I have deemed it well, in order to help my reader, and to save his time and Mr. Alexander's, to present the following additional evidence, gleaned chiefly in Bristol.
In quoting the following extracts from letters, I would just say how I came by them. When I challenged our brother A. with the gross discrepancies between the letter of the Ten and his printed circular, he replied, "There were other letters sent to the laboring brethren, and many meetings and much discussion had passed for nearly two and a half months before his circular was printed." As these letters had been produced by him (he said) at a public meeting in the vestry of Bethesda, and were shown to any who might seek information, they, of course, were freely given to me. They do not diminish the discrepancies at all, but make them worse.
I give those extracts which Mr. A., in order to save my time, pointed out, as the most important. The parts omitted are unimportant, but the letters can be seen. In order to explain the circumstances as fully as possible, I have interspersed a few remarks which were really the result of my own investigations; they have been well ' weighed before being made. I give them as an historian, and am quite prepared to substantiate them, when called on to do so in a fair, and open court, before all the parties concerned.
Mr. A. wrote to Mr. Craik and the laboring brethren in April thus: -
"In regard to the melancholy matter of Mr. Newton, I am anxious do "say a little to you, dear brother, and our dear brethren laboring together. I feel a solemn persuasion, that the Lord has brought that matter to our door that we ought to judge it; and that if we do not, for peace' sake as may be alleged, I feel intimately persuaded it must come, in a more difficult shape to deal with, and perhaps (if now neglected) in a way that may bring shame upon us. I have three papers of Mr. N.'s before me while I write; and, while I desire to write as in the presence of God our Father, I can have no hesitation in avowing to you and our dear brethren, that, in my poor judgment, these documents contain deadly heresy, doctrines subversive of the atonement, and touching the person and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord. I would just quote one or two parts for your judgment and that of brethren, just remarking, that it is vain to point out other passages, which seem to state clearly the atonement and sinless nature of our Lord, while these passages remain. I judge them as they stand, and pray you to do so likewise. I only quote from the last two papers... One is the recantation of error; page 3 I find these words:-
"' In allowing that the Lord Jesus had a body different from that of Adam in Paradise, I was right; I was right also in saying that inherent corruption is not the originating cause of mortality, but the one sin of Adam. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. I was right also in stating, that the Lord Jesus partook of certain consequences of Adam's sin, of which the being possessed of a MORTAL body was one.
"That paper is dated in November last. The last paper published by Mr. N., which Mr. W. is now circulating here (I have known two copies given away by him, and one is now before me), contains extracts from Bishop Pearson's 'Exposition of the Apostles' Creed,' which Mr. N. commends to the saints as ' illustrating the Scripture doctrines of the real humanity and sufferings of our Blessed Lord.' In this paper I find, amongst several extracts of a like character, the following in page 9:-
"’As He [Jesus] was truly and properly Man, in the same MORTAL nature which THE SONS OF ADAM have, so did he undergo a true and proper death, in the same manner as we die; for Christ, who took upon Him all our infirmities, sin only excepted, had, IN HIS NATURE,' not only a possibility and aptitude, but also a NECESSITY OF DYING.'
" Again, ‘This body of Christ, really and truly human, was also FRAIL and MORTAL, as being accompanied with all the natural properties which necessarily flow from the condition of a FRAIL and MORTAL body.
" I would simply put to your heart and conscience, dear brother and the brethren, whether, by any interpretation, we can get over passages of this nature, especially that quoted from Mr. N.'s own recantation. If the Lord Jesus, in conscience of Adam's sin, became possessed of a mortal body, and therefore MUST HAVE DIED, independently of laying down his life for the sheep,-for instead of a voluntary, vicarious laying down of life, he must die IN CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sin,-then we have no atonement; the Lord of Glory, the Son of God, the Second Adam was of dust and ashes like us! as our brother Chapman so exactly stated." ...
After saying what his own thoughts were of the Lord, A. continues—
" I feel all this to be so sacred, that I cannot but write these lines, in hopes that you, dear brother Craik, and other beloved brethren, may yet take up this subject, which would occupy but little time-to see all the principal points where such doctrines are laid, down,: and to judge these things before the leaven spreads; at the same time, I give this solemn warning, that the leaven is spreading. And I confess, that rather than accredit such statements as these, or uphold any who teach (which I feel brings in the Scripture 2 John 99Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 9), 11), or have any fellowship with any one who would put forth: before the saints publicly or privately as Mr. N. does and has done, I would rather give up everything; that is all I can say. It is a Jude-time. 'Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints."... I have had a peculiar bond of love and fellowship with the saints here, and if I write strongly, it is because I feel deeply for their welfare..... Peace be with you. Ever affectionately yours. in the Lord Jesus,
“G. ALEXANDER."
To this letter there was no definite answer. The question was again considered; and most said they saw no responsibility to do anything., All felt not so, for some one or other said, " Well, then, all one can do is, to act individually, and save one's own conscience," or words to that effect. Mr. Alexander said he should visit Mr. H. Woodfall. After the meeting, others agreed to go also. Mr. A. went next, morning, when Mr. II. W. said he should not teach, because he did, not understand the doctrines, but would not promise not to circulate time tracts. Two others afterward called, and were asked by one of the Mr. W.s, "did they come officially?” the answer was "No, upon their own responsibility."
I remark here that, among other things the church has to guard against this, the technicalities of formal order assuming a place to the disparagement of spirit, truth, and power. If Mr. A. had neglected any step which he ought to have taken, he would have been wrong; but the pleading of that omission by Bethesda (though correct if trying to put him right) would have been most wrong, if it was pleaded either to vindicate its own neglect in caring for the Lord's glory, or to raise feelings in the body against Him, or in favor of its laboring brethren.
About the end of May, Mr. A. wrote another letter to Messrs. Mallet and Craik.
"My dear Brethren,—I feel it very strongly laid on my conscience to write this line, to beg earnestly that even yet there may be an investigation and judgment of the tracts of Mr. Newton; which can easily be done in a short time, as pointed out by our brother Chapman. I understood that brother Craik declined this inquiry again at the last Friday evening, meeting he was present at; so I assume it is so in this, which I should be glad to hear otherwise. I feel that you must be stopped at each difficulty connected with this subject, until the subject itself be gone into, and judged as before the Lord. Whether I regard Mrs. Browne's case, or that of the Woodfalls (which has only been noticed by two or three amongst us), or the declaration of our brother Aitcheson, that he felt perfectly at liberty to circulate all Mr. N.'s tracts, though through respect to others he might feel restrained (which Mr. H. Woodfall likewise declared); in fact, which ever way I look, it seems to me that, duly considering our present circumstances, and all that has gone on around (which; as members of the same one body, we are bound to consider) we are most imperatively called upon to inquire and judge in this matter. I solemnly believe it is the first work, the chief thing we have now to do. Let me ask here, dear brethren, how could you meet Mrs. Brown, were she pleased to defend Mr. Newton's tracts, to justify his doctrine regarding the Person of our Lord, to state her wish to invite Mr. N. here (as she did state her wish and intention so to do at Bath)? what could you say, as not having satisfied your minds respecting the tracts and doctrine? Could you scripturally refuse fellowship to Mr. Newton, or to accredit him as one accustomed to teach the saints? I believe not, unless the question be judged.... I draw from all this my conclusion, that an indifference to this whole matter, or refusal to judge it when brought directly to our door, as it has L. been, and now is there; and when the person and majesty of Christ Jesus are in question, will, I am persuaded, bring the Lord against 1,7-those who refuse to judge and act. No blessing can be expected, I humbly conceive:: I believe we cannot sufficiently realize, that we are members of the whole body; that our acts must affect those gathered together in London or Dublin; and I believe I may safely say, that the not judging this momentous question is very grievous to many of God's people in fellowship; I mean those at other gatherings. After bearing some time, and considerable exercise of conscience, I feel my own path to be clear, which is, that if you, dear brethren, do think it meet and right before God to refuse to investigate and judge; I must withdraw from the meetings.... [After stating some facts that had been brought before the brethren] ... . Adverting to all this, I am thoroughly satisfied as before God, that a refusal to judge is a grievous wrong, though it might have been otherwise sometime back; yet now, the principle of non-interference directly interferes with the Lord's glory in this matter, and I feel assured that He Himself will judge it, let the church here do as they please at present; I believe, in fine (and on this I would act), that not judging this whole matter now is, of itself, manifested evil, if I may so express it (my own judgment of course); and, from manifested evil, I shall be constrained to separate, if persisted in. This may seem strong language; but to those who have no judgment on the points at issue I would say, How can they, how can you, dear brethren (supposing you have not read any of these papers), be in a capacity to say, it is too strong language? It is the refusal to judge or inquire which I complain of. If inquiry were made, and a directly contrary judgment to mine and that of others come to, the case would stand on different ground. Now, I would ask again, in all love, and in the respect so due to you, which has led me to write this long note, supposing you refuse to judge in this matter, how can you, as those placed of God as leaders here, or teachers, answer my conscience, or the inquiries of any exercised about these timings? or meet the difficulties of parties coming and going from Ebrington Street, or this new chapel at Plymouth? But I forbear. You will pardon so long a note. You would greatly oblige me by a line from one or other. If your minds be clear as to the course you think it right to adopt; I mean, if you consider that investigation and judgment must at all events be declined by you, I should be glad to hear it, that, waiting upon the Lord, I may know what step to take. My comfort is, that God's heart is on Christ Jesus. He that touched' Christ's person and glory, touches the apple of God's eye.... Believe me in much love and respect, yours affectionately in our Lord Jesus,
"G. A."
" P. S.—... I learn this day that it is contemplated to read the narrative of the orphan-work during the next two weeks. I would humbly suggest, whether the question discussed in this ought not to have the pre-eminence?"
A few lines of answer from Mr. Craik said, that several brethren had considered the subject with prayer, and had no light about it.
Let the reader compare these two letters with 2-4, and say how far it is a fair statement.
To perfect my outline, I add the following account of the winding up of the meeting at which the paper was read to the body of saints:-
On Thursday, June 29, the meeting was too protracted for there to be time for any judgment to be come to on the paper of the Ten. There was a meeting fixed, therefore, for the following Monday, July the 3rd. After prayer by G. Midler, Mr. Craik stated what would be the order of the meeting; viz., the perusal, first, of Mr. A.'s letter, which, by a strange oversight, they had not done at the first meeting; then of their reply. After which, the church would give judgment upon it. But that they (query, the Ten) 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 coins to a decision upon their paper.
A discussion then took place as to the rightness of allowing the congregation to give a decision in the dark; that is, without information being given to it as to the nature of the error involved.
Mr. Miller said, the first thing the church had to do was, to clear the ten signers of the paper; and that if this was not done, they could not continue to labor among them; that the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought out; no matter if it was as bad as Socinianism, the ears of the church ought not to be polluted with such things. That it was an unrighteous and unholy thing to bring out errors from tracts which the writer had withdrawn from circulation, and the errors of which he confessed with deep sorrow before God, the church, and the world. So strongly did he feel this, that, though if any brother wished to do so, he was free, after the church had delivered its judgment and cleared them, to bring out the errors of the tracts-Himself and the Ten must retire first.
[It seems to me, that while those who wished to open the tracts were quite right to say so; that they were "out of order" because their desire would have infringed the object of the meeting. While willingly at it, they were inconsistent in forgetting its object. I add, also, that they were mistaken altogether, I judge, in their motives, because Mr. Alexander's letter did inform the body; and, before God, and the church, and the world, the body acted, in giving its judgment, with the knowledge that the doctrine involved was doctrine which touched the person and work of Christ. I add, also, that I think they were out of order and inconsistent in another way, because the theory of Bethesda is, that the pillars are the conscience-keepers of the body. Now, clearly in the midst of an action of a body, and that a difficult action too (for if it could not say Amen to the paper of the pillars, it ceased to be the same body), was not the right time to throw in so entirely another question as, "Is the principle of this body Scriptural?" The question then pending was really a very important one to Bethesda: Shall we continue our existence or destroy it? I hardly think the objectors can have seen this, or that that which they urged contained in it that which, though the mass would not have seen it, would have been a motive for self-destruction of the body.]
Mr. Craik stated the manner in which the church was to give its judgment; viz., by those first standing up who considered the reasons to be satisfactory, afterward those of a contrary judgment. Those who chose to express no judgment, could keep their seats.
A pause for consideration was then allowed.
This was broken by the suggestion, whether the reasons themselves might not be open to discussion first?
Mr. Craik assented to any brother stating his objections to the reasons assigned for declining to investigate the tracts.
[This seems to me to have been really kind, and gratuitously so on Bethesda's part. I know not who proposed it. It was based, I judge, however, upon an entire error, as was the part taken, I judge, by the various ones who, toward the close of it, left the assembly.
The error I refer to is, the assumption that the paper of the Ten contains only the reasons against the examination of the tracts, and not also the outline of an ecclesiastical polity which is such as that (if the reasons had been seriatim condemned, and, moreover, the tracts in question then brought forward and analyzed, and the contents condemned) the whole evil condemned could have been let in still. Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik, or the Ten, therefore, appear to me to have been consistent with themselves, while the ethers seem to me to have been dragged, by a desire to cleave to God, over the breakwater which they themselves had been sanctioning.
They thought and spoke as if they were in that which was to them the church, and it was only little by little that they perceived that the question was not about keeping evil outside, but of getting themselves out from evil which was inside.] At the close of the discussion which ensued, many left, and the question was put.
A very large majority stood up to signify their concurrence, some retained their seats,-Mr. Code among the number. He rose and protested against the whole proceedings; stating, that he considered the Spirit of God had not guided them in reference to that paper; and that their mode of voting seemed to him wrong.
[This seems to me to have been the proper course for any one who went to that meeting.]
Mr. H. Woodfall is said then to have defended and eulogized Mr. N., and said that he had brought out much deep truth as to the living sufferings of Christ Jesus, etc. Mr. Code said, " That ought to be stopped;" but he was allowed to go on. This looked so like partiality, that one left, and many were grieved. Mr. Muller afterward said, he could not agree with all that Mr. H. W. had said; and, besides, "Mr. N. has confessed himself in error."
A copy of the paper of the Ten was sent to Mr. A., who, July 6, in writing to Mr. Withy, thus notices it:-
" I would take this opportunity of noticing a letter sent to me last evening by G. Midler, which is signed by you and nine other brethren; and I should feel obliged to you to state, before these brethren when together, and to any absent from such meeting (if I may ask for so much), dint I received their letter, and desired in all love to make one or two remarks upon it. How you, dear brother, and Aitcheson, Hale and G. Muller (who has not gone through the proceedings from the first) and others, could have signed this document, and approved of each part of it I cannot conceive. Can you really and fairly state, as before God, that you and others are happy in being able to state, that, ever since the matter was agitated, you have maintained that persons coming from thence (Plymouth), if suspected of any error, would be liable to be examined on the point?" Did you state this when Mr. H. W. came? Did not brother Craik say more than once, at the meeting, when R. Chapman was present, that he had no wish or desire to ask Mr. W. any question? Would not you and brother Aitcheson (whose name more especially astounds me) rather have stated, dear brother, that, as you apprehended no error in the tracts or doctrine, you saw no necessity for any such examination? I leave this with your own conscience and that of others. I really grieve to read this paragraph and other parts of this letter. Just below the above part, for instance, the mention of Mr. W.'s coming to the laborers' meeting, I feel to be very uncandidly stated; indeed, the way in which it is stated seems to me to be totally incorrect. The objection to Mr. W.'s presence was, that, having been at Plymouth and a partisan, he could not possibly lie a fair party in the discussion. This was the objection made by all-the stress was laid on this, and not on his coming to answer questions. The objection was made by brother Butler, decidedly; most strongly by H. Naish; afterward, by J. S. It was on this ground only I objected to his presence. Surely it was forgotten that one or two of these ten (I think Althorn and some others) objected to Mr. W.'s breaking bread at all till matters were investigated; yet this paragraph charges all on me, and I feel in a very incorrect and uncandid manner.
The opening declaration of this letter I cannot look upon as a straight-forward statement. We have no information whatever of our brother's intention to do as he has done. I had stated in two strong letters, and in two or three meetings, but especially at the last, that I should not be able to continue while these matters were suffered to be unjudged and uninvestigated, or left as brethren were disposed to do; and if I chose, after deliberation, and with the counsel of some whose judgment coincided on that point with my own, to deliver my own soul and conscience in that mode (of a letter addressed to those. Of intelligence), which I deemed less objectionable than addressing all who meet together, or those who would have come-surely, it can hardly be candidly stated that there was no intimation whatever.
I write thus much, dear brother; I grieve most over the special pleading and weak reasons why doctrine should not have been judged, as dishonoring our Lord, and which will be found so evil amongst the people here. I had proof yesterday of its circulation; that is, I heard of it by an eye-witness. I desire to love and pray for all the brethren, but in these proceedings-this letter of the ten, and these last Church meetings (so-called)-I cannot have any fellowship or sympathy, and cannot but surely foresee the result of all.
Believe me, very truly and faithfully,
Yours in Christ Jesus,
G. Alexander.
To Mr. Withy, and for the Nine brethren who have signed the letter alluded to.
In Mr. Withy's reply no notice was taken of the above remarks I add, lastly—
That Mrs. Brown, Mr. Aitcheson, the Messrs. Woodfall, and many others, have since left Bethesda. Brethren may judge upon what grounds they have left by the Messrs. Woodfall's paper.