of a work of God, very small in its beginnings, which shewed itself in saints who were feeling dissatisfied with the state of things in the Established Church and dissenting bodies standing apart from the same, and meeting in private houses for the breaking of bread. At first the companies so doing often only numbered three or four, and were ignorant that similar companies in other places were doing the same.
In this work of God, no servant of the Lord can be identified as being specially used; the Spirit of God was operating sovereignly in the hearts of many saints, widely separated from one another, apart from the instrumentality of any one particular servant.
In 1827 Mr. J. N. Darby was a curate in County Wicklow, Ireland, but was much disturbed in mind by the action of the then Archbishop of Dublin, who charged his clergy to petition the Government for protection from molestation by Roman Catholics in carrying out their parochial duties. In the exercise of soul which this occasioned, the Lord shewed him that He was Head of the assembly, which was His body, united to Him by the Holy Spirit, and that each believer was a member of that body. This truth laid hold of him, and as the sovereign right of the Spirit in the assembly to use whom He would became clear to him from Scripture, the error of the clerical principle became apparent to him, and he left the Established Church in 1828, about the same time writing the paper, "The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ". The equally important paper,
"The Notion of a Clergyman -- Dispensationally the Sin against the Holy Ghost", was written about that time also, though not published till some years later.
In the years immediately following 1827 the work of God above referred to spread rapidly, and Mr. Darby soon became recognised as one whom the Lord was using in an outstanding way to open up His mind regarding the assembly. Besides Mr. J. N. Darby, Mr. J. G. Bellett, Mr. G. V. Wigram, Capt. Hall, Dr. E. Cronin, Mr. F. Hutchinson and Sir Edward Denny, among others, were identified with the movement, and also from 1833, though then only eighteen years of age, Mr. J. B. Stoney. Mr. B. W. Newton was also identified with it in its early beginnings.
It has always been the case that Satan has sought to oppose and spoil what God is doing, and never has it been more apparent, save in his unceasing opposition to the Lord Jesus in the days of His flesh, than in his opposition to the operations of the Holy Spirit in forming the assembly down here as a heavenly vessel, the body of Christ, united to Him, and taking character only from Him. The Acts of the Apostles shews how unceasingly the labours of the apostles, and especially the apostle Paul, to whom the ministry of the assembly was committed, were opposed by Satan, either by violence or by sedulously introducing elements of corruption, and the condition into which the assembly fell, even while the apostles were still alive, as clearly indicated in the second epistle to Timothy, the second epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the first three chapters of Revelation, shews how successful that opposition ultimately became. At the time of the Reformation God intervened in power to establish the truth of justification by faith, and to bring in deliverance, over an extended area, from much of the pernicious influence of Rome, but the Reformers
never accorded to the Holy Spirit practically the place that was His due, and as a consequence the clerical principle was never overthrown, and the state of Protestantism has long since been that described by the Lord in His address to Sardis, "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead", Revelation 3:1. In these circumstances it is not surprising that when God again intervened, in the first half of the nineteenth century, to recover the truth of the assembly in its distinctiveness and heavenly character, and to establish it in power among His saints, the devil should renew his opposition, and maintain it ceaselessly, and the pages that follow are intended to give a broad account of the way that such opposition has been met by the Lord, and of the truth that has been established as a result of each successive conflict.
The facts relating to these matters, and the principles involved, are clearly set forth in the following: --
(a) Letter by Mr. W. Trotter, dated July 15th, 1849.
Beloved Brother, -- In your favour of the 26th ult., you say you have received Mr. Juke's printed letter to the Leeds and Otley gatherings, from which you learn that something has occurred at Bethesda, rendering it in your judgment needful for us to separate therefrom, and you wish me to furnish you with all that has been printed on all sides. The fact is, however, that the present question arises out of others which have exercised the souls of brethren for years; and it would be impossible for you to understand the one without some acquaintance with the others. My object, therefore, is to give you a brief and general statement of the whole case, referring you throughout to such of the principal publications on all sides as may enable you to form a judgment for yourself as to whether or not my statements are borne out by the facts. All I desire is that with the facts fairly before them, brethren should seek light and grace from God to judge of them in His presence. Were He thus simply sought, with nothing to desire or maintain but His glory, I doubt not He would make a plain path before His people (indeed I believe He has done so) however difficult and intricate it may appear to anything but the eye of faith.
It is now nearly twenty years since it pleased God to awaken many of His children to the importance, and solemnity, as well as to the exceeding blessedness of what He has revealed in His word respecting HIS CHURCH. Its union with Christ as one body (of which He is the glorified Head) quickened, indwelt, and governed by the Holy Ghost come down from Heaven, along with the proper hope of the Church, which is the coming of God's Son from Heaven, formed the substance of what the Christians I speak of were led to discern as the teachings of God's word on this subject. I speak not of God's previous dealings with the souls of many of them. They held of course the common faith of Christians with regard to foundation truths, and there was doubtless a great measure of personal devotedness, self-denial, and separation from the world, before they received clear light from God's word as to what the calling, glory, position, and hopes of the Church are. What I speak of is the effect this light from God's word had upon their souls, and how it manifested itself in their course.
The first effect was necessarily a deep sense of the entire contrast between all that man and the world calls "the Church", and what "the Church" really is as seen in the light of God's thoughts. Deep humiliation and sorrow of heart, with unfeigned confession of the Church's low and sorrowful estate were the fruit of this. Then came the exercise of conscience as to whether they could maintain their individual connections with the great professing body in any of its several sections -- whether, in short, this was not the practical denial of what the Church is, as the one holy elect bride of Christ separated from the world to wait on Him as her only hope, and knowing now the presence of the Comforter as her only joy.
Many and painful and deep were the searchings of heart through which these brethren passed; issuing, however, in the secession of many individuals from
the various bodies of professing Christians, and in their coming together for worship and communion on ground entirely distinct from that taken by any of the denominations around. It was not that they attempted to re-constitute the Church as God (not man) had constituted it at first. To attempt this they (at least most of them) saw would be presumption, and end in something worse than that from which they had withdrawn. Having got a higher standard than before by which to judge themselves and things around, I mean God's own thoughts concerning "His Church", they had been forced by the contrariety to these thoughts of everything which bore the name of "the Church" to go "outside the camp". Just as Moses went outside God's camp of Israel because a calf was worshipped there instead of God, so did these brethren go outside the camp of the professing Church, because of the virtual and practical denial there of the holiness, the unity, and the heavenly calling and hopes of the Church; and finding one another thus outside, they were cast upon the living God for His guidance how to act.
They formed no system, they made no plan. Their hope was the speedy return of Jesus, and they desired to be found of Him, yea, and that as many of His saints as possible might be found of Him in such a position that they might not "be ashamed before him at his coming". The will of God and the end for which Christ died they saw to be "that he might gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad". The very instincts of the divine life too, made them desire and feel their need of the fellowship of saints. And it pleased God to show them that they neither needed to re-constitute the Church themselves (which was plainly impossible), nor wait till He should re-constitute it upon earth (which He has nowhere promised to do), but that at once they had the warrant of His word for meeting together for
worship and communion, with the assurance of the Lord's presence to bless them and guide them onward in their path. "Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them". In the faith of this they began to meet together, and they found the Lord faithful to His word. His presence was manifested among them, and His strength made perfect in their felt and acknowledged weakness.
There were two things clearly involved in the ground on which they were thus gathered together. The name of Christ being the centre of their union, that which they looked for in any who sought their fellowship was the saving knowledge of that name by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost. But then, as it was really the perception God had given them of His holiness and the holiness that became His house, which had separated them individually from the bodies with which they had been connected, so was there full provision in the blessed promise of our Lord above cited for maintaining that holiness even where but two or three are gathered together in His name. "There am I in the midst of them". More effectual provision for godly discipline there could not be, and solemn indeed is the sanction declared in the context as attaching to any act of discipline flowing thus from the presence of the Holy One in the midst of His twos or threes. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". The following extract from the Christian Witness of April, 1835, pages 137 - 8, will show what were brethren's views on this subject then.
"Thus, in the worst possible circumstances, two things are secured to the Lord's people, their strength and comfort in His presence, and their right to regard as a heathen man and a publican, any one who brings a scandal on his profession, and blasphemes that holy name by which he is called. The people of the Lord can always act; if they be His, they have
His Spirit, and in that Spirit can meet together, and with that Spirit they can judge and withdraw themselves from any brother, who, after remonstrance, still continues to walk disorderly. So that the comfort of His worshippers, and the purity of His worship, is secured, by this charter of the ever gracious and loving Lord, to His very feeble remnant. The simple principle is, that the Lord would never oblige His people to sin".
I feel this extract to be an important testimony at this moment, as many are denying that brethren ever acknowledged any power or capacity for the exercise of discipline in the position they occupy.
For a length of time the blessing of God evidently rested on the brethren who thus began to meet together. Evangelising testimony went forth, and many in different places were brought to know the Lord. The attention of Christians too was awakened very widely, and in both ways the number of those meeting together in the name of Jesus was greatly increased. Much opposition was made by leading men in the several denominations, but this seemed only to increase the attention of Christians to what God was doing, and to confirm in their position of separateness to Him and simple dependence upon Him, those who had been brought there by His grace.
But in process of time it became very evident that many had been attracted to the position by other motives than those which swayed the brethren who originally took it. Attracted by the manifestation of love and union which they witnessed, or finding more joy and refreshment under the ministry which God raised up among brethren than elsewhere, they assumed a position outwardly, the grounds and nature of which they had never really understood by the teaching of God's Spirit. They preferred to be among Brethren, not because they had gone through the exercises of soul which originally brought brethren out of the different sects to meet simply in the name of Jesus, and in dependence upon the Spirit of God
alone, but just as people would prefer one denomination to another, choosing that one where all were happy and united, and the ministry such as they approved, never troubling themselves about other matters. Besides, as at the first introduction of the Kingdom of Heaven, "when men slept the enemy sowed tares" where the good seed had been deposited, so in the case before us.
It now appears that almost from the very first there were elements of evil introduced by the enemy, very slowly and gradually manifesting themselves for a time, but in the end assuming a distinctness and working with an energy which left no room for doubt as to whence they came and to what they tended. One person, Mr. Newton, of Plymouth, who if not one of the earliest labourers there, was there soon after the commencement, began at a very early period to pursue a course distinct from that of the other brethren. This you may see traced from the beginning in "The Narrative of Facts", by J. N. Darby. Suffice it to say here that Mr. N.'s course was such as issued in all the other brethren who laboured there at the first leaving Plymouth to work elsewhere. Mr. Darby went abroad, Captain Hall to Hereford, Mr. Wigram to London, and Mr. N. was left almost alone at Plymouth. A beloved brother, Mr. Harris, who was not identified with the movement at first, became associated in labour with Mr. N. at Plymouth, and his presence there for several years was the only hope that brethren elsewhere had of any check being put to Mr. N.'s course. He, however, at a very early period of the present trouble withdrew from association with Mr. N. and those identified with him. The system introduced by Mr. N., and most speciously disguised for a time, was directed to the undermining of all the truth by which God had acted on the souls of brethren, and thus to the setting up afresh in another form of all that had been renounced.
The coming of the Lord as any object of present hope or expectation was denied, and there was substituted for it the expectation of a train of events, many of them nowhere foretold in Scripture, and only existing in Mr. N.'s imagination. The real unity of the church as one body indwelt and governed by the Holy Ghost was denied; and instead of it the doctrine was asserted of a kind of independent churches -- so independent indeed, that when division took place at Plymouth, and godly experienced brethren from Exeter, London, and elsewhere went down to aid by their prayers and counsel, Mr. N. and his party peremptorily rejected their aid on the ground that they were not of Plymouth, and had no right to interfere. For the presence and sovereign rule of the Holy Ghost in the church was substituted the authority of teachers, and the authority claimed for them and by them was so absolute, that when Mr. Newton was charged with untruthfulness, and it was sought by one and another that the charge should be investigated before the whole body of believers, this was steadily refused on the ground that he could not be tried but by those who with him were the teachers and rulers there, and as they acquitted him there was no further appeal and no remedy. Besides this there was the steady systematic absorbing of all ministry in the word or even participation audibly in public worship into the hands of one or two, with the effectual exclusion by one means or another of all others. See as to this Mr. Hill's letter, entitled "Remarks", etc. There was also the zealous unwearied endeavour to form a party distinguished by Mr. Newton's views of prophecy and church order, to which the appellation, "the truth", was arrogated, and means were found to keep away from Plymouth any brethren whose views were known to be adverse to those.
Such were the leading features of the system which silently grew up at Plymouth, and I was quite aware
of its existence and of the concern felt by many brethren respecting it from the time that I became acquainted with the brethren between six and seven years ago. There were worse features to be developed than any of those, but the time did not arrive for their manifestation "till the energy of the Spirit of God was introduced into the scene in the ministry of Mr. Darby". Long had he and others watched the progress of things at Plymouth with sorrow and apprehension; still no hand was lifted to arrest the progress of the evil. At last Mr. D. came over from the continent, and after spending several months in Plymouth, labouring within the gathering there, and using what means he could to awaken the consciences of brethren, he was obliged, in order to keep a clear conscience himself, to withdraw from the assembly. He did so on the ground that God was practically displaced and man set up in His stead, and also that there was evil allowed in the assembly without any means of bringing it before the saints for judgment. Being called upon by many to explain the grounds upon which he had seceded, he consented, and in doing so he charged Mr. Newton in two distinct instances with having acted untruthfully.
The result of all this was, that a number of brethren from different parts went down to Plymouth, some of them zealous partisans of Mr. N., and others with no judgment formed on the matters they went to inquire into. As already stated their interference was sternly refused by Mr. N. and his friends, and he would consent to no investigation of the charges against him except on the worldly principle of arbitration, he appointing four of his friends and Mr. Darby four of his. This Mr. D. felt would be taking the case out of the hands of God and His church, as well as making himself the head of a party. This proposal he accordingly refused, offering at the same time to meet Mr. N. before the whole assembly, or, if it was preferred,
before a number of the most grave and experienced brethren, or before certain brethren, fifteen in number, who had met together previously, and in whose presence that had occurred on which two of the charges were founded. To none of these would Mr. Newton consent. His fellow-rulers at Plymouth acquitted him, though one of them was distinctly implicated in one of the charges, and they were all identified with him and zealously aiding him in the course he pursued. To no other tribunal would he or they allow the case to be referred (the proposal to arbitration having been, of course, rejected by Mr. Darby) and hence a separation became unavoidable. Mr. Harris had ceased ministering among them for some time, and he eventually withdrew from communion. Some hundreds withdrew and began to break bread in Raleigh-street, and thus the division was completed at Plymouth.
At first Mr. Darby's act was judged by brethren almost everywhere to be rash and premature. They had not been inside the scene, and so knew but little of the system that had been introduced. Several of those who went down to Plymouth to inquire, found things so much worse than they had any conception of, that they also separated from Mr. Newton and his party. One thing which seems to have weighed greatly with these brethren was the corruption of moral integrity, and the system of intrigue and deception which attended the evil. In April, 1846, a meeting of brethren from all parts was held in London for common humiliation and prayer, where the tokens of the Lord's presence were graciously vouchsafed to us, and from that time the eyes of brethren seemed to open to the evil. Mr. Newton and his friends were invited to that meeting but refused to attend. They printed their reasons for refusing, which were widely circulated.
Mr. Darby's "Narrative of Facts" was printed soon
after, and in the autumn of that year a series of meetings was held in Rawstorne-street, London, very important in their origin, character, and results. They originated in a visit of Mr. N.'s to certain brethren in the neighbourhood of Rawstorne-street and breaking bread there. He held some Scripture readings at the house of one of them, after which he stated that his errand to town partly was to meet any brethren who were wishful of information as to the charges brought against him in the "Narrative of Facts". Most providentially Mr. Darby was at the time in London. He had come to town on his way to France and had got his passports, changed his money, and was ready to depart, when brethren waited on him to detain him till efforts were made to bring about an open investigation of the whole case, with accused and accuser face to face. The brethren to whom Mr. Newton had offered to give information, proposed to him this open investigation. It was proposed to him again and again by others, but steadily and invariably refused. The brethren meeting at Rawstorne-street then assembled, and after united prayer and consultation concluded that Mr. Newton could not be admitted to the Lord's Table there, so long as he refused to satisfy their consciences as to the grave charges alleged against him.
In connection with these events there were three documents issued by Mr. Newton and his party. One, a paper by Mr. Newton himself in answer to the charges of untruthfulness. Another, by his four co-rulers at Plymouth, assigning reasons for his non-attendance at Rawstorne-street to satisfy the consciences of the saints meeting there. Also a remonstrance addressed by the Plymouth rulers to the brethren meeting at Rawstorne-street on their exclusion of Mr. N. from the Lord's Table. All these were examined at large in four tracts entitled "Accounts of the proceedings at Rawstorne-street in November
and December, 1846". These four tracts are very important as showing the dishonesty connected with the system of which the three papers before named were a defence. The proceedings at Rawstorne-street, and the publications growing out of them, cleared the souls of many; and in February, 1847, a meeting was held in the same place, attended by many brethren from the country, in which nearly all those who had been at all looked up to amongst brethren gave their solemn testimony as to the evil system which had grown up at Plymouth, and as to the need of absolute and entire separation from it. The testimonies of Messrs. M'Adam, Harris, Lean, Hall, Young, and others, were most solemn and decisive. There was scarcely a brother, whose name was well-known amongst brethren as labouring in the word and watching for souls, who did not at that time acquiesce in the sorrowful necessity for separation from this evil and demoralising system.
And now we come to a new era in this mournful history. Thus far the evil had been confined to the undermining of all the truths of which there had been a special revival, through the Lord's mercy, among brethren -- the setting up of clerical power and pretension to an alarming extent, and the effort to form a party for these purposes, by means indicating the total loss of integrity on the part of those who used them, and most corrupting in their effects on others. Now we are to find the foundations of the faith assailed by the introduction of false doctrines concerning the blessed Lord Himself. Strange things were known to have been taught previously. In his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse", Mr. N. had taught the astounding doctrine that in the future glory the saints will participate in the omniscience and omnipresent power of the Lord Himself. Other statements, equally strange, had been made on other subjects; but it was not till after the London meeting, in February, 1847, that
there was brought to light a systematic and diligent inculcation of doctrines which undermine all that is essential to Christianity. These doctrines were first brought to light by Mr. Harris. He published a tract, entitled, "The Sufferings of Christ, as set forth in a Lecture on Psalm 6, considered, by J. L. Harris". The lecture, notes of which were thus printed and examined by Mr. H., was by Mr. Newton. The following is Mr. Harris's account of the way in which he became possessed of those notes, and of what induced him to publish them, with his remarks upon them: --
"I desire explicitly to state how the manuscript came under my notice. About three weeks since one of our sisters in Exeter very kindly lent the notes to my wife, as being Mr. Newton's teaching, from which she had found much interest and profit. When my wife first told me what she had brought home, I did not pay much attention to it; but shortly after I felt it was not right in me to sanction in my house this system of private circulation, and I determined to return the manuscript unread. Accordingly I wrote a note to the sister who had lent the manuscript, thanking her for her kindness, and explaining my reason for returning it unread. It was late at night when I had finished writing, and I found in the meantime my wife had looked into the manuscript so as to get an outline of its contents, which she mentioned to me, especially the expression that 'the cross was only the closing incident in the life of Christ'. She thought she did not understand the meaning of the author, and referred to me for explanation. I then looked into the manuscript myself, and on perusing it felt surprised and shocked at finding such unscriptural statements and doctrine, which appeared to me to touch the integrity of the doctrine of the cross ...".
"In the law of the land there is such a thing as misprision of treason, involving heavy penalties when
any one who has been acquainted with treasonable practices does not give information. In this case I believe the doctrines taught to undermine the glory of the cross of Christ, and to subvert souls; and it seems to me a duty to Christ and to His saints to make the doctrine openly known. The manuscript professes to be notes of a lecture -- I suppose a public lecture. With these notes on Psalm 6 there was given, as accompanying it, notes on Isaiah 13, 14, if I recollect aright, with this notice, 'This to go with Psalm 6', or something to that effect; so that it appears from this title that these manuscripts are as regularly circulated among a select few, in various parts of England, as books in a reading society", etc.
The doctrines of this lecture on Psalm 6 by Mr. N., it will be best to state in his own words. Speaking of Christ, he says, page 7, "For a person to be suffering here because he serves God, is one thing; but the relation of that person to God, and what he is immediately receiving from His hand while serving Him, is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm, and many others, open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out, as rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure: and remember, this is not the scene on the cross". He says, on the same page, that this -- the scene on the cross -- "was only one incident in the life of Christ ... It was only the closing incident of His long life of suffering and sorrow; so that to fix our eye simply on that would be to know little what the character of His real sufferings were".
After saying, "I do not refer to what were called His vicarious sufferings, but to His partaking of the circumstances of the woe and sorrow of the human family; and not only of the human family generally, but of a particular part of it, of Israel", he goes on to speak of the curse having fallen on them; and then adds, "So Jesus became part of an accursed people -- a people who had earned God's wrath by transgression
after transgression". Again: "So Jesus became obnoxious to the wrath of God the moment He came into the world". Again: "Observe, this is chastening in displeasure; not that which comes now on the child of God, which is never in wrath, but this rebuking in wrath, to which He was amenable, because He was part of an accursed people; so the hand of God was continually stretched out against Him in various ways". From this dreadful condition he represents our Lord as getting partially delivered at His baptism by John. I say partially; for elsewhere he distinctly affirms that He only emerged from it entirely by death: "His life, through all the thirty years, was made up, more or less, of experiences of this kind; so it must have been a great relief to Him to hear the voice of John the Baptist, saying, 'Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'. Here was a door opened to Israel at once. They might come, and be forgiven; so He was glad to hear that word. He heard it with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptised, because He was one with Israel -- was in their condition, one of wrath from God: consequently, when He was baptised, He took new ground: but Israel would not take it", etc. Such were the doctrines promulgated by Mr. Newton.
The exposure of them by Mr. Harris excited general alarm among those who had been associated with their author; and he, finding it needful that something should be done, issued two pamphlets, in neither of which did he disclaim the lecture, or the doctrines asserted in it; but first stated it more at large, though in a less palpable and offensive form, and then defended and supported it.
It appears that, long before this, a paper of his containing the germ of this doctrine had been inserted in the Christian Witness. This was pleaded by Mr. N. and others in palliation of his subsequent course. It was said that he had avowed the doctrine openly in
a publication read by brethren generally, and edited by Mr. Harris, and that neither he nor they had detected in it any error, till altered circumstances made them adopt a different standard of judgment. But the facts, alas! while quite showing how long Mr. N. had held, or been inclined to hold, his present views, formed no real palliation of the evil. In the first place, he had carefully guarded what he said in the Witness against what constitutes the chief evil of his present views. In the Witness he strongly asserts that the sufferings of Christ he speaks of were "vicariously incurred"; in his tract -- "Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus" -- he defines the sufferings he specially writes of to be "sufferings which pertained to Him, because He was a man, and because He was an Israelite; sufferings therefore which cannot be restricted to the years of His public service, but which must be extended over the whole of that period during which He was made sensible, under the hand of God, of the condition into which man had sunk, and yet more into which Israel had sunk in His sight" +. These sufferings he carefully distinguishes in a note (page 2) from "those which were vicarious", and "which latter", he says, "began at the cross". Now this makes all the difference possible. I should regret to hear any one say that our blessed Lord endured God's displeasure, even vicariously, all His lifetime. It would be an error, and a serious one, to assert even this. Still, it does not so entirely overturn the foundations of our faith. But to assert that the hot displeasure of God rested on Jesus throughout His life, not vicariously, but "because He was a man, and because He was an Israelite", does subvert the faith; because if as a man and as an Israelite He was obnoxious to this, how could He voluntarily endure it on the cross instead
+The italics are Mr. Newton’s own.
of others? But, secondly, the remarks in question were not inserted in the first edition of the Christian Witness, edited by Mr. Harris, and generally read by brethren, but added to the paper in a second edition, issued from the tract depot at Plymouth, under Mr. N.'s control. But I must proceed with my narrative.
The two tracts issued by Mr. N. were answered by Mr. Darby. His pamphlet entitled "Observations, by J.N.D., on a tract entitled 'Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus'" is most valuable, and well deserving the study of any one anxious to know the bearings of this solemn question. He printed another, likewise presenting proofs in copious extracts from Mr. N.'s writings, of what his doctrines on this subject really are. The effect of all this, through God's great mercy, was, that many of Mr. N.'s friends, who had adhered to him till now, began to have their eyes opened to the frightful precipice to the brink of which they had followed him. By them Mr. N. was pressed to make confession of his error, and he so far consented to this as to put forth a paper, dated "Plymouth, November 26th, 1847", entitled "A Statement and Acknowledgment respecting certain Doctrinal Errors".
I well remember the effect produced on my mind by an extract from this paper, which was sent me, and which was as follows: --
Supposing, of course, that the error confessed was the error contained in his recent tracts, my soul was bowed before God in thanksgiving for such evidence as this extract seemed to afford of a humbled and penitent state of soul in the writer. Judge of my surprise and sorrow, when I received the paper itself, to find that the above is almost the only word of confession contained in the seven pages of which the paper consists. And the error confessed is not that of the doctrine already described, the doctrine taught in the Notes of his Lectures and in the two subsequent pamphlets. No; he only withdraws these for reconsideration; and the error he confesses is one contained in his paper in the Christian Witness, viz., the attributing our Lord's endurance of the sufferings in question to His connection with Adam as federal head. This is the error retracted, and except the paragraph above cited, the tract is little but extenuation and excuse.
Those of Mr. N.'s friends, however, whose consciences were really awakened by the Spirit of God, could not be content with such confession as this. A meeting was held in Ebrington-street, in which Messrs. Soltau and Batten made full confession; and as many were more disposed for self-justification than confession, they withdrew from the assembly, and shortly after issued printed confessions, which now lie before me; and I am sure these beloved brethren will excuse me in giving extracts from those papers to show, what none could show like those who have been involved in them, what the doctrines in question are. The following are Mr. Batten's words: --
These doctrines, or this system of teaching, may be stated as comprising:
1. That the Lord Jesus at His birth, and because born of a woman, partook of certain consequences of the fall -- mortality being one, -- and because of this association by nature, He became an heir of death -- born under death as a penalty.
2. That the Lord Jesus at His birth stood in such relation to Adam as a federal head; that guilt was imputed to Him; and that He was exposed to certain consequences of such imputation, as stated in Romans 5.
3. That the Lord Jesus was also born as a Jew under the broken law, and was regarded by God as standing in that relation to Him; and that God pressed upon His soul the terrors of Sinai, as due to one in that relation.
4. That the Lord Jesus took the place of distance from God, which such a person so born and so related must take; and that He had to find His way back to God by some path in which God might at last own and meet Him.
5. That so fearful was the distance, and so real were these relations by birth, and so actual were their attendant penalties of death, wrath, and the curse, that until His deliverance God is said to have rebuked Him, to have chastened Him, and that in anger and hot displeasure.
6. That because of these dealings from God, and Christ's sufferings under them, the language of Lamentations 3, and Psalm 6, Psalm 38 and Psalm 88, etc., has been stated to be the utterance of the Lord Jesus while under this heavy pressure from God's hand.
7. That the Lord Jesus extricated Himself from these inflictions by keeping the law; and that at John's baptism the consequent difference in Christ's feelings and experience was so great, as to have been illustrated by a comparison of the difference between Mount Sinai and Mount Sion, or between law and grace.
8. That beside all these relations which Christ took by birth, and their attendant penalties and inflictions, and His sufferings under the heavy hand of God, it has been further stated that He had the experience of an unconverted, though elect Jew.
After giving this summary of the doctrines which had been held and taught by himself and others, Mr. B. thus proceeds: "I feel, beloved brethren and sisters, whilst writing this outline of doctrine, that it ought to be enough of itself to arouse and alarm you; that it ought to give you at once a sufficient insight into this system of teaching to lead you to ask what spell could have been so firmly bound around us as to make all contented under it; to induce many not only to feed upon it themselves, but to circulate and commend it to others; and to lead some to defend and re-affirm it whenever assailed or threatened. This, I repeat, might be a very proper question for each to put to his own conscience before God; and I do not doubt that a ready answer would be supplied, according to our individual faith and acquaintance with God; at all events, I do not hesitate to declare that my own mind is satisfied to say -- delusion, and that I am as free to own my conviction as to the source of this delusive power, however painful and humbling to me to do so".
The evil effects of the system of doctrine from which he had thus been graciously delivered, Mr. B. solemnly points out in the following paragraphs: --
"I would say, then -- 1. That if Christ took at birth, and by birth, certain consequences of Adam's sin, such as mortality; and that if He stood by birth in the relation to God of Israel under the broken law; and that if He took correspondingly the place of distance from God, and had the experiences of an unconverted man, there was surely need enough that He should work his way back to God, and find some point where God could meet Him. 2. That if the accompanying inflictions, rebukes, and chastisements from God, due to a person in that position, were really allowed to fall upon Christ, and were moreover pressed upon His soul according to God's power and holiness, there was surely need enough that He
should seek to extricate Himself, and find the door of deliverance".
"This summary of Christ's standing before God at birth, and the awful experiences and sufferings of His soul and body under God's inflictions on this account, I solemnly present to you as containing Christ's disqualifications for becoming our surety, our sacrifice, our Saviour! For He had to extricate Himself! He had to be delivered Himself out of this horrible distance, and from these fearful judgments. However free from taint His person might be, and is declared to have been, yet because of these relations, which, it has been said, He took at birth, it was even a question, as to fact, whether He could deliver Himself and be owned of God. This was, however, settled as regards His own acceptance by His keeping the law, and by His obedience unto death; but then, alas! all this was due from Him to God -- due to the law, as having been born under its curse -- due for Himself and for His own extrication: all that He could render to the last moment of His life, all that He could offer up in death, was needed by Him for Himself, and for His own deliverance! ... But then what becomes of the blessed doctrines of grace? What becomes of the glorious gospel of God's salvation? What becomes of the Church? What becomes of us individually? We have lost Christ".
Mr. Soltau's printed confession was more brief, but equally explicit and humble. So was Mr. Dyer's: and it would be well for any one anxious to understand fully the nature of the question now before brethren, to read and ponder seriously and prayerfully those remarkable documents. They were not without their effect at the time, as a number more withdrew from Ebrington-street, and were in a while received afresh to communion with brethren at Raleigh-street and elsewhere; and some time after Ebrington-street ceased to be occupied by Mr. Newton and his party,
a smaller room in Compton-street being the place in which they have since assembled.
Some months after the withdrawal by Mr. N. of his heretical tracts for reconsideration, he published another, entitled, "A Letter on Subjects connected with the Lord's Humanity". This tract reaffirms the doctrines of those which he had withdrawn, and all the confession now made is of "carelessness", and "a wrong use of theological terms". Brethren must excuse me when I say, that to refer to this tract as an adequate exposition of Mr. N.'s doctrines seems to me either the height of folly, or something worse. First of all, notes of a lecture appear, in which the doctrine flows out freely from the author's lips without reserve and without disguise. Finding the indignation excited by it so very great, he publishes one tract expository of his views, more carefully worded than the lecture, but still plain enough; and another, vindicating those views against the charges of his opponents. Finding his own friends ready to desert him, he confesses his error on one point, and withdraws the tracts for reconsideration. The fruit of this reconsideration is a republication of the doctrine; but, after months of study bestowed on the subject, who can wonder that the form in which it appears is made as unobjectionable as possible? An acute mind, spending months of study on the stating of the obnoxious doctrine in as harmless and apparently unobjectionable terms as possible, while it is still maintained and asserted as firmly as ever, might be expected to produce just such a tract as this of Mr. N.'s. But who would trust it? Does he hold the doctrines he did when he wrote his former tracts? Yes, unquestionably. Then let us look to them to know what those doctrines are; or rather to the notes of his lecture prior to any of them, in which, without a thought of reservation or disguise, he speaks out what was in his soul.
But there is another point I must advert to before Bethesda's connection with all this comes in view. In the month of May, 1848, a meeting was held at Bath, attended by about 100 brethren from all parts, the leading features of which were 1. That in it the brethren who had been rescued from the doctrinal errors of Mr. N., and whose confessions have been noticed, made further confession, full and ample, as to their implication in the charges made against the untruthful, immoral system of Ebrington-street, as brought to light in the "Narrative of Facts", and "Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne-street". They acknowledged that these charges were just. One, at least, of those who signed their names to "the Plymouth documents", referred to on page 8, confessed that these documents were justly chargeable with trickery and falsehood +. It is not as delighting in evil, or feeling any pleasure in publishing my brethren's sins, the Lord knoweth, that I mention this. I am only astonished at the grace bestowed on them thus humbly to acknowledge wherein they had fallen; but I mention it because it is of all importance to remember that the false doctrine is not the only thing in question. There was a separation, and solemn necessity for it, before the evil doctrine came to light. And what was made clear to the simplest by the confessions of beloved brethren at the Bath meeting was this, not only that the doctrines must be repudiated, but the system of trickery and deceit guarded against, which preceded the open avowal of the doctrines. Both system and doctrines, however, blessed be God, were distinctly confessed, and as distinctly renounced, by beloved brethren who had been most deeply entangled in both. Let this triumph of the restoring grace of our God and Father be our
+My authority for this statement is Mr. Robert Howard, who was present at the meeting, and assured me of what is above stated.
comfort now, and our encouragement to look for further displays of His almighty arm of love.
2. The other remarkable feature of the Bath meeting was this, that the "Narrative of Facts", and other publications of Mr. Darby on these mournful occurrences, were subjected at that meeting to the strictest scrutiny; Lord Congleton endeavouring for five hours to prove them false, and Mr. Nelson, of Edinburgh, aiding him in his efforts. The result was, that the statements contained in these pamphlets were so fully established that some, who had always mistrusted them till then, exclaimed that they never knew anything so demonstrated. Mr. Robert Howard, of Tottenham, and Mr. Jukes, of Hull, who were present at the meeting, both assured me that nothing could exceed the triumphant manner in which these publications were vindicated from every attempt to call their statements in question; every endeavour to shake their testimony recoiling on the heads of those who made them.
It was immediately after this that the rulers at Bethesda+ admitted to communion there several of Mr. Newton's devoted friends and partisans, and this in spite of all the remonstrances of godly brethren among themselves, and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views of the persons in question. The brethren on the spot who had protested against this step were now obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to be soul-defiling and Christ-dishonouring doctrines and ways, to withdraw from fellowship with Bethesda. This they did; one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading brethren there, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons at Bethesda then drew up and signed a paper vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. N.'s followers, and rejecting
+A meeting at Bristol.
all the warnings and remonstrances which had been addressed to them. This paper you may see at full length in "The Present Question, 1848 - 9, by G. V. Wigram". As to this document, I have only a remark or two to make. You may see it fully examined in the pamphlet just named.
1. The object of the paper is to vindicate the conduct of those who signed it in taking a neutral position with regard to the solemn questions which have now been hastily reviewed. They say, "We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party".
2. They do, nevertheless, at the beginning of the paper, disclaim the doctrines taught by Mr. N. They do not mention his name; but say, "We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was ever well pleased".
"We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which He endured as the surety for sinners -- according to that Scripture, 'He was made a curse for us'".
"We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person; but maintain, that while He suffered outwardly the trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite, still, in His feelings and experience, as well as in His external character, He was entirely separate from sinners". That is, they severally and jointly disclaim Mr. Newton's published views on these subjects. And yet it is well known that one of those who signed
the paper agrees with Mr. Newton on these points; and in the very last tract I have seen, written by Mr. Groves, brother-in-law to Mr. Muller, and an active agent and zealous advocate of Bethesda, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison are named as among the known friends of Mr. Newton, and Mr. Aitchison is one of the ten who signed the paper. The simplest saint can see the want of uprightness in a course like this. Ten men sign a paper, in which they disclaim views held, and known to be held, by at least one of those who signed it.
3. The reasons assigned in this paper of the ten for not judging the error in question are most unsatisfactory, some of them being, in fact, the strongest possible reasons for their investigating it thoroughly. Hear their words: "The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued from Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence (rather, who had already come), or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to, could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings ... Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his". So, because the author of a heresy is inconsistent with himself, and knows how to puzzle and confuse his readers by apparently contradictory statements, the poor of the flock are to have his disciples let in among them, to scatter the poison of his sentiments, and the pastors plead as their vindication that very tortuousness of error which makes it doubly dangerous, and the necessity for a barrier against it doubly imperative!
4. There is a most dangerous principle asserted in this document. "Even supposing that those who
inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For, supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts". That is, a man may for years teach doctrines admitted to be fundamentally heretical (say Socinian); the congregation which allows him thus to teach (say Socinianism), puts forth a statement disclaiming the doctrines which are still, nevertheless, known to be taught amongst them, and thus accredited by them; members of the congregation apply for communion elsewhere, and unless they can be individually convicted of having "understood and imbibed" Socinian doctrines, this Bethesda principle would require their reception. They are members of a congregation which allows amongst them a Socinian preacher, and boasts of him as deeply taught in the Word, etc.; but unless we can prove that they themselves have intelligently embraced Socinian errors, we have no warrant, Bethesda says, for rejecting them. Do saints need more than this to open their eyes as to the ground Bethesda has taken? And this is no "fable", no "exaggeration!" it is Bethesda's recorded judgment of what the fellowship of God's house is. The words above cited, to which "the ten" subscribed their names, and which were adopted by the vote of the congregation, tell a louder and more solemn tale in the ear of conscience than anything which has been advanced by those whom Bethesda looks upon as her adversaries.
5. The manner in which the congregation at Bethesda were ensnared into the adoption of this paper of "the ten" is what no one could approve whose judgment was not previously warped. "Mr. Craik stated", at the meeting held July 3rd, 1848, "what would be the order of the meeting, viz., the perusal, first, of Mr. Alexander's letter, then of their reply. After which the church would give judgment upon it. But that they (the ten, I suppose) stated deliberately and advisedly, that they were firmly resolved not to allow any extracts to be read, or any comments made on the tracts, until the meeting had first come to a decision upon their paper" +. Think of this: ten persons come forward with a paper committing the church, if they adopt it, to a neutral course between the author of those tracts and his friends on the one hand, and those who reject them entirely as unsound and heretical on the other. If this paper be adopted Bethesda becomes neutral between Mr. Newton and those who have disowned him; and yet, till this paper is adopted the authors of it will not allow any extracts to be read from Mr. N.'s writings, or remarks to be made on Mr. N.'s doctrines. And, when some objected to the congregation thus giving a decision in the dark, Mr. Muller said, "The first thing the Church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that, if this was not done, they could not continue to labour among them; that the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought out", etc. Thus were Bethesda people required, under pain of losing the labours of their beloved and honoured pastors, to assume a position of neutrality with regard to doctrines on which there was not a word to be spoken till they had assumed the position And the majority acquiesced in this: by standing up they declared their approbation of this paper of "the ten", and assumed the position which
+See "The Present Question", pages 53-4.
they were required to take. But while, on the one hand, the course taken in this matter by the rulers was most sad, let no individual in the congregation think to shift on to their shoulders the responsibility of the body in adopting their paper. Be it that they did it in the dark; be it that they were not allowed to have a ray of light shed on the subject, they did still rise up in approbation of the paper, and they had been informed previously by Mr. A. that the errors in question were errors affecting the person and work of our blessed Lord. Solemn was the responsibility assumed by the congregation in their vote of that evening; tenfold more solemn the responsibility of those who influenced them to come to it.
It was soon after Bethesda had thus assumed a professedly neutral position by the reception of Mr. Newton's agents, and the adoption of this paper, explanatory of the ground on which they were received, that Mr. Darby presented the whole case to brethren in a circular, which has been reprinted lately in W. H. Dorman's "Review of certain Questions and Evils", etc. Soon after the circular was issued Mr. Darby went abroad. All the notice that was taken of it was in a hostile letter from Mr. Wakefield of Kendal, of the spirit of which I will not trust myself to speak, and all the arguments of which you have seen in Mr. Jukes's letter to the Leeds and Otley gatherings. It was by local circumstances that our brother Willans and myself were led, reluctantly enough on our part, to take any share in these proceedings. You must understand that by means of Mr. Muller's Orphan houses, Bethesda has links of connection with almost every gathering throughout the country. With one in Yorkshire we knew that there was a link of great: strength. Two other gatherings in Yorkshire we knew to have very strong and tender ties to a brother who had been greatly blessed to them in former days,
but who, alas! had been instrumental in part in placing Bethesda in the position she now occupies, and we knew that his policy had always been to keep the saints in ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and that he had been on a visit to those gatherings since these troubles began.
A brother had removed from Otley to Bethesda, and by returning, or even coming on a visit, might at any time have forced the question on saints here. Efforts had been made, moreover, by some to prejudice the minds of saints here and at Leeds by altogether inaccurate representations of Bethesda's position, and of Mr. Darby's conduct towards it; and what weighed with us more than all the rest, Mr. Jukes, of Hull, came down from Bath, where he had been in intercourse with the friends of Bethesda's neutral position, resolved to take part with it himself, and this he could not of course do without either the silent acquiescence of brethren everywhere in these parts, or, on the other hand, the consideration by brethren of the whole case. We had anxiously looked for some persons of note amongst brethren to summon a general meeting to take Bethesda's case and Mr. Darby's circular into consideration. A step of this magnitude it was clearly out of the question for us to take. The question for our consciences was whether to stand by and see the Yorkshire gatherings quietly drawn into a neutral position between the Newtonian heresy and the receivers of it on the one side, and those who had faithfully protested against it and separated from it on the other -- these gatherings all the while, save a few brethren in Leeds and Otley, being profoundly ignorant of what the questions were on which they were to be thus neutral. This we could not with a clear conscience allow. We looked to the Lord, and had, I believe, His guidance in sending out the circular which you have seen. It makes known what the evil is, how by Bethesda's reception of it all the gatherings
were threatened; and then states the course which, as we believed, the word of God required of us in these circumstances, leaving it, of course, to brethren everywhere to form their own judgment of the whole in the fear of God. I have no doubt that very many of God's dear people would have acted in the case better than we did, had they acted at all. But when none would act, and the evil was at our doors, we had no choice left us but to act as the Lord might enable us. He knows whether we sought His guidance, and what our motives were in the step we took. Results, too, have shown whether there was not the most imperative need for some such step. Sorrowful and humbling indeed was the state of things which made it needful; but God never fails His people in the worst of times; and I suppose there are very many now who feel that His blessing can be expected on no course in the present emergency but one of unyielding firmness and uncompromising decision.
It has been alleged, however, that Bethesda has cleared itself of all charges of fellowship with Mr. Newton's false doctrines, or the holders of them; and it may be well first to state what has been done at Bethesda, and then to examine whether by all this it is really cleared, so as to be again entitled to the confidence of saints.
A meeting was held in Bethesda, October 31st, 1848, in which Mr. Muller gave his own individual judgment of Mr. Newton's tracts, stating that they contained a system of insidious error, not here and there, but throughout; and that if the doctrines taught in them were followed out to their legitimate consequences, they would destroy the foundations of the gospel, and overthrow the Christian faith. The legitimate consequences of these doctrines he stated to be "to make the Lord need a Saviour as well as others". Still, while recording so strong an individual judgment as this, Mr. Muller said that he could not
say Mr. N. was a heretic, that he could not refuse to call him brother. And he was most careful in maintaining that what he said was not the judgment of the church, but his own individual judgment, for which he and he alone was responsible. As to the paper of "the ten", and all the steps connected with it, he justified them entirely, and said that were they again in the circumstances they would pursue the same course. And what, I ask, is the natural effect of such a proceeding as this? On the one hand the individual judgment against the evil lulls to sleep consciences that are beginning to awake. People say, surely there can be no danger of unsoundness where such a judgment against evil is recorded as this. While on the other hand the door is left as wide open to the evil as ever; and Satan is quite satisfied if you will only let it in, whatever strong things you may say against it.
But it is now asserted that there has been a public investigation at Bethesda, issuing in a united judgment of the whole body there on the subject. This is said to have taken place in November and December, 1848; but the first word of it that has openly seen the light is in a tract which has only reached me since I began to write this letter, and which bears date June 16th, 1849. Before examining it, I would solemnly put to the consciences of brethren this question, When Bethesda knew that her conduct had stumbled so many, and was giving occasion to so much division and controversy -- if she looked on the decision come to last December as one that ought to satisfy the consciences of godly brethren who complain of her previous course, where was her regard for Christ's glory, the love of the brethren, or the peace of the church, in keeping this decision a secret from December to June? But such as it is, now that it is out, let it be examined, and the Lord give to saints everywhere to weigh it in His fear.
It is presented to the saints in a tract by Mr. A. N. Groves, in which he publishes a letter from Mr. J. E. Howard to Mr. Dorman. In this letter Mr. Howard says, The following statement was given me on the authority of Lord Congleton: "Seven church meetings were held at Bethesda between November 27th and December 11th, 1848. Mr. Newton's tracts were considered".
"Conclusion -- That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton's views or tracts should be received into communion".
"Written down by Lord Congleton from Mr. Muller's lips, in Mr. Muller's presence, Mr. Wakefield, of Kendal, being also present. January 30th, 1849".
"Result -- By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda had sent in resignations -- Capt. Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers and two Miss Percivals. (Signed) C --".
Before noticing the statements contained in this remarkable document, one word may be allowed as to its author. It was Lord Congleton who for five hours endeavoured at the Bath meeting, in May, 1849, to fix the charge of falsehood on the "Narrative of Facts". Mr. Robert Howard assured me that his efforts were so weak and so absurd, that the only effect of them was to make the charge recoil on his own head. His conduct at that meeting was so sad, that when he afterwards sought admission to Rawstorne-street the brethren there declined receiving him until satisfied of his contrition for the course which he there pursued. And this is the brother whose name and testimony are put forward by Mr. J. E. Howard to satisfy the consciences of saints that Bethesda has purged itself from the evil!
It is with reference to the meetings Lord C. speaks of that Mr. Groves indignantly asks, "What! six weeks' anxious enquiry, during which every other
meeting and business was suspended, to consider the question, arid inform every member of Bethesda, in order to obtain a right and instructed judgment on this difficult and perplexing question -- doing nothing! What! disallowing Mr. Newton as a teacher, and refusing communion to all who defended, maintained, or upheld his doctrine or his tracts, after the most prolonged deliberation and prayerful enquiries -- doing nothing!" It is a sorrowful thing when the only answer one can give to such an appeal as this is, "Nothing to satisfy the consciences of any who value the honour of Christ, and the purity of the fellowship of His house, more than saving appearances and propping up the interests of a party". But let us turn to the document itself, and examine its allegations.
1. Seven church meetings were held, and Mr. Newton's tracts were considered. The refusal to do this before had forced out from Bethesda some 50 or 60 godly brethren, and plunged numbers elsewhere into sorrow and strife, and is there no word of confession now that seven meetings are held to consider what might not be considered at all but a short time before? In the paper of "the ten" I read, "We considered from the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here -- nor for the glory of God -- that we in Bristol should get entangled in controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we as a body are bound to investigate and judge them". Again, I read, "The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton's tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion". Now, how is it that what was so wrong in June and July has become right and needful in "November and December"? How is it that what is refused in summer, at the cost of forcing out a number of godly, conscientious brethren on the spot, and
plunging brethren everywhere into sorrow and division, is done in autumn without a word of acknowledgment that wrong had been done before! Nay, if we are to believe Mr. Groves himself, they still think they did quite right.
2. The conclusion come to was, "That no one defending, maintaining or upholding Mr. Newton's views or tracts, should be received into communion". Now this to a person who knew nothing of the controversy, and nothing of the tracts, would sound very fair and straightforward, and it is intensely painful to have at every step to call in question whether documents and declarations do really mean what at first glance a stranger would suppose they mean. But what are the facts of the case before us? First, there is no judgment given as to those who had already been received, received too at the solemn cost of the division which immediately ensued at Bristol, as well as all the rest which have followed elsewhere. It is a judgment as to who "should be received into communion", not as to what should be done with those who had already been received. Secondly, the conclusion arrived at still leaves the door quite open to those who are in avowed fellowship with Mr. Newton, provided they do not "defend, maintain, or uphold his views or tracts". There is nothing here that goes beyond the principle laid down in the paper of "the ten". "For, supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation-truth". If a person comes from Compton-street, and has frankness to say, I understand and hold, and am resolved to propagate as I can, Mr. Newton's views on the points now in question, he would not be received by Bethesda. But a dozen persons might come at once from Compton-street and be admitted
into the heart of the assembly at Bethesda, provided they were so far under the influence of the immoral, deceitful system of the place they came from as to conceal the fact that they sympathise with Mr. Newton's views. They must "defend, maintain, or uphold" Mr. Newton's views or tracts to be excluded by this conclusion arrived at in Bethesda. Should they say that they do not understand Mr. Newton to teach what others attribute to him, and they themselves entirely repudiate the doctrines charged upon him, there is no hindrance here to their admission at Bethesda. And when admitted, they may speak highly of Mr. N., they may express their sympathy for him as an injured, calumniated, and mercilessly treated man, and so enlist the sympathies of Bethesda people in his favour. And is not all this doing Satan's work, and paving the way for their reception of the doctrines of the tracts themselves, when in some other way these fall into their hands? Nor are the means for this far distant. This we shall now see.
3. The result of this judgment of Bethesda is said to be that "By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda had sent in their resignations -- Captain Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers, and two Miss Percivals". And this is clearly put forth in Bethesda's defence by one of Bethesda's chief leaders! From the time that these questions arose, the uniform and oft reiterated defence put forth by Bethesda and her advocates was that there were none in Bethesda who held Mr. Newton's views, or promoted his designs. Now we are assured by Lord C. in a tract put forth by Mr. Groves, that all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda have sent in resignations! A list of their names is given us, consisting of the very persons who had been received by Bethesda in spite of every warning and remonstrance from within and from without; including also one name which was appended to the paper
of "the ten". So that one of "the ten" who committed Bethesda to a neutral course is now ranked by Bethesda herself and her zealous advocates, amongst Mr. Newton's friends. And is there no confession on Bethesda's part of having despised the warnings and counsels of grave and sober brethren, whose testimony they have at last found but too true? Is there no expression of sorrow for having forced out from her fellowship those whose conduct has thus been justified in the sight of all? No, not the least. Bethesda, by her own account, has done right from first to last. Right, in assuming a neutral position, right in abandoning it, if indeed she had abandoned it. Right in receiving Mr. Newton's friends; and right in pursuing a line of conduct, the "result" of which she states to be the retirement of them all! Right in maintaining she had none within her pale tinctured with the Newtonian heresy; and right in proving herself clear, by alleging that all such have resigned! But it is not a course of self-justification like this that either meets with the approval of God or commends itself to the consciences of saints.
The worst, however, remains to be told. So far from the six weeks' meetings, and the conclusion arrived at, and the result of both, having cleared Bethesda of the evil, or made it more worthy of the confidence of brethren, its actual present position is such as to be less entitled to confidence than before. We are not left to learn the value and grounds of the resignations of Mr. Newton's friends from Lord C.'s statement, as two of them, Captain and Mr. Woodfall, have circulated a paper in which the grounds of their resignation are plainly stated. Two sentences from that paper are enough to make manifest the character of the whole proceeding. "This step of ours", they say, "has been finally determined on from a conversation with one of your pastors, who seems to think this would relieve them from some of their difficulties".
"In taking this step we do not at all waive our claim, as brethren in Christ, to a seat at the Lord's table here".
Only think of an amicable arrangement between one of the pastors of Bethesda and two of Mr. Newton's friends who are in communion there, the issue of which is the withdrawal of the latter, to relieve the former from some of their difficulties, these voluntary seceders maintaining meanwhile their right to communion whenever they may think proper to return! And this is set forth as a proof that Bethesda has cleared herself of the evil, and as enough to satisfy the consciences of brethren that there is nothing now requiring separation from Bethesda.
The fact is, if I am correctly informed, and the truthfulness and accuracy of my informant I have every reason to trust, that there is an open communication between those "friends of Mr. Newton" who have withdrawn from Bethesda, and others remaining in Bethesda still. Bethesda has not professed to shut the door against those who are in avowed fellowship with Mr. N. and his adherents, unless they uphold, defend, or maintain his doctrines or his tracts. Sympathisers with him there are unquestionably in Bethesda still. They have the work to do inside; while those who have withdrawn can do work of another kind outside more effectually than they could have done it within. I say not that Messrs. Groves and Muller intended it should be so; far from it; but when expediency becomes our guide, and to maintain our own consistency our object, we become the dupes and tools of an unseen agent, who seeks to accomplish his own purposes by means of us and our ways. I state it subject to correction; and the moment there is a fair and open meeting, where everything can be gone into, I am willing to give up my author, and have the following statement, with every other I have made, thoroughly sifted and weighed. I have been
assured of the fact, that one person remaining in Bethesda claimed his right, or stated his determination, not to forgo fellowship with Mr. Newton's friends who have withdrawn. And I have been credibly informed again and again that the meetings held by Mr. Newton's friends have been attended by several still in Bethesda. If these things are not so, let the matter be investigated openly and fairly; and if they should be proved untrue, I know who would be one of the first, by God's grace, to confess the wrong done to Bethesda brethren, and to entreat their forgiveness. But if these things be true, let no saints be persuaded that mutual arrangements, as matters of expediency, for some to withdraw while others remain, can clear Bethesda of that wherewith she stands charged, or vindicate the holiness of God's house, which has been practically denied by her doctrines and her deeds.
Were I asked my reasons as an individual, for being entirely separate from Compton-street congregation, Plymouth, my answer would be twofold:
1. The sectarian, clerical, and demoralising system there set up, as unfolded in the "Narrative of Facts" and account of proceedings in Rawstorne-street.
2. The awful doctrines since promulgated by Mr. Newton on the subject of the sufferings of our blessed Lord.
Were I asked the same question with regard to Bethesda, my answer would be:
1. The declared assumption of a neutral position towards the evil system and evil doctrines of Mr. Newton.
2. The latitudinarian principle laid down in the paper of "the ten", and adopted by the body, that those who are in avowed fellowship with heretics cannot be refused admission to the Lord's table, unless they themselves have understood and imbibed heretical sentiments.
3. The attempt to make the impression on people's minds that the neutral position has been exchanged for one of separation from Mr. Newton and his tracts, without any confession of error or sin in having taken a neutral position at first.
4. That the neutral position has not really been abandoned; that sympathisers with the heresy are yet allowed to be within, and no barrier presented to their free communication with avowed adherents of the heresy without.
5. The statements made by Mr. H. Craik in his letter to T.M., in answer to G. V. Wigram's Appeal. What he says there of the Lord's humanity, leaves no room for doubt that he does to a great extent sympathise with Mr. N.'s unsound views.
A number of brethren at Rawstorne-street, London, and elsewhere, have addressed to Bethesda the following appeal:
To Saints who meet in Bethesda, Salem, etc., Bristol.
"In consequence of the late republication of J. N. Darby's letter of last autumn (by W. H. Dorman), and of the ten co-labouring brethren of Bethesda, with extracts subjoined from G. Alexander's letters, etc. (by G. V. Wigram) our souls have been exercised before the Lord in humiliation and prayer. This has led to the conviction that without compromising the holiness becoming the house of God, we could have no further interchange of communion with saints of Bethesda, under existing circumstances. Under this sad conviction, as we most anxiously desire to stand in fellowship with all saints, we earnestly wish to remove the apparent hindrances. We therefore, as separate individuals do earnestly entreat and beseech that the only thing which seems to us as a means to this end (viz., a meeting open to all parties concerned,
who plead conscience as the reason for being present), may be accorded by you either in Bristol or elsewhere".
"Let any evil which has to be corrected in any be shown there. If it be in brethren meeting in York-street, Bristol -- in G. Alexander, J. N. Darby, G. V. Wigram, or W. H. Dorman -- we desire in no sense to screen them any more than to condemn any among yourselves. Let the Lord's honour and the unity and holiness of the church only be thought of".
"Our hope is, that if such a meeting were held, the Lord Jesus Christ would, for His name sake, so overrule by His Spirit, that some results in common humiliation and blessing from His hand would follow".
"Misunderstandings might be corrected, evil judged, while holiness and brotherly fellowship were still preserved to His glory and the comfort of our hearts".
"This step is also urged on us more especially by first, Certain public acts of Tottenham, viz., its publication of the memorandum and reception from Bethesda; and secondly, A secession of brethren from Orchard-street on the grounds connected therewith".
"The answer is requested to be sent (for us) addressed to M.N., at 1, Angel Terrace, St. Peter's-street, Islington, London".
"For the congregation of Bethesda, etc., to the care of G. Miller, J. H. Hale and C. Brown". +
Mr. Muller's reply is as follows:
"In reply to a communication addressed to the care of Mr. Hale, Mr. C. H. Brown, and myself, requesting a meeting of brethren to consider certain charges that have been made against Bethesda, I have to state on the part of myself and my fellow-labourers,
+The above was signed by fourteen brethren, and copies of it by several others.
that we are ready to afford full explanation of the course that has been adopted at Bethesda to any godly enquirers who have not committed themselves as partisans of Mr. Darby and Mr. Wigram, but that we do not feel warranted in consenting to meet with those who have first judged and condemned us, and now profess to be desirous of making enquiry. We think it well plainly to state, that were such brethren even to profess themselves satisfied with us, we could not without hypocrisy accord to them the right hand of brotherly fellowship. If they agree with the course followed by Mr. Wigram and others, then there can be no fellowship between us and them; if they disapprove of that course, we feel that they are bound first to call to account those who have been manifestly guilty of following a course tending to division, and of grossly slandering their brethren. Should, however, any godly persons who have not committed themselves to the upholding of such persons desire explanation of the course we have pursued, we are not only most ready to answer their enquiries (either by verbal intercourse in private, or by means of a meeting called for that purpose), but it would also give us real joy to satisfy the minds of such. (Signed)
I pray brethren to ponder this letter. The glory of Christ may be assailed, and the foundations of the faith, as well as the moral integrity of the saints, be sapped and undermined; Bethesda stands quietly by, and assumes a neutral place. George Muller, Henry Craik, and others, are in their own estimation roughly and badly used; but there can be no neutrality as to that. Brethren propose to them a general meeting, as much to investigate their charges against J. N.
+See note on next page.
Darby, G. V. Wigram, and others, as to investigate the charges these brethren made against Bethesda. They wish to screen none, to condemn none, but to hear all in each other's presence, and in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ; but no -- Mr. Muller and his co-labourers will consent to nothing of the kind. They would admit to the Lord's table the friends and partisans of those who had slandered the blessed Lord; but they will not meet for enquiry even with those who approve of the course pursued by brethren supposed to have slandered them. Surely this may safely be left for the judgment of the saints. +
It only remains for me to notice two or three points much urged by those who object to a decided course of action in this solemn matter. It is often said that in declining fellowship with those who come from Bethesda in its present state, we treat them worse than we do Christians in the denominations generally. It has been asked again and again, whether we would not receive a godly clergyman remaining in the Church of England, where all indiscriminately are received to communion. I answer, unhesitatingly, yes, we should, as always, receive a brother in the Lord who is in the Establishment or among the Dissenters, without requiring him beforehand to separate from the body of which he is a member. But what has this to say to the case in hand? Does a clergyman's reception of unconverted people at the table of the Establishment accredit them to us as Christians? Not in the least. But is this the case with Bethesda? The profession is, that none but Christians are received there; and any one coming thence heretofore, has come fully accredited as a Christian. If, then, Bethesda admits those who are unsound in the faith, the result is, that all confidence is destroyed, and we should never
+The letter from Mr. Muller and the comments made thereon were added subsequently by Mr. Trotter. [Ed.]
know, in admitting persons thence, whether we were not receiving under the guise of a "dear brother or sister" an enemy of the faith, and a subverter of souls. This is the position in which Bethesda has placed itself; a position altogether unlike that of the Establishment, or of any evangelical Dissenting body. If I knew of a Dissenting congregation which, on principle, and to maintain a neutral place, received Socinians as well as Orthodox believers to communion, I should no more receive persons from that congregation than from Bethesda. I should have no confidence in their confessions of faith, however sound, till they had renounced their unholy association with the deniers of the Lord that bought them. And I regard Mr. Newton's doctrine as a more dangerous, because more insidious and artfully disguised heresy than Socianism itself.
Men may subvert the faith without denying in terms the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. The Judaising teachers in Galatia had not laid aside the name of Christ, or ceased to acknowledge Him in word as the Saviour. But they taught doctrines which, if true, made His death unnecessary and vain. And both Peter and Barnabas were for a little season drawn into the snare. But what said Paul of those subverters of the faith? "I would they were cut off that trouble you". "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed". The assertion that "the resurrection is passed already"+ was not the denial in terms of what our faith rests upon; but it was the assertion of that which, if believed, took away from the soul the only resting place for faith. "If the dead rise not, then is not
+The assertion that "the resurrection is past already" appears in 2 Timothy 2:18. The writer of the letter probably intended to allude to the assertion that "there is no resurrection of the dead", which we have in 1 Corinthians 15:12. [Ed.]
Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins". Paul knew nothing of the false charity of the present day. He delivered Hymenaeus to Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme. And though there may be no one in the present day to exercise discipline in that form, the obligation of saints to be separate from such blasphemy, and from all those who practise and allow it, is as solemn now as then. Indeed, separation from evil is not a question of power, but of obligation. A saint always has power to keep a clean conscience. It is not to a large and ordered church, but to "the elect lady and her children" that John writes, "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds".
But are you not introducing a fresh test of communion, and so setting up a sect? is a question that is often asked. Let us look to Scripture for the answer. All must allow that in the earliest days of the church it was as Christians that God's people met together. They received one another as the Lord Jesus Christ had received them, to the glory of God the Father. But when Satan had sown his tares and they began to grow up, when grievous wolves had entered in, not sparing the sheep, and when from among themselves men had arisen speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them; when for instance, the doctrine was taught that "the resurrection was past already", and Paul had delivered the teachers of it to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme; was such an act of holy discipline setting up some new term of communion? Suppose a thousand people, and among them many Christians, had sympathised with those heretics and refused to renounce their fellowship, thereby taking sides with them against the apostle and against the Holy Spirit
by whose power the apostle acted, can we suppose that such persons would have been received to communion by the apostle, or by any who regarded the apostle's authority? And would the rejection of such be setting up any new term of communion? Did the beloved disciple set up a new term of communion in warning the elect lady not to receive the false teachers of that day? Suppose some one who had received these deniers of the faith had come to the elect lady and her children expecting to be received as before; and suppose she, feeble sister as she was, had said, meekly, but firmly -- No: the Holy Ghost by the Apostle says that he who biddeth them God-speed is partaker of their evil deeds. You have received those enemies of the faith, and have thus become partakers of their evil deeds. You now stand in the same place as they do, I dare not receive you lest I become partaker with you of your and their evil deeds. Would such a testimony have been setting up some new term of communion? Multiply the receptions ad infinitum, the principle remains the same. Many a plea of ignorance and unguardedness may come in and have to be considered, and such pleas would be more admissible the further off the case was removed from the origin of the evil. But rejecting heretics and the receivers of them is not setting up any new term of communion; it was not in the apostle's days, nor is it now.
If any ask then, Do you not meet as Christians, and if so, how can you think of refusing so many who are undoubtedly such? my answer is, Assuredly we meet as Christians, and it is because we do that we can receive none among us who either by their sentiments or their conduct undermine the foundations of Christianity.
I would not close this communication without expressing my deep and unfeigned sorrow that any necessity should have arisen for speaking as I have
had to do of brethren at whose feet I feel unworthy to sit. With brethren Muller and Craik I have never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance; but often have I had to thank God for the refreshment ministered to my soul through the writings of the one, and often have I been humbled at the thought of the faith and devotedness of both the one and the other. However, I may have had in faithfulness to our common Master and love to His sheep, to canvass the course pursued in this matter by these beloved brethren, and however sorrowful my impressions as to the line of conduct into which they have been betrayed, I know of no unkindly feeling towards them in my heart, much less could I think of despising their "grey hairs", or forget the injunction, "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder". But where God's glory and the honour of His Christ is the question at issue, all lesser considerations must stand aside. The Lord look upon us and pity us, and send us restoration and blessing, as, if He tarries, He assuredly will in His own time and way. May we have grace to bow to His hand who smites us in love! In patience may we possess our souls; and may the chastenings of His love work in us by the power of the Holy Ghost all that repentance, that vehement desire, that revenge upon ourselves, that will prove us at least clear in this matter. The Lord grant it, and send health and healing, for His blessed name's sake!
Ever, dear brother,
"Dear Brethren, -- Our brother, Mr. George Alexander, having printed and circulated a statement expressive of his reasons for withdrawing from visible fellowship with us at the table of the Lord; and these reasons being grounded on the fact that those who labour among you have not complied with his request relative to the judging of certain errors which have been taught at Plymouth; it becomes needful that those of us who have incurred any responsibility in this matter should lay before you a brief explanation of the way in which we have acted".
"And first, it may be well to mention, that we had no intimation whatever of our brother's intention to act as he has done, nor any knowledge of his intention to circulate any letter, until it was put into our hands in print".
"Some weeks ago, he expressed his determination to bring his views before a meeting of the body, and he was told that he was quite at liberty to do so. He afterwards declared that he would waive this, but never intimated, in the slightest way, his intention to act as he has done, without first affording the church an opportunity of hearing his reasons for separation. Under these circumstances, we feel, it of the deepest importance, for relieving the disquietude of mind naturally occasioned by our brother's letter, explicitly to state that the views relative to the Person of our blessed Lord, held by those who for sixteen years have been occupied in teaching the word among you, are unchanged".
"The truths relative to the divinity of His Person -- the sinlessness of His nature -- and the perfection of His sacrifice, which have been taught both in public
teaching and in writing, for these many years past, are, through the grace of God, those which we still maintain. We feel it most important to make this avowal, inasmuch as the letter referred to is calculated, we trust unintentionally, to convey a different impression to the minds of such as cherish a godly jealousy for the faith once delivered to the saints".
"We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was ever well pleased. We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which He endured as the surety for sinners -- according to that scripture, 'He was made a curse for us'. We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person; but maintain that while He suffered outwardly the trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite -- still in His feelings and experiences, as well as in His external character, He was entirely 'separate from sinners'".
"We now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complying with the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth".
"1. We considered from the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here -- nor for the glory of God -- that we, in Bristol, should get entangled in the controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that, because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we, as a body, are bound to investigate them".
"2. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued at Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence, or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings. We did not feel that we should be warranted in taking our impression of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatise written by himself, and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his".
"3. In regard to these writings, Christian brethren, hitherto of unblemished reputation for soundness in the faith, have come to different conclusions as to the actual amount of error contained in them. The tracts some of us knew to be written in such an ambiguous style, that we greatly shrunk from the responsibility of giving any formal judgment on the matter".
"4. As approved brethren, in different places, have come to such different conclusions in reference to the amount of error contained in these tracts, we could neither desire nor expect that the saints here would be satisfied with the decision of one or two leading brethren. Those who felt desirous to satisfy their own minds, would naturally be led to wish to peruse the writings for themselves. For this, many among us have no leisure time; many would not be able to understand what the tracts contained, because of the mode of expression employed; and the result, there is much reason to fear, would be such perverse
disputations and strifes of words, as minister questions rather than godly edifying".
"5. Even some of those who now condemn the tracts as containing doctrine essentially unsound, did not so understand them on the first perusal. Those of us who were specially requested to investigate and judge the errors contained in them, felt that, under such circumstances, there was but little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching the nature of the doctrines therein embodied".
"6. Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement, disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts".
"7. The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton's tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion. It was demanded of us that, in addition to a sound confession and a corresponding walk, we should, as a body, come to a formal decision about what many of us might be quite unable to understand".
"8. We remembered the word of the Lord, that 'the beginning of strife is as the letting out of water'. We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party. We judge that this controversy had been so carried
on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire to be considered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord. At the same time we wish distinctly to be understood that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers, and consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus".
"9. We felt that the compliance with Mr. Alexander's request would be the introduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right to demand our examining a work of fifty pages, he may require our investigating error said to be contained in one of much larger dimensions; so that all our time might be wasted in the examination of other people's errors, instead of more important service".
"It only remains to notice the three reasons specially assigned by Mr. Alexander in [justification] of his course of action. To the first, viz., 'that by our not judging this matter, many of the Lord's people will be excluded from communion with us' -- we reply, that unless our brethren can prove, either that error is held and taught amongst us, or that individuals are received into communion who ought not to be admitted, they can have no scriptural warrant for withdrawing from our fellowship. We would affectionately entreat such brethren as may be disposed to withdraw from communion for the reason assigned, to consider that, except they can prove allowed evil in life or doctrine, they cannot, without violating the principles on which we meet, treat us as if we had renounced the faith of the Gospel".
"In reply to the second reason, viz., 'that persons may be received from Plymouth holding evil doctrines' -- we are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matter was agitated, we have maintained that persons coming from thence -- if suspected
of any error -- would be liable to be examined on the point; that in the case of one individual who had fallen under the suspicion of certain brethren amongst us, not only was there private intercourse with him relative to his views, as soon as it was known that he was objected to, but the individual referred to -- known to some of us for several years as a consistent Christian -- actually came to a meeting of labouring brethren for the very purpose that any question might be asked him by any brother who should have any difficulty on his mind. Mr. Alexander himself was the principal party in declining the presence of the brother referred to, on that occasion, such inquiry being no longer demanded, inasmuch as the difficulties relative to the views of the individual in question, had been removed by private intercourse. We leave Mr. Alexander to reconcile this fact, which he cannot have forgotten, with the assertion contained under his second special reason for withdrawing".
"In regard to the third ground alleged by Mr. Alexander, viz., that by not judging the matter, we lie under the suspicion of supporting false doctrine, we have only to refer to the statement already made at the commencement of this paper".
"In conclusion, we would seek to impress upon all present the evil of treating the subject of our Lord's humanity as a matter of speculative or angry controversy. One of those who have been ministering among you from the beginning, feels it a matter of deep thankfulness to God, that so long ago as in the year 1835, he committed to writing, and subsequently printed, what he had learned from the Scriptures of truth relative to the meaning of that inspired declaration, 'The Word was made flesh'. He would affectionately refer any whose minds may be now disquieted, to what he then wrote, and was afterwards led to
+"Pastoral Letters", by H. Craik.
publish. If there be heresy in the simple statements contained in the letters alluded to, let it be pointed out; if not, let all who are interested in the matter know that we continue unto the present day, 'speaking the same things'".
"(Signed
The above paper was read at meetings of brethren at Bethesda Chapel, on Thursday, June 29th, and on Monday, July 3rd, 1848.
(b) Six letters by Mr. J. N. Darby, two written in 1845 and the others in 1846, 1849, 1851 and 1864 respectively.
Plymouth, November 12th, 1845.
Beloved Brother, -- I answer, of course, your letter without delay. You probably do not know that Mr. J. L. Harris has declined further ministry here (though he has not left communion) and proposes to leave the place, and this on two points out of three on which I have acted; he is ignorant of the third. This, of course, modifies naturally the surprise which my step might occasion, though it is neither reason nor justification; but it is so far a proof that there was nothing hasty, and that there were serious grounds for it.
I now proceed to tell you why I did so. I felt that God was practically displaced, and so I told them,
and then stated the three following points: the subverting the principles on which we meet -- this, I think I may say, is not denied now by any (unless the doers of it on principle); at least, it is admitted that brethren (teachers) were intentionally kept away, and Soltau urges Mr. Harris to stay and resume his place in order to help him to resist. Some say that they were only tendencies, and not a purpose, but the fact is not denied. I cannot here enter into all the facts, but I am perfectly convinced there were purpose, doctrine, and fact; and you have no idea of the extent to which it had gone. It was, to my mind, as bad as bad could be in other aspects. Secondly, there was actual evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged: this Harris does not enter upon. And that thirdly, a meeting which has worked in the guidance of the details of the body and service of the saints, has been not only set aside, but refused to be reinstated. This last was what finally decided Harris before his return here to decline further ministry. I had proposed publicly, as he had laboured in private (and I had also spoken of it) at the re-establishment of this meeting; and the rejection of it occasioned a stay of all moral discipline, unless on the summary judgment of two or three who took it on themselves. This deprived of remedy, for the existence of evil would not in itself be a reason for leaving, but evil unjudged and really sanctioned would, when it could not be remedied. I have only to add, that I have felt the unclouded approbation of God since I have done it. I had not before an idea of the mass of evil, and how many knew it. Yet I believe the great body wholly ignorant of it, and so I stated when I announced my withdrawal. But they almost all felt that there was something which had destroyed spirituality and love. In my judgment it was very bad indeed. I waited eight or nine months before I did this, and till every step was taken to remedy the evil; and I should
have felt the Lord against me had I waited longer. I believe it has done very much good; the conscience of a vast number has been awakened, evil acknowledged by some who were immersed in it fast, I believe, with evil intention, and I hope more blessing may thus come from above. When I say it, I believe the withdrawal of Harris from ministering had as much, and perhaps more effect, than my withdrawal from communion, from his having been much more here latterly, and the only one who visited, and whom the poor really knew and loved. All the poor, I think I may say, have felt the evil. I told them that I did it with unmingled grief and sorrow, and only wished it might be remedied; that I loved all and valued many very much, that I believed the great body quite innocent of it, but that there was one Table and one bread, and they were all responsible, and that my feeling was that -- as evil was not remedied -- I could not identify myself with evil that I knew.
It seemed to me you acted quite wisely, having no information as to the sister coming here. I trust the Lord may restore you all, and it is all I desire for this gathering too. I thank you, dear brother, very much for your prayers, and feel that I need them, as I trust you may be enabled to continue them. It has been, I need not say, a time of great trial to me. Still, I have felt the Lord with me, and have been with Him, however feeble; and I am quite in peace since I left the gathering. Already many have separated between good and evil, and graciously; up to this, people had gone away, or held their tongues hopeless.
Kind love to all the saints. Very affectionately yours, dear brother, and praying God that light and peace and strength may be with you and all His beloved ones.
I have no desire but that all should be restored in peace here, and it would be much greater joy to return than even to have cleared my conscience in leaving;
I wait upon the Lord, and in the enjoyment of the light of His countenance about it. I have avoided everything which would have the appearance of party or lead to it. I do not believe even that the enemy has ventured to charge me with it. I have no feeling of the kind -- God forbid I should. You are not aware that many brethren elsewhere feel as strongly, or more so than I do about it. I do not pretend to say they would therefore necessarily (have) taken the same method, but of that I have no regret. I may just add, that I have refrained from breaking bread apart, though many have stayed away, hoping they may come through grace to set all right.
... I write rather because of the importance of the point than for any immediate occasion of circumstances: I mean leaving an assembly, or setting up, as it is called, another table. I am not so afraid of it as some other brethren, but I must explain my reasons. If such or such a meeting were the church here, leaving it would be severing oneself from the assembly of God. But, though wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name He is in the midst, and the blessing and responsibility of the church is in a certain sense also, if any Christians now set up to be the church, or did any formal act which pretended to it, I should leave them, as being a false pretension, and denying the very testimony to the state of ruin which God has called us to render. It would have ceased to be the table of the people and testimony of God, at least intelligently. It might be evil pretension or ignorance; it might call for patience if it was in ignorance, or for remedy, if that was possible: but such a pretension I believe false, and I could not abide in what is false. I think it is of the
last importance that this pretension of any body should be kept down: I could not own it a moment, because it is not the truth.
But, then, on the other hand, united testimony to the truth is the greatest possible blessing from on high. And I think that if any one, through the flesh, separated from two or three walking godlily before God in the unity of the whole body of Christ, it would not merely be an act of schism, but he would necessarily deprive himself of the blessing of God's presence. It resolves itself, like all else, into a question of flesh and Spirit. If the Spirit of God is in and sanctions the body, he who leaves in the flesh deprives himself of the blessing, and sins. If, on the contrary, the Spirit of God does not sanction the body, he who leaves it will get into the power and liberty of the Spirit by following Him. That is the real way to look at it. There may be evil, and yet the Spirit of God sanction the body (not, of course, its then state), or at least act with the body in putting it away. But if the Spirit of God, by any faithful person, moves in this, and the evil is not put away, but persisted in; is the Spirit of God with those who continue in the evil, or with him who will not? Or is the doctrine of the unity of the body to be made a cover for evil? That is precisely the delusion of Satan in Popery, and the worst form of evil under the sun. If the matter, instead of being brought to the conscience of the body, is maintained by the authority of a few, and the body of believers despised, it is the additional concomitant evil of the clergy, which is the element also of Popery. Now, I believe myself, the elements of this have been distinctly brought out at Plymouth; and I cannot stay in evil to preserve unity. I do not want unity in evil, but separation from it. God's unity is always founded on separation, since sin came into the world. "Get thee out" is the first word of God's call: it is to Himself. If one get out alone, it may require more
faith, but that is all; one will be with Him, and that, dear brother, is what I care most about, though overjoyed to be with my brethren on that ground. I do not say that some more spiritual person might not have done more or better than I: God must judge of that. I am sure I am a poor creature; but at all cost I must walk with God for myself ...
Suppose clericalism so strong that the conscience of the body does not act at all, even when appealed to, is a simple saint who has perhaps no influence to set anything right, because of this very evil, therefore to stay with it? What resource has he? I suppose another case. Evil goes on, fleshly pretension, a low state of things on all sides. Some get hold of a particular evil which galls their flesh, and they leave. Do you think that the plea of unity will heal? Never. All are in the wrong. Now this often happens. Now the Lord in these cases is always over all. He chastens what was not of Him by such a separation, and shews the flesh in detail even where, in the main, His name was sought. If the seceders act in the flesh, they will not find blessing. God governs in these things, and will own righteousness where it is, if only in certain points. They would not prosper if it were so; but they might remain a shame and sorrow to those they left. If it be merely pride of flesh, it will soon come to nothing. "There must needs be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest". If occasion has been given in any way, the Lord, because He loves, will not let go till the evil be purged out. If I do not act with Him, He will (and I should thank Him for it) put me down in the matter too. He loves the church, and has all power in heaven and earth, and never lets slip the reins.
I have not broken bread, nor should do it, till the last extremity: and if I did, it would be in the fullest, openest testimony, that I did not own the others then to be the table of the Lord at all. I should think
worse of them than of sectarian bodies, because having more pretension to light. "Now ye say we see". But I should not (God forbid) cease to pray continually, and so much the more earnestly, for them, that they might prosper through the fulness of the grace that is in Christ for them ...
Dearest Brother, -- I take up my pen at last to answer your letter. As to the facts connecting themselves with Scripture I had no difficulty as to myself, the difficulty was as to demonstration to others. In the first place, Mr. Newton's statement in April was to have union in testimony here, against the teaching of the other brethren, and that he trusted to have at least Devon and Somerset under his influence for the purpose. And this was done most assiduously and perseveringly, so that at last in some places, they had to tell Mr. N. they would bear it no longer; but the saints here had no present proof of this. No person who moved in the sphere of the teachers but knew that they were by calumnies, reproaches, and letters, keeping away other brethren. Nor do those that are honest now deny it. But the body of the brethren here had not seen these letters, and in the (what I must call) audacious state of conscience the leaders were in, I should have been challenged to produce them. Here their case broke down in April, because McA had seen them and put them to silence. Each Sunday was as regularly N. and H. as in the establishment, and everybody knew it; there was no arrangement written -- nothing to be proved. A poor man gave out a hymn, no one would raise it; whose fault was that? At length the facts were not denied, but they were said to be accidents; though N. had told
me at the Bristol meeting that his principles were changed, and B. had been reasoning with me on the ground of it, and declaring the brethren elsewhere who sought to serve the saints ciphers, and five ciphers never could make one unless they were regularly recognised. The persons in authority had been named by Mr. N. here as those he recognised and none else. The Friday meeting had been broken up, and Mr. S., owning there ought to be one, said he could not move in it because Mr. N. would have only those he chose, and it would produce a rupture with him. It had been openly taught by N. and B., that the Lord did not now use poor uneducated men, as those He chose before His resurrection, but after that, such as Paul, Luther and Calvin, Wesley and Whitfield, and myself now. It came to such a point, preventing people speaking in the room, that S. called it jockeyship; now I confess to you in what professes to be a meeting where the blessed God is, I do not like going on with jockeyship. But what could be proved here? Someone got up too quick -- that was all -- and perhaps did it in a case where the majority would go with him as to the effect, keeping down some speaker they did not like; and in the particular case the sisters had already tried to silence him by making a noise with their feet. The Holy Ghost was totally disowned, the body of the poor miserable, and utterly despised and rejected. But I did not leave for all this. It was when all remedy for this was rejected with scorn, that I then said I could not stay. Every attempt by -- , -- , etc., and others to investigate the evil before the brethren has been rejected. You may well suppose the difficulty of dealing with facts before the body, that it was constantly denied in toto, in the face of a settled arrangement (not in words but in fact) to speak alternate Sundays, that anybody was hindered -- and at least three cases of prevention by the authority of Mr. N.
and those he employed. And as to those without, when S. pressed their having kept away Bellett, and that he felt they had sinned, Mr. N. said -- on his asking could he acquiesce in his coming now -- he thought he could, because all were sufficiently made up now to resist his teaching. But on the avowed principle of clericalism it was peremptorily refused to let the brethren judge anything about the matter.
If Scripture warrants me to separate from the worst evil as to corporate action I ever met, then I am sanctioned in separating from this. If the unity of the church is to be the sanction of evil, we are landed in Rome at once. It was taught (not here) that in reference to the noble Bereans, that was Jews searching the Jewish scriptures, and that now God has raised up gifts and teaching, it was quite otherwise. Besides there are things that sicken one, which you cannot say much about. I never, in all my experience in and out of the church, really met so little truth and straightforwardness, and nothing could be proved which had been said and done twenty times over, unless you had witnesses by, and then others were ready to say it was something else. I would not have stayed in it, my dear -- , if I were to walk alone and have no church at all to the end of my days. But God has ordered it otherwise, and given exceeding peace and quietness to those who have through grace delivered their souls from it. I have no doubt a direct power and delusion of the enemy was there, from which we have been rescued by the Lord's goodness, and are in the blessing and liberty of the Spirit of God, though poor and feeble. The visit of the brethren has, I think, to any heedful mind, left no doubt as to the standing of Ebrington Street. Romans 16:17, is just what I acted upon, on coming to Plymouth. The denouncing of godly brethren as subverting the gospel, by letters sent to India, Canada, Ireland, and everywhere, and hindering any teachers not ready to
receive N.'s views coming here as far as they could, and making a focus of Plymouth, was causing divisions. And it was just -- though I shrank from using such a hard word -- 3 John 9, 10, that was precisely going on at Plymouth. No calumny was too bad to cast on the most godly brethren, to discredit them and hinder their coming here. I daresay if I had apostolic power I might have acted more efficiently, but I have not a regret or a cloud on my mind as to my path being where I was, save that I might have left in April. The Lord never roused the conscience of the body till I left.
But I close: I am most sorry to rake up what this letter does (as I have only mentioned things just as they occurred to me to satisfy your mind) without trying to make out all: for many to me most material things I have not mentioned as to facts and evil -- but sorry, because the truth is we, who are come out, have our minds with the happy testimony of the Holy Ghost, completely clear of all this, do not ever think of it, and have no need to think of it any more. This has been one of the happy features, the subdued, happy, gracious spirit of those who have left; we are in another world as to our minds.
My Dear Brother, -- I was purposing writing to you when your note arrived. I have heard that the flesh manifested itself in the circumstances attending the leaving Orchard Street; as also it was stirred up by the way they were dealt with. I write to you to say that if this has been so -- into which I do not inquire -- I justify it in no way; I leave it to the Lord's judgment. I go upon the broad ground that I get for myself -- brethren avowedly clear of all upholding of Bethesda --
without to me any other question. I stated in my circular I should not go where persons were received from Bethesda. Bethesda received those who had been rejected as the avowed associates of Mr. Newton, thus forcing us too, if we owned Bethesda, to receive them back again. After what I stated yesterday, I have nothing to add. I can conceive no more miserable effort to serve the doctrine than the document still upheld by Bethesda. As to people's consciences, you must allow me to respect my own as well as others'; and, if others are determined to uphold what I believe to be wickedness, not to walk with them; if others judge so too, how can I condemn them? I have since I left Ebrington Street asked for the fellowship of none, except they felt disposed to receive me as having taken my position. I think Bethesda's position a very wicked one, and I think upholding it is wickedness, though ignorance about it may not be. The question of doctrine is not the question with Bethesda, but that of their trying to screen those who hold it, and thus to force neutrality upon others. That they will not do with me. They have taken their position, and I have taken mine; and I shall act as to all so as to make it as clear as possible. But I am not now going to take any part in what is going on: I feel sure I have the Lord with me; time will shew. I think your position a false one. I do not pretend to judge how others may have wounded your sensibilities, for I really do not know. I pronounce no judgment whatever on the acts of persons in my absence. It is very probable I might not have agreed in them, as I felt the Lord was acting, and that the truest way was to leave Bethesda and its associates alone, and that they were in the Lord's hands. But I was not the judge of what others did. I desire earnestly that you may be brought in peace and brotherly unity out of a position I believe to be false. I have sorrows, but no difficulty. I can wait upon
others, and I do so, but I cannot willingly make my position equivocal. I go on very broad plain ground. I think Bethesda very bad. I cannot own it as if it was not. I believe it has been publicly and avowedly unfaithful to Christ; hence that its supporters are upon terrible ground: that suffices to guide my conduct. In dealing with others I shall endeavour to do so according to the grace and truth that is in the Lord Jesus. Such a position is very simple and makes the path very plain, if one only knows how to walk in it. There has been division where there have been supporters and justifiers of Bethesda, but where the guilt lies in that case the Lord will judge; I am not aware, unless a very few individuals, that there has been, where there has been faithful firmness.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
... With regard to Mr. -- , I have not seen him since the Bethesda question arose, so it is possible that by presenting the matter clearly to him and to his conscience, he would be brought back, even if he has at present gone astray. I suppose that he is more or less connected with Bethesda; now if it is so, and if he rejected warnings, and persisted in keeping up connection with B., I could not walk with him; I am going to tell you why, leaving him aside, not knowing what would be the effect of a conversation with him. First I must tell you that I believe that if one meeting receives the members of another, and the members of the former go there in their turn, there is a bond between the two, though I own that in the present case other motives have power over me. This is how it is then as to B. Doctrine is not in question, but faithfulness to Christ
with respect to doctrine or holiness. I would not receive a person who knowingly formed part of a meeting which admits heretics, or persons whose conduct is bad, because the principle of indifference to good and evil, to error and truth, is as bad as the wrong action, and even worse. Let me be clearly understood. I believe that the church is bound to be jealous with respect to the glory of the Person of Christ. If Christ is despised, I have no principle of union. I believe that B. has acted with profound contempt for the Lord, to say nothing of brethren. Here there is nothing equivocal. Mr. N. was maintaining a doctrine of which Mr. Muller himself said that if it were true, Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we did. This doctrine placed Christ under the effect of Adam's sin by His birth, in saying that He had to gain life by keeping the law. We had driven away this doctrine and those who upheld it, and the struggle was ended. The persons who had supported Mr. N. had published confessions with respect to the doctrine, and had made confessions before the brethren publicly of the falsehoods and wickedness by which they had tried to make good their views and to justify themselves; it was a truly extraordinary work of Satan.
Well, a lady wished to introduce Mr. N. to teach in a meeting near Bethesda; this meeting refused; she left the meeting accordingly. She was introduced at B., Mr. M. knowing that she was maintaining and propagating this doctrine, Mr. Craik the other pastor having had to do with her. She went there because they admitted such persons into that meeting. At the same time, two gentlemen, who made part of the meeting which Mr. N. had formed when he was obliged to leave on account of this doctrine (those who had supported him having left him and made confession), these two communicants of Mr. N.'s, I say, were also admitted to B. It is proved true that these
three disseminated Mr. N.'s tracts in the B. assembly. The lady induced a young lady to go who was the most active and intelligent agent that Mr. N. had, in order to spread his doctrines. In consequence of these circumstances, several godly brothers of B. asked that all this should be examined; they said that they did not ask even that the judgment of the brethren should be taken thereupon, but that they should examine the matter and the doctrine themselves. This was decidedly refused. I received a letter from Mr. C., blaming me as sectarian for making these difficulties, even when he was not prepared to receive everything that Mr. N. was teaching. They had many meetings of the flock and the ten labouring brothers (of whom two were really disciples of Mr. N.) Messrs. M. and C. at their head, presented a written paper to the assembly at B., declaring that this was a new test of communion, which they would not admit; that many excellent brethren did not give so decided an opinion upon Mr. N.'s doctrine; that they were not bound to read fifty pages to know what Mr. N. taught, the members of his flock being -- mark this! -- already admitted at B. A brother asked permission to communicate some information about Mr. N.'s doctrine, in order that the assembly might understand why they held to it that the doctrine should be judged; and this was peremptorily refused, and the paper which said that many had not a bad opinion of the doctrine, rejecting as a new condition of fellowship the examination into the doctrine, was laid down as the absolute condition of the pastorate of Messrs. M. and C., without which they would withdraw from their ministry in the midst of the assembly. Those who justified them on the ground of this paper were to rise, which was done by the assembly, thirty or forty forthwith leaving B. So that, with knowledge of the matter, they laid down as the basis of the B. assembly, indifference to the truth as to the Person
of Christ; and they preferred to see about forty godly brethren leave, rather than to examine into the question, having in fact in their midst the members of the N. meeting. This was so much the more important in my eyes, because Satan was seeking at that moment, and still seeks, to forbid the assembly of the children of God to examine into and to judge any heresy whatsoever; that once a person has been acknowledged as being a Christian, one has no right to know what he holds. This has been plainly laid down as a principle by many persons who blame us, and they desired to take advantage of it to force us to receive a young man who distinctly denied that there was such a Person as the Holy Ghost. I do not say that all lay down this principle, but the enemy has sought to bring it in, and amongst the brethren who opposed me on this question, some of the most violent maintain it.
Now the principle of indifference as to the Person of Christ being laid down at Bethesda, and the assembly having publicly accepted it, I refuse to admit this principle. They have admitted persons put outside amongst us on account of blasphemy. Messrs. M. and C. are the pastors of the assembly in virtue of this principle. This letter has never been withdrawn: they claim to have done right. Many things will doubtless be told you in excuse, and to make it appear that they have done things which nullify this: I know how it is with them. For me their condition before God has become much much worse. I should be ready to say why. I believe that they are themselves more or less infected with false doctrine, but I cannot enter into the story in detail. Mr. M. said to me (after having acknowledged that Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we, if this doctrine was admitted) that they maintained the letter of the ten to the full, and that they had done well in all that they had done. Well, indifference to
Christ is a grave sin: an assembly which bases itself publicly on this principle I cannot accept as a Christian assembly. Assemblies which are connected with B., which go there and receive from thence, are one with B. -- save the case of persons who are ignorant of the matter, an exceptional case of which it is not necessary to speak. For my part this is what I do; having distinctly taken my position I judge each case individually according to its merits, but I will not receive a person who keeps up a connection with B. with knowledge of the matter Faithfulness to Christ before everything; I know not why I labour and suffer if this is not the principle of my conduct.
The fact is that brethren had fallen into a state of spiritual demoralisation which required this sifting, and as they get out of it individually they reject B., which is taking place, thank God, every day. Persons who have written tracts against me write their own condemnation, while declaring that they were deceived at Bristol. As to that, my resolution is taken: I am deeply convinced that the basis of the B. meeting is contempt of Christ, and I do not walk with those who accept it, and I will not mix with it; it would be indifference to my own conduct. If consequently I walk alone it is well; I am content as to myself; I deplore the condition of souls. I do not say, that all that has been done to oppose it has been wise. I do not think so, but my judgment of the matter in the main is definitely taken. I believe B. in a much worse condition than at the beginning of the question ...
My Dear Brother, -- I have received your letter, but not the pamphlet, which I shall carefully read when I shall have the opportunity. In my former letter I could only speak of general principles, as I had not the correspondence. I can still only refer to the
contents of your letter, as I have not the pamphlet, which is not so easily forwarded as a letter. But your letter itself involves so many important principles that I answer in certain respects, though I have not the correspondence. I must avow to you that it does not furnish me much hope of any issue. I am sometimes surprised at the little apprehension brethren have of the bearing of their acts. You ask, Is it a bond of discipline that holds the body together? I answer, in practice undoubtedly. The unity of the, body is in itself immutable. It is divinely maintained and for ever. But the manifested unity of the body here below is maintained by discipline, and cannot be without, though in secret it be God's power which does so by its efficacious working. What has created Nationalism, that is, the dispersion of saints in a crowd of worldly professors, but the absence of discipline -- of maintaining by it the sanctity of the Lord's table? But, to come more directly to the shape in which this question applies to you; suppose you let in deliberately the Mormons, how can other assemblies walk with you? Are you to impose the reception of wickedness on all the church of God? Suppose you deliberately admit fornicators, are we to continue in unity? You will say, You have no right to suppose such things. I have a perfect right to judge a principle by plain strong cases, but I have chosen one here which has been publicly insisted on by a meeting standing on the principle you have adopted. Suppose you receive blasphemers and heretics, are we to remain united with you?
It is anxiously insisted on, in a tract published by Yapp, that no assembly can be defiled by receiving evil, but only the individuals who accept it. But your letters, as does that tract, make independent churches, each acting for itself. If this be the case, the unity which constituted the whole being of the brethren is wholly given up; that for which I left the Establishment
is wholly gone. All this I reject wholly and absolutely. The circumstances I do not pretend to know, for I was in America; but if I have rightly gathered them, ... you have judged the conduct of the brethren in L. without having heard what they have to say. I understand the breach arose between you and -- by reason of your reception of -- . With the main facts of his case I am acquainted, for I took part in what passed. And now allow me to put the case as it stands as to him; I put it merely as a principle. He (or anyone else) is rejected in L. The assembly in L. have weighed (and I with them) the case, and count him either as excommunicated or in schism. I put the two cases, for I only speak of the principle. I take part in this act, and hold him to be outside the church of God on earth, being outside (in either case) what represents it in L. I am bound by Scripture to count him so. I come to -- : there be breaks bread, and is -- in what? Not in the church of God on earth, for he is out of it in L., and there are not two churches on earth, cannot be, so as to be in one and out of another. How can I refuse to eat with him in L., and break bread with him in -- , have one conscience for L. and another for -- -- ; believe that the Spirit judges one way at L., another way at -- ? It is confusion and disorder ... .
But your letter apprises me that you have already taken the ground of neutrality; but neutrality between Christ and evil is worse than anything. "He that is not for me is against me", says Christ. The evil at B. is the most unprincipled admission of blasphemers against Christ, the coldest contempt of Him I ever came across. All their efforts to excuse and hide it only make the matter worse. All who do not abhor the whole system and all connection with it are entangled and defiled. It is, I am satisfied, a mere net of Satan (though many Christians may be entangled in it). Every question of churches and of
unity disappears before the question of B. It is a question of Christ. Faith governed my path as to it, but I have seen its fruits in America, the West Indies, France, Switzerland, and, in a measure, in India. I have seen it the spring and support everywhere of unprincipledness and evil, and all who were under its influence turned from uprightness and truth. I have found persons unknown to each other, and strangers to our conflicts in England, unite in testimony that they could get nothing honest from those who were connected with it, or who did not openly reject it all. Wherever the difficulty has been, persons going on badly, and in the flesh, were induced to fall in with it or follow in the line on which you have entered.
But before I go further on this point, allow me to recur to your letter. You say, Your arguments are without force if the acts of the L. brethren are not in accordance with the Lord's will; they could not in that case be by His authority; and this it is which has been the question with us. Who is the judge of whether these acts were so or not? This only means that you at -- consider yourselves competent to judge the brethren in L., though you were not there to know what passed, nor, allow me to think, have not been in any way fully informed of what took place. You must forgive me if I think this somewhat questionable. You will say, Are our consciences to be bound by the action of the brethren in L.? I answer, prima facie, certainly, or there can be and is no common action. I admit remonstrances -- and if it comes to an absolute necessity through deliberate wrong -- breaking with a gathering, but slighting the judgment of another body in ordinary cases is denying its being competent to decide for Christ and with Christ, and asserting your own competency to judge it without being acquainted with what passed. You say, We have our own responsibilities to the Lord; others cannot measure them. What are you doing as to L.? You have set aside
the judgment of L. as null and nought before the Lord. You do not say the individuals have not the Spirit, but you have rejected their corporate action. How can the two bodies get on together? You receive a person because he is in communion in L., that is, you own the body as a competent witness of Christ's mind, without saying it is infallible. You own the body, its acts; you wish to be in communion with it; you must then recognise its other acts. I recognise the full liberty in you, as having also the Spirit as a part of Christ's body, led to act by it, in remonstrating or enlightening, but not to disown it on your own authority, and then to pretend to own it still, and speak of being in communion with it.
But what you say as to Bethesda, though only, as I have said, what I expected, shews your position far more clearly. You must not deceive yourselves, dear brother; where Christ is in question there is no middle ground. You have separated yourselves from the brethren in the course you have taken; you think yourselves wiser than they. I have seen these pretensions elsewhere: I know their result. It is in vain to say you do not. If you did not, you would not act differently from them. You cannot remain alone, though you have really taken the position of an independent church. But the question is largely before the saints now, Is union founded on truth or not? The scripture tells me it is. You have abandoned that ground with the pretension to keep it better than others. You are not the first. I do not trust you to do so. You have given up your testimony against evil, but pretend to keep it out. I do not trust your pretension to do so. Here I must speak plainly, because it is not brethren but Christ who is in question. I see the worst and most ruinous effects springing up daily from what I judged in principle sixteen years ago. In this path you will soon be the active supporters of indifference to Christ's glory, and
covering and excusing the dishonour done to His name. I can easily suppose you will not believe me in this. I only answer, if you continue in it you shall see. I can only say I have seen enough to be content to be burned, with God's grace, rather than enter into it. I am quite aware too these will count what I say as to B. a spirit of party and so forth. I let them say it; the Lord will judge all that, but I know for myself what I say, and why I say it ... .
I regret and mourn that you should think it a human rule to break with those who receive and countenance blasphemers, and seek to hush and cover it all up. To me what you call a human rule is the first obligation which rests on me as a Christian. Wisdom in discipline all may call in question; fidelity to Christ is at the root of all our conduct. Your letter produces the effect in me of your having become an independent church -- so called. Of course, I have no such principles, but what you say as to B. is the first step, and in fact, save God's gracious hand, the whole way to the coldest contempt of Christ I ever came across ... . God will judge who has been faithful to Him, or those it condemns. Where that road leads I have no doubt. Satan is making a great effort at present to shake brethren as to these points, but this only makes me more firm.
Many other letters by Mr. Darby, which are to be found in the published volumes, "Letters of J.N.D.", could profitably be referred to, but the above are considered sufficient for the purpose of this history. They shew clearly what were the origin in fact, and moral basis, of the "Open" fellowship, which commenced with Bethesda. There was the grossest indifference to Christ in the refusal to exclude from fellowship those who broke bread with one who taught evil as to His Person. Moreover, the failure
to recognise that true Christian fellowship is universal, and can only be maintained by practically refusing evil wherever it appears, has resulted in the meetings identified with such "Open" fellowship being practically independent companies, so that a person excluded from fellowship at one meeting can be, and often is, received at another meeting in the same fellowship. This is a practical denial of the truth of the one body, although the claim has often been made that those connected with the fellowship in question, as separated from clerical systems around, meet together on the ground of that truth. It is not without significance that ten years or so before the Bethesda matter arose, some who were meeting together in Dublin stated, in reply to an enquiry by Mr. Darby, that they met on the ground of all being the children of God, and that he then pointed out to them that that gave them no true basis on which to refuse fellowship with evildoers.
The following extract from an undated letter or paper by Mr. C. A. Coates further sets out the history and principles in question.
Now, to pass from the days of the apostles to our own, we find that, in the revival of the truth over a century ago, what was prominent in the minds of the spiritual was the truth of the assembly. We have been told that the light broke into the soul of Mr. J. N. Darby that there was a Head in heaven. Then, said he to himself, there must be a body on earth. If we read his early writings, such as "The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ", written in 1828, we find that it is the assembly which is before him, and its moral and spiritual features. The coming together of saints was to be in the light of those features which pertain to the assembly universally. The revival was definitely on the line of Paul's glad
tidings, and of Paul's ministry of the assembly. The brethren who were spiritually instructed had no such thought as that it was the divine intent that the assembly in its universal aspect should be, or should become, invisible. On the contrary, they felt deeply the fact that it had become so; that "the true church of God had no avowed communion at all" was a grievous evil to be mourned over and confessed. They felt that the body is here as a substantive reality to be edified, and to increase with the increase of God. Christ is sanctifying and purifying the assembly, and nourishing and cherishing it. This is not in heaven, but down here on earth.
But alongside this revival of Paul's doctrine there was developing amongst the brethren an entirely different system of teaching. There were those who held that the assembly in its universal aspect had become invisible, and that nothing now remained but to set up local assemblies, each being a self-contained body, having no responsibility with reference to other such bodies, and free to receive any individual believer supposed to be personally sound in the faith and consistent in life, without taking any account of the associations in which he may have been previously. The truth of the assembly in its general unity, calling for recognition in a practical way by those who have the light of it, thus entirely lost its due place. According to this system of teaching, each separate meeting is an independent "assembly", even if there are several in one town. Scripture never speaks of different assemblies in one city. At Jerusalem, where there were thousands of believers, and where they no doubt met in many different places, it is always "the assembly" -- in the singular. The idea of independent churches, without any recognition of a universal bond of responsible partnership, is quite foreign to Scripture.
There were thus two different conceptions in the minds of brethren. One was governed by the thought
of the unity of the whole assembly as one body, one house, one temple, and by the thought of all the saints everywhere being called to one universal fellowship. The other was based on the idea of each meeting being an independent "assembly". The moment was bound to come when these two different principles would be found to be entirely out of keeping with each other. It was not long before circumstances arose which brought this to light. But it is important to recognise that what happened at Plymouth did not bring about the difference of principles. It only served to expose what was there before.
Mr. Darby and others separated from the original meeting at Plymouth in 1845 because clericalism was set up there, which they rightly judged was not of God. But the Lord in His wisdom did not allow this particular matter to become the general test. In 1847 it was discovered that Mr. Newton held and taught most serious error as to the Lord's personal relationships. This false teaching definitely raised the question as to whether fellowship involved a responsible partnership or not. The extreme gravity of false teaching as to the Lord's relationships ought to have helped the brethren to be very sensitive in their affections, as well as in conscience and intelligence. They ought all to have weighed well that fellowship (or partnership) with such error was most serious in the sight of God. The ground was taken eventually at Bethesda that the error was condemned, but that fellowship with it by breaking bread with those who held it was no bar to communion, and that no individual believer was to be held responsible for what he might be walking in partnership with, unless he actually avowed the error himself.
Thus where this principle is adhered to, no assembly bond of partnership which involves saints in common responsibility is admitted. Each is regarded as an individual who is not to be held responsible for any
associations he may have been in, but only for his personal views and conduct. There is no thought of fellowship in this, for fellowship means a common equal sharing, or joint participation, and this, when it is a question of breaking bread, in a most solemn way as before God.
The fact that defilement is contracted by touching what is unclean is clearly laid down in the Old Testament, and the New Testament expressly says, "touch not what is unclean", 2 Corinthians 6:17. It is also clear in Scripture that a much less thing than breaking bread with a person may involve one in responsibility for what he does, for John says that the one who gives a friendly greeting to a man who does not bring the doctrine of Christ "partakes [the verbal form of the word fellowship] in his wicked works", 2 John 11. One is viewed as in fellowship with his wicked works if simply greeting him. This shows what a very small thing, as men would say, involves responsibility as before God for one's associations.
If to break bread with an evil-doer does not, in the minds of believers, involve any complicity in his evil, neither does breaking bread with faithful saints involve the recognition that we are in the most intimate partnership with them. The sense of the divine bond is lost; persons break bread as so many individuals without any sense of responsible partnership. So that, according to these principles, the local assembly takes independent ground in declining to be bound by any assembly action other than its own, and the individual is held free of any responsibility, even in his own assembly, for anything that may have taken place there, save his own views and his own conduct. This principle annuls responsibility in regard of associations, which Scripture so carefully maintains; it entirely sets aside the true thought of fellowship.
Attention having been called to the subject of the sufferings of Christ by the erroneous teaching of Mr. Newton, Mr. Darby issued a paper in 1858 in which he pointed out that the sufferings of Christ fell into three categories:
1. Atoning sufferings which came upon Him from God, when He offered Himself without spot to God to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and was forsaken by God. In these, of course, He was entirely alone.
2. Sufferings which He endured at the hands of men for righteousness' sake, in which character of sufferings the saints may have part. (See Matthew 5:10; 1 Peter 4:14 - 16, 19).
3. A wide field of suffering, not covered by the first two categories, which included (a) the suffering in spirit necessarily felt by the Holy One of God in passing through a world of evil (see, for example, Mark 7:34; Mark 8:12; Mark 9:19), (b) the deep anguish occasioned by the anticipation of, and the holy shrinking from, being made sin, and in that position sustaining God's unmitigated judgment of it (see John 12:27; Matthew 26:36 - 44; Mark 14:32 - 40; Luke 22:39 - 46; Hebrews 5:7, 8), and (c) the suffering in spirit resulting from His voluntarily entering, in the sympathy of love, into the deep exercises of soul which the godly remnant of Israel will yet pass through as they realise, in the days of the great tribulation, God's governmental dealings with them in respect of their rejection of the Messiah. This character of suffering, as well as that referred to under (b), entered into the sorrows of Gethsemane. The feelings of the heart of Christ, caused by these
sufferings, have been expressed by the Spirit of Christ through David and others in many of the psalms, which thus provide godly utterances suitable to be taken up by the remnant in the time of their dire distress.
On the publication of these papers, certain brethren charged Mr. Darby with holding similar views to those which had been put forth by Mr. Newton, and a certain number, though not many, separated on that ground. In fact, Mr. Darby's teaching was the exact opposite of Mr. Newton's as will be seen from the following statement by Mr. Darby himself.
Extract from "The Sufferings of Christ", by J.N.D.
Since I sent my reply to some previous questions on the paper on the "Sufferings of Christ", two further questions have been sent to me. After the explanation I have given in reply to the former, a short answer will suffice. The inquiry made is, What is the difference between the doctrine of the paper and Mr. Newton's? The question shews the need of making the matter clear to those who have been occupied with it. The answer is very simple. The doctrine of the paper is exactly the opposite of Mr. Newton's. Mr. Newton taught that Christ, as born an Israelite and a man, was at the same distance from God as Israel and man, because He was one of them, was exposed to the consequences of it, and passed through the experiences an unconverted elect man ought, escaped much of what He was exposed to by being in their position, by prayer, obedience, and piety; but still had the fierce displeasure of God resting on Him as born one of the people. Hence He listened with glad attention to the gospel under John the Baptist, and passed then for Himself as from the law to the gospel. Most of this terrible anguish to which He was exposed, as born one of the Jews and of the children of Adam, was before His baptism by John.
I believe, on the contrary, that -- though suffering from man and feeling for all the sufferings of man, and Israel, and the sorrow of love resting continually upon His heart -- the sunshine of God's favour was on Him and was His delight and His joy continually, and thus there was no divine displeasure resting on that Holy One, nor was His frame wasted by the anguish of it. I detest it as a false abomination. But I believe that in grace, at the close of His history, when His life-work, as presented to Israel according to promise and gracious service towards man, was brought to a close, He, the object of divine favour, entered into the sorrows of His people.
Your correspondent has said in a short parenthesis ("unless anticipatively"); but what is Israel's sorrow in the last day unless anticipative? They will not undergo wrath at the close. Christ felt it in Gethsemane anticipatively, because He was about to undergo it. But He did it anticipatively; that is, He did feel what Israel will feel, only far more deeply. And He felt it in grace, because He was not under it personally; whereas Israel as to his own position will be; and if Christ had been under it personally, because born a Jew, He could not have entered into it in grace ...
About the years 1878 and 1879 considerable confusion was caused for a time in the minds of many by the teaching of a Mr. Cluff as to the believer being "dead to nature". This teaching, while having a superficial appearance of spirituality, was in fact destructive of it, and tended in its results either to unreality or to legality. The following letters by Mr. Darby, written at the time, will indicate what were the issues as to the truth involved in this teaching: --
My Dear Brother, -- Exaggerations are always dangerous and, where imagination is at work, deceive to people's cost; but the subject is a serious one. "Dead to nature" is not a scriptural expression; so we must see what people mean and what Scripture says. But deadness to the world and all the flesh is after, is what is wanting among Christians.
As regards natural relationships, they are very carefully maintained in Scripture. The matter stands thus: God established certain relationships, "from the beginning it was not so" [divorce] -- "he which made them at the beginning made them male and female". Sin has come in and spoiled all. A new power has come in which, while fully recognising them as of God, and using them as images of the highest spiritual relationships with Christ and the Father, has nothing to do with them -- is above and out of them. In general those who say much about them and being dead to nature, do so because they are not. Paul lives alone, and as a rule says, "let every man have his own wife". The speaking against it is of Satan. The Lord had considered the lilies and how God had clothed them: Seeking these things as an object is another matter. Adam was to dress
and keep the garden when he had no sin; but we need to have our affections on things above by a new power, and need a single eye to it to keep us above the power of what is corrupted; "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any". They even who had wives must "be as though they had none", for "the time is a constrained one". Nature is of God, but its corruption is not; and it is corrupted, under the bondage of corruption -- and that is the difficulty. But "dead to nature" is legality: to seek it as it is, is not of the Spirit, though He has given us all things richly to enjoy. My body is of the old creation; my life, as born of God, of the new; and we are left for spiritual exercises in this very way. Nor is the matter therefore so simply spoken of, as some would humanly: it is meant to be a holy exercise, and those who do not spare the body may be satisfying the flesh. The apostle speaks for spiritual power and for order; every man has his own gift; but it is a gift. He wills that men marry as a rule, but tells them the married man cares for the things of the world, that they will have trouble in the flesh, but he spares them.
We have died with Christ; our life is hid with Him in God: He is our life. We have been crucified with Christ, yet live, but not we, but Christ lives in us; and this life lives by faith of the Son of God. But you will find that when applied, it is always in view of certain objects which turn the heart from Christ. "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh", etc., "is not of the Father". We are dead "to sin", "to the rudiments of the world". You will further find that these are distinguished, and that the highest Christian state does not contemplate this at all. In the Epistle to the Romans the Christian is looked at as a man alive in this world, as we are, but justified, and Christ our life. Here we get "dead to sin", Christ having died to it, and "our old man is
crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin, for he that is dead is justified from sin" (not sins) -- you cannot accuse a man of sin in the flesh if he is dead. Colossians goes further: "ye have died"; and here they are risen also, and so are looked at as risen men on the earth: they are dead to the rudiments of the world, are not alive in the world subject to ordinances. So we are dead "to the law by the body of Christ", in Romans: it is also said, "if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin". But dead to nature is, in all that we are said to be dead to, quite unknown to Scripture in word or thought. It falsifies the idea of the bearing of death there.
But none of these is the highest measure taken in Scripture. These think of sin, though of death to it, but never of our living in it. Colossians goes a step further, and on to ground which is fully developed in Ephesians. When man's highest condition in this respect is spoken of, he has not died to anything: he is viewed as dead in trespasses and sins, and then as a new creation -- a creation after God. It is just mentioned; Colossians 2:13. This is fully developed in Ephesians 2 and here note, Christ is not viewed as life-giving, but as raised when a dead man, He having descended in grace to where we were, and in an effectual work for us, so that we rise with Him and into the same place. This is referred to in 2 Corinthians 5:14, 17, and in the remarkable summary in John 5:24. All this stands on a different ground from being quickened and having died: we have changed our place and position, are created anew. But if dying is to be brought in and dwelt on, people are really in general under law, and do not count themselves dead; and if they talk of dying to nature, which Scripture does not, they will soon find to their cost that nature is not dead.
I should earnestly press being dead, crucified with
Christ; Christ and nothing else our life -- not of the world as Christ is not of the world -- that the Spirit of God be the source of all our thoughts and desires, to live Christ. Death to sin we have, to the world, our old man crucified with Christ; and if Christ be in us, the body dead because of sin. So all that is in the world, the lusts and pride, is not of the Father. But neglecting of the body may be being "vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind"; and dead to nature does not enter into the sphere of scriptural thought. Who is dead to it? And what is he dead to? Is the new man dead? The question would be, Is nature dead? and that they will soon find out it is not. They should not eat nor drink: now, they should not do this save to the glory of God, and with prayer and thanksgiving -- have no motive but Christ in anything, the body of sin being destroyed.
What is specially wanted now is undivided devotedness. I dread anything that would weaken that. But dead to nature, in word or thought, Scripture does not know; and in the highest character of Christianity, dead to anything does not come in at all, but a new nature in relationship with the Father and with Christ, and in Him, sitting in heavenly places. If I talk much of being dead to nature, I am occupied with it. I write briefly and in a hurry, but you will find, I believe, the principles of Scripture here.
Someone has sent me ---'s tracts from the Voice. There is a good deal of truth as to the new position and new creation, which I fully accept and insist on where it can be. But it is fresh truth poured in and poured out, not matured in the soul. I know what it is, and we all have to learn it. It is delighting in the wondrous fresh truth, but it is not Christ. In this respect I do not think he knows himself. It is a more
subtle self, delighting in having done with self, not Christ taking the place of self. All through, it is Christ "in all", but not "Christ all". It is striking how this runs through every page. This easily accounts for the effect in others. Now realising the life of Christ as dead to the world is of all possible moment, but this is by Christ being all, not by the life of Christ in us being all. He looks for the 'sense of power', but it is when we are weak we are strong. I think his view of the way Christ is presented in Luke very defective. I do not mean anything unorthodox. When self has become practically nothing and Christ experimentally all, the truth he has learned may become a most useful weapon of ministry. When we are young in the truth, it fills the mind always more surfeitingly; and to a mind like his where there is considerable treasury of thought, the danger is greater. It is not knowing we are nothing, but being it, which is the point. More of the power of life in Christ we do need and need greatly, at least as far as I am concerned. Truth he has seized very considerably, but I do not find Christ everywhere and what He is -- we dead and Christ our life there, and the new sphere we belong to. These are details which have struck me, but they are of no importance now: they run in general into the great point I have noticed. I do not think he understands the wilderness or that he has gone through it; perhaps there is more. Nor do I think he is clear on the connection of Colossians and Ephesians; but all this is by the bye. They were brought to God Himself at Sinai.
My Dear Brother, -- I must tell you that I have never adequately read the articles in the Voice, to give you an exact answer, and in what I have there is such thorough obscurity in the important passages that it
is not easy to lay fast hold of their import; they are the statements of one who has never thoroughly digested and realised his own thoughts. It is only last week that I read the larger number of them. These I had at least a month ago; they had been sent to me anonymously. But I would not delay answering a letter so kindly written, and give you what is now with some distinctness on my mind. Further inquiry may enable me to speak with more detail. But there is another point I must refer to. If the effect in all those under the teaching is substantially the same, though it would be unjust to charge all the particular statements on the teacher, we are as much concerned before God with the result in souls, even the weakest dear to Him, as in the particular ideas of the teacher. It is something which produces that effect. Now I always found the effect produced by this teaching to be, not Christ before the soul, but itself. They had got something wonderfully new and beautiful, what was not heavenly (that was common) but divine; and where Christ was spoken of, it was not Christ Himself, but Christ in them, conscious power of His life in them. This was chiefly with women: men were more usually unhappy because they had not this gold tried in the fire. The effect on others, 'convicted Laodiceans' -- for all were in Laodicea (a name nearer the truth than they thought), was that they were rich and increased in goods; others were to go down to Bethany too; they supped with Christ. I cannot say this seemed to me of God. It was themselves and Stradbally,+ not Christ.
It was only here that I read the first three of the articles, the Pauline Epistles; and I shall now tell you what I find answering to the effect in souls, and often expressed by them, though sometimes obscurely, in them and the articles, Colossians being the principal alleged basis. Christ being our life (which no Christian,
+The place in Ireland where Mr. Cluff lived.
of course, objects to), we are livingly in Him, but He as man is in God, so we are in God. Our life is in God -- not hid in Christ there, but we alive in God -- so as all the fulness of the Godhead is in Him, and we are complete in Him, we are entered into this place, into this fulness which is in Him: connected with this is that we are not merely justified, but actually and livingly God's righteousness, we are it, we livingly. Now I have heard of this being stated much more crudely, and some of the statements in the articles are very obscure, but if they mean anything they mean that all is in the condition and state in which Christ is Himself; as He is, so are we. There is no mediatorial Christ. Now Scripture never speaks of Christ in God. When Christ speaks distinctly as Man, He says, "my God"; and so the Holy Ghost; "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ", etc. And I have always remarked that when we are placed in the same glory and acceptance -- as we are, or shall be -- what belongs to His Person is always carefully secured. Here we are put together. You would never find Christ saying to His disciples, "Our Father" -- a rightly formed Christian mind would be deeply shocked at it -- though He says, "My Father and your Father". As an inference man would say, we can thus say "our" -- not one taught of God. And this is what those who have received this teaching are come to, not these words, but this evil thing. It is such a connection with Christ in life, who is a man in God, that we are there too, only in heaven, dead not merely to sin but to nature; and, as far as I have found, it is always justified by such inference. A mediatorial Christ is lost by union. There is another point which I have not mastered, though it is in what I read connected with this -- righteousness in incorruptibility; of this, therefore, I cannot speak. But what I have stated is the real substance and root of the doctrine, and is wholly false -- not of God, though
it may seem elevating and high. The very barrier that Scripture has carefully put when speaking of our privileges, you have overstepped; and hence souls have got, not Christ all, but an exalted self.
Since this question has come before me, I will look through such of the articles as I can command. I never saw them until I came here. I have spoken plainly, because Christ and souls are in question, but I have not a trace of ungracious feeling. What would rouse souls to more devotedness would always be welcome to me, but we are sanctified by the truth. I write at once that I may meet the letter graciously sent me, but I will (D.V.) look further into the articles, though I have very little time; and if called for, as far as I judge, write again.
... That there is a wholly new creation of which the blessed Lord is Head; that there all is new; that in the moral sense the cross closed the history of the first man, and that all is new, the Second Man not mingled with the first; that we now reckon ourselves dead, and alive to God in Him, not in Adam; that forgiveness is not all; that justification in this character is not all; it applies to our responsibilities as belonging to the former estate, while there is a wholly new position of acceptance ending in glory, in our present estate in Christ -- is not what is in question. How far it is realised is a question with individual souls. That everything may be turned into mere doctrine, is alas! true; and I may add, that the cross and the glory answer to one another.
But there is more than this in your teaching: not mere careless expressions, or mistaken ones, to which we are all liable, but a formal systematic doctrine, not so clearly brought out in your printed papers, but
which has taken possession of those taught by you, and is insisted on as something new and transcendently precious and beautiful -- and is something new, and wholly and mischievously false -- and runs through all your papers, though not so broadly stated as by those who are adepts in it, still quite clearly to one who can judge in such a case; not union with Christ, not being in Him, and He in us, but, He being in God, such an identification with Christ as makes us to be actual divine righteousness, as so identified with Him; He in God in the glory, but we partakers actually ourselves of divine righteousness and incorruptibility, which sustains us wholly above nature.
'He is in the region of life hid with Christ in God; he enjoys the state and breathes the breath of the new creation' (Voice, volume xi, page 218). 'We behold the righteousness of God subsist in a living Person for our hearts; He is there -- He in whom we have become God's righteousness ... Righteousness is dwelling in life of new creation' (page 221). See also pages 224, 163. 'Not only life, which might be said of the Old Testament saints, but incorruptibility -- the power of divine righteousness which sustains in the new creation place' (page 73). 'We, having become God's righteousness in Christ, can bring forth fruit unto God, fruit unto holiness' (page 74). 'As truly and really as we were constituted sinners, so are we truly and really constituted righteous as in Him who has become, in resurrection, the power of God to us. Christ Himself, risen in victor-strength, is to be known in the saint as really as he felt the terrible power of evil in his Adam-state. There is actual positive righteousness, not only justification by faith. It is established in the cross, and in virtue of the work done there it flows down with glory in its train, and lifts Man out of death, and sets Him to be its own channel from and in glory. That Man, crucified in weakness, is exhibited as God's Son in power, according
to the Spirit of holiness' (page 313). Then in page 314: Having received 'the gift of righteousness ...' the believer 'enjoys life in righteousness'. All this is error. Resurrection is not looked at in Scripture as victor-strength in man, but as a divine act towards man; though Christ, as being God, could do it. You make it a new kind of power in man: that we are partakers of this power, the source being in Christ on high, and that this being in us in life is righteousness. This is the system which, starting from the truth that Christ is our life, has falsified the whole position of the Christian and of Christ.
But I continue (page 361), 'The new man is in Him (Jesus) created after God in righteousness and true holiness, righteousness as in power and place in God, to sustain us in light and glory where He is'. 'Thus we see our side of the new man as a throne of grace; and God's side the fountain of life and righteousness'. What follows I do not receive. How is the new man a "throne of grace"? That -- "throne of grace" -- is Hebrews' doctrine, but I do not enter on it here. But by this system what Christ is is falsified: He is a Man in God. Righteousness, divine righteousness, is falsified: it is an actual thing in us, not Christ made it to us, or we in Him, but we made it through His being livingly in us: our place is falsified too; as He is, so are we, in present moral elevation: resurrection is falsified, as an intrinsic power in Christ as Man -- life out of death consequent on death to sin, and so reproduced in us in conscious power through Him -- not the act of God; and made life out of death to sin and self, not out of death in sins, or with Him as risen consequent on His death, as Scripture does; so that the new creation is falsified too. All this exalts man in himself, while professing to do the contrary; but I continue (page 332): 'We are seen in Him in heaven ... consequently we are in conflict with the devil and his host there'. This is all a
mistake: He, Christ, at the right hand of God, is not the place of conflict. 'Co-quickened with Him in the same righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21)' (page 333). There is no such statement or thought in Scripture; it is a system of divine righteousness in actuality in us. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says nothing about quickening or co-quickening with Him. So in page 332, 'justified by faith' is accompanied by no hint of Christ's work. Scripture says, "delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification; therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God". This you leave out and add, 'enjoying the justification of life -- the power of righteousness actually known in the vessel on earth'. Nor is 'the power of righteousness', that I can think of, a scriptural expression or thought, and at any rate not as the ground of peace before God. It makes our state the ground, not the work of Christ, nor His acceptance before God. Press our realising life and divine things in power -- excellent -- but this alters the basis of our relationship with God. The expression even of "justification of life" is quite in connection with another thought, and spoken of where all is made carefully to depend on one Man's obedience; so that the apostle has to guard against misuse of it in what follows by unfolding the new life; and in the passage itself the present effect of life is left out. In page 335 there is the same neglect of attention to Scripture through following our own ideas: we get 'the living power of Him who subsists in divine righteousness'. 'To find Him, know Him', etc. Now it is the power of God, and Christ is looked at exclusively as a raised Man by God, and we with Him, and set in Him in heavenly places. There is no power spoken of in Christ, or in us. The whole of what is said on Ephesians 1:13 is a falsification of the sense of the passage; as on chapter 2 (page 337): of all you find in it, there is not a trace, not even as an
object sought; it is by grace we have been saved, for God's glory in the ages to come: nor is even the second prayer truly stated (page 338).
In page 361 the connection of the thought is false. In Colossians we have not the new creation (though one verse runs close to it), but that which you always confound with it, that is, death and resurrection: death, on which you make the new creation depend, referring wholly to the old (the new creation being, as said, on the ground of death in sins, not to sin). Hence in Colossians we have only "renewed in knowledge" after the image of "Him that created him". But again we have definitely as to us, not merely Christ even, this falsifying the whole state and condition: 'The new man is in Him created after God in righteousness and true holiness, righteousness as in power and place in God to sustain us in light and glory where He is'. Is the new man created in Christ in God to sustain us in light and glory where He is? Such a wilderness of error (forgive me what may seem a hard word, but such is the effect of leaving Scripture, and following one's thoughts) it would be hard to find, but it is the very essence and summing up of all your system. Thus (page 362) 'we come like the day spring from on high ... and hear the message to us, Give, etc'. ...
I know not that I need add any more. I have gone through a year's articles which were under my hand out here. I add one or two from Colossians (Volume 12: 9). 'The new man put on as the life in actual fact, we are co-quickened with Him now ... The whole energy of hidden life in God is now acting in the power of righteousness in glory. And because it is the condition of soul', etc. (page 10). 'That is, all is put off that hinders us from rising up in the firmament of His power' (page 11). 'He who is the channel of love is God, and Man in God. This is the first-born out of death'; and what follows (page 12). 'Hidden life --
the risen and exalted One who breathed a new atmosphere in John 20:22 sustains the inner man in incorruption'. 'Life hid in God' (page 14), 'a sphere of profession where we receive the power of glory' (page 15); so page 16. I have quoted so many passages to shew that it is not rash expressions but a regular system, in which the man in God as risen, life out of death, is divine righteousness according to glory and incorruptibility. All gives way to this; redemption and Christ's work are really lost in the work in us. Now it will be said, One ought not to oppose the power of a new life in us. I quite agree. It is greatly needed. But it is just what I feel sorrowful in these papers that a handle is given to refuse deeply needed truths, because they are identified with fatal errors and notions which Scripture does not support, and which totally displace grave and important truths, a teaching which, as I said to -- , puts Christ in Himself out, that we may have a fancied power of Christ in us. I recognise fully man's history is morally ended on the cross, that Christ risen from the dead is the beginning and head of a new position of man in which Adam innocent was not; but I cannot substitute this for redemption, nor give up Christ my righteousness before God for a fancied divine righteousness in me. I have lost Christ in Himself in your teaching. Your remarks, I think, are constantly fancies; what you say of the end of Romans 5 seems to me all wrong; what you say of priesthood is quite out of the way; but all this I leave save as bearing on the principle that runs through all. I admit forgiveness is not all; we are also in a new position, Christ being our life, and we, for faith, dead and risen. I see some allusions to wild German theories, perhaps English ones, but that I leave too. The quotations which I have made characterise the principle I object to; but it runs all through the articles, and, I judge, takes a ground Scripture carefully guards against.
Christ in His own perfectness objectively is gone, and thereby what judges self. I may add, I have a whole collection of poems and I know not what, but I have preferred using what is printed and published, which may deceive a young mind but not, I think, one experimentally versed in the word, and his own heart, and to whom Christ is all. I recognise fully the necessity of pressing life and the new creation; but it is looking at Christ Himself objectively, which subjectively changes us into His image. We, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.
It seems to me, dear brother, that for the moment it would be happier for you not to teach at all. You will forgive me for saying that your own case is a proof how little this extraordinary elevation gives real knowledge of self. The effect of your teaching, as I have seen it, is three-fold. Where a person did not know what freedom (Romans 8) was, nor belonging to the new creation, it has been used to set them free, only imbibing mischief with it:: with wild, specially female imaginations; it has puffed them up with mystic imaginations: with sober God-fearing consciences it threw them back under law, because they had not 'the gold', and would labour to buy it. I have seen all such, but all with self instead of Christ in some shape: in some, Colossians 2:9, 10 used to prove that as the fulness of God was in Christ, and we complete in Him, we were livingly in that fulness; and this confirmed by Ephesians 3:19, corrected from the Greek, and by 1 John 4:17 -- all as the present fact of our state. All this shewed that your articles shewed the root, not the fruit of the system. I have only sought to shew what that root is, and sufficiently to shew it is a regular system which dims an objective Christ, and, as I said, a mediatorial one -- not merely careless expressions. I have only to beg
you to believe that all I have written is in sincere Christian affection, not weakened but strengthened by having to look into it. May I add, that you have to learn to have less confidence in yourself, and to be less occupied with yourself, and what passes in your own mind; more with Christ Himself in Himself. He reads Scripture, it has been said, well, qui non affert sed refert sensum. Our part now is to separate the precious from the vile. I have no doubt that your sincere desire is that you and others should walk in that 'higher life' which knows Christ only as its object: but, not knowing yourself, it became what you warn others against -- a doctrine; and, not being dead, Satan found opportunity to mix your own imaginations with it, and introduce what tended to sap the reality of truth.
Ever your affectionate brother in Christ.
These matters, which occurred in the years 1879 to 1881, and eventually resulted in the separation often referred to as the "Kelly trouble", were really but the fruit and evidence of a low moral state among the brethren generally, which caused enfeeblement of moral and spiritual perception, and an absence of unity, resulting in a general powerlessness to deal with evil. The general state shewed itself in an independence of outlook and judgment on the part of certain well-known brothers, with a readiness to override the consciences of their brethren in attempts to enforce recognition of their own judgment.
The material facts of this sorrowful history are as follows: There was in 1879 a company meeting at the Temperance Hall, Ryde, Isle of Wight, which was recognised as in fellowship, though admittedly in a low state. A letter of commendation from this company having been sent to the brethren at Kingston-on-Thames, and having been read to them in the usual way, this action was challenged by Mr. W. Kelly and others on the ground that the state at Ryde was such that the meeting should not be regarded as in fellowship, and that therefore a person commended from there should not be received. This attitude was resisted by Mr. Darby and others, on the ground that the Ryde meeting had never been disowned by brethren, and therefore a person from that meeting could not be refused on the private judgment of individual brothers. In the course of the difficulties existing at Ryde, an independent company had been formed in that town by some who previously broke bread at the Temperance Hall, but this independent company was not recognised by brethren generally in the neighbourhood, who continued to extend fellowship to those breaking bread at the Temperance Hall.
In this state of affairs, Dr. Cronin, who belonged to one of the London meetings (Kennington), went down to Ryde and broke bread with the independent company, seeking by this means to enforce recognition of it. The brethren in London were unduly slow in repudiating Dr. Cronin's action, though there was much concern about it among the saints wherever it became known, and in August, 1879, certain of the brethren who broke bread together at Guildford Hall, Ramsgate, felt that in order to maintain a good conscience before God, they could no longer continue in fellowship with those who supported Dr. Cronin, whether at Ramsgate, Kennington, or elsewhere. They therefore, after having broken bread with the rest of their brethren on August 17th, but a common judgment not having been arrived at in a meeting specially called on August 22nd to determine Ramsgate's relations with London, separated themselves and broke bread together on August 24th at Almorah House, Ramsgate. Those they had left did not break bread on that day, the meeting at Ramsgate being thus broken up. Had those who commenced to break bread at Almorah House not acted in this precipitate way, much sorrow might have been avoided, for on the very next day news reached Ramsgate that the London brethren had considered Dr. Cronin's matter and were proposing his exclusion from fellowship, by which action their consciences would be met. On hearing of the action proposed to be taken by London, those at Ramsgate who had not broken bread at Almorah House, nor indeed at all on August 24th, took another hall at Abbotts Hill, Ramsgate, and assuming assembly status, decided to accept the action proposed to be taken by London, and, without seeking their brethren who had broken bread at Almorah House, closed the door upon them as having withdrawn from fellowship. As soon as London's proposed action became known to those
who had withdrawn to Almorah House, they ceased breaking bread, and acknowledging that they had been precipitate in the step they had taken, sought to rejoin their brethren. This was refused, those at Abbotts Hill claiming to be regarded as the acknowledged company in Ramsgate, and that their brethren at Almorah House had been guilty of schism and as such were excluded from fellowship. In taking this ground those at Abbotts Hill ignored the just claim of their brethren at Almorah House that, however much they might have failed in detail, their action had been dictated by a desire to maintain what was due to the Lord's name. On November 21st the brethren at Abbotts Hill withdrew their exclusion from fellowship of their brethren who had separated from them, and who by then were again meeting in the old room -- Guildford Hall -- but declared at the same time that their exclusion of them had been righteous. On December 18th the Guildford Hall brethren who, as stated before, had ceased to break bread, proposed to those at Abbotts Hill that in view of their common failure, the latter should cease to break bread for one Lord's day and that they should then all meet together for confession and prayer. This was refused by the Abbotts Hill company, who took the ground of having continued all along to be the recognised company at Ramsgate, despite the break-up that had occurred on August 24th.
All efforts by godly brethren elsewhere, including Mr. Darby, to bring in healing proving unavailing because of the attitude maintained by those at Abbotts Hill, those meeting at Guildford Hall recommenced breaking bread in March 1881, and appealed for the fellowship of brethren generally in doing so. In the following month a letter of commendation from Guildford Hall, Ramsgate, to brethren in London compelled a decision to be come to as to which of the two companies in Ramsgate was to be regarded as in
fellowship, and it was judged by brethren, Mr. Darby being present with them at the time, that those at Abbotts Hill could not be accorded assembly status when their actions shewed that they knew nothing of the Lord's presence in their midst, or of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit. The letter of commendation from Guildford Hall was therefore accepted, and this judgment of the matter was largely accepted by gatherings throughout the country. There were, however, those who insisted on the recognition of the Abbotts Hill company, among whom Mr. Wm. Kelly, who had previously endeavoured to support the independent company at Ryde, took a leading part, and a division among brethren, which had for some time been felt by those who were spiritual to be inevitable, resulted.
The following letters by Mr. Darby throw valuable light on the moral issues raised by these sorrowful happenings.
On the whole one can trust in the goodness of God, but the matter will call for long patience, and the leaders of brethren seem above all, to go astray. Still I think God is working ... . Waiting on Him, courage, and patience are what are called for. There is a loss of moral sense among brethren, which tends to destroy confidence, and then an action which refers to the whole body, by an individual of his own authority. I love independence, but then an individual should not act in what affects all, unless they can pretend to a commission from Christ, that is, apostolic authority: and it does not succeed, but raises distrust, and what is called radicalism ... .
Humiliation is the place of all, for dishonour has been done to Christ. But there is a moral loosening which is the alarming part of the case. Still trusting the Lord and seeking the blessing of all is our path.
My Dear Brother, -- Thank you much for your kind note. I suffered more than is any good for me to talk about, more or less for these two years or more, but said nothing and did nothing, but bore, till I gave up everything to God; since then I have been as peaceful as possible, and free to enjoy the unspeakable goodness of God. The state of things forced me to act in this matter alone; and when -- gave expression by an overt act to what was going on, and I knew to be going on, for a long while, and he sent me word, I had a full correspondence with him, friendly, but telling him what I saw to be the working of his act; and it was not till all remonstrance and reasoning was useless that I ceased the correspondence, and told him so. Those who backed him up in evil are responsible for a great deal. I then felt I must act individually which I did, and only stated what I had sure and certain ground for, but that definitely and plainly. I have no particular pleasure in the word 'profane', but my business was to make plain what his act was. He pretended to have a kind of private inspiration as to it, and long insisted on being led of the Holy Ghost. Now the thing was wrong, done secretly, knowing that all brethren would be against it: none defend it now. He had been thinking of it before, I know, though I paid no attention to it at the time. So little was there any leading of the Holy Ghost, that in three weeks he had broken with the person he was led to, and they were in utter opposition. The bringing in the Holy Ghost for what was wrong in itself, and done in this way, and really to put down the meeting which was and is there, I felt and feel was a profane thing. The mischief which was at work seemed to blind to all the plainest features of what was right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable. This was what made it urgent to be plain. Having
given my personal testimony I have never meddled in the discipline part, and indeed, being out here, could not in the practical part, and I had no advice to give. I cast it on the Lord, and He has wrought. Consciences are gradually awakening. I do not think that we have got into clear water, but there is much more sense of where we are and were. I am not much in correspondence with England as to what goes on there; till about a fortnight ago, I may say not at all. But as I believe God is working, I am quite at peace.
I have never had for a moment an unkindly feeling towards -- . I do not think he is the most completely leader in the evil, but it was he who did the overt act; but I do not think I am out of charity with any. I have, up to this, kept the greatest part of what pressed upon me to myself. What I dealt with was a public act done in defiance of brethren: and the state of things was such that it must have led ere long, not to my giving up what are called brethren's principles, for I believe they are God's testimony and in His word, but those who were pretending to carry them out -- how I cannot tell. With -- I was cordially united, and there was very true union there, but of course I could not make them a meeting independent of others, and go in there and nowhere else. Stay in the evil and see the work corrupted I could not, when it came before the conscience of others -- and the very effect of what had been going on was to deaden the conscience. That, I trust, God is awakening up, and if brethren are patient that will bring out clear blessing. I trust God will give me patience still to leave it all to Him, for in seeking to do good we would seek sometimes to hurry His working: but I believe in His mercy He is at work. If brethren are humble and seek His face they will find a blessing. Mere violence against myself I take to be a matter of course; and, save for those who feel it, whom I trust I should be given to meet in the
wisdom of grace, it does not in the least degree move me. It is good to be alone with God, and walk in grace with others.
I am glad T. is gone to Canada: it makes links where I can no longer be one, though I should like greatly to see them all again.
... Take care, too, that irritation does not come in; the wrath of man never works the righteousness of God. The saints ought to be able to win back to peace many souls, and the way of peace is that which will do it. But let their vexation subside; you will have given up no principle: one's own soul suffers by being constantly occupied with evil. It is not the place of communion. Saying he gave up brethrenism has put the thing in its true light; and if left to reflect on it, many will find where they had got to; if carried on as if seeking to carry one's point, they will not. You should not mind such as -- . There is a kind of violence which grace is entirely above. It ought to be above all. God's ways are His own and wonderful ... . I have constantly found that bringing things to God, if real, is the way of having them done. Our hearts are very treacherous, and we are in danger of rejoicing in iniquity, if the evil of another proves our point. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and pray for poor -- much. He is one dear, as redeemed in the blood, the precious blood of Christ. Many would think this inconsistent with my letter, but it is not. It was occasioned by a public act which threw the whole testimony of God into confusion. Be assured that God knows how to manage His own affairs: He has shewn it. Give people time to weigh and think.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
... I cannot doubt that the Lord is working. Had I not this confidence, I should have left the brethren nearly a year ago, but I felt it would be unfaithful: not as doubting that they had the truth, but as unfaithful to it. I felt it would be hireling work, but God is working and bringing light into the souls of many, and with a little patience He will bring about His will, I mean His blessing. But there is no doubt it was a deliberate plan for breaking up the brethren here. That, at present, is broken down, but in general, consciences are beginning to find they had got away from the Lord -- of course, not every one -- and the assemblies trusted a few, and failed in humble reference to God. They had got into a bad state, and this had been brought home to them, but for their good ... . But I have no doubt, painful as it all is, that God is turning it to blessing: the humbling will be useful, and seeing God is working. I trust there may be patience till He has fully brought about a blessing.
Occupy yourselves with Christ that you may be refreshed and strengthened. It is a great thing to pass through sorrows with Him; they are then turned to a well, and grace comes down too. Pray for the saints -- all of them -- carry the sorrows to Christ, and in your own spirit bring Christ to the sorrows. The brethren had got puffed up, and were sinking from fidelity towards God, and He has visited them in mercy. In waiting on Him, He will exalt the faithful in due time, and rejoice in the Lord always.
My Dear Brother, -- My path is to be quiet, feeding souls with Christ as far as God enables me. It
restores the tone of the soul for every emergency. My impression is, my letter expressed the desire to be with brethren in the perilous times of the last day, not any break up of brethren. The pretensions of brethren I had seen growing, and it alarmed me a good deal. But God has been putting that down, and that is a very good sign: "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth". I counsel patience on all sides. Consciences are awakening and getting humbled as to the state brethren are in, and that was what was wanting.
I could not leave brethren, I felt it would not be faith, and I feel I was right. I have never a moment doubted that it was the testimony of God. But there was a regular plan to break it up in London, and, with this, the most precious truths, connected with deceit and evil, and this sectarian pretension of what brethren were. This was my difficulty. When a positive act took place, I could deal with it for myself; up to that, it was going on without anything positively culpable to lay hold of. Now we have only to wait patiently the Lord's working. "Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him, and he will bring it to pass".
As you speak of humiliation, I desire to reply a word. I think humiliation quite the thing called for, for the general state of brethren, their worldliness, their decay in positive testimony, their low spiritual state generally. I thought I had spoken to you of Bochim when I wrote before, but I did not, though I did to another, at the same time. I accepted the general idea of Bochim, but not the special character. Bochim was instead of Gilgal, the place of circumcision, where the angel of the Lord (unknown to them) was. That was the judicial giving up of Gilgal. I do
not as yet accept that for brethren: God might give us up, and we must bow; but as yet I trust that He does not.
The difficulty as to common humiliation was, that what some judged as sin, others advocated and defended, or at least judged very light of. How could there be honest common humiliation? What defended the evil was exactly what the humiliation had to be for. The mere state of brethren was caring for brethrenism, not for God's glory. I do not say there was nothing of this last feeling, but, in general, it was shame for the state, not going to the root. However, God has judged the overt act, and, I suppose I may say, has cleared brethren from the principle that was at work so far ... . but godly souls are fully convinced that the demoralisation I spoke of has been manifested. The question of the existence of brethren as a testimony depends upon their recovery from this. If they do not, they will be at Bochim; but there, Gilgal and blessing were over. I trust the Lord will maintain His testimony. I think the question a most solemn one.
-- takes the ground of Hebrews 12:27, that brethren are to be removed as things that can be shaken, he and a few more being taken up afresh as a fresh testimony before the Lord comes. Now this being done as I affirm it to have been done, is an immensely vital point. If it has that character, it is not of God. It is no personal question. It is a question if, as he affirms, brethren are to be set aside or to remain a testimony for God. He has acted, as privately led of God, to set them aside. Half the brethren, I dare say much more, do not know what is involved. But God has wrought to judge the overt act. It now remains to see if brethren answer to His mercy, in drawing closer to Him ... .
I do not expect the mass of brethren to see the issues involved, but I look to God to work by His
Spirit to preserve for Christ's glory a testimony to Himself, in awakening the consciences of brethren, and drawing them in heart and ways out of the world, so that He may use them as vessels of His testimony.
Your affectionate brother in Christ,
... As regards England, it has been as you know a time of trial. The general state of brethren was really what God was judging. Partisans seek to keep up uneasiness ... . In Kent there was haste in those who sought to do right. This gave a handle, but has been the means of bringing out the party-feeling at work. God saw, I believe, that sifting and purifying was needed there. But for God, the want of principle would have been crushing, but with Him is always peace. And we have to ask, "Whither goest thou?" and trust Him. Even if the Messiah and Son of God (Psalm 2) was rejected, it was only to bring out the Son of man in the glory of the Father. God is never baffled. It has been a time of blessing for myself; and many consciences, I would say of all the godly, have been deeply awakened. There was a want of faith in some, but this was not surprising: there is in us at all times. We read, "My flesh and my heart faileth me: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever". It has made what is eternal more and more everything to me. It was cheering to see how upright souls soon saw all clear. And how precise God's government is! We have only to lean on Him and all is right ... .
My Beloved Brethren, -- I never felt the same distrust of myself as I do now in writing this, and I desire
to speak to my own conscience as to you. I should not write at all, but as taking the lowest place, always the best, and now especially the only true and right one. He who is lowest and lowliest will be most blessed.
Let me say a word as to Bochim. Looked at merely as used for humiliation or sorrow where saints have failed, and voluntarily by grace place themselves to own it before God, I heartily enter into it, but taken as it is really in Scripture, there was nothing of the kind at Bochim. The Lord declared in judgment that He would no longer drive out their enemies, and they wept when they heard the judgment. There was no sorrow for sin and failure, but for judgment, and they worshipped where they wept. Gilgal, that is circumcision, the removal of the reproach of Egypt, and the Lord's presence by His angel in it, was lost for ever. There was no voluntary confession and humiliation at all. It is all a mistake. They had not faithfully put out the evil that was amongst them, and the Lord, though interfering from time to time in compassion, left them judicially in this state. I refer to this because the word became a kind of watchword with many. But God has wrought a great deliverance for us, much greater than most of those spared are aware of: some have felt it. And what I desire now is, that our consciences may turn and see where we had so failed as to bring this sorrow upon us. I am not going to turn back and charge any one or refer to any recent circumstances, but to weigh, where conscience is awake, how we brought ourselves into the strait place we were in. I hesitated a moment whether I should say anything, before the details which remain were set in order by God, as I am assured His grace will do; but they do not affect my object.
Is it not true for every thoughtful conscience that the spirit of the world had invaded us? We do not go to parties; if we meet, we meet to read the Scriptures
and edify one another. Discipline for any gross evil would be, I suppose, exercised with some measure of faithfulness where the evil was apparent: I make no exaggerated statement of evil: many, I doubt not, were walking Christianly, I daresay better than myself. But as to the course of this world, had we not greatly fallen into its ways? not, as I have said, in open worldliness -- but was not there that, current, and let pass, which grieved the Spirit of God, and hence weakened all spiritual energy, and spiritual discernment for discipline and for the Lord's mind in all our course -- the loss of discerning things that are excellent "to be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ", "filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding ... fruitful in every good work"? Have we been as purified to Himself for a peculiar people; not our own, bought with a price; as epistles of Christ known and read of all men; living by Him, and close to Him, and for Him; as is said, "Christ is all, and in all", so that whatsoever we should do should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus? Were our sole and constant motives Christ, or the common motives of the world? Were buying and selling, our houses, our clothing, ordered on principles which Christ, if there, would approve? Did we walk even as once we walked? Was there devoted service among the poor and needy, visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and keeping ourselves unspotted from the world? We read, "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind". Were we yielding our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God as an intelligent service, proving what was that good and acceptable and perfect will of God, as Christ offered Himself for us a dying sacrifice? Ah! what place had He, has He in our hearts? Do we live to Him who died in love for us? If the testimony of God as to the truth was with brethren, was it the
truth as it is in Jesus, the having put off the old man and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness?
I had long dreaded: the Manchester meeting alarmed me: I was not there; but the discussion was whether we were Philadelphia, or who was Laodicea -- and not at Manchester only. Brethren had got to think of themselves as a body of people, and to say the least, less of Christ and His body. Now God calls us, and that in love, to remember from whence we are fallen and repent and do the first works. He looks for consistency and devotedness. He always does, and I bless His name He does, but He does so call us now by special circumstances. Satan, long practically undermining as to devotedness and unworldliness, had made a deadly effort to set brethren aside in their testimony to the truth. God in His sovereign mercy has broken his effort. It has been His doing only. Now comes the positive side. Is that which gave him entrance, and a handle, removed, and the Lord truly honoured? If our consciences do not take notice of His ways, the next thing, though His patience is great and long, would be His judgment. Satan's efforts and power He can easily break, humbling us in the meantime; but His judgment who shall withstand? I ask myself, I ask you, how far can we say, "To me to live is Christ"? That is the grave question for us all now. I do not seek to discourage, quite the contrary. The Lord, in sovereign mercy, has not left us, though we have greatly failed. He has shewn Himself most graciously with us, when we might have expected the contrary. How soon could the apostle say, "All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ"! He has shewn Himself full of mercy and grace: what I seek is that our hearts may turn to Him according to that grace.
I add, as the passage has been circulated, that Hebrews 12:27 has no possible application. There
God Himself yet once more shakes and removes what can be shaken, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. What man, when God shakes all things, can establish what cannot be shaken? One part of the passage does belong to us, to those to whom the warning of God's shaking all things yet once was addressed, namely, "We therefore receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire". Such is His government here, but with that we have boldness to enter into the holiest. May our thoughts be formed there: may we yet remember that He governs!
Your affectionate brother in Christ,
... God gently clears the way, I believe. From the beginning I have felt that God was sifting the meetings in Kent, and when that is done adequately in God's eyes there will be peace. But the evil that was at the root of all this, besides a party spirit that had long existed, was that there were brethren, and dear brethren, who, from what I believe was want of faith, judged it was all over with brethren, and London broken up, and that they must as standing on higher ground start afresh as a new body. Now I admit that the brethren had got into a low worldly sleepy state, but I do not think it was faith to think the Lord could not rouse them up, nor that it was grace to set up themselves to be the cream of all ... . I cannot say, sorrowful and humbling as it may be, that I regret that the sifting has come. It was from the hand of God because in grace He saw it was needed ... . While I acknowledge in the party who took the ground of purity many dear and true saints, some to whom I am even personally attached, and their uprightness as
the governing principle of their lives, I do not believe faith or grace to have been the source of the pretension I have referred to. The enemy profited by the evil, which I admit, to produce the pretension and schism of heart, varying I acknowledge in degree and form. The course of Abbotts Hill I still judge to have been thoroughly wicked, and I have not seen that the conscience has been reached ... I believe God is working, but He does not heal slightly the hurt of the daughter of His people, as Jeremiah says. I do not believe that hurry in acting is the way of God. I look for conscience being reached, and so the root of the evil; then there will be lowliness and the path be plain.
... As to the act of exclusion at Abbotts Hill: I look upon it as I always did as an act of wickedness, a false pretence to be the discipline of God's house when it was a violent party act: it was not even truthful. If it was discipline which had God's glory, the holiness of God's house and righteousness as regards evil for its motive, as that discipline should, how can they talk of withdrawing it in grace when other people objected: does grace mean giving these up? Other saints not engaged in these questions in any direct way were unanimously struck with the spirit of their conduct from their own documents. I knew some of those concerned in it, which made it worse ... . But I go on none of these things, but that their act was a very wicked act: I believe it impossible to be with God and not see it. But they have haughtily refused to meet upon the ground of common failure and confession. Mr. -- says it is the Lord's matter. The act was his, not the Lord's: that it is the Lord's to judge it I admit; but people can know by His word whether it is right or wrong before He manifests Himself.
... As to affairs in England, it would be difficult to give you a detailed history; but the principle is simple enough, and it is with this we must be occupied, so as to discern what is of God and what is of Satan, and be guided in our walk to the glory of God.
You know that the natural tendency, as numbers increase in the assemblies, is that the heart wearies a little of the truth, which at the outset had authority over us to cause us to walk in the truth in separation from human systems; and at the same time the mind gets more and more occupied with persons who compose the assembly, till at last the truth gives way to the persons in our hearts, the conscience to the intelligence, Christ to the man, and brethren become, in another way, a system of the worst description: this is Satan's aim, and it is in this way that he assails the brethren.
The first fruit from this bad root is, that brethren are occupied with themselves to the exclusion of other Christians who are equally members of the body of Christ: they think of themselves more than of the Lord. They do all they can to keep the gathering together, losing sight more or less of the great truths which have acted upon hearts individually, and which truths formed the gathering, not as a great work visible and recognised on the earth, but as a testimony from God and for the glory of Christ in the midst of Christianity.
It is of the last importance that we should continually remember that brethren are a testimony and nothing else; that is to say, that it is the truth that has kept us for the glory of Christ, and not we ourselves. This is easily forgotten. I have particularly noticed proofs of this in Switzerland for the last six years at least. A late fruit from this root is, that Christian conscience has become valueless from
neglect of its promptings, and ceases to act. From this it results that brethren are feeble, and become guilty, even in matters of simple righteousness, in such a way that even the world would condemn them. The assemblies of God are little thought of as such, and the presence of the Lord Jesus in the assembly is forgotten and ignored. This is what has happened in England, but the Lord loves us too much to allow such a state of things without reminding us.
But the test is general; it touches closely each one: that is why so many assemblies, and brethren individually in each assembly, are affected by it. In some cases the assembly is of one mind; in others there are two parties, more or less equal, one holding on to the truth at any cost, the other thinking more of only what is on the surface; and there may be other reasons acting upon many, leading them to follow a course which seems to them more easy. It has always been thus. Lot walked a long time with Abraham without his faith being put to the test: when the time for the test came he must walk alone, and then is seen for the first time the measure of truth that he really possessed in his soul. This is what is happening at the present time, and no one can determine the precise moment when such and such a soul will be put to the test; and we should be wrong in forcing or hastening the test in any way whatever, and even when it is there, to suppose that every one will be tested in the same manner. All this is in God's hand: nevertheless when such a sifting does come, happy are they who profit by it, receiving the test as from God with searching of heart; or better, seeking to get into the presence of God that He may search it, so that all that interferes with the glory of Christ shall be judged and put away.
We must have patience, and help each other: a lack of patience has caused some to act too quickly, and though they acted with the best possible intentions,
of separating themselves from evil, the result has been unsatisfactory. We are quick at seizing the reins when we see danger ahead; but the Lord knows better than we do what has to be done: in due season He will deliver all who look to Him. But this must be real, not trying to escape the test, or to delay the time of action when the evil is clearly manifest. Another valuable lesson the Lord would teach us is, I think, to occupy ourselves more before Him with the state of individual consciences. It is easy to neglect pastoral work. One is inclined to act by means of outward pressure, instead of waiting for the inward action of the Spirit, who would lead the assembly by the healthy and spontaneous action of all who form part of it. This ought always to be the aim, but alas! very often it is not possible on account of a corrupt influence which has been already too active, and for too long a time, so that morally, many have become incapable of a spiritual judgment; thus division is inevitable when the test comes to the door. But in any case we ought to wait until God sends the test. A man cannot be hung because he intends to kill me. We must wait until the act is accomplished before taking action, doing all we can, at the same time, to raise the spiritual standard by a healthy ministry of the word, as the Lord in His grace may give us. Then when the test does arrive, some, at least, will be able to act according to God.
The present struggle is between intelligence and the Spirit. It is a subtle thing which exercises the heart to its depths -- must I be guided by my intelligence according to the things that I know, or must I walk in dependence on the Lord? Some pretend to be an expression of the assembly of God when their acts prove that they have no sense of the Lord's presence in their midst. To admit their pretension would evidently be to deny the presence and action of the Spirit of God, for such walk by human intelligence,
and override conscience. This is what happened at Ramsgate, and a division was the result. All was inquired into in London, and three meetings with a week's interval were held on the subject, and every facility was given to arrive at a correct knowledge of facts, in order to come to a conclusion according to God, and this not by any preconcerted measures, plans, or arrangements, but simply through God's intervention in rather a remarkable way. Many ... wished to set aside the decision arrived at on that occasion, and to walk in their own way: hence the reason of the present trouble. The principles involved I have endeavoured to shew to a certain extent. It is scarcely necessary for me to inform you, that the above inquiry was forced upon the assembly in London through a letter of commendation from an assembly in Kent where the difficulty arose; it was necessary to come to a decision, because all means during several months had been used to induce the opposing ones to humble themselves, but without fruit.
Certain difficulties arose in these two places almost simultaneously, that in the former place being connected with the teaching of Mr. C. E. Stuart, and in the latter place with the teaching of Mr. F. W. Grant. Though the teachings in question were not identical, they both had the result of setting aside, in the minds of those who received them, the distinctiveness and heavenly character of Christianity. Mr. Stuart's teaching failed to recognise the complete termination judicially, in the cross of Christ, of the first man, and the truth that in Christ, God has introduced manhood of an entirely different and heavenly order, in which believers are given part, in the Spirit. "God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son", 1 John 5:11; and again, "The first man out of the earth, made of dust; the second man, out of heaven. Such as he made of dust, such also those made of dust; and such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones", 1 Corinthians 15:47, 48.
Mr. Grant, on the other hand, while admitting that in Christianity there was increased light as compared with previous dispensations, taught that the saints in those dispensations had life in the Son, and he put forward views which lowered Christianity to the level of those dispensations.
The following letters by Mr. J. B. Stoney set out the truth that was really the issue in these matters.
There is really no difference between the nature of man and the old man. The word old nature I do not think occurs. The effort is to spare in some way the first man. Let us begin by insisting that "such as the heavenly one, such also are the heavenly ones", and then it is easy to see that there is an entire change of race.
That is the truth to be contended for, and the truth that in every heterodoxy is undermined. There is a total change of race -- "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly". Nothing but personal identity will remain of the first man. I shall know that I am a new man, but all the ideas and feelings of the old man will have passed away.
The idea with those who seek to spare the first man is, that if the evil nature were eliminated, that then the old man would be free of all that is objectionable and would be continued. Not so at all.
I am of the order of the great heavenly One -- and hence the old order has terminated in judgment on the cross.
The mass of Christians do not see that a Man has come from God, the Son of man which is in heaven. Many a Christian would be glad that his bad qualities were replaced with good ones; but that all must be crucified, as said to the young man in Mark 10, is too much for them.
... Be assured you will find the snare of the day amongst us is to exalt the standing or status of the Old Testament saint in order to bring him so near to the New Testament saint, that the heavenly character of the latter may be ignored, and that thus the great difference between them -- one earthly, the other heavenly -- is effaced. And this Christendom has done effectually. What the church did at the earliest date when decline set in is the snare now to us to Whom the Lord has committed the recovered truth. No Old Testament saint will be of the heavenly city though he will be in it; and this is an immense
difference. The Old Testament saint could use anything on the earth for God's service; we are precluded from using anything of man for God. We are confined absolutely and entirely to the one Man in heaven for motive, for joy, for life, for dictation, for direction in every detail of daily life.
I had a very happy day at -- through the Lord's mercy. I said a little in the morning on the difference between Psalm 73 and 2 Corinthians 3:18. In the former the saint's judgment was changed, while in the latter the saint himself is transformed. The word for transformed is used only four times in the New Testament and twice it is translated "transfigured". This is very interesting.
In the evening I spoke from Acts 9. The very beginning of the gospel is, the light comes out from heaven and the seal of the blessing is the Holy Ghost who had come down from heaven. Does not that make the gospel heavenly, though some say it is not. I fear that there is a tendency abroad to exaggerate the standing and state of the Old Testament saints in order to make little difference between the church and them, and thus the heavenly exclusiveness is weakened or lost. The aim of the enemy from a very early date was to draw the saints from their heavenly calling. (See the Hebrews.) Once heaven as a present portion is surrendered, all the great privileges and position of the church are frittered away. The Old Testament saints were wrought on by God, and they may put us to shame by their fidelity and devotedness and cleaving to God, but if we descend to them we lose sight of our own calling. It is quite true "the heir" should embrace all that "the infant" has, but not this only, but a great deal more!
Much controversy arose over the matter of eternal life, which eventuated in a separation among brethren often referred to as the Bexhill Division. + With many, whose minds were not formed by the way the truth is presented in Scripture, eternal life was regarded as no more than the assurance, through faith in Christ, of never coming into condemnation, whereas Scripture presents it, so far as its present aspect is concerned, as a portion entered into, by the Spirit. It was in the mind of God for men in giving His only-begotten Son (John 3:16) and eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord is presented as the gift (or act of favour) of God in contrast to the wages of sin; Romans 6:23. In some scriptures it is viewed as a portion to be entered into in the future, as for example, Matthew 25:46; Mark 10:30; Jude 21, but in John's writings, as well as elsewhere in Scripture, it is presented as given us now in the Son (1 John 5:11), to be entered upon in the Spirit (John 4:14), to be sustained by continually eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood (John 6:54), and to consist in abiding in the Son and in the Father (1 John 2:24, 25) and in the knowledge of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He had sent; (John 17:3). It is enjoyed in the circle of the brethren, where love reigns; (1 John 3:13, 14). Timothy, who, needless to say, was already a believer when Paul wrote to him, was exhorted to "lay hold of eternal life" (1 Timothy 6:12), in contrast to desiring to be rich (verse 9). In the natural order of things life is not mere existence, but consists in relationships, with the
+This is often spoken of as "the Lowe Division", the leader of the opposition to the truth having been Mr. W. Lowe. On the continent of Europe the brethren who supported Mr. Lowe are sometimes designated Elberfeld brethren.
affections proper to them, and interests, and eternal life has been well said to be "an out-of-the-world heavenly condition of relationship and being" in which the believer is given part. Peter declared that the words which the Lord spoke, which He said were spirit and life, were words of life eternal (John 6:68).
The following letters, or extracts from letters, will help to set out the truth in clearness. The first six are by Mr. J. B. Stoney, the next two by Mr. F. E. Raven, and the last two by Mr. C. A. Coates.
I have the feeling that I cannot be of much help to any one in the present contention who does not understand the truth as revealed in the scripture. I do not think any book can help you if you do not learn it from the word of God, and once you know it as of God no book can disturb you, though it may grieve you. Death is on the first man. Death the judgment of God because of sin -- death is first annulled, and then life and incorruptibility are brought to light by the gospel. It is at the other side of death that I enjoy the life of Him who bore death for me, so that you pass out of death into life; John 5:24. The clearer you are that He has in His death set aside all in you under the judgment of death, the easier it will be for you to know that you are in His life. Hence there are three witnesses to prove to you that you have eternal life, "the Spirit, the water, and the blood". (1) The Spirit dwelling in you; (2) the water -- Christ's death where you are cleared away, or purification through His death; (3) the blood -- expiation by death. You must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, not merely believe that He died for you, but feed on His death, and thus you are freed from the death on you -- the wages of sin, and you receive of His life. He was raised from the dead before He breathed on His disciples. Eternal life is (as Mr. D--- says) "outside the senses", an
"out-of-the-world condition of things". It is given to every believer, but no one enjoys it but as Christ liveth in him. The pious in Christendom regard eternal life as the assurance that your immortal soul will be happy in heaven. The Puritans and Calvinists consider it to be final perseverance. Many who are supposed to be well taught Christians build their happiness on God's promise of a perpetuity of life! In no case is the idea of Christ being our life apprehended; and the acceptance of eternal life as it is revealed involves an entirely new order of being and relationship. It is the unwillingness to accept the new and heavenly order, which is at the bottom of the opposition.
As to the contention about eternal life, the mistake is that the work is overlooked for the gift. It is very plain that Christ did not give eternal life until after the work was accomplished. It is as risen from the dead -- the last Adam (see John 17:2) -- that He gives eternal life. What "feeble souls" want to accept is the work of Christ. The gift of eternal life was never used, that I know of, to establish souls. "It is a good thing if the heart be established by grace". "He that stablisheth you is God". The more I hear, the more I am assured that "feeble souls" are damaged by presenting to them the gift -- the actual testimony to the last Adam, instead of the work of Christ by which He obtained the position. The idea is that if a question be raised as to whether any one is enjoying the result of the work, that you are thereby invalidating the work. Evidently if the work be truly known the result is known. John's great desire was that the saints might have conscious knowledge of eternal life. Did he thereby invalidate or depreciate the work? If I tell a man -- when there is good light you will see a certain object, am I calling in question
that he has eyes, or am I calling his attention to the result of his having eyes? I am convinced that those who reason this way are not clear as to having died with Christ, "for if we be dead with him, we believe that we shall also live with him". "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you". I see that I must in ministry dwell more on the work -- the death and resurrection of Christ -- for that is what souls want to be established in. Every one who is consciously in His life knows and enjoys Him in glory.
Some say that the "babe can delight in eternal life" before he has learnt the setting aside of the old man. This is really ---'s doctrine. He says eternal life can be given before man is set aside in the cross, and here the doctrine is that eternal life can be delighted in before the setting aside of the first man is learnt. I say that is impossible. The whole point of John 3 is that life is connected with faith in the Son of man lifted up. What is the value of the second witness, "the water" (see 1 John 5) if the eternal life could be delighted in while purification by the death of Christ is unknown? If the setting aside of the first man has not been learnt, the sense of sin presses on me, and if it does, how can I delight in eternal life? There is a great difference in delighting in the service of the Saviour in putting away my sins, and in being in the sense of His life outside the scene of sin and death. The divine order is, "Reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus". The abolishing of death precedes the bringing to light life and incorruptibility by the gospel. This teaching accounts for and fosters all the earthly ways tolerated nowadays, for in it you gain everything through Christ, and you part with nothing. Be assured that it is the other way. You must part with your own clothes before you take up the mantle of Elijah. Christ in glory is my life. How could I
know a glorified Christ, the only Christ to be known now, the Christ whom "the fathers" know, but as I am, through the Spirit, apart from and outside of all of that man who dishonoured God, and is at a distance from Him. You cannot eat the old corn of the land without crossing the Jordan.
There is much to cheer, though I have been sad at heart to think of the condition of soul which could be so influenced ... If I am not very much mistaken, there underlies the teaching fundamental error. What does the "Personality of eternal life" mean? What does it mean that our Lord "gave up eternal life when He died"? Is conversion by my acceptance of grace, as Moody taught, or by the sovereign, absolute work of God which opens my eyes? To live as Christ lived as seen of men, is all that is accepted, without apprehending that all the time He, in unbroken communion with the Father, was living in a life which could not be seen of men. So with us. If Christ liveth in me in the detail of my life down here, He is also at the very time my life in the presence of the Father, and the moment I realise that I belong to the divine circle I am enjoying Christ's life. I want Him at every step here, and He does not merely give me grace for my need down here, but as He is ever higher than the heavens, He leads me to the height where He is, if there be no reserve between me and Him. If there is reserve, I have not "part" with Him consciously, though I may be sensibly helped, as in the Psalms, where it is not the heavenly man, but the earthly man helped down here.
A dear simple soul said to me, I prefer to share in Christ's life than to have a life given to myself. As Christ is my life, and as I am of Christ I can never
lose it. Nothing of Christ could perish. It distresses me to hear discussions about so great a thing as eternal life before there has been a waiting on the Lord to apprehend the nature of the gift. People turn to some or other writings to learn what it is instead of just learning what it is on one's knees and through the light of the word ... . Eternal life is not a person, but the power to enjoy what a person is. This is simple. We enjoy it in Christ and by His Spirit. It is very cheering to be here, they are so clear and stedfast. The Lord lead you here some time -- about a hundred brothers in the meeting.
I return the copy of your letter. I like it very much. I have seen for some time that there was a tendency with brethren to make every movement of our Lord's here an expression of eternal life. It is a refuge to the conscience of those who do not enjoy it in its own sphere to reduce it to the details of man's life. But eternal life is outside the senses -- an out-of-the-world condition. Surely in everything, as you rightly say, we learn and derive from our Lord to act here in the smallest details in a way and in a spirit quite new and unknown to man. The manna is the beautiful divine touch in everything -- even the commonest; but it is a device of the enemy to induce me to relieve my conscience of ignorance of my birthright (communion with the Father) by substituting for it + that which cannot be known but outside this scene altogether, and which is not merely my behaviour and manner of life among men. This device must be resisted, and I am glad to say that some are delivered from it. I remark that those who are seeking to advance in the world are petulant and
+This should apparently read "by substituting it" (i.e. the manna) "for that which cannot be known, etc". —- Ed.
irritated when truth is presented which they evidently are not enjoying, and in their desire for spiritual reputation they cannot afford to admit that they are not enjoying it. I do not believe that any one advancing in this world and not surrendering it can be seeking the things above ... .
I am not surprised that you should be depressed by the contention which prevails amongst us. I find that the only true way is to be assured first from the Word what eternal life is, and when you are assured divinely of what it is and what it confers, then you will be proof against all perversions and misrepresentations.
It is said that a clerk in a bank first learns what a good banknote is, that he is kept in a room where the banknotes are until he knows a good one, and then when any note which is not good is presented to him he knows it to be bad.
I do not believe that any one apprehending the greatness and blessedness of eternal life could fail to see where the truth lies at the present time. Some do not see any unsoundness in the teaching itself who do not enter into the positive side, that is, the greatness and joy of it. These latter, though they do not actually oppose, do not help. The one seeking to have a conscious knowledge of having it (which is the object of John's first epistle, as he says, "These things I write unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life") is sure to be a help. The very fact that eternal life is outside of my senses -- "To God I am beside myself" -- is enough to shew me that it must be opposed or evaded because it is, as Mr. Darby says, "an out-of-the-world condition of things". Every one who has a heart like Peter (Matthew 14) would leave the ship (what suits man) to join the Lord in His own life outside and apart from all that refused Him here. Christians, as a rule, do not seek
it. Paul says to Timothy, "Lay hold on eternal life", though it was his all the time. Grace has given me much more than I yet enjoy or have appropriated. The Lord grant that you may appropriate and enjoy it.
... Next, as to eternal life. It was God's purpose in ChristINTRODUCTION
EVENTS AT PLYMOUTH, AND SUBSEQUENTLY AT THE BETHESDA MEETING IN BRISTOL, 1844 TO 1849
I would not wish it to be supposed that what I have now said is intended to extenuate the error which I have confessed. I desire to acknowledge it fully, and to acknowledge it as sin; it is my desire thus to confess it before God and His Church; and I desire that this may be considered as an expression of my deep and unfeigned grief and sorrow, especially by those who may have been grieved or injured by the false statement, or by any consequences thence resulting. I trust the Lord will not only pardon, but will graciously counteract any evil effects which may have arisen to any therefrom. -- B. W. Newton.
George Muller". +
Affectionately yours,
W. Trotter.APPENDIX - LETTER OF THE TEN
Henry Craik, Edmund Feltham, George Muller, John Withy, Jacob Henry Hale, Samuel Butler, Charles Brown, John Meredith, Elijah Stanley, Robert Aitchison)".
J.N.D.
1845.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D."THE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP"
C.A.C.MR. DARBY'S TEACHING AS TO THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST
MR. CLUFF AND HIS VIEWS AS TO "DEAD TO NATURE"
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
1879.
J.N.D.
1879
J.N.D.RYDE AND DR. CRONIN; RAMSGATE AND MR. WM. KELLY
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
1879.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
1880.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.
J.N.D.READING AND MONTREAL, 1883.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.THE MINISTRY OF MR. F. E. RAVEN, 1890.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.
J.B.S.