Darbyism: Its Rise and Development/Chapter 2

by Henry Groves

Layout 2

 

CHAPTER II.

It has been seen, how the hopes of many, who had watched with intense interest the development of a truth that might lead to the exhibition of a primitive christianity, had been blighted by all that had taken place in Plymouth in 1845; not from the springing up of erroneous doctrine, but from the introduction of principles of action subversive of the simplest rules of christian fellowship; wherein all are called to “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love.” God had weighed much profession of unity and fellowship in the balance of his sanctuary, and, having found it wanting, had openly shown it to be so, and those who were wise learned afresh, that man “at his best is only vanity.” “He that soweth to the flesh, whoever he might be, shall reap corruption,” and “he that soweth to the wind, shall reap the whirlwind,” and so it had proved.

The course adopted in Plymouth, in consequence of what had occurred in 1847, Mr. Darby and his party now set themselves to enforce on all saints, in any way associated with “the Brethren;” and the rules on which they had acted, were hereafter to become the church law of all those with whom alone henceforth they would hold fellowship. Thus they virtually introduced as a ground of communion, a test appointed by man; and those who saw whereunto this evil precedent would lead, set their faces stedfastly to resist it. The enforcing of such a line of action was possible only on the overthrow of those principles of fellowship which all still theoretically maintained.

More or less for some years, however, the notion of a corporate standing, and of a united action amongst all who held certain views, had taken the place of that simple and blessed principle of church fellowship once recognised, which enabled the saints of God to meet together on their own responsibility to their Lord, apart from any human rule or creed. The idea of being a body corporate and of acting as such, now filled the minds of some, who before would have shunned the thought; and whenever a corporate responsibility to man is assumed, it will ultimately set aside real responsibility to the Lord, and lead those under its influence to act on the judgment of others, apart from knowledge or conscience; which is subversive of all morality, and of all allegiance to Christ.

God so ordered it, that the anathemas which had divided the assemblies in Plymouth, should fall upon the saints assembling at Bethesda in Bristol, who had been gathered through the ministry of Messrs. Müller and Craik; with whom up to this time Mr. Darby had held full communion. As Bethesda formed the centre around which the storm was to gather, so was it in the grace of God, to become the bulwark of the original grounds, on which at the commencement “Brethren” met, of receiving all who love Christ. There was an open table for all saints, and an open ministry to all gifted of God, and there was also what most gatherings so sadly stood in need of, pastoral oversight and co-operation, touching the well-being of the saints.

From the prominence that Bethesda has occupied in these matters, a prominence alike unsought for and undesired, it will be necessary to say a few words in reference to it. The church meeting there did not own its origin in any wise to those who had been connected with Plymouth, though brethren coming from thence found a ready welcome to their fellowship and their ministry. Messrs. Müller and Craik had come from Devonshire to Bristol in 1832. When labouring together in Teignmouth, Mr. Müller had commenced the weekly breaking of bread connected with an open ministry, more than three months before any thing of the kind was known in Plymouth, and even while the majority of those who afterwards took the most prominent place there, were still members of the establishment, and when Mr. Darby, who had just arrived from Ireland, was preaching in the pulpit of the “Church of England.” In those early days it will be remembered by some still, how Mr. Müller preached the return of the Lord and inculcated those important principles of entire separation from the world, which then marked the teachings and the life of “the brethren” generally. There was also that practical walking by faith, in connexion with which Mr. Müller remarks in his life, that the example of Mr. A. N. Groves, who had just then gone to Bagdad, had greatly encouraged him. It is interesting to trace the early connection between these men of God, who were subsequently to be united in the flesh, as well as in the Lord, and who were to stand together as helpers in the conflict of 1848, of which we are about to write. Of Mr. Craik it may be well just to observe, that he had been between tho years 1826 and 1828, in Exeter, under the roof of Mr. Groves at the time when the mind of the latter was exercised about entering the ministry of the “Church of England,” and which he was obliged to give up, as the Lord had revealed to him the real character of a Christian ministry, and the true grounds of a Christian fellowship, which should be large enough to embrace all who love the Lord. These truths Mr. Groves feeling deeply the importance of, sought to impress on the minds of those over whom he had influence: so that as Mr. Craik said to the writer, “It was not at St. Andrews, it was not at Plymouth—it was at Exeter that the Lord taught me those lessons of dependence on Himself and of Catholic fellowship, which I have sought to carry out.” On these points Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik were fully in harmony, and which, through upwards of 36 years they laboured together to maintain, till the lamented death of the latter, which so lately took place. While Mr. Müller was at Teignmouth, Mr. Craik was at Shaldon, a village close by, where for some years he had been labouring for the Lord. It was there that they were first so drawn together, that when in 1832 it was proposed to Mr. Craik to come to Bristol, he only consented to.do so, on the condition that his brother and fellow-labourer would go there too. Bethesda Chapel was at that time for hire, and was taken for them by a gentleman who had heard Mr. Craik preach; and entering on its bare walls, they laboured together during a period of more than three and thirty years. This circumstance is mentioned, because of the false assertion often made, that the church at Bethesda was originally the remains of a Baptist congregation. These brethen belonged to no denomination, but brought to Bristol with them those views of church-fellowship and of faith, which had marked them in Devonshire, and which led to their being considered by both churchmen and dissenters, as men occupying the anomalous position of belonging to no party, and who without personal resources were content as it was said at the time, “to minister without salary, and to accommodate their hearers without pew rents.” But the Lord whom they served has these many years showed that “those who honor him he will honor,” so that it has been remarked that there was scarce a chapel of any Christian denomination in Bristol, where it would not be considered a privilege to enjoy their ministry, though in so very many ways differing from them. Mr. Craik often preached for others, and thus realised one of the objects proposed in earlier days, wherein it was desired that brethren by walking in grace towards all saints, should win their confidence in Christ, and thus have an opportunity of testifying to all, of the good things God had revealed to them. They sought “to let their words drop noiselessly as the dew,” and without attempting to set up a model assembly. The Lord has so caused the light of the saints gathered in fellowship to shine abroad, that persons from a distance have come to see and to be helped. on in the path of faith and in matters connected with church fellowship and ministry. Brethren ministering in Holland, Sweden, France, Portugal, and other places far and near, have come to learn the way of the Lord more perfectly, and to know the secret of that order, harmony, and fellowship, which has for so many years characterized them, It is further an interesting fact, that there are many assemblies meeting in the north of Ireland, the fruit of the late revival there, which owe their present liberty of church communion and ministry, to reading Mr. Müller’s Narrative; and one who is now with the Lord, and was used as the instrument in the Lord’s hand of the awakening in those parts, acknowledged to the writer when he met him at Kells in 1858, as he did subsequently in Bristol, that the sense of the reality of prayer which he had obtained from reading Mr. Müller's Narrative, led him to seek for that faith in reference to the conversion of sinners, which resulted in that wonderful revival which began in the north of Ireland eight years ago.

In 1832 the first seven members were received into fellowship in Bethesda. That year cholera broke out, and the Lord wonderfully blessed the ministry of the Word to the conversion of many a poor sinner, and from that small commencement has the Lord been adding continually to the church, till the number in fellowship at present stands about nine hundred. This is mentioned to show that the labors in the Lord of his servants have not been in vain, and it will not fail to be noticed by those who have much intercourse with the saints, particularly with the poorer class, how much the paths of practical godliness and of living faith, that have been taught and lived, have been owned of God, in leading them to follow in the footsteps of those who have sought to be examples to the flock in daily life, not only “in word,” but also “in behaviour, in charity, in faith, in purity.” Such was the position occupied by Bethesda, and Mr. Wigram after the disruption, in writing in reference to this time says, “Time was once when Bethesda was Nazarite in character, and derided by the world and by dissenters, and I gloried in fellowship with her reproach.”^[1] This testimony may have weight with those to whom the writer belongs.

When the troubles arose in Plymouth in 1845, the Bethesda brethren continued to act on their avowed principles of receiving all saints, and welcomed those who came from Mr. Newton’s meeting and those who came from Mr. Darby’s, without distinction. They sought to act in grace towards all, and in their determination to maintain independence of man, protested as much against subjection to one system as to another.

When, however, the second controversy arose in Plymouth in 1847, their position with respect to these parties was materially altered. The unsound views advocated by Mr. Newton rendered it necessary to exercise watchfulness and care in receiving those who came from under his teaching. On the other side, however, there could be no sympathy felt with Mr. Darby’s high-handed and unchristian course. If, however, it was felt needful to keep aloof from Mr. Newton’s teachings and Mr. Darby’s actings, it must not be supposed the brethren in Bristol had been idle spectators of the sad events that were then taking place in Plymouth. The disruption there had from the first been to the leading brethren in Bristol a matter of the most profound regret, and deep heart-felt sorrow. It was again and again brought before the Lord in prayer and confession, that if possible he would rise on behalf of his people and heal the breaches Satan had caused. The Brethren thus stirred up to pray sought to learn the lesson God would teach, but they earnestly desired, if possible, to preserve the saints with whom they worshipped, from having anything whatever to do with the unholy strife that was going on; and for this no one will blame them, who knows the withering effect such controversies have, on all spirituality and all godliness even ordinarily, and far more so when carried on in the spirit that had been manifested in Plymouth. While this was the desire of the brethren generally, there were a few who sympathized very strongly with Mr. Darby, and from the commencement were earnest in their endeavours to induce the Brethren in Bethesda to take up and carry out his views, and enforce his discipline; but the brethren were immovable, determined to meet each case as it might arise in the grace the Lord might give, and not to bring the discussion of the controversy before the saints as a body.

In April, Colonel and Mr. Woodfall arrived at Bristol, and, as usual, desired fellowship, having for years at different times broken bread at Bethesda, whenever coming into the neighbourhood. Those acting with Mr. Darby, objected to their being received, because they were known to be friends of Mr. Newton, though holding none of his peculiar views. Col. W. was, however, ultimately received, as he had been lately abroad while the recent events had been going on in Plymouth; but as the objections against Mr. Woodfall were stronger, it was determined by the leading brethren that he should be visited, and, that there might be no supposed partiality in his favour, the three brethren before alluded to, those most opposed to his reception, were requested to call and see him, so as to satisfy their minds as to the soundness of his views. He was visited, and at length received on the testimony of those brethren, as there was no scriptural ground for refusing him the rights of Christian fellowship.

At a subsequent meeting of the brethren, however, those three brethren complained that the examination had been put upon them, and further, that the Church had taken the credit of the investigation. To this Mr. Craik, who was present, replied, that their being appointed to enquire into the matter, had been suggested by himself, and he had this comfort in it, that it got rid of the difficulties that would have arisen otherwise. If he himself had gone, it might have been said he had had an intimacy of years with Mr. Woodfall; and even if Mr. Müller had joined him in the investigation, it might have been said that their apprehension of the evil was so inadequate, that they were incompetent to deal with it. He therefore felt, that, when those three brethren went, who were most opposed to the admission, and most awake to its apprehended evils, that, if they were satisfied, all would be so; and as to their act being justly considered and assumed as the act of the body, he remarked that as they were all acting as one body, and as the particular step had been approved of by all the labouring brethren, they were fully justified in assuming this decision, as in any other case, to be the act of the body. Mr. Meredith, and another brother present at the meeting, confirmed Mr. Craik’s view of the matter, by saying that they had been satisfied in receiving both Mr. Woodfall and his brother into communion, on these three brethren stating that they could not further object to their being admitted.

Besides Colonel and Mr. Woodfall, two others, and two others only, regarded by some as partizans of Mr. Newton, were received, after full examination as to the soundness of their faith, notwithstanding their personal regard for Mr. Newton; and these were a Mrs. Brown and a Miss Hill. On this matter Lord Corigleton writes,

“It is manifest that persons known as holding Mr. Newton’s errors, have never been received in Bethesda. Four persons known as friends of Mr. Newton’s, and as disallowing that he holds the doctrines laid to his charge, have been received, but never have any persons known as holding Mr. Newton’s errors been received into communion.”^[2]

This statement, made in June, 1849, after having made all enquiries at the time, and confirmed as it is by those now in fellowship, is of importance, because contrary statements have been again and again put forth, which would seek to link Bethesda with all the errors and evils of Plymouth. Only one person holding Mr. Newton’s errors, ever even applied for fellow ship at Bethesda—a cousin of his own, who on being examined by Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, was found to hold the views in question, and was consequently not received.

Whatever may have been at any time assigned as the ground of complaint against Bethesda, the real ground all along has been, their determined resistance to the dictation of man in the things of God. They would not surrender their liberty in Christ, nor subject their views of right and wrong to the rule of another man’s conscience, however much he might claim the guidance of the Spirit; whose assumed guidance every godly mind must disown, when the fruits of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, truth, are wanting; for we have been told, that the prophet is to be judged of, not by the authority he assumes, but by the fruits he manifests, for God would have us regard “not the speech of those who are puffed up, but the power.”

About the 20th of April, 1848, after the reception of Col. Woodfall and his brother, Mr. Darby came to Bristol, and as usual called on Mr. Müller, by whom he was asked to preach the following Sunday evening at Bethesda. This is mentioned as shewing that up to this time no breach between Mr. D. and Bethesda had taken place. In the intercourse between them, nothing passed that indicated the contemplation of the course that a few days later Mr. Darby initiated. Mr. Darby stated his inability to preach in Bethesda, having previously engaged to preach somewhere on his road to Exeter. It was there, for the first time, not manys days after, that he intimated publicly at a large meeting of labouring brethren, that he could no more go to Bethesda because the Woodfalls had been received. All were not prepared for this hasty manner of withdrawal, and it was asked whether any intimation had been given to those concerned, before so solemn an act as separation took place. This, as we have seen, had not been done; though subsequently, on the remonstrance of others, Mr. D. did write a letter from Exeter to Mr. Müller, intimating his decision in the matter, and thus closed the fellowship which for years had been maintained. We are now painfully accustomed to these acts of wholesale schism, at the hands of the originators and followers of this Darbyite discipline; but in those days, notwithstanding all that had taken place in Plymouth, it seemed a strange and unheard-of procedure, and led to remonstrance from all sides. But the die had been cast, the course had been determined on, and it was evident there would be no drawing back.

The demand made on Bethesda was, that there should be a Church investigation of Mr. Newton’s views, and a Church condemnation of them, and Mr. Darby expressed his determination to remain in separation from them till that was carried out. Amongst those in fellowship at this time, who were active supporters of Mr. D.’s opinion, we need only mention by name Mr. Alexander, who, with two others, were the three brethren already alluded to. Repeatedly did these three brethren seek to induce the other brethren to meet the demand; again and again was it brought by them before the Friday meeting, but the more the matter was looked into the more unadvisable did the step appear, for various reasons, which will be stated at length hereafter. These reasons, however, did not satisfy Mr. Alexander and his friends, who still contended that the question ought to be taken up by the church, and that they found their consciences compromised if they did nothing. To this it was replied, that they were quite at liberty to call a meeting of the church at any time, and to bring the whole matter forward, but that they ought to respect the consciences of their brethren, and not require of them to join in what they conscientiously regarded, as calculated to have a most injurious effect on the minds of the saints at large, leading them into vain and unholy speculations. This proposition, however, was objected to, and at length at their last meeting Mr. Alexander said that he would waive the question, and it was supposed it was given up. It was, then, with no little surprise when two or three days after, without any intimation of such a course, Mr. Alexander’s letter was issued addressed to the brethren meeting at Bethesda, and announcing that he had withdrawn from fellowship, while in reference to those from whom he separates, he writes in the letter “I desire to state that I have met none here whom I do not love individually, and desire to love, and cannot be separated from as individuals, and some whom I must ever very highly esteem in love for their work’s sake.” Did the Apostle ever separate from such? Let the whole testimony of the word answer this solemn question: but alas! how rapidly does the spirit of separation spread as an unholy leaven, that mars and defiles all under its influence. That spirit which led Mr. Darby and those with him , to separate from Ebrington Street in 1845, leads Mr. Alexander and others, to separate from Bethesda in 1848.

The reasons assigned by Mr. Alexander for secession were: firstly, that many of the Lord’s people may be excluded from fellowship for conscience sake; secondly, that persons may come in from Plymouth holding these doctrines; and thirdly, there may be a suspicion of supporting a doctrine that dishonors Christ. He thus withdraws, not on the ground of any thing that had taken place, but because he feared one or all of three things might take place. This letter was printed and a copy of it sent to all in fellowship. The result of this was, that the minds of very many were tried and some were painfully exercised at the charge of indifference to the honor of Christ, brought against those whom they looked up to as their leaders. This called forth much prayer, and after hours of waiting upon the Lord in the matter, it was deemed advisable that the laboring brethren should state to the church the grounds on which they had acted ; and that they might express their collective judgment the more unitedly, it was thought advisable to give expression to their views in a written statement, to be signed by all the ten brethren who had principally taken part in the matter. This document was to be neither a creed, nor a church rule: it was to lay down no course of procedure for the future; it contained no authoritative rule of faith, but was intended only to state the reasons that led those signing it, to refuse to bring certain views before the Church at large, and to have a formal church judgment expressed on them.

As this letter has been made use of to cause and to maintain a separation among fellow-saints throughout the world, we feel it necessary to give it in full, and to append such observations and explanations as may meet the difficulties of those who seek candidly to know the real merits of the case. There are others whom we scarce hope to influence, but even these are not beyond the reach of the hand of the God of truth, and to him we would commend them and to his tender care. Before going into this matter, we raise, however, one solemn protest against the principle involved, that brethren are justified in making an act done or left undone eighteen years ago, a ground for maintaining a separation now, as if God holds saints responsible for all acts performed by a church in time past. If this is to be the basis of communion, where can it exist; and better far go back to creeds and confessions and receive all who subscribe to them, than maintain a system that will oblige all to assent to all done by others as its ground. In the dread of consequences, under a present danger, many may be almost excused for extreme measures, their fears magnify the danger; but when well nigh twenty years have past, and the danger of complicity with errors then current in Plymouth has passed away, can these brethren justify a present separation on the ground of a document that, with the occasion, passed away also—a record of the past, necessarily now null and void, because it contained no rule for future guidance, and expressed no obligation on the conscience of any, either to approve the past, or to enforce concurrence in any similar line of action for the future. The letter may have been right, may have been wrong; in neither case can scriptural warrant be found for separation, while those acting on it were acting in all good conscience; but even could any ground be found to justify the separation of Mr. Alexander and his friends at the time, under the magnified apprehensions of the probable inroads of false doctrine, what shall be found as an excuse to warrant the maintenance of such a course now; and we would entreat all those implicated in these divisions, and whose hearts may yet mourn for the separations and discord everywhere, for the Lord’s sake, that now, after so many years of sorrow, the question at issue be again weighed, in its present bearing, and judged of, not by the embittered memories of the past, but in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present.

We now give “The Letter of the Ten” in full, adding a few remarks as we proceed. The letter was addressed to those who were in fellowship, and was read out at a church meeting in Bethesda, June 29th, 1848.

“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 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 having 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 amongst 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 experience, as well as in His external character, He was ‘entirely separate from sinners.’

This preamble shows how clearly those who signed the letter, had perceived the tendencies of the views in question, and how fully and carefully, as those placed “to guard the sheep,” they had set themselves on their watch, to maintain sound teaching touching the Person of the Blessed Lord, whether as to His perfect Godhead, or spotless and perfect manhood, which had been jeopardized in more ways than one. In this they sought to pursue the divine plan of bringing the Light of living truth to bear on the consciences of the saints, and thus fortify them against the inroads of heresy; taking the shield of faith to ward off the distant arrow of the enemy in the first instance, as afterwards to protect against the sword of a hand to hand conflict, when demanded by circumstances that might arise. God’s great safeguard against falsity is truth, his remedy against darkness is light. One by no means friendly to Bethesda, writes that this part of the letter is “in fact a reply to Mr. Newton’s errors seriatim,” whose testimony in the matter is of value, as he was one who had perhaps as much to say to the matter in the first instance as any one. This was just what this part of the letter was designed to be, a solemn protest against those views which it was not thought expedient to disturb the minds of the saints about, as long as it was possible to keep them outside.

The Letter further says:—

“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.”

This clause tells us what they could not consent to, viz., formally to investigate and as a church pass judgment; and to this we would give special prominence, because by some the question at issue between the Ten, and Mr. Alexander and those with him, has been entirely misunderstood. It has been assumed that this letter contained a refusal of the leading Brethren to investigate for themselves the evil doctrines at Plymouth, so as to enable them to keep out the evil should it arise amongst, or come into the midst of those in fellowship. We have already noticed that the evil tendencies of this teaching were fully appreciated, and a very clear judgment arrived at in reference to them; but what was demanded was something very different, it was that the matter should be formally investigated, and judgment given on it. It was this and this only that was objected to, and this point we will notice again hereafter. It was felt a solemn thing to commit the church to a “formal judgment” on a matter as yet not immediately connected with them, involving an act of excommunication on one or more, who had been looked up to as Christians for years. To those who with a wholesale excommunication are accustomed to cut off alike the precious and the vile, the godly sensitiveness of those who shrunk from passing sentence of condemnation formally as a church, may not be under stood. This official church declaration as to the heresy, and as to the manner of treating those who upheld it, was that which was demanded as pre-requisite for fellowship. We ask, can this be demanded on scriptural authority of any body of elders, in regard to false doctrines which may have arisen outside the fellowship of the Light of the Candlestick in which they individually stand, and beyond the bounds of the individual assembly to which they belong? We think not. That elders should seek an insight into dangerous forms of error that may be spreading, so as to be able to guide, and warn, and admonish all connected with them, is admitted on all sides, as demanded by the position they hold as shepherds over the flock; and it must be allowed that this letter affords abundant proof, that Mr. Müller, Mr. Craik, and those with them, were alive to the dangerous statements that had been made.

We now take up the nine reasons given in this letter for not pronouncing a judicial church sentence on Mr. Newton and his views, and shall append a few remarks under each head.

“1st. 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.”

This clause has been objected to, because it is said to deny the unity of the body. That there were no seclusive principles intended to be advocated in this letter, is plain from the desire expressed a little lower down , “to maintain fellowship with all believers;” and to be “particularly associated with those who meet, as we we do, simply in the Name of the Lord Jesus.” Surely there is no separating of themselves in an unholy isolation here; and if in some measure they have been forced into isolation, by some of their brethren who would judge for them, as to the course they ought to have pursued, it has been occupied in sorrow of heart. They have sought in spirit fellowship with Elijah, when he built bis altar of “twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob,” and to enter into the spirit of Daniel’s prayer and confessions, realizing their oneness with all saints in their conflicts, sorrows and failings. The assertion here made is merely that “we in Bristol,” i.e. the church meeting in Bethesda, are not ipso facto bound to investigate “as a body,” what is done in Plymouth; and further, that the only grounds on which they could feel themselves justified to take church action on that or any matter, would be that it was demanded either by what was needed for “the comfort or edification of the saints” in Bristol, or for “the glory of God.” There is neither expressed nor implied, a desire on the part of the leaders, to stand aloof from the trials of many tried ones in Plymouth; but it was earnestly and persistently maintained, that evil, and only evil, could result from bringing these matters before the church, as long as almost all were in happy ignorance of what had wrought such untold sorrow elsewhere, and brought such sad dishonour upon the Lord. Before it can be demanded of those “in Bristol,” to investigate and judge corporately what was taking place in Plymouth, we require proof from scripture that such a demand is made by Christ upon churches meeting in His name. From the Epistles to the Seven Churches, we assuredly gather, that while each church is held responsible most solemnly and earnestly to keep out evil, and to walk in separation to the Lord in life and doctrine, no external jurisdiction is allowed; but if brethren think otherwise, we beseech them before the Lord, not to allow oneness of mind on the relative standing of one assembly to another, to become a ground for breaking up all fellowship, and for denying the very truth sought to be maintained. The unity of the body is an out-growing of the unity of the spirit, and every attempt to make the former, will end only in confusion, or in lifeless formalism; it will be, as Mr. Darby has already told us, “Popery or Dissent at once.” We have dwelt on this at some length, because a valued brother strongly opposed to the principles he thinks are contained in this letter, writes in reference to this subject, “This is to my mind the main question at issue.” We believe it to be so, and have no doubt that had correct views been held by all concerned, on the relation of one church to another on earth, we should never have seen the counter opinion develope itself into a claim to stand as “the one assembly of God.” We are not surprised that those who have fallen into this delusion, should hate a letter that resists that principle on which their claim rests. But the poison of this doctrine has been drunk into more or less by many who abhor its developed manifestation, and who therefore object to the position taken by those in Bristol in this matter.

“2nd. 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, or who are sup posed 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 impressions of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatise writen by himself, and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there has been such variabless in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.”

The reason here given for refusing a church investigation is the variableness of the views upheld, added to which there was this increased difficulty in ascertaining “what Mr. Newton would now acknowledge,” that the tracts had been withdrawn for reconsideration; and this uncertainty as to his exact views was not cleared up till some weeks afterwards, when he issued another tract, in which he re-asserted most of his erroneous views, though in a somewhat modified form. Surely this was ground enough to suspend the giving a church condemnation of any person: nay, should it not be regarded as unchristian to deal in any other way under such circumstances, hoping, if possible, the offender might recover himself out of the snare into which he had fallen. Would not even a right -minded natural conscience itself dictate the course taken as the only righteous one at the time? for “the mere natural conscience,” we are told, (see page 18) will often express a righteous judgment on the conduct of the saints, when in them “the influence of the enemy has taken the place of conscience.”

“3rd. 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.”

The ambiguity of the style is the reason here given for shrinking from giving a “formal judgment;” and while this was a reason for increased watchfulness, as Satan ever makes use of the ambiguous to deceive, like the Adelphi oracle, those who put their trust in it, it was all the stronger reason why there should be caution and wisdom, before a church condemnation and excommunication should be brought to bear on one, who might be a man whose heart was right with God, though led away for a while by an intellectualism that has so often proved the bane of many a child of God. May all saints remember that judgment is “a strange work,” and while often essential to faithfulness and loyalty to Christ, can never be entered on by one in a right state of soul, but with a holy shrinking and dread; for who are we to sit in judgment? and yet we are to judge those who are within, as Corinth had to judge those within its local fellowship.

“4th. 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 be naturally led to wish to peruse the writings for themselves. For this, many amongst us have no leisure time; many would not be able to understand what the tracts contain, because of the mode of expression employed; and the result, there is much reason to fear, would be such perverse disputations and strife of words, as minister questions rather than godly edifying.”

The saints in fellowship in Bethesda had not been trained into a blind acquiescence in the decision of one or two leading brethren, and that which has become so inveterate a practice and rule of procedure among Mr. Darby’s followers, had met with no countenance either among the leaders or in the church at large—a practice which will ever demoralize those under its influence by binding the decisions of the few on the consciences of the many, in matters of which they know nothing, and yet on the ground of which they are compelled to act. What the church in Bethesda would be called on to condemn, the church would feel called upon to investigate, as was fully proved when at the end of the same year, the elders and the whole church met, considered and condemned the doctrine here alluded to, in meetings at which some of the brethren, but little known, spoke with a clear perception of the tendencies of the views in question, which would surprise those who judge for the church, and keep “the sheep” in entire ignorance of what the matter to be judged is, who often answer an enquiry by an appeal to God, and a half uttered “awful! blasphemy!” which leaves the enquirer in absolute ignorance of the awful thing he is called to acquiesce in the judgment of others about, while the terrible words are passed about from mouth to mouth, and the accuser of the brethren rejoices in a defamation of christian character, a spiritual cannabalism, from which upright hearts and consciences must ever shrink with abhorrence, and that the more intense, when it is palmed off on the honor of God and the glory of Christ!!

Perverse disputations that minister questions, it was wisely deemed advisable to keep outside as long as it was possible to do so. The moment such things creep in, they have to be dealt with as grace and obedience to the Lord may dictate, when a godly decision in action, must take the place of a former watchful vigilance that seeks, if possible, to keep the plague outside, which nothing so tends to introduce, as discussions beforehand.

“5th. 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.”

Let those who allowed Mr. Newton’s views to ripen gradually so long before 1848, answer the question suggested here. Let them answer it who would, alas, have been rejoiced to have found him as great a heretic in 1845 as they found him out to be two or three years afterwards. The fact is, Mr. N. was not alone responsible for those views which he first brought into unfortunate prominence, and which have since been matured by Mr. Darby himself, in that class of sufferings, which he would make the Lord to pass through, of which the New Testament knows nothing.

“6th. 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.”

For a full explanation of this clause, we refer to a letter written by Mr. Craik in 1849, given hereafter,^[3] in which he states that the invariable practice was, for persons coming from known heretical teachers not to be received, except on the renunciation of the errors, and the relinquishing of fellowship with the false teacher. This had been the course pursued for the sixteen years before the letter was written, and has been the course pursued the eighteen years that have succeeded. And surely the practice of saints for thirty-four years should satisfy any upright mind, even if, in the judgment of some, ambiguity may attach itself to the expressions here made use of; and yet some are not wanting who affirm that this clause would open the door to socinianism or any other form of known heresy! The passage as it stands has an exclusive reference to the “author of the tracts,” about whose real views there was both uncertainty and ambiguity; and surely the Righteous Lord who loves righteousness—He who ever discerns between things that differ, and remembers the “some good thing” found in a son of Jeroboam, would never regard those who held fellowship with Mr. Newton, ignorant of his views, or denying that he ever held what was imputed to him, as he would regard those who went to, and had fellowship with a Socinian whose views are avowed and known. In saying this we make no allusion to the unrighteousness of placing side by side with a Socinian, a man who held alike the perfect Godhead and the immaculate Manhood of the Lord Jesus. The tendencies of certain teachings may often be dreaded, but judgment can only be passed when acting on the written word, we can judge of tendencies by fruits. There was in the present case every call for caution and care in connexion with Plymouth, and this was not wanting; for the course pursued in Bethesda was to examine all who came from thence, on whom any suspicion rested of being in any way implicated in the new doctrines promulgated, and more than that, it was not deemed advisable to do in the present state of the case. It is easy to execute a wholesale excommunication,—it needs only a high hand and a hard heart; but it requires much patient forbearance and grace, to exercise a holy, righteous, discriminating discipline in the fear of God, treating the saints of God as they are treated by Him, and as He commands us to treat them, not promiscuously as a whole, but patiently one by one: “of some having compassion making a difference,” and “some saving with fear, pulling them out of the fire.”

“7th. 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.”

We will only further observe here how distinctly those who have been stigmatized as careless in preserving the sanctity of Church fellowship, and of the Lord’s table, maintain to the fullest extent, the necessity of a sound confession of faith, as well as of a corresponding holiness in walk; for it has been asserted , that, while laxity in morals is carefully watched against in Bethesda, laxity in doctrine is thought little of. Nothing can be more false, and more contrary to simple matters of fact which continually occur, to prove the extreme sensitiveness of the leading brethren in every matter affecting vital truth. It was feared that this requirement to judge would become a test of communion, and so it has proved in the case of all who have bowed their necks to the yoke of Mr. Darby’s anti-christian discipline. This result, which was inevitable from the course pursued, Bethesda instinctively shrunk from; and in order to preserve their simplicity as it is in Christ, determined to keep themselves clear of all and every objection, general or particular, that the Word of God bound not upon their own individual conscience. This at once led them to reject the command to judge a matter as they were told, “because the Church had judged it,” the argument ever made use of by Popery, to enforce its decrees—the Church ever being in every case the same, “Those who think as we do.”

“8th. 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 judged 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 it distinctly to be understood, that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers; and we consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply the name of the Lord Jesus.”

The dread of strife in the things of God, especially connected with that which belonged to the Holiest of Holies, every godly soul instinctively shrinks from, and this is stated as a reason for avoiding the controversy. But this clause contains an unpardonable crime, in the eye of the domineering spirit that prevailed, and that is, the bold avowal of wishing to belong neither to the party of Mr. Newton, nor to that of Mr. Darby. It was too independent a place to be tolerated for a moment by those incipiently aspiring to the exalted position of “the one Assembly,” that was to be ruled over by some Diotrephes or other, one or more. There is no greater crime than independence with certain minds, and hence the cry of “independence” so often raised against Bethesda. Mr. Wigram in reference to this, writes “The aim of Bethesda is still to make a party positively apart from us all, and apart, I judge too, from Mr. Newton.”^[4] And yet this clanse states in the strongest terms, the earnest desire of the brethren in Bethesda, not only for general fellowship with all saints, but for particular and special fellowship with those who meet simply in the name of the Lord Jesus. There was no desire to make a party, but in the earnest godly desire to avoid it, they sought to keep aloof from the quarrel going on; but not to keep aloof from any, anywhere, who loved the Lord Jesus, seeking amidst the strife to maintain their catholic position; but even for this, they could allow of no compromise of principles, no conceding to man of that which they felt bound to concede to the Head of the Church only ; for it was seen that the demand made in this matter, was a secret device of the great enemy, to introduce principles of subjection to man in opposition to that on the ground of which, they had hitherto maintained their standing, as above not only all traditions of men, as also above all commandments of men.

“9th. 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.”

As to the “right to demand” an examination of fifty pages, or of five hundred, written by persons at a distance, we refer to what we have already written. It may be wise and right to do so, it may be otherwise; but we can concede no right to demand anything of the kind. We will, however, remark, that it would have been well if all assemblies of saints had given themselves to the “more important service” of examining their own ways and hearts in the light of the sanctuary, and prayerfully watching over the life and walk, the doctrine and the faith, of those committed by God to their care, rather than in wasting precious time in oftentimes vain investigations of things that take place a hundred miles off, and in futile examinations of books and papers, the product of some speculative mind, whose speculations, in a very few years, have become among the dead and buried follies of the past. Some have objected to the expression “other people’s errors,” as if it implied that they were those with whom Bethesda had nothing to do. This contradicts the terms of the whole letter, and the practice of the church, which would ever seek interest in all that interests the weakest of the Lord’s little ones; but an interest in the whole family of God is one thing, and a demand to judge is another.

“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 among 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 enquiry 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 ecial 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.”

These paragraphs seem so fully to answer Mr. Alexander’s reasons for withdrawing from Bethesda, that we need add nothing further than to remind all saints that they cannot separate from their fellow saints, either by refusing to go to them, or by refusing to receive them, without setting aside the basis of communion given us in the Word, the power of which is the Name of Jesus, and the title to which is His precious blood which makes the foulest clean, our only title whether in heaven or on earth, and what God has cleansed, it is not for us to call common or unclean.

“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 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)

Henry Craik,Edmund Feltham,
George Müller,John Withy,
Jacob Henry Hale,Samuel Butler,
Charles Brown,John Meredith,
Elijah Stanley,Robert Aitcheson.

Happy would it have been for all, had the caution given in the opening sentence of the last paragraph been borne in mind; and henceforth may all remember the Lord’s word to Moses, when in the presence of the burning bush, he turned aside to gaze, “Put thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”

The letter was read to the church, with full and ample explanations verbally given to clear up any difficulty that might arise. When published afterwards by Mr. Wigram,^[5] with his animadversions on the “Present Question,”—animadversions in tone and character which we will leave to Another to pass sentence on—the explanations that accompanied the letter could not be given, and Mr. Maunsell and others sought an explanation of two points, the only ones that seemed to them of importance. They had interviews with the Bethesda brethren on the matter, of which Mr. M. writes, “The labouring brethren in Bristol, in reply to my letter to them, kindly gave me several hours’ conversation, in company with other brethren from Bath. Our difficulty with them was not as to what should be done in relation to the judgment of errors and departure from unsound assemblies, but rather to convince them that their letter involved certain principles and modes of action contrary to what they then avowed, and as now stated in Mr. Craik’s letter to me.”

The letter alluded to is as follows:—

“Bristol, Monday, Nov. 25, 1849.

“My Dear Brother,

“In reply to your letter of inquiry, touching certain points contained in what has been called the ‘Letter of the Ten,’ I beg to remark that, although we did not consider the fact of error having been taught at Plymouth, or elsewhere, as a sufficient reason for our bringing the matter before the body here, yet I fully allow that, if we were satisfied that the well-being of the saints here required our investigating and judging any particular form of error, it would be our duty to do so.

“In reference to the objection against our paper, grounded on the statement that, ‘even 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 unsound,’ I beg to remark that, in all ordinary cases, and as a general rule of action, persons coming from a known heretical teacher, would not be received amongst us, except on the understanding that they had renounced his errors, and relinquished the body amongst whom the false doctrine was taught and maintained.

“During these seventeen years past this has been our mode of acting; neither do I know of a single instance in which persons, previously connected with heretical bodies, have applied to us for communion, and been received amongst us without, by that very act, relinquishing the connexion with their former associates. This has been the general understanding amongst us during these seventeen years past.

“I am satisfied that the other brethren who labour amongst us accord with the explanations I have just given.

“Hoping that these explanations may be satisfactory,

“I remain, my dear Brother, yours affectionately in Christ,

“To T. M. Bath.

“HENRY CRAIK.”

This letter confirms the remarks made before, that the whole question was, the propriety of bringing the matter before the body, and is of importance in reference to the two points to which objection had been made.

We conclude these remarks with an extract from some notes taken at the tie of a meeting (which took place June 30th, 1850) between several brethren from a distance, and Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, and the other brethren. In reply to questions put to them the following answers were given:

“We never published the letter of the Ten. It was read to the church with explanations, and it was unjust to circulate it without those explanations. We deny its being a church standard. It was written because of certain circumstances, at a certain time, as stated at the outset, for the purpose of giving reasons why we had not complied with Mr. Alexander’s request, and judged the errors corporately. We acknowledge no rule but the Word of God. We cannot tell what course we should adopt under particular circumstances, unless it is definitively pointed out in the Word. We leave ourselves to the guidance of the Spirit at the time.”^[6]

To those who complain that the letter was obscure in its meaning, it ought to be borne in mind, as stated above, that it was given to the church and accepted with such explanation: as were then afforded, and that therefore, those who signed or accepted it are not responsible for what has resulted from the use that has been made of it.

Shortly after the reading of the Letter of the Ten to the church, Mr. Darby came again to Bristol, and had an interview with both Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, in which he again urged the taking up of the tracts by Bethesda, and passing a church condemnation on them. The reasons already given were repeated, and finding their judgments were not to be changed, he sought to intimidate by the threat of separating from them all those believers in other places, with whom for years they had held christian fellowship. Those who have learnt to have to do with God alone, are not easily to be moved by either the persuasions or the threats of man. They stand on a Rock and allow the waves to beat around. Having failed to induce these brethren to carry out his wishes, he started off on his unholy errand, and surely “destruction and misery have been in his ways.” At one place as in Stafford he led those meeting there into his views, at another as in Kendal, he failed. From one place to another he went, sowing discord and strife, seeking to enforce everywhere the adoption of his course towards Bethesda, which has, in its consequences, and in the miseries it has caused, cast into the shade all that had taken place in Plymouth. Assemblies of saints, one after another, were placed under the bann of excommunication, for no other sin than not being able to see that Mr. Darby was right, and Bethesda wrong. The eyes of many ran down with tears, and the hearts of many were broken, at this proud, high-handed dealing with the consciences of others, and this trampling in the dust the rights of every conscience but its own.

There are few matters of controversy where there is not a call for some forbearance and gentleness, but as if in the present case, the maximum of virtue and love was, to believe nothing, to hope nothing, and to bear nothing, we find Mr. Darby, on reaching Leeds, writing, and with one stroke of his pen in his lithographic circular from thence, bearing the post mark of August 26th, 1848, by which he cut off not only Bethesda, but all assemblies who received any one who went there. “I” he writes, “should neither go to Bethesda in its present state, nor while in that state, go where persons from it were willingly admitted; for this,” he adds, “involves the whole question of association with Brethren.” In all these actings of Mr. Darby one is struck with the entire absence of all that “corporate action,” so demanded and so boasted in. The moment any act of importance has to be performed, the very semblance of a corporate church responsibility is set aside, and the entire guidance of the Spirit is made virtually to centre in his own individual person. “I should not go to, nor receive from Bethesda” is quite sufficient, and on this have most of those been acting, who would now claim an individual conscience in the matter.

In the primitive church, when a matter touching the welfare of the church at large was taken up by the Apostles, after a solemn meeting of the elders and of the whole church in the name of their Master, they say “It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” acting under the highest and only commission the church has ever known; but in the present instance, as if Spirit and Apostle, church and council, all centred in one man, Mr. Darby writes in the first person, and says that obedience in the matter involves “the whole question of Brethren.” It doubtless involves the whole question of the party who have submitted themselves to the control of him who utters it, but God be praised that His church is bound to no such assumption, and gives allegiance to no such decretal.

In this circular, Mr. Darby in the face of all that he knew of the facts of the case, makes the following statements, charging Bethesda with “diligently seeking to extenuate and palliate Mr. Newton's doctrine;” with “admitting persons holding them;” with “receiving active and unceasing agents of Mr. Newton, holding and justifying his views;” and lastly, with having “formally and deliberately admitted these doctrines.” We have a God to deal with who is emphatically a God of truth, and by him will all these false statements be weighed, which, passing current under the sanction of the name of their author, have withered up and blighted all those spiritual affections which grow only in the loving exercise of that divine charity which “rejoices in truth,” and, without possessing which, a man may “give his body to be burned, and his goods to feed the poor,” and it profit him nothing; or he may “understand all mysteries and all knowledge,” and yet be “nothing” after all. When this thirteenth of first of Corinthians in the light of heaven shall be brought to bear on all this fearful untruthfulness at the judgment seat of Christ, we shall then know His thoughts and hear His verdict.

1. See “Present Question, p. 35.”
2. See “Bristol Case,” by Lord Congleton, p. 3.
3. See page 46.
4. Letter bearing post mark Feb. 2 , 1849, see “The Bath Case, p. 10,” printed by Eyles, Brighton.
5. The following remarks on the Letter of the Ten, and on Mr. Wigram’s comments on it, in the “Present Question,” as written about the time, we here give in a note, as a co-temporary witness, which may be of value.
   “We could write much in reference to this paper, ‘The Letter of the Ten,’ and to the notes and comments annexed to it in the ‘Present Question,’ but we cannot trust ourselves to compare the holy calmness and scriptural reasoning of the text, with the unhallowed rage and unauthorized dogmatism of the commentator. Suffice it to say, that this much abused letter contains not a sentence on which a candid mind can found the charge of adherence of any kind, or in any degree, to the heresy. Its chief object is to state the causes of the unwillingness of those who signed it to lay the subject before the church. Any one is at liberty to differ from these brethren in judgment, and to think that under the circumstances of the case, it might have been better, out of condescension to weak brethren, to resign themselves to the painful task of examining the errors in question; but let it be remembered that these brethren were occupied with far nobler and more useful labors, and that having sat at the feet of that Teacher whose commandment is “Love one another,” they naturally shrunk from following in the footsteps of those who beginning with apparent zeal for the honor of the great Head of the Church, had ended with heaping abuse on the members of His body, and with bringing some of the bitterest fruits of the flesh,—anger, wrath, malice, clamour, and evil-speaking,—to a perfection, which, happily, is seldom to be found among those who profess to follow Christ.”—From a tract entitled “Prove All Things, &c.,” p.p. 4, 5, published by Partridge and Oakey, Paternoster Row, London, 1850.
6. See Appendix A, where a letter of Mr. Craik’s on this subject is given.