Bethesda Related Papers 2: Volume 2
George Vicesimus Wigram
Table of Contents
Notice
''I would engage my reader to consider attentively pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, of "Remarks, by J. N. Darby, etc., Oct. 1848," which tract, as I informed Mr. Craik at first, was what awakened my mind to the error of his statements.
The more I ponder Mr. C.'s hypothesis, the more it seems to me untenable: dishonoring to Christ, and destructive of the faith once delivered to the saints. It confounds "humanity" with "the state in which humanity May be;" as if "destroy-able by the sword" was part of humanity, instead of being connected with its state.
It supposes that the humanity of the Lord had no perfect relationship to God per se, as being of the obedient one; and it overlooks the grand difference of the state of Christ's humanity from ours; how it was sui generis, as being united to Godhead, which no one else's humanity ever was.
Mr. Craik's explanation (in his letter to T. M.) is only a fuller exposition of what I had stated in my "Appeal:" only the error is stated a great deal more clearly. In many leading points, it is identical with Mr. Newton's; from whom, I doubt not, it was unconsciously adopted.
So solemn a sin do I think it to attempt to define the person of the Son, that I would assure the reader I have no such thought in view in this paper. Mr. C. having unguardedly made statements calculated to puzzle some and to mislead others (with no such intention) upon matters connected with the foundation of their faith, I have endeavored to point out the trespass of his statements against the common faith and against common sense.
An Answer, Etc
My Dear Brother,—I have received the letter you sent me from three different parts of England. One of the sad ways of Mr. Newton was so to circulate papers as that it was hard to say whether they were public or private. Two or three hundred copies would go out through England, in MS., or a small edition in print, the distribution of which was confided to one or two confidential friends of his own-these not obtainable until an answer was forth-coming, when they were put on sale; which made any printed statement, in the answer, about his mode of publishing, appear to be false. This happened to myself, as to two of his tracts. I was shown two tracts by a friend,-I endeavored to get these at Plymouth; -they were not sold nor to be had. noticed this in print, and was told the walls of Plymouth would prove I was mistaken. I am sure I had no claim on Mr. Craik for a copy to be sent to me, but I think it would have been wiser in him for the sake of himself, the Lord, and the Church, to have sent me a copy, as well as the many to whom he did so. However, here the letter to T. M. is,-as something meant to bear upon the church's conscience, it is in the light-and as I have determined to be no party to shooting or stabbing in the dark, I present it in full, as having been sent to me to answer.
Bristol, Wednesday, 15th Nov., 1848.
My Dear Brother,—I have just a few minutes ago received your kind note. Although pressed for time and longing for rest, I would not seem utterly reckless of your brotherly interest, although I much prefer leaving Mr. Wigram's unjust and unprovoked accusation to Him who " judgeth righteously." The consciousness of innocence helps me to leave the cause with Him who is the God of truth and righteousness.
With reference to the reports, as to what I am charged with having said respecting our Lord's humanity, etc. 11 have to remark
1. That Mr. W. wrote the tract while living in the neighborhood of my house, i. e. half an hour's walk from Kingsdown; yet never availed himself of the opportunity of personally inquiring as to the fact of certain expressions [having] been employed by me, or of the connection in which they were used, or of the meaning intended to be conveyed by them. I ask any godly Christian, Is such conduct according to the law of Christ? Is it right to print and publish reports relative to a brother without inquiry? I press this point; because, if persons do not admit the wrongness of such conduct, I could not walk with them in Christian fellowship. I should be thankful to have your judgment about this point.
2. That the statement relative to my questionings the soundness of Mr. Darby and his followers, was made at a church meeting in a moment of excitement. That it was at the same meeting confessed as sin before the brethren, and acknowledged as such before God in prayer. I last Monday week appealed to those present at the time the expression was used, whether I had added the words about " shriveled old man"; and on all sides the answer was "No." Not a creature present heard any such words employed.
3. I inquired about the statement from Miss E. E., one of the most zealous and unwearied supporters of Mr. Wigram's party in Bristol, and she declared, that not only had she never heard me employ such an expression, but that she had never even heard the report of it, until she saw it in Mr. Wigram's " Appeal."
4. After this, all I can say is, that I know nothing of having employed the grossly objectionable expression; that it is utterly unlike my habitual way of speaking of our blessed Lord and Savior; and that the very mode in which the- charge is made resembles " shooting in the dark." Mr. W. says he had a letter informing him that I had said so. Who wrote the letter? Did the writer report what he himself heard, or only at second-hand? May not the writer have been misinformed? or, may he not have heard imperfectly, and thus the charge have originated in mistake? I put it to any upright intelligent Christian, whether all these points ought not to have been settled, before the charge of my having said so as published to the world, and reasoned upon as a proof of my having been guilty of heresy and blasphemy?
5. With regard to illustrations, statements, etc. used in discussing questions of difficult solution, it is utterly unfair for parts of conversations to be reported, and these published without inquiry. This way of acting must destroy all brotherly confidence, and introduce all the results of gross misrepresentation. Certain brethren amongst us, in their zeal against Mr. Newton's errors, seemed to me to be in danger of departing from the truth as to the reality of our Lord's humanity. I have ever maintained that He was in all things made like unto his brethren, sin only excepted; that the flesh and blood which he assumed was the flesh and blood of the children; that the physical or chemical properties of his body were the same as ours. In this I see the evidence of his love. That he should stoop so low for our sakes, is that which endears him to our hearts. Certain brethren seemed to me desirous of making out that the flesh of Christ was substantially different from ours. Hence arose the employment of such illustrations as the other expressions alluded to. What I asserted was, that our blessed Lord, having life in himself, could have prolonged his life forever if he had so chosen. Secondly, that he could not by any possibility die but as the sacrifice for sin; but that he was so truly human that poison, or the sword piercing his heart, would have destroyed the union between his soul and body, had he not put forth his power to prevent the natural result. If this be denied, it seems to me that the faith of the Catholic Church (in all ages) is repudiated; and the necessary inference would be, that the Blessed One did not take our flesh, but flesh and blood essentially different from ours. I see no irreverence in the asserting that His flesh and blood was really of the same nature with yours and mine, only with this momentous difference, that he was always entirely without sin.
6. With regard to Isa. 53:2, I have understood the prophet as describing the circumstances of outward meanness and humiliation into which, for our sakes, the Son of God was pleased to come. If you can refer to Mr. Henry's "Commentary" and to Dr. Hawker's on the verse, you will find that both of these eminently godly men understood and applied the expression just as I have done in my letters. If Mr. W. will take the trouble to read the remarks of the above-mentioned commentators, he will be compelled either to take back his charge of heresy and blasphemy against me, or to prefer the same charge against them..., I had not seen what they had written on the passage, until Mr. W.'s monstrous accusation led me to examine them.
7. I assert most explicitly that it was utterly impossible that the Holy One of God could have seen corruption; neither have; said or written anything to imply the contrary assertion.
In conclusion, I would ask, " Ought Mr. Wigram's conduct in this matter to be allowed to pass, unrebuked by those who are associated with him?'' If John Darby and the others are really zealous for the truth—which I am disposed to think many of them are—can they allow themselves to pass over such a breach of Christian morality as that of which Mr. W. has been guilty? Every man has a conscience, and is bound to judge of right and wrong. I have found no one capable of defending Mr. W’s "Appeal." His own party—at least the best part of them—are ashamed of it. Yet, while they countenance him, not only as a brother, but as a leading teacher, they are responsible for his public walk. I leave my cause, with God; but I can have no respect for the consistency of that man who is inflamed with the most fiery zeal against doctrinal errors, but who can coolly allow the most flagrant violation of truth and honesty to pass unrebuked. Either I am righteously accused of heresy and blasphemy, or Mr. Wigram must be dealt with as a false accuser. I am willing to submit the paragraph (pp. 92, 93 of the Letters) to the whole church of Christ, satisfied that no person of sound mind and unprejudiced judgment could possibly fasten upon the very harmless sentences in that paragraph the charge of blasphemy: This is not my matter; I have to deal with God about it. It remains to be seen whether among those who have laid claim to superior light and purity, such conduct is to be allowed as would not be tolerated even among the moral and respectable portion of those who are living without God in the world.
But I am too weak to write any longer. Exercise of mind, lying awake at the difficulty of maintaining a neutral position, the evil effect of these controversies upon the spirit, render me the subject of your sympathy. I would not be implicated in Mr. Newton's errors, nor have I sympathy with his teaching but I dare not reject those whom Christ has received. The opposing party will give no rest, because we will not yield, to these demands, and refuse to hold fellowship with those who are unable to denounce Mr. Newton. I must conclude. Pray for us.
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
Henry Craik
To T. M.
(Copy.)
On the first paragraph, I cannot but remark, that, though written to an individual, doubtless, it was meant for circulation. How do I know this? As well from internal evidence as from facts; and also because one friend of Mr. Craik's to whom he sent it, wrote me he was told to send copies to some; and very honorably thought it only right that I should have one: and Mr. Craik has sent it elsewhere. The internal evidence of the letter is not like conscious innocency, leaving its case to the Lord; and now as to 1,-
Why, when I wrote the tract at Bristol,—"did I never avail myself of the opportunity of personally inquiring as to the fact of certain expressions being employed by Mr. C., or of the connection in which they were used, or of the meaning intended to be conveyed by them?"
To this I answer, with sadness of heart, I knew, and had proof unquestionable to my own mind, that Mr. Craik was under a delusion, and had identified himself with a system which makes every one in it to be reckless as to truth. Take Robert Chapman, a truthful man as need to be; what sense or spiritual wisdom would there have been, after my telling him at Bristol, "You are deluded; Satan brought you here to dishonor God, and mislead his sheep, just as you did at Plymouth "; in my asking him for any explanation. Having settled that Mr. Craik was under the Newtonian delusion, it would not have been common sense in me to go to him; neither would it have been common honesty to have asked for evidence, when my judgment was formed; nor common grace, believing he was in a position in which he was tempted to the sin of evasion and deception if asked, to have asked him any questions. It is a very pretty thing for an accused party to be his own judge and jury. The government, in the late trials in Ireland, however, did not, ask the arraigned "as to the fact of certain expressions" or as to "the connection" or "meaning intended to be conveyed." They proved the facts, against the arraigned's wish; showed what connection the words were used in; and left the words to speak their own meaning. To me this demand of Mr. Craik's is, really, nothing more than special pleading. And observe, it takes for granted, as does his declaration, that brethren must judge my conduct-for he cannot go with those who do not-that we were and are in fellowship as brethren. We were not in outward fellowship at the time; and he knows, I have said I will not go where he is received: not upon any personal pique. He has not injured or wronged me at all. But he is aiding Mr. Newton to corrupt the faith and dishonor Christ. And why were we not in fellowship? Because Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik had resisted every entreaty of every varied kind not to identify themselves with the active partisans of Mr. Newton's heresy, and yet would do so-although their doing so forced out some very godly brethren from Bethesda, who were, at the time I went, breaking bread elsewhere; and with them I broke bread.
Now there were several points connected with the rupture of the brotherly standing, all of which rest their burden at Mr. Craik's and Mr. Muller's door.
1. God having allowed Mr. B. N. Newton to be proved a heretic and a blasphemer of Christ, and subverter of the faith, G. Muller and H. Craik would have Bethesda count him a brother, and try to stand neutral: Now where God and Satan are the parties, as in this case, between whom a man seeks to be neutral-it is not hard to say on whose side such will appear.
2. Brethren, not only connected with the pail painful controversy, but quiet godly brethren disconnected from these troubles, and from those in Bethesda too, had spoken and written to G. Muller and Craik, again and again, but all in vain. I might name many such.
3. The work of God, the Holy Ghost, in restoring some from the error of their ways, was ascribed to bad motives. Never were men in more trying position than those who, in May last, met us at Bath. And never, perhaps, was the Lord's grace more signally shown toward any, than towards and in them. When all was forgotten, and confidence and love restored among us, Bethesda asserted bad motives had led them to return; and trampled under-foot the mercy of God in restoring his people.
4. A mass had been driven out from Bethesda upon this question, and in connection with it appeared the paper of the ten. Now it was this paper which first shut up my mind from present hope as to Bethesda. It showed me that the very same special pleading and want of all conscience which had characterized Newtonism at Plymouth, in its immoral system, had a fast hold of Bethesda.
The letters from Bristol to some eight or ten parties I had seen and felt dissatisfied with. The self-sufficiency and superciliousness, the impeccability and infallibility assumed by George Muller, were really alarming. But there was nothing immoral, that I saw, till this letter of the ten. "Puffed up in a fleshly mind" was all that I saw of evil in the writer's state, until this letter of the ten. The effect of it upon myself and some twenty-five or thirty, from various places, who read it together, seemed uniform. From that hour, I felt the immoral system of Newtonism had Bethesda as its hold. And if I felt this from the internal evidence of the paper—much more did I feel it, when I had sifted some of the things stated as facts in it, and found they were not facts at all. This paper also, entirely in principle, denies the competency of the saints to judge evil, and so denies the very being of the church.
As to No. 2. in Mr. C.'s letter, I may remark: I did not know there had been confession before brethren, and acknowledgment before God, at that meeting by Mr. C. about what Mr. C., has said as to the unsoundness of Mr. D. and followers; nor do I understand now why or what he confessed; because in this same letter, under division, five, he again charges some with unsoundness, and has elsewhere. The fact is, he does differ from J. N. D. and myself, and (as I believe) the sound faith which cannot be gainsaid; and therefore we must appear to him unsound.
As to the appeal he made " last Monday week," to those present at the time, as to whether he had used the expression "about shriveled old man" at the time, does he forget that some sixty or eighty at least have left Bethesda since that time. And is it not monstrous to appeal to a mass, four and a half months after a tumultuous meeting (when sixty or eighty have, left the assembly, and party spirit is now running high), and then to quote it as having any value whatever? The statement was made to me in two letters:—I found the report current in London, and at Bristol; the report about "shriveled old man." I asked the party from whom it came, and got it confirmed. But all this is really special pleading; for, if Mr. Craik could set aside the having said these words, he cannot deny his having said what is equally bad; that had the Lord taken arsenic he must have died; and he cannot deny the same doctrine stated by himself, in his own letter. Neither can he disprove or undo what I found among the poor of Bethesda: the doctrine discussed and held, and attributed to him by the poor of the flock.
I do not understand why Mr. Craik singles out my quotation from my friend's letter.
That letter was not the gravamen of my charge, but a part of Mr. Craik's pastoral letter. While reports pained me, I never should have been free to have noticed them at all, but for the statement in the pastoral letter; and the challenge of the ten upon it. The statement in the pastoral letter was the real question. And why is Mr. Craik to be pained by my searching to see whether he is sound in the faith, when he and his nine fellow-signers, threw down the "Pastoral Letters," as a gauntlet of orthodoxy in the arena of the church of God (as they supposed) in Bethesda, see page 6 and 7 of my appeal. Nothing in the church of God is private. Neither is one part of it exclusive of another. If Bethesda was part of the church of God, I was of it -and its acts are public before God, and His church and the world.
As to the statement quoted from my friend's letter; there are three things objectionable in it. 1st—it is the language of a mind which feels itself free to pry into the person of the Son, " Whom no one knoweth save the Father only." That Mr. Craik does feel thus free is largely evidenced by his own letter to T. M.; where he states, as to the Lord, " that the physical or chemical properties of his body were the same as ours," etc., etc.
The language is disrespectful. By this I mean that language which may fairly suit us in describing what is around us, if we do not want to give it honor, is used of Him who is presented to us as our object of worship; as to whom a worshipful soul will look at nothing, save in the connection with his moral glory, and as it is revealed.
The letter to T. M. contains this evil also, far more largely.
What is worst of all, there is quiet assumption that the Lord's humanity was in the same state of broken relationship to God as is ours. Now this is quite as much assumed by Mr. Craik's own statements, which he cannot deny. Does he deny that he said that if the Lord had taken arsenic he would have died, or his letter to T.M.? But of this more anon.
Mr. Craik ought (No. 3) to have stated all, not one-third, of what the sister referred to said.
Who wrote the letter? (No. 4) A poor man or a poor woman are as credible as a rich; but their shops or character are staked in their statements. I saw enough done to ruin, at Plymouth, those who withstood Mr. Newton; and have seen enough of the same thing in Bethesda. My witnesses told me as having heard it—not second-hand—the writer was not misinformed, etc. I shall not trust myself to express my feelings as to these questions of Mr. C. Let us remove the witness, and introduce Mr. Craik himself to give witness.
" I have ever maintained... that the flesh and blood which Christ assumed, was the flesh and blood of the children; that the physical or chemical properties of his body were the same as ours... the Lord having life in Himself, could have prolonged his life forever, if he had so chosen. Secondly, that he could not by any possibility die but as the sacrifice for sin; but that he was so truly human that poison, or the sword piercing his heart, would have destroyed the union between his soul and body, had he not put forth his power to prevent the natural results."
Here the whole doctrine is ten times more objectionably stated than I ever could have said before.
I see no reverence in talking of the physical or chemical properties of the Lord's body.
" The Lord having life in himself, COULD have prolonged his life forever, if he had so chosen." I understand its being said, "The Lord having life in himself, could have prolonged Paul’s life forever if he had chosen"; because Paul had death in himself, and it required power to counterwork it; but I would not admit it to be said, that, if Adam had not sinned in Eden, God could have prolonged his life forever; not because I doubt of the competency of God to do so, but because the expression implies uncertainty as to whether or not Adam was in the state of being upheld. Clearly he was. God would have upheld him; and he had no tendency to die before sin entered. Much less can I admit the expression as applied to our Lord, because he was not only abiding as sinless, but impeccable; not only had Satan nothing in him (and certes no power of death); but, being Son of God, necessity of death could not enter from, either below or around. He took it up, as in obedience to God, in fellowship with his Father's counsels-His most perfect act of moral glory. Death was Adam the first's penal disgrace from God; it was Adam the second's distinctive act of moral glory.
When Adam was first set in Eden, he had not immortality essentially in himself; for if he had he would have been God, who only hath immortality. He stood in honored relationship to God however, and the continuity of his abiding in life and blessing, hung upon the unchangeableness of God, who said, " In the day thou eatest thou shalt surely die." He did eat, and this dishonor of the relationship involved to him the loss of the blessing, moral and circumstantial, and entailed death; so has every man, but One, been since. Was this true of the Lord's humanity? Was his moral state such as was Adam's after the fall? Most surely not. Was he in the circumstantial ruin and wretchedness, as one that had forfeited Eden or his own inheritance? Most surely not. Was death entailed on him penally as being a man? Most surely not. Death to every other man was the wages of sin, to him it was the fruit of an obedience which none but himself could render.
The statement reported above to have been made by Mr. Craik, predicates of the Lord's humanity, that his body was in the state of subjection to the same contingencies to which ours in fallen humanity are. This is just what Mr. Craik does likewise elsewhere. If he had taken arsenic, he would have died, "he was so truly human that poison, or the sword piercing his heart, would have destroyed the union between his soul and body".... [I intentionally leave out the rest of the sentence, because it is really a false light to mislead].
Now what would be the sense of saying this of unfallen Adam in the Garden of Eden, “If he had taken poison, or the sword had pierced his heart, it would have killed him." It would be simply the proof that the person who said it forgot the presence of God there, pledged in faithfulness to himself to control all things for his obedient creature. It supposes man, fallen and unfallen, in Eden and out, of Eden, in an acceptable relationship and not in an acceptable relationship at the same time; and entirely denies the faithfulness of God to Himself in man; innocent and obedient. It looks at man as God in himself; leaves out the all-important question of the Living God's relationship to him being honored or dishonored, and what was dependent thereon. I need not say the results of saying it of the Lord are worse. And if you add to Mr. Craik's sentence, as above, the residue of it, "had he not put forth his power to prevent the natural result," you do as bad, or worse. A great deal worse; for, while it seems to suggest a scriptural reason ‘why a thing should not be which might have been'; it supposes the Lord was not what He was, under the protective blessing due to his acceptable relationship as a man; and was and was not what He was at the same time. It divides, too, the person of Christ, in a way Scripture never does; and which sickens the godly soul. 1st, it presents his humanity as being, as to relationship, not peculiar to himself alone, but broken like ours; and then, 2ndly, would account for different results by suggesting, that, though his humanity was in itself the same as ours, yet it was not the same as ours, but peculiar to himself alone. Now Godhead in manhood was his and his alone.
The simple truth is, the Spirit of God never leads us in our speculations; and it shows a bad state of soul to be speculating about the person of the Lord—statements thence flowing are always in part erroneous. If we think of Infinite Godhead; of who the only-begotten Son of the Father distinctively is, and what his works in creation and providence; of Him manifest in the flesh in the little babe, youth,' and man of sorrow; of the entire, dependence and subjection of the life of that Christ who was the seed of the woman; of the marvels connected with His death, resurrection, and glory; surely one must bow one's head and worship, and not speculate.
But what, let me ask, does this (5) teach as to Mr. Craik's thoughts of the Lord's humanity?
Why just this: that it was impossible, but that the Divine glory Christ had in himself as Son, should prevent, as it could always have prevented, the effects of the broken relationship between his human nature and God becoming manifest.
There, is much confusion I admit,—the reality of our Lord's humanity—the flesh and blood of the children—physical and chemical properties of our bodies—flesh (not) substantially different from ours—could have prolonged his life forever, if he had so chosen; so truly human that poison, or the sword piercing his heart, would have destroyed the union between his soul and body, had he not put forth his power to prevent the natural result-flesh and blood really of the same nature as ours: but what is taught is still plain enough; and it is this, that we may not suppose that there was a perfect relationship, unbroken, between the human- nature of Christ and God, because the relationship between the human nature of us and God is broken. As though human nature was not the same human nature in Eden and out of Eden. And then the dangerous consequences are guarded against by a division of his person.
"All in heaven and earth adoring
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," etc.)
The person of our Lord—Divine Focus of all our light—has (though the object of our adoration) its lessons of instruction for the humble. The question before us is one of the deepest interest in this connection.
Mr. C.'s hypothesis teaches that the relationship between Christ, as a- man and God, was practically merged in that he had as Son of God, and thus he had no relationship as a man; so at least, we are left to suppose. Though this is inconsistent with the rest.
On the other hand, there is clearly error in the way the statement leads us to suppose Christ was exercising His own power of Son for himself, by which his servant character is lost sight of. Now, observe, Christ took his ground quite otherwise (and may I not say, kept upon the contrary ground?) all through his course. In the temptation, recorded at the beginning of His public acts, the ground he took was the opposite of what Mr. C. suggests. Satan himself was the first who tried to divide the person of the Christ into two. In the temptation he brought three dilemmas, in which Divinity and humanity were artfully set in antithesis, as he thought,-severally addressed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. The Lord's answer in each case turns upon His assumption of Divine faithfulness to man, if dependent. In grace he turned to the book of Deuteronomy, with its record of the path for the obedience of faith, and cast all upon the question: "Can man fail, if dependent upon God? Man doth not live by bread alone," etc., etc. So through all his course. His power as Son never is put forth; it was held in abeyance; and, as a servant, through grace to us, he cast himself upon the unchangeableness of Divine faithfulness to man, walking in dependence upon God, even amid ruin.
I pray this may be observed. Instead of putting forth power, or pleading that He could do this or that, his answer, practically, always was: " I am in the place of dependence, and trust all to God, as a faithful servant." In Mr. C.'s statement there is a theological error of no little magnitude, viz.: the supposition that the Lord's sustainment was in the energy of his own Sonship. He had all power of course, as ever; that is not the question. But it was all held in abeyance; and, though still full of power, his life as the Christ was a life of dependence and entire subjection. He went not into the wilderness save as led of the Spirit. Morning by morning he opened his ear, and his every word and work was the expression of the perfect servant (though of the Son of God).
The connection of this subject with Irvingism and Socinianism is one that makes it familiar to many. Unless we see " the fullness of the Godhead bodily," on the one hand, and " the entirely dependent state" of the man Christ Jesus upon God, on the other, the mind will never be clear from error; nor get, I believe, its proper intelligent rest in atonement.
Observe again, Mr. C. says " he was so truly human, that poison, or the sword piercing his heart, would have destroyed the union between his soul and body, had he not put forth his power to prevent the natural results."
I confess, I repudiate this, and reject it in toto. It contains an entire misapprehension about " What is sin?" Moreover, it is a mere fallacy grown out of confusion of mind as to the distinctive difference of the Lord's humanity and our humanity.
6.-As to this, I have only to say that here, I believe, is the REAL, root of the whole error. I trust H. Craik is indeed a dear child of God, and one, it may be, who has done good service in days past. Many a sweet labor of love of his, and many a sweet word of his about the person and work of Christ I can recall. Alas! of poor Mr. Newton, in a seventeen years' intimacy, I cannot recall one single expression such as I can comfort my heart with-or as enables me to say, " Surely that was the utterance of a poor sinner's heart touched by grace ": not one such prayer, sermon, breathing, or thought can I recall. Mr. Newton's supposed mental superiority may have attraction for Mr. Craik, and the many hard questions the former has raised may have given him a place in Mr. C.'s mind. Certainly, in this question Mr. Newton took the lead. And as certainly, Mr. Craik of 1848 is not the same in doctrine as Mr. Craik of 1832-1844. As to this subject, the solution of the whole is found in the first clause (of 5):-"With regard to illustrations, statements, etc., used in discussing questions of difficult solution." The questions at issue are prohibited us in scripture: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father only." No wonder if, like every one else who endeavors to understand (discuss, is the word) questions about the Lord's person, Mr. C. only makes statements which are in collision with scripture, and offensive to his brethren. And I beg to observe, that Mr. Craik does not confine himself (as I have endeavored to do) to showing out the inconsistency of statements made with scripture; but goes on to discuss the question, as of understanding, which Scripture presents as "above understanding," though presented to simple faith. As to the common faith, 1 ought to know it, and how to contend for it: Scripture enjoins me to do so. As to the faith of the catholic church in all ages being repudiated—I do not like the reference to it; what is called so, has no authority with the man of God, and is constantly only partially correct, and if honored as such, always misleads the soul.
The fallacy lies in predicating of a whole species, a quality which belongs only to some individuals of it. This quality flows out of a state, and a state not essential to the species; into which, however, some of its members might enter. Into that state, all could not at all times enter; because to some there is, as a property, that which excludes the idea of the accidental quality referred to.
"Man" is the species;-"destroyable by arsenic or the sword " is the quality. It flows out of the non-perfect sustainment by God of his creature, man, in blessing. It is not a state essential to man; though some, through sin, have entered into, or be in it-a state inconsistent to them, as dependent creatures of God. All could not enter into it-for, as a property, eternal Sonship prevented One; He had power to lay down and take up his life, and none could take it from him in any way. And we, in glory, shall not be able to enter into it, for this mortal shall have put on immortality (flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom, and yet men will be there): in both these cases there is a property, which prevents the quality being true: in Eden, ere sin entered, it was not; and in the apostles, for a time, Grace, to show what had entered, prevented its being true. It is a catholic (or universal) opinion, or at least a very, very common one, that "Death is the debt of nature "; but it is a catholic or commonly received error. "Death being the debt of nature", and " death being the debt of fallen nature", are two very different things.
The fallacy referred to above is merely (as plain people speak) saying something of every member of a family which is true only of most at them at some time; for it is not necessarily true of them apart from the question of the state and condition in which they are. Destroyable by arsenic or the sword is true of me now; it was not true of Adam in Eden, and will not be true of me in glory. The simplest mind can see the folly of this mistake, even as the simplest mind can feel spiritual disgust at such things being said of Christ. And that spiritual taste is a safer guide than understanding is plain; because every godly heart is disgusted with certain things, while but few minds can unravel the tangle. Killable by arsenic or the sword is, in logic, an "accident," and a "separable accident" too, to man. It is an " accident," for it may be absent or present, the essence of the species remaining the same; and it is "a separable accident," because it may be separated from an individual. It is not joined to roan necessarily (that is, to the whole species, in other words, to every individual man); then it would be a property; but contingently, i.e. to some individuals.)
7.-As to Isa. 53:2, I must refer to my appeal. Dr. Hawker and M. Henry were good men doubtless. Though they went far beyond their own day, yet they were both defective in many things, and exceedingly erroneous in others. I bless God for the beloved Doctor's personal love to his adorable Lord, and would learn this lesson from his example. I would only add, that nothing shows to me error of soul more than a reference to commentaries (which, however good, can only contain the bearing of the word upon a very tiny part of that to which it applies) to establish a present error, which the commentator never thought of perhaps—to the dishonor of the Lord Jesus, whom the commentator loved; and of His Spirit. Fifty misstatements in Dr. H.'s book, would not be so bad as one false statement in a scene in which Satan is laboring with all his energy to set up a deep and subtle heresy against the person of Christ, and his salvation among living saints.
8.-In my appeal, I merely followed out the first point; the rest was intentionally not followed out-perhaps it may be as well to resume it, in order that we may see what is implied in Mr. C.'s statement.
As to the conclusion, I again say:-Is this conscious innocency leaving its cause to the Lord? I see a good deal of wounded personal feeling, and nothing, I avow it, like an humbled spirit in Mr. Craik's letter. He will judge every body and everything, save himself. Misled by Mr. Newton, he has used expressions altogether unlike his own. His pastoral letters are so far not all of a piece. That introduced in 1848, contains some bad statements learned of Mr. N. He has, at Bethesda, so spoken as for it 'to be a common question among those that know him, as to how far he agrees with Mr. N. and how far not, and how far Mr. N.'s statements ought to be accredited for Mr. C.'s sake. And how comes it that when R. Chapman, G. Muller, and of late Mr. Groves are said to have spoken in Bethesda some hard things against Mr. N.'s doctrines, we never hear of Mr. C. doing so. The sheep have been wounded-scattered, some. The evil has been pointed out -rudely, badly pointed out-Mr. C. is offended; and the man who feels that Christ's person and work, and the lambs, are more worth caring for than Mr. Craik's feelings, or than his own quietness or good name, must be judged by the saints of God, or Mr. Craik will keep no company with them. I do unfeignedly grieve to have grieved Mr. Craik, but Christ and the sheep must be honored. And if Mr. C. thinks he knows as yet what is " the difficulty of maintaining a neutral position" in this case, I believe he is mistaken.
It is, and I know and feel it is, a solemn thing for such a one as I am-so unintelligent, so prone to mistake and sliding, to appear even to accuse any one -much more one who has been an esteemed fellow-servant, much looked up to. Still, where Christ's honor, the warning of the flock, and the pointing out of Satan's wickedness makes it needful, " is there not a cause?" One must do what one can, to show one is clear and free from voluntary participation in strengthening Satan to dishonor Christ and scatter the sheep. As to myself, I can unfeignedly say it is not on the ground of pretending to be anything, save a poor sinner saved by grace, and having the treasure in an earthen vessel; neither do I it with destruction in my heart, but salvation. God knows whether the three years of warfare with Ebrington-street, or His crowning grace at the close, are most in my heart. And He knows too, whether my heart's desire and prayer to Him is to sink, or to save Bethesda -whether when George Muller and H. Craik are delivered from the evil of their present confederacy for Mr. N., I shall remember one thing against them. As to Bethesda, when pressed by Robert Chapman as to whether I was willing to return there, I said, unhesitatingly, " Yes." Whatever others might say or do, I was willing and ready, and would return. When he asked me what was the condition on which I would return-proposing a number of different things (which it would be unlovely to mention, and which he may have named just as much to search me by, as to ascertain how far his desire of my return could be accomplished)—I said, " Let me be certified, that if Satan is guiding Bethesda, they are willing to allow him to be discovered, and then they will turn him out, and I will be back to night or, tomorrow morning, and with all my might and main I will serve them." If I could have said more, I would have said it. This I said once and again. To share with the feeblest the sorrows of conflict, or the patience of waiting upon God to turn captivity, I was willing: but I could not, with a good conscience to Christ, be where the testimony of men of God to evil, as an existing -thing, was trampled udder foot. I have no unkind feeling to H. Craik: I thank God I can pray for him heartily.
Dec. 1848.
G. V. W.
P.S.-To say-" If a thing, which could only befall a man who was not standing in perfect, relationship to God, had befallen a man who was standing in perfect relationship to God " -is absurd, and contains the naughty suggestion that God could be unfaithful to Himself, it involves also Mr. N.'s error about the humanity.
If it be said: "No-the supposition (though absurd nonsense) is only made in order that the glory of the One of whom it is supposed, may be seen, viz., that, as Creator and Upholder, He had all power of self-protection and sustainment in Himself, and could put it forth as He pleased;"-I reply, " That also supposes that he had no acceptable relationship as a man; it is foolish and irreverent nonsense; and it presents another form of error. It confounds together the glories and manifestations distinctive to the three titles, "God the Son"; "second Adam, Lord from Heaven"; and "Man of Sorrows." This prepares the way for Mr. N.'s other error as to Deity-that the Church is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
May we learn more of the wisdom and accuracy of God's own Word; and shun speculation on every subject! On such a subject as this, speculation is perversion. I pray, brethren, to read this in the presence of the Lord; and if, while handling man's perversions (in the hope to show the error of certain statements, derogatory to Christ, and destructive of the foundations), I have myself in any way failed,-may the Lord graciously preserve his own sheep from the wrong...and cause them to reject it at once.
An Appeal to Saints That Remain Still in Bethesda and Salem
The feelings of the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven are as acute as-and a great deal more worthy of consideration than-those of any friend on earth.
His person has been disparaged; the faith of His people has been corrupted: woe is me, if I know this and am silent!
An Appeal
1. Forasmuch as " faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1), and is in demonstration of the Spirit and in (divine) power.... there is, therefore, fellowship of thought between God and the believer. For there is unity in the truth; and but one gospel is known in heaven. As to the world, it is written: " If' our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.... For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
God hath shined into our hearts.... the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Mark, here, the unity of truth-that which is the precious brilliancy of God's grace.... shines into the hearts of us who believe.
In detail this may be seen everywhere in Scripture. Thus, Matt. 1:20, the Lord teaches Joseph, in a dream, to call a babe (who should be born of one whom human thoughts would have put away privily) Jesus; far He shall save His people from their sins: and to know Him as Emmanuel, God with us.
Thus, also, in the very question of salvation-the chief corner-stone, to the Lord precious (to the world a stumbling-stone and a rock of offense), is to them that believe precious.
Thus, too, the one whom God thought of men alone " worthy to be searched after, though unsearchable, the Lord of all, to whom every knee should: bow," Jesus—the God-man—Him Saul despised, and was mad against his name. But when grace reached him-"Who art thou, Lord?" and "What wilt thou have me to do?" told of the sympathy he had with the divine mind.
I shall not stop here to remark, at length, upon the divine power, or on the renewed nature, or on the difference between the Divine estimate into which we are led, and the personal affections of our hearts as men, which all have their respective places in connection with the subject.
2. When faith is simple, and the power of the Spirit put forth in the application of truth great-as in Paul's case-the progress may be rapid, both into truth, and into the discovery of what we ourselves are. On the other hand, when faith is feeble, and when the gospel has been diluted and corrupted by man, and when, through man's wickedness, the Spirit though acting to save souls for eternal glory does little to make good a present testimony, the progress may be slow, and the consciousness of the precious truth that " faith's estimate" is purely and only according to " God's estimate" may he feeble and little.
Again, Caleb and Joshua had to wander with Israel; and the faithful servant of the Lord now will find that he has to endure much by reason of the failure of the people among whom he walks, and by reason of their little 'faith. And truly he that will be as a nursing mother will find his need of tender long-suffering with them that are of little faith, and with the feeble-minded.
How low saints are sunk, how beclouded the testimony of the gospel has been, and how uninstructed the children of God are, few of us, I believe, know. With such a state the utmost patience is needed, and should be exercised.
But there is another and a very different state from this sometimes met with; a state, not of persons unskillful in the word, who mistake one thing for another, and have to learn better, but which is found in connection with high profession of knowledge, in teachers-a condition of soul which does not so much show itself in hindering the progress of the person's own self, as in sapping the very foundations of the faith of others. As to such, the word of the living God to us would rather seem to be (Rev. 2:2): " I know.... thy patience, and how thou cant not bear them that are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.'
Such a one, in our own day, in the worst form of it, is the unhappy Mr. Newton, who, in a former book, exalted the church to " omnipotence," " omniscience," and " omnipresence;" and, in his later tracts, degrades the Lord's
Christ into the place of an unbeliever: denying that he had any acceptable relationship to God in his work here below. A blasphemer and a heretic are hard and awful names for any man, however much an individual may have done to earn and maintain them as his own.
The great evil of these tracts of Mr. Newton's is, not merely that they have; led many naturally intelligent persons, who trusted to their own understanding, into the same blasphemies, but, what is worse (to my own mind, at least), they have been lent and re-lent among the poor, and statements partially agreeing with them made by others before the simple. The effect is, that the souls of. many have had the dew of grace removed, the bloom of the ripening fruit (which no man can restore) fingered away.; and the blessed Lord, who was to many a poor one enshrined as a beloved object of worship, lost that place in the soul, at all events for the time present, while his person (which no one knoweth save the Father) has become the subject of a speculative analysis and anatomy in conversation, which must sicken those that love, and alarm those that worship Him, and love his flock.
It is a very different thing, I am aware, to be set in the service of Satan as one of his, and to fall for a season into acts and words which subserve him. But the question of the person, or his character and service, must be dropped sometimes. The words of Paul (Gal.1:8, 9) are distinct: " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let ( -) be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let () be accursed"-whether the " let be accursed" apply to the person or to the doctrine taught, and sometimes it might be one, and sometimes the other.
Now, I cannot hold myself guiltless before God or his saints, unless I raise my voice concerning statements made by Henry Craik, co-laborer with George Muller, in. Bristol. And to whom shall I better appeal than to the congregation of which he forms a part in Bristol. I do not accuse himself of being a blasphemer or a heretic; I hope better things. But I do challenge his statements as blasphemous and heretical.
3. The statement I lay before them, as in the presence of God, for judgment is the following—
" The ark was formed of shittim wood: the hard, sweet-smelling acacia of the wilderness. The tree from which the sacred chest was made, had grown up and been nourished by the rain and sunshine that sometimes cheered the wastes of the desert; so Jesus, as to his humanity, grew up in the wilderness. He was as a root out of a dry ground. He breathed the same air, and was nourished by the same food, by which mere creatures are sustained. The winds of this desert world blew around Him, and as the tender sapling gradually grows to maturity of height and vigor, -so Jesus advanced through the several stages of infancy, childhood, and youth, to a state of maturity in age and stature. The acacia wood is said to have great power of resisting the inroads of corruption and decay; so the humanity of the Lord Jesus was free from the slightest taint of moral evil, and his body was preserved from all taint, even of external corruption."-" Pastoral Letters," 2nd Edit. pp. 92, 93.
And I pray the congregation to observe how entirely the whole work connected with Mr. Craik, in Bristol, and each of themselves in particular, has been involved in and committed to this statement.
On Sunday, the 25th of June, was read at each of the three places of meeting this notice.
" It is intended, the Lord willing, to have an especial meeting of all the brethren and sisters in communion, next Thursday evening at Bethesda, at seven o'clock, at which explanations will be given relative to the printed letter of our brother, Mr. Alexander. All the brethren and sisters are especially requested to be present. The usual meeting at Salem will be given up that evening."
On Thursday June 29; and on Monday, July 3, 1848, was read at Bethesda, to the meeting so convened, a paper signed by H. Craik; G. Muller; J. H. Hale; C. Brown; E. Stanley; E. Feltham; J. Withy; S. Butler; J. Meredith; Rt. Aitcheson.
In that paper it is stated-
" 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.... are, through the grace of God, those which we still maintain."
And toward the end it is added-
" 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 (Pastoral Letters by H. Craik), 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 afterward led to publish." So far Mr. Craik. Then the ten:-" 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."'
Now here the ten (workmen or laborers among you) laboring to quiet your minds from all fear, throw out in your presence, a broad challenge to any one. I accept the challenge and answer as before you.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.