What has to be guarded against in Bethesda?
My Dear Brother,
I am really sorry to have to touch the question of Bethesda again. For their sakes who are in it, many of whom I love; and for my own sake; and for the sake of saints and the world, I am sorry. Neither is it in the conceit of being myself of better report than they that I do it; for, if I desired to think of my character as a man, I should certainly let this matter alone; neither is it in any thought of self-righteousness I do it; for I am a poor sinner saved by grace, and without anything to look to for upholding or preservation to the end but grace. But it does seem to me, that, in the question now raised by Bethesda, my heart is challenged upon two points: 1st. Am I willing to surrender the grace that keeps myself by denying one of the leading features of the mode in which it works, " If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"? and, 2ndly, Am I willing to give up that which constitutes the essential property of the church of the Living God upon earth-" Holy separation from evil around, by the energy of the Holy Ghost in the body"?
I am glad, however, that I have not to treat of it as an abstract question merely, but as a practical one; and that, too, in connection with one whom, like yourself, I have long loved, and with whom I never had the slightest difference.
I judge by your letter that we are agreed thus far, viz. that there has been, within the last year, such an apparent connection between Bethesda and some of Mr. Newton's friends, that no one could be received thence save upon the understanding that they were clear from the evil which was said by some to characterize him and Compton-street. If I have not here used sufficiently general terms to include you and myself in a common opinion, you must do so for me; for that is what I want.
But now what is the evil to be guarded against as to Mr. Newton? Long (i. e. many months) before the awful blasphemy against the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, as taught by Mr. Newton, was known to exist—there were charges laid against him, and a separation from him. The grounds were, 1st. " Utter untruthfulness; and 2ndly. [God, as the alone end and object of action, being forgotten] the formation of a party [in order to have a union of testimony against the, teaching opposed to his own views] which was characterized also by a system entirely inconsistent with and destructive of all moral integrity." All the controversy is now on my table before me. The tracts charging " untruthfulness" and " the formation of a party characterized by a certain immoral system," are dated 1845 (its close); 1846 and 1847 (April was the last). In 1847 McAdam and Harris' first tract on the doctrine as destructive of the " Gospel Truth" appeared, dated, July 1847. This is the review of Notes on Psa. 6. Mr. Darby and Mr. Deck wrote soon after this, as may be seen by the date of Mr. Newton's feigned recantation, Nov. 26, 1847. Observe, after " untruthfulness" and " a system of tricky shuffling" (charged by some to be the work of a lying spirit) had been seen for a year and a half; then, 3rdly the awful blasphemy against the person and work of Christ (which had existed long before and been artfully brought into a second edition of the Christian Witness) rose to the surface to show something of what was the root of the untruthfulness and immoral system. I remark in passing, that so far from the error discovered (awful as it is, and really held as it is) being THE point of false doctrine, it is not. There is yet another thing to be developed as to the divine glory of the Son. I feel free to say what I think, because there has been NO examination as to Plymouth as yet had.
Into the history of the immoral system I refer to I shall not go; neither shall I attempt to trace its features. One point, however, I will notice, and that is, that language was habitually used, not as the channel by which to communicate thought, but as the mode of hiding thought; and not of gathering the thoughts of others, but of corrupting their meanings. It was not merely the positive denial of facts, or the positive assertion of the existence of what was known not to exist, though both occurred, as also equivocation and fallacy of every kind. The mark however was, the so speaking as that the real object and meaning of the speaker might be misunderstood by the hearer; and another meaning, perhaps, than what was in the speaker's mind (which he did not wish to be seen by the hearer) communicated to him- something, perhaps, which would please him or subserve the speaker's ends, just as the serpent in the garden, " Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." The consequence was, not only that mutual confidence was destroyed, but the candid, open bearing of the simple-hearted in that place which they had esteemed the House of the Living God—of light, grace and truth -was met with a policy of artifice, which it required either the wisdom of an Ahithophel, well versed in Satan's ways and the wickedness of man, and in grammar and logic, to meet; or else a prayerful waiting upon God, that in His light, light might be seen. The more simple, unable to solve the riddle, said, " God has left them under the delusion of a lying spirit," and withdrew upon this ground from contact with the evil.
There is another thing I may advert to as showing the separableness of the doctrinal error as to the person and work of the Lord as the root, from the untruthfulness and immoral system as fruits. I refer now to the last May meeting in Bath. What occurred there was not the confession and repudiation of certain doctrines destructive to salvation, and blasphemous against the person of Christ-that had taken place some months before-but the showing out into light a system of spiritual and immoral evil, in which some, even at that time, were sticking, though they had given up the bad doctrine months before. Brethren then present cannot but remember the system as then variously displayed by some, of whom it is our joy to think now that they then and there bade farewell to the system.
Now as to Bethesda. The evil of it-the charge, if you please, against it—was, 1st and chiefly, the admission of the evil moral system I have referred to, and only 2ndly and very subordinately, the being tainted with the doctrine.
This you will see in the lithographed letter signed "J. N. D.", and in mine dated October 1848, and you may prove it among the brethren who meet in York-street, Bristol. • The moral question is, in their minds, the paramount one. The lithographed letter thus speaks:-
" I feel bound to present to you the case of Bethesda. It involves, to my mind, the whole question of association with brethren; and for this very simple reason, that if there is incapacity to keep out that which has been recognized as the work and power of Satan and to guard the beloved sheep of Christ against it, if brethren are incapable of this service to Christ, then they ought not to be in any way owned as a body to whom such service is confided; their gatherings would be really a trap laid to ensnare the sheep. But I will not suppose this, my heart would not, nor will I suppose that the influence or reputation of individuals will induce them to do in one case what they would not do in another. I press, therefore, the position of Bethesda on brethren. It is at this moment acting in the fullest and most decided way as the supporter of Mr. Newton and the evil associated with him, and in the way in which the enemy of souls most desires it should be done.
" The object of Mr. Newton and his friends is not now openly to propagate his doctrine in the offensive form in which it has roused the resistance of every godly conscience that cared for the glory and person of the blessed Lord, but to palliate and extenuate the evil of the doctrine, and get a footing as Christians for those who hold it, so as to be able to spread it and put sincere souls off their guard."
" The result is, that members of Ebrington-street, active and unceasing agents of Mr. Newton, holding and justifying his views, are received at Bethesda; and the system, which so many of us have known as denying the glory of the Lord Jesus (and that when fully stated in the most offensive way) and corrupting the moral rectitude of every one that fell under its power, that this system, though not professed, is fully admitted and at work at Bethesda."
Here then are two things charged; the admission of, 1st, an evil moral system, and 2ndly, of definite evil doctrine.
Now here clearly, judging by your letter, you and I have not one opinion. You would rather go with T., and be satisfied, if you could certify that A. B., though he has been in Bethesda of late, " brought the doctrine of Christ, and that he expressed his entire disapproval of Mr. Newton's views and separation from him personally."
I must stop a bit. A good profession and good moral walk, and separation from Mr. Newton and his views, are god; but what about Bethesda's accrediting the immoral system and acting upon it since?
Let such a one, mutatis mutandis, come from Oscott, or from among a fraternity of Jesuits, and I should have more to ask him; and so I have in this case.
Very affectionately,
G. V. W.