Beloved Brethren,
In ourselves, by nature, the chief of sinners, the mercy of God has been found to be our only refuge. This mercy, being through Christ Jesus, is perfectly holy. This mercy, also, not only reigns through righteousness, but reigns unto holiness-because unto eternal life.
If we fail in holiness of walk, God's word requires us to vindicate Him, and renounce the evil by confession.
I judge, that in those cases in which you have withdrawn from communion with those who have sinned openly, until they were humbled, that you showed not C' only true zeal for God, but real compassion for those in failure, and the proper sense of dread- about the evil still dwelling in your own flesh.
I feel pressed to lay before you what may help your judgments in regard to the painful case of matters at Plymouth, as bearing upon the question of the moral failure of one there who has held the place of a teacher, and the screening of his case by those who guide the congregation with which he is connected.
You have hitherto judged untruthfulness to be as great a sin as any other.
In the month of April, 1845, there was a meeting at Plymouth, at which about fifteen persons were present, by name Messrs. Darby, Harris, Newton, Naylor, Pridham, A. Pridham, Young, Johnson, Hill, Batten, Dyer, Soltau, Clulow, Rhinde, and McAdam.
Of this meeting I received the following accounts:-
I have no difficulty in communicating the result.: while I hoped further might have been attained, I did not. Newton declared that he desired to make Plymouth a focus, and that his object was to have a union of testimony here against the teaching opposed to his views; that he trusted to secure it in Devonshire and Somersetshire, and elsewhere, if he could. In subsequent explanations given, he stated that he did not mean to refuse to work with those who differed from him (this he had said: It was only against those who taught these views), that the statement was objectionable if taken irrelatively; which was explained by Dyer, who received this modification from his lips, that it was neither his only, whole, nor entire purpose, because there were other subjects on which he could preach and teach, on which the others might agree. Harris communicated to me his mind as stated to him, that it was not the object, but an object. In general the brethren, and in particular Harris, disavowed absolutely any principle of the kind, and told Newton it made co-operation very difficult, and, indeed, spoke yet more strongly since; that he was quite separate from Plymouth, and if any principle of the kind was set-up, he should leave it. He considered, however, what Newton had said to him as -amounting to a disavowal of it. Dyer said, that Newton had been misunderstood. However, all others, save one, who would say nothing, agreed that he had said it plainly and positively, whatever his explanations since might have modified of it. Dyer's explanation of 'irrelative' being that he had other common objects as well as this. I said I considered this as recognizing that he had this; and Harris having communicated the statement, that it was an, and not the object, confirmed this. Here, I may say, it ended; for every one to act as he thought right before God; Rhind, feeling that good had been done, and that it should not be pressed further now, as it might be in fact not acted on, and so practically disavowed. Harris stated his conviction, that a sectarian tendency had been brought to light during these six weeks. I have, whatever my manner (for it is impossible for any one to have been more thoroughly disgusted), the full conscience of having acted in peace, and without the smallest shade of party spirit, so that I am perfectly happy as to that before God. I believe His hand was in the avowal made, and that the very avowal of it was of great importance"; though the disavowal of it afterward would have been happier than modifying or explaining it. I do not think one went along with the statement taken as it was originally made. There were two meetings intervening between the first and the last, that he might show how it was so fundamental as to oblige him to denounce the brethren who taught it; which he stated, convincing all the brethren that it was not so. Such are the facts in summary. I add no judgment on them, as each one would form his own." J. N. D.
Second Account, given to me in manuscript by Mr. Clulow; since printed, and widely circulated.
“Beloved Brother,—You ask me to give you on paper the substance of what I said at our recent meeting; and I willingly comply with, your request for open and explicit statement, I believe to be deeply important at such an hour as the present.
" The charge preferred against me in a meeting, was, ‘A systematic effort to form a sect, and discrediting and denouncing those who do not adopt the opinions which form its basis.'
" I allow that I should he open to this charge, if I refused to hold communion at the Lord's table, or if I insisted that all should hold my views of truth, before they were allowed to minister. But I have never done either the one or the other of these things-invariably, and without one exception, I have maintained the opposite. About twelve months ago, when a valued brother came here from Ireland, whose views were known to be, at that time opposed to mine, he was asked no question; and every door of private and public ministry was thrown open to him-the like is now done to Mr. Darby. I should object to his being denied any on privilege that I might myself have-I only claim co-equal right to write and to teach as and how I please, subject only to the judgment of the Church if I do it in an evil manner.
" I maintain, therefore, that there can be no semblance of sectarianism where such principles are held, and consistently acted on. Our Brother Rhind, at the meeting, bore testimony to his having invariably found it thus in Plymouth.
" But while I desire to hold this principle very fast, I reserve to myself the right of forming an individual judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of the doctrines taught by various brethren: and I distinctly avow, that I cannot welcome, as teachers, with the SAME cordiality, one who opposes, and one who sustains, what I believe to be the truth, But this is simply an individual question, with which others have no title to interfere. It is between myself and God.
" The reason why I cannot welcome some brethren as I would others, is, that I have seen for many years, a very peculiar system of doctrine prevailing among the Brethren, which, unless counteracted, will assuredly bring in the worst of all sectarianism amongst us—I mean, sectarianism of doctrine, It is one thing for God to add fresh stores of knowledge to those which the Church has already had-it is another for us, by means of these new truths, to derange and subvert old truths which the Church of God has ever held sacred.
“This, I believe, has been done. I mention as examples,
“The assigning to others than the Church of God, scriptures which, till now, the Church has ever regarded as addressed to itself, and itself alone-such as the prophetic discourses in Matthew, and the sermon on the mount.
“The deprecation of the service and standing of the Pentecostal Church.
“The division of what the Scripture declares to be one-the resurrection of all that are Christ’s at His coming.
“The division of the Church in glory, by the exclusion of Abraham and the redeemed from the full blessedness of the. Church of the First-born.
" These, and other such doctrines, too many to be enumerated here, have produced a peculiar system, as peculiar as Wesleyanism, in its way; a system not containing merely added truths to those which the saints of God have heretofore held, but subversive of them: and it is this system which I feel bound in conscience to oppose in every legitimate way. If, in my speaking or writing, I make use of any harsh or ungracious expression, I am willing to ask the pardon of any Brother whom I may have offended, and to strive to avoid needless severity of expression: but beyond this I cannot go. I desire to produce in the minds of the dear Brethren everywhere, the same strong sense that pervades my own, of the evil of this system-and this is one object of my labor everywhere. At the same time, my hostility is against a system, not against individuals. Doctrinal truth, dispensational truth, and truth connected with the order of the Church on earth, are three divisions which I am accustomed to make, in treating of these subjects; and though I believe it is impossible for our minds to go wrong very widely on dispensational truth, without doctrinal truths in secondary minds being ultimately affected—yet I regard no one as a heretic, or unworthy of having his ministry received with all honor, who adheres to the doctrinal truth in which we find the primary ground of united labor.
"Perhaps I may make a few more remarks in another letter. For the present,
" Believe me, affectionately yours,
"B. W. Newton."
" April 18, 1845.
To Mr. Clulow.
The substance of these two letters is conflicting.
Digest of the First.
Mr. N. declared that he desired to make Plymouth a focus; and that his object was to have a union of testimony there against the teaching opposed to his views; and that he trusted to succeed in Devon, Somerset, etc.
[The virus of this is, in plain language, that Ebrington street is to be the citadel of a party adversative to the views of Brethren.]
Digest of the Second
While permitting others the same liberty as himself, Mr. N. means to fight for his own views against those of such as differ from him, and to endeavor to unite others in every place to do likewise.
[The essence of which is, that a man means to make a party every where he can against the views of the Brethren.]
(Will the saints not exclude the man who avows, and the party who sanctions, such sect-making intentions?)
I have printed these letters, as being in part the basis of the moral charge against Mr. Newton, to which I referred in a former tract, as the reason of my inability to recognize him as a teacher any where. I shall just restate the case in brief.
After a meeting in April 1845 (at which were fifteen brothers present), Mr. N. wrote a letter to Clulow, purporting to be an open and explicit statement of the sub- stance, or essence, of what he had said.
In that letter, since printed, most important expressions used by Mr. N. at that meeting, are not to be found.
That Mr. N. did use expressions of a very peculiar nature in the April meeting, which expressions, or their essence, are not in the Clulow letter, I cannot doubt.
1st. Because the account of that meeting, written to me by Mr. Darby, and the said letter to Clulow in manuscript, when I put them together into a brother's hand in London- in May 1845, drew forth the expression, " Any stranger would say, One of these is surely lying." This could not have been said if the letters were essentially the same.
2nd. Because, the majority of the fifteen have admitted that certain expressions were used by Mr. N., the essence of which is not in the Clulow letter.
3rd. Because one brother who was at that meeting went to Mr. N., after seeing the Clulow letter in circulation, and entreated him for his own sake to withdraw it, saying, " If any one asks me, I must say it is not truthful."
4th. Because the defense on the other side seems to me to break down. While almost all the fifteen admit that certain expressions were used, some of them maintain that what was said objectionable was to be qualified by the context, so as for its objectionable matter to be nullified. My answer to this is:-Mr. Newton has lately avowed, that the objectionable thing which you would nullify, is desirable now; and this desirable thing (was not only the objectionable matter you want to nullify, but) has been sought after and labored for by Mr. N. for many years past. The case stands, to my own mind, thus: N. has held and worked for a plan, B. S., for six years.
In a moment of unguardedness, in April, he said; " B. S. is my plan."
After saying so in April, he, in the same month, wrote, " B. R (and not B. S.) is my plan."
In December, it becomes plain that B. S. is his plan, and that it has been his plan for six years.
In such a case, I say, it is plain to me, that he said what he meant in April, though he did not mean to have said it.
When at Plymouth, I found Mr. N. was driving at one point, and admitted it to several as a thing which must come sooner or later, and the sooner the better; which thing agreed not with the Clulow letter, but with the statement of the other letter. He tenaciously retained Ebrington Street, and avowed he thought it impossible to go on beyond a certain point of time in fellowship of labor with those whose views he so much disapproved; and thought the separation desirable, as at once leaving him more free, and putting the prophetic rhapsodies, which he calls " the truth," into their rightful place of testimony. And further, Newton, as well as Dyer, Clulow and Batten, committed themselves thus far, that they said they think " a correct view of redemption is involved in their own views, and denied in the views they oppose;" which in principle commits them to the needs be, not only of a separation as to ministry, but as to communion. Upon this ground, then (viz. that the avowals in December were tantamount to the statements in April, and this has been confirmed by actions abundantly, since), I do, not consider the Clulow letter, in that it is not tantamount to the same, an honest statement.
I may just add, that I very well know Mr. Newton has written, and widely circulated (though in an underhanded manner) in manuscript, a paper explanatory of the apparent differences between his own letter to Mr. Clulow, and that of Mr. Darby's to me. This paper he read before me and others. This paper, most specious and artful as it is, contains to any simple mind, conversant with the facts, anything but an exculpation of himself: to such it proves, not untruthfulness only, but a jesuitical mode of acting, which is most painful. Feeling, when at Plymouth, that I should be asked by one and another my judgment upon the moral question of Mr. N.'s truthfulness or untruthfulness, arising from the conflicting statements of his own and Mr. D.'s letters; ands; being unwilling to give this my judgment as so unfavorable to him (an old friend of twenty years' standing), I wrote and told him so; and I' asked him for a copy of the manuscript referred to, feeling that if his own explanation of the differences made people say,. as to the moral charge, " Guilty", I should be more, free, than if they said so on my report.
I have felt called upon to give this statement, though it charges upon one who was called a brother the sin o lying, and the leaders of the congregation which shelters him, in the sin of sheltering lying; though, I am most grieved to say, it constitutes only a small part of the evidence adducible by me. I repeat here, most distinctly (what Mr. Newton and others have chosen to deny), that he told me, " that being of a congregation in London, I had no right to interfere to endeavor to settle troubles among Plymouth saints." This he did three several and distinct times; once by his own fire-side, once where I was lodging, and once before others elsewhere.
But I mug add, that the " Narrative" published by Mr. Darby seems to me to put the question upon other grounds, and in some measure, therefore, to neutralize this, because it makes the question not " Has—-told a lie, and not repented of it?" but rather, " Is not——led by a lying spirit, and, through a lengthened course of actions, trying to bring in something like Romanism?"
May the Lord of all mercy preserve and restore the sheep of his pasture. G. V. Wigram
October, 1846.
P.S. The two facts, 1st. that a congregation of two hundred have left Ebrington Street; and, 2nd. that men now disconnected from the place, as McAdam, Campbell, Hill, Hall, Potter, Harris and Naylor (cognizant of the facts) could not go to Ebrington Street, ought surely to lend weight among you to " The Narrative of Facts."
I declare plainly, that it seems to me wrong for those who know the facts of the case, to break bread with either Mr. Newton, or Messrs. Clulow, Soltau, Dyer, Batten; and much more so to sanction them as teachers under existing circumstances.
For myself; I would rather expose my family circle to the results of the friendly intercourse of any Irvingite teacher, or a Roman Catholic priest, than of any one of the five, though mourning and praying for all of them.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.