Darbyism: Its Rise and Development/Chapter 3
CHAPTER III.
We now come to the second stage of the inquiry in connexion with Bethesda. The charges made by Mr. Darby and his party were: 1st, that Mr. Newton’s doctrines and those holding them, had been admitted into fellowship, and 2ndly, that, as a church, they had refused to judge and condemn the tracts. The first charge we have shown to have been without foundation, and as for the second, the course had been justified for the reasons given in the “Letter of the Ten.” Towards the latter end of the year, however, the aspect of things had altered. By the unceasing efforts of the Darby party, the tracts which in April, May, and June, were comparatively unknown, had been so circulated, that all had become more or less conversant with the subject; and the brethren were further charged with indifference to the Lord’s honor in connexion with the introduction of error. The result of this was, that the minds of very many were disturbed and perplexed. The discussion of questions which it had been wished to prevent, had thus been introduced by the actings of others, over whom the Bethesda brethren had no influence. In July, 1818, also had appeared another tract of Mr. Newton’s, in which the erroneous statements of the tracts then under reconsideration had been reproduced, only in a somewhat modified form. This removed much of the uncertainty as to the views held by Mr. Newton, and facilitated the investigation of his doctrines. These considerations led Mr. Müller, Mr. Craik, and the other leading brethren, to regard it as needful to take up as a church matter, that which before it had not been deemed desirable to do; and in consequence several special meetings of the church were held, commencing on Nov. 27, and ending on Dec. 11, 1848. At the first meeting, Mr. Müller after prayer, stated the reasons which had led them to call the church together, to investigate the painful subject of Mr. Newton’s tracts, and explained the reasons which now led them to do that, which in the middle of the year they had declined doing.
At the first two or three meetings Mr. Müller spoke almost exclusively, reading from the tracts, page after page, pointing out as he went along, what inferences were legitimately deducible from what was read, and which, if they were allowed, the Lord himself would need a Saviour; and while these influences might have been disallowed by Mr. Newton himself, in judging of his views, they must necessarily be the guide in leading to a decision on them. During the remaining four or five meetings, sixteen of the brethren spoke, and gave their views as to the tracts, entering very fully into the questions at issue. The result of these deliberations was, that the following conclusion was arrived at: “That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton’s views or tracts, should be received into communion.” Of this decision Lord Congleton writes: “This conclusion was given out two or three times by the brethren Groves, Müller, and Craik.” This public announcement we particularly would bring to notice, because it has been asserted by many, ignorant of the facts of the case, that the judgment thus arrived at was merely the private judgment of a few, whereas it was much more to be regarded as expressing the judgment of the Church than was the Letter of the Ten.
We hear much said of “judging the evil,” to use the expression of others, but we would ask whether all those who are amongst the Exclusives themselves, have judged it? Whether the thoughts of one in a hundred have ever been intelligently exercised in the matter at all? Whether it is not in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a matter in which those concerned have merely accepted the statements and views of others? Nay more, whether it is not the design of the party to keep as many in ignorance as possible as to the real matter at issue? And if such be the case, what is there to justify the exclusive holiness, claimed for the position they maintain, into which many are led, deceived by a falsely assumed catholicity. We are bold to say that more was done in Bethesda to judge and repudiate those views, which had caused so much trouble and sorrow to all who loved the Lord, than by any assembly acting under the Darby discipline. Those who witnessed or have perused the accounts taken of these godly and prayerful deliberations in Bethesda, cannot but thank God, that, amidst the turmoil and the strife of those days, there were some who were enabled to maintain their integrity towards God, in an earnest and zealous care for that which in any way affected doctrinally the glory of the person of the Blessed Lord, and who in their zeal against error, desired not to forget their duty towards those who offend; as they were reminded by Mr. Craik, that they should seek to know “what was the kindest way in which a brother, who had departed from the Truth, and those upholding him , should be treated, so as, if possible, to lead them to repentance.”
It would have been imagined that the whole controversy between Bethesda and her opponents, as far as they were concerned, would have been brought to a close; the investigation which was demanded had taken place, and the conclusion come to, to admit nene holding Mr. Newton’s views. The ostensible object had been gained; the real object had not, and that was submission, submission it was said to the church, but in reality to a party. This was avowedly stated at a public meeting in connexion with the Letter of the Ten, when these questions were under discussion. It was asked by one of the Bethesda brethren, “Why should we judge a matter that has taken place at Plymouth?” It was replied, “Because the church has judged it.” “And what is the Church?” asked Mr. Müller. The answer given was, “Those who meet as we do.” Mr. Müller replied, “That is not my view of the church,” and Mr. Meredith further remarked, “I should consider, holding such a view of the church, as going completely back to Popery.” Bethesda had acted for themselves in the matter before God, and sought to obey His word, but they had not obeyed “the voice of the church!” and Mr. Wigram writes,[1] Feb. 2nd, 1849, “You may depend upon it that the aim of Bethesda is, to make a party positively apart from us all, and apart, I judge, too, from Mr. Newton.” He was quite prepared to allow that they aimed at keeping aloof from Mr. Newton, and his charge against Bethesda resolves itself into a wish on their part to act apart and stand apart from those to whom he belonged; and if this implied the rejection of the assumed exclusive place of the church on which they were taking their stand, and by means of which they sought to enforce their decrees on all those with whom they consented to hold fellowship, it must be acknowledged Mr. Wigram was right. That which was demanded in June would not satisfy in December. That spirit of despotism which had been so painfully prominent, had grown with its exercise; and the sectarianism which might have been the exception, had become the rule. It was not, therefore, to be anticipated, that any other result would follow this step, taken by Bethesda, than a more vehement determination to maintain in act, the principle of an ecclesiastical subjection of a body to a control, that assumed on the lofty claim of the presence of the Spirit in the assembly, a right to judge all saints and all assemblies, and that, on the same claim, submitted to be judged by none. Thus the clericalism and popery, as it was freely called by Mr. Darby when it was in antagonism to himself, became a clericalism submitted to unhesitatingly in connexion with himself, the moment it assumed to itself the exclusive guidance of the Holy Ghost,—of that Spirit of which it is written that “the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost.”
Since 1849 nothing has occurred to disturb the peace of the saints meeting in Bethesda and other places in Bristol connected with it; and those principles of holy independence of man in the things of God, which the brethren have sought to maintain in the church , and for the benefit of the church at large, have taken root, and the real fellowship of the church in the oneness of the spirit has been increasingly sought after, and by the grace of God increasingly felt, in much happy fellowship with all saints, irrespective of party, name, or denomination; and those fundamental truths, touching alike the divinity and humanity of the blessed Lord are held, preached, and contended for earnestly, as the faith once delivered to the saints. Those who know most of the church at Bethesda will testify to the earnestness with which a godly discipline seeks to keep alive among the saints a deep sense of the value of foundation truth, and of the imperative necessity of a godly consistent life in all admitted to church fellowship.
The following remarks made by the late Mr. Craik in reference to these separations, written at the time, we transcribe for the instruction of all.
“Since we have been separated from both parties (i.e. Mr. Newton’s and Mr. Darby’s), there has been much quietness amongst us; the Lord is present in our meetings; souls are constantly added to the church. We meddle not with things too high for us; as in ourselves lost and guilty, we make Jesus our only refuge. We meet to exhort one another, and to wait patiently on God; we publish the glad tidings to the world, and the Lord gives testimony to the word of His grace. Far removed from strife and contentions, we are not over anxious what man may think of us, so long as we can walk in spiritual comfort, and promote the cause of Jesus. The days of our earthly pilgrimage are gliding away; we profess not to be superior in light and attainment to other believers. We know ourselves to be weak. We confess it to God; we do not desire needlessly to talk about it. We seek to enjoy the truth in secret, and to serve Him in conscious weakness: to avoid all heartless, thorny, and unprofitable controversy; to be in fellowship with all who love our Lord Jesus, and who do not require anything which we cannot grant as the price of that fellowship. We would use no hard words or cherish unkind feelings towards any. We know that we have been misrepresented, evil spoken of, unjustly condemned. The day will declare it; but oh! when the soul is really conscious that accusations are false, they are harmless as the roar of the distant thunder. I would rather enjoy the serenity of conscious innocence on any point, than possess the undeserved approbation of the whole church of God.”
The course pursued by Bethesda all through this painful controversy, up to the present hour, has been to maintain silence, and to avoid all self-vindication, committing their cause as between them and their exclusive brethren who have cast them off, to the Lord who judgeth righteously, and the Lord has not left them without witness; and in regard to that honoured servant of God, who has been so grievously slandered, and whose work in the Orphan Houses has been frequently termed by members of that party, “a work of the devil,” we can say in the words of a dear brother, in hearing of the work of conversion that has been going on among the orphan children of late, “May this always be the answer God will enable Mr. Müller to give to his accusers.” The Lord will not withhold the honour to him whom He can honour—an honour read not in the light of a party, but in the light of the whole Church of God.
The last occurrence that need be noticed in connexion with this part of the subject, is the interview that took place between Mr. Müller and Mr. Darby, in the summer of 1849. We might not have alluded to this, had it not been that untrue statements have been in wide circulation in reference to it, some denying that such a meeting ever took place, and others denying the tenor of the conversation that passed between them. The following is Mr. Müller's account of what took place. Mr. Darby called on him at the New Orphan House No. 1 , ten minutes before one o’clock, and Mr. Müller on entering the room where he was, shook hands with him, and Mr. Darby said to the following effect—“As you have now judged the tracts, the reason why we should not be united no longer exists.” To this Mr. Müller replied—“I have only ten minutes now free, having an engagement at one o’clock, and therefore I cannot now enter on this subject, for you have acted so wickedly in this whole affair, that many things have to be looked into before we could be really united again.” On this Mr. Darby rose and left, and thus ended their last interview. Mr. Darby’s remark proves that the reason of his present course is not be cause Bethesda what he asserts, but because he will not come forward either to prove or to withdraw the wicked statements of heresy and blasphemy he had made in reference to Messrs. Müller and Craik, and the believers in Bethesda generally, and shows what the present line of conduct is the result of, which would thus sacrifice the honour of Christ to that of a party. It is hard to fight against God, and it is grievous to see one professing the name of Christ, plunge into a course so suicidal and false, as that into which Mr. Darby has entered—a course to justify which he is almost necessitated to make the most untrue and wicked accusations, writing as he does, quite lately, that “the evil at Bethesda is the most unprincipled admission of blasphemers against Christ.”[2] It is a terrible thing to charge saints with blasphemy, and to call those differed from, blasphemers, even when the charge can be substantiated by the most clear demonstration; but when with lightness and levity such solemn awful words are thrown at those eminently godly; when men owned and honoured of God are thus stigmatised, because they bow not to the idol set up, what remains but to carry out the Apostolic command, and have nothing to say to him, “Who is called a brother, if he be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner.” Those who originated the charges know they are false; and one who not long ago stigmatized Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik as “those two blasphemers in Bristol,” wrote to the latter beloved servant of God, on his dying bed, calling him his “dear brother,” and wishing that “although ecclesiastically separated from him,” he might be blessed with every blessing, as the Lord might see he needed in his present circumstances. There must be either falsehood or hypocrisy in this, for that one with the slightest regard for the Lord’s honour, could write in the language above to one whom he really considered a blasphemer, would seem surpassingly strange, had not such conduct become but too painfully common with the upholders of this system of discipline.
There are, we have said, those who know these charges of blasphemy to be unrighteous and false, but there are those who do not—those who, on the strength of statements made by others, spread everywhere the poison of the slander they have received, and for which God holds answerable both originators and circulators. A slander is welcomed before it is circulated. Who could but be filled with godly indignation after the removal of that faithful servant of the Lord, Mr. Craik, who had laboured so long in his Master’s vineyard, to hear it said “he was a Socinian!!”—a man than whom we are bold to say there are few, whose views of the blessed Lord’s person were more clear and scriptural, and whose heart and soul more adoringly worshipped Christ as his Lord and his God. This wicked accusation has not come from one quarter only; and though traceable to the same source, has been widely and industriously circulated among those whose ignorance makes them an easy prey to falsehoods and misstatements. One of the most painful features of this system is its falseness: it stands on a lie, and justifies the rejection of saints by the invention of false charges first, and then acting on the assumption that they are true. Had Mr. Craik been still amongst us, we would not have alluded to this subject; but now that he has been removed, and the memory of his holy life and his faithful teaching alone remains, we feel it a sacred duty to raise the voice against that unholy and malicious feature of Darbyism that seems to occupy pre-eminently, the place of the railer and the accuser of the Brethren. We remind the people of God of that solemn word of the Master, addressed to all, “it were better that a millstone were hanged about a man’s neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of the Lord’s little ones;” but what shall we say of a discipline that is maintained by falsehood, and by the suppression of the truth? and of a system that makes such a discipline possible, nay more, necessary to maintain it? But thus out of theories implying the greatest spirituality and heavenly-mindedness, has been developed a system wherein the worst evils of human nature, those defiling things that proceed from the heart of man, are brought into exercise and sanctified in being made the foundation of union and communion at the Supper of the Lord—a system that falsely charges godly men with blasphemy, and then makes the acceptance of the charge a ground of church fellowship!!
The separation from Bethesda which was commenced after the writing of the Letter of the Ten, and maintained the more firmly even after the judgment given at the church meetings in December, 1848, was, as we have seen, not to be confined to those meeting in Bethesda alone. This would have been evil enough; but it was determined to carry out this discipline on all who agree, not to sanction in word and practice this wholesale excommunication. The natural and necessary effect of these separations, by which the only elements that stood in the way of absolute exclusiveness and sectarianism were eliminated from them, was, that schism ripened fast. The notion of being “a body” which should comprise all those assemblies who acted with Mr. Darby became a more and more clearly developed theory from this time. This change, in fact, (though denied in theory perhaps by some) at once reduced those under its influence to the standing of a schismatic body, and presents Darbyism as but another of the many sects they had so protested against.
Allusion will have to be made to this notion of a corporately responsible “body” hereafter; for that which is here seen in its earliest stage, will be found to attain a far fuller developement before this history comes to a close. This new principle was however necessary in order to carry out the new discipline which had been introduced, and the system and the discipline acted and re-acted on each other. It has been observed that “No very lasting evil arises from the wrong acquittal of an individual, so long as the standard itself by which right and wrong, truth and falsehood, are measured, is not made crooked.” But this is just what this terrible principle does, to which so many in strange infatuation have committed themselves; a principle which will necessarily prove fatal to those who hold it. It measures faithfulness to God in others by an unrighteous standard of its own, by which standard also it measures its own delinquencies. It cries out “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we;” it casts out their “brethren for the Lord’s name’s sake,” making that holy name the cloak of its unrighteousness, and says “Let the Lord be glorified.” (Is. Ixvi, 5). Eighteen years has this course been run, which has withered out spiritual affection, and fostered nothing but pride, leaving behind it a system of discipline that places acknowledged saints walking in the fear of God, owned and blessed by Him, on a par with the openly vicious, and the avowed denier of the Lord Jesus, for both are equally excommunicated by it. Is this walking in the fear of God? Is this honouring the name of Jesus? Alas! for the wickedness and the delusion, where Satan triumphs and hell rejoices.
In the Word of God, a great deal is written about the dangers to which the saints would be exposed from two different sources,—the heresies of some, and the love of pre-eminence in others—each developing a schismatic spirit, the one centering in evil living or false doctrine, and the other in a falsely assumed control; both alike endanger the oneness of the spirit which the Church was commanded to “keep” as “the apple of the eye;” to guard it for the honor of His name, who would show to the world “how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity,” and who pronounces his reprobation on those who sow discord among brethren, seeing motes in another’s eye, and failing to see the beams in their own. The discipline commanded in the Word of God is plain and unmistakeable. It meets the evil-doer and says, “put away from yourselves that wicked person.” It meets the man “who brings not the doctrine of Christ,” and says “receive him not into thy house, nor bid him God speed;” but as if to prevent the fratricidal use made of this most plain and important passage, it explains what the Spirit means when he speaks of one who brings not the doctrine of Christ, and shows him to be none other than “a deceiver and an Antichrist.” It meets the man who, to serve his love of filthy lucre, or his love of power and influence, comes in as a schismatic into the Church of Christ; and it commands distinctly that no fellowship be had with him, for such ”are subverted and have sinned, being condemned of them selves.” To this the attention of those might profitably be directed, who advocate the present schismatic discipline. Let those tremble who use Scripture language and trample in the dust the precepts of the Lord; who cast out the name of brethren as evil, because they bow not to their discipline, either because their consciences are too tender, or their love to Christ too great, to follow them in a Jehu zeal against all but themselves, and against every idol but their own. Let them prove from the Word, the principle on which they act; let them show in unmistakeable language, the Lord’s command to reject those who love Him better than life, and His honor better than their own, even those whose names the Blessed Master bears ever on his heart; for thanks be to God and his love, mortal hands cannot touch Christ’s breastplate, nor erase from the Book of Life one name written therein.
In so solemn a matter as discipline,[3] God has not left us to vague generalities in his Word, but has revealed his will in plain preceptive statements, which, however, many setting aside have contented them selves by that misrepresentation of Scripture—that misapplication of types and figures—which has ever been the resort of those who are determined to find something to satisfy their consciences to carry out their own self-will. All discipline must be in the name of Jesus, and in the spirit of God; all discipline that violates that name, and is contrary to that Spirit, is opposed to the character of Him, who came not to judge but to save; not to be served, but to wash the feet of his disciples all that is antagonistic to the spirit of grace, of truth, and of love, that dwells in him who is born of God, is a discipline that God abhors, and for which he will exercise a judgment even here that the wise shall understand, though the fool may stumble at it. Volumes might be written of the disastrous effects of this discipline on those who enforce it, while to those on whom it has been exercised, it has proved a bitter sorrow that has broken many hearts, but still a wholesome lesson, and has proved a most needed warning. In regard to the designs of its originators, it has become before the whole Church of God, a signal failure in its effects on others, and a signal disgrace as it regards themselves. Monstrous, however, as this discipline must appear to any whose vision has not been blinded by complicity with the evil, in its reference to the thousands in England, who are affected by it; its monstrosity is increased ten-fold when we see it attempted to force the same discipline on saints abroad, in Europe, in Asia, or in America; saints, who but for the discipline itself, would ever have remained in happy ignorance of all connected with the evil it has been attempted to keep out.
We would here remind the people of God that there is no holier, or more priestly work in which any one can be employed, than that which concerns the maintenance of the holiness of the house of God; a work in which at every step the child of God has to go for his guidance to the Word and to the testimony; a work in which the hands and feet have to be washed in the laver of the sanctuary, and the priestly vestments kept white in the blood of the Lamb; and woe to him who with defiled hands, and unholy feet, or garments spotted with the flesh, or who with any self taught principles of his own, seeks to take upon himself a service, for which God’s revealed will is the only warrant, and the cleansing of the sanctuary the necessary pre-requisite; on all others, sooner or later, God will execute judgment, and cause them to see their folly and their sin. Discipline is solemn work, and when performed in accordance with the Word, and in the spirit inculcated, is very holy work; but when instead of the meekness and gentleness of Christ, the pride and high-handedness, and high-mindedness of the flesh comes in; where the love that covereth is set aside, and the hatred and animosity of the carnal heart, helped on and fanned into a flame by the accuser of the saints, takes its place, then God will arise himself and vindicate His truth and His people.
We cannot better conclude this portion of our history than by giving some extracts of a letter written about this time by Mr. Craik, in which he has left on record his thoughts on the ways and practices of Mr. Darby and his followers; and may we learn from the gracious humble spirit of the writer, lessons but too easily forgetton at any time, and particularly in the time of contest.
“According to the light I have, both parties are so far in the wrong that I have no wish to be identified with either. I wait for further light, and my prayer is “Hear the right, O Lord.” Should it turn out that Mr. Newton’s errors are only those of a rash speculative intellectualist, who is yet sound at heart and seeking to honour Christ, it will be no cause of regret that I have refused to have fellowship with those who have been seeking to crush rather than to recover him: if, on the other hand, it should appear that after all his long course of service, he is really an enemy to the cross of Christ, it will be no cause of regret that I have been rather too slow to believe so terrible à charge. Until George Wigram be subjected to discipline, I shall not feel it any cause of sorrow to be standing in separation from a body where such a course is tolerated.****O what a terrible thing is party spirit! Am I not justified in discarding and avoiding it. The truth is, Brethrenism as such, is broken to pieces. By pretending to be wiser, holier, more spiritual, more enlightened, than all other christians; by rash and unprofitable intrusions into things not revealed; by making mysticism and eccentricity the test of spiritual life and depth; by preferring a dreamy and imaginative theology to the solid food of the word of God; by the adoption of a strange and repulsive phraseology; by the undervaluing of practical godliness; by submission of the understanding to leading teachers; by overstraining some truths and perverting others; by encouraging the forwardness of self-conceit; by the disparagement of useful learning; by grossly offensive familiarity of speaking of such sacred matters as the presence and teaching of the Holy Ghost; and by a sectarianism all the more inexcusable, that it was in the avoidance of sectarianism that brethrenism originated; by these and similar errors, the great scriptural principles of church communion have been marred and disfigured. May there be a return to sobriety of mind—may a lowlier place be taken—may the jealous God be no longer provoked by contemptuous expressions respecting other christians—may the forward vanity of ignorant talkers be no longer substituted for the quiet unobtrusive exercise of spiritual gifts, and those who are right in heart may yet glorify God by meeting together simply on the ground of common faith in Jesus, and common participation of His Spirit, seeking to put no human hindrance in the way of the exercise of any gift for service.”
- ↑ See “The Bath Case,” p. 10.
- ↑ See Mr. Darby’s Letter, quoted hereafter.
- ↑ See Appendix B, for some extracts from a valuable tract on “Discipline,” by J.N.D.