&c. Unhappily a letter of his was in existence, appealing to it after years of attendance as a proof of godly order. It was then said it was not the meeting which was objected to, but the composition of it. But alas, this same letter speaks of the persons composing it as recognized and submitted to by all. Subsequently it was declared that he had never objected to the Church judging, nor to the brethren from elsewhere interfering. This certainly was astounding to those who knew what had passed, if any thing was so at Plymouth. His opening declaration to the brethren on their enquiring his statements of the matter, and all he had repeatedly said, as well as his associates, to so many. He declared that all he had objected to was the manner of doing it. That it ought to have been done scripturally. First come to himself, then take two or three more, and lastly the whole body put him out if need were. This was said at one of the last Monday tea meetings, a very large one.[1] Mr. Batten has stated the same thing to others,―it was only the manner which was objected to. Now, this scriptural manner, which was declared to have been the only thing that would have been required, I had formally proposed, and received a written refusal from the four persons employed by Mr. Newton, Lord C., Mr; Mosey[errata 1], Mr. Walker, and a physician at Plymouth; which written refusal was communicated by them to Mr. Newton at the time. At these meetings, at which being by invitation, of course there was no one to answer, though invited friends were allowed to put questions, and did before the poor, a justification of Mr. Newton is stated to have been produced from the remaining part of the brethren who came to enquire, who had advocated Mr. Newton’s cause all through. Indeed one of those who were thus sent for by Mr. Newton, had privately written[2] to him to say he might count on his standing by him in any way, though
Page:Darby - A narratives of the facts.djvu/65
