After the secession from Ebrington Street, as spoken of above, the adherents of Mr. Newton were reduced to a comparatively small number, but these for the most part were zealous partisans. Copious notes were taken of his lectures and readings and were “as regularly circulated among a select few in various parts of England, as books in a reading society.” A package of such notes fell into the hands of Mr. Harris in the year 1847; and in the following way. A sister in Exeter lent them to his wife, as being Mr. Newton’s teaching, from which she had found much interest and profit. Mrs. Harris, not understanding the meaning of some of the author’s expressions, referred them to her husband. “I then,” he says, “looked into the manuscript myself, and (on perusing it) felt surprised and shocked at finding such unscriptural statements and doctrine, which appeared to me to touch the integrity of the doctrine of the cross.” Having carefully examined these statements, he published a tract, in which he exposed and brought to light that system of false doctrine which Mr. Newton had been diligently teaching to his chosen few for years.
Such an exposure, as may be supposed, produced great alarm among Brethren in all parts, and naturally brought a reply from Mr. Newton. Two pamphlets speedily appeared, in neither of which did he disclaim the doctrine asserted in the lecture thus reviewed, but stated it more at large, though in a less offensive form, and then defended and supported it. The doctrine of this lecture on Psa. 6 by Mr. Newton, and published in a tract entitled, “The sufferings of Christ, as set forth in a lecture on Psa. 6, considered by J. L. Harris,” are no doubt the most truthful expression we have of the author’s mind. It was delivered in the presence of his friends, calmly and deliberately for the benefit of note takers, so that we may fairly infer that the real sentiments of his soul flowed out freely without disguise and without reservation. But finding something like universal indignation excited by his blasphemous doctrines, and even his own friends ready to desert him, he agreed to withdraw his offensive tracts for reconsideration, and confessed he was in error on one point relating to Christ’s connection with Adam as federal head.
Were it not that even this brief sketch might be considered incomplete if we did not say something of the heresy, we would be glad to pass it over in profound and perpetual silence. We shrink from transferring to our pages the subtle and mystical expressions in which the deadly error was taught. The blessed Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us, was represented as born at a distance from God, involved in the guilt of the first Adam, because He was born of a woman, and under the curse of the broken law, because of His association with Israel.
Thus, alas! according to these doctrines, we are bereaved of the true Christ of God—the Christ of the New Testament. There is no need to enter into details. If born at a distance from God, under the curse, and an heir of death, He is utterly disqualified for becoming the Savior of others. He had to deliver Himself from those relations in which He stood from His birth; and this, it is said, He did. It was admitted that He was free from taint in His person, and by His perfect obedience to the law and in all things even unto death, having delivered Himself, was owned of God and accepted by Him. But all this being due from Him to God, where is the sinner’s substitute, the sinner’s surety, the sinner’s sacrifice, the sinner’s gospel, the sinner’s Savior? And where are the doctrines of grace, and where is the church of the living God, and where are we individually? And what of the finished work of Christ, or what means the conqueror’s cry― “IT IS FINISHED”?
The folly of this theory is as glaring as its blasphemy, though characterized by the depths of Satan. In result it is as ruinous as Arianism or Socinianism, though less logical. It is self-contradictory and savors more of the author’s vanity and love of distinction than of honest conviction. It had only to be brought in to the light to be seen and detected. This was the great mercy of God: it was not allowed to go on. For, most assuredly, a false Christ was preached at Plymouth, and the presence of the Holy Ghost was denied. But, with the exception of a small party, chiefly Mr. Newton’s personal friends, the great body of Brethren were agreed, after due investigation and prayer, that the doctrines which Mr. Newton had been teaching and privately circulating were fundamentally heretical, as to Christ, and utterly subversive of all that is essential to Christianity. The false doctrine was almost universally condemned; but they were not of one mind as to the principle of dealing with it and of separation from it.
Bethesda and Her Rulers
In the year 1848, while Brethren from all parts were holding meetings in different places for prayer and humiliation because of the sad work of the enemy, the rulers of Bethesda received to the Lord’s Table several of Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partisans who were known to hold his heresy. This rash and most unhappy step on the part of these rulers, and their deliberate defense of it, proved most disastrous; it rent the Brethren asunder, entailed indescribable sorrow and trouble on individuals and families, many of which are not healed even unto this day, besides the great damage done to the cause of truth, and dishonor to the name of the blessed Lord Jesus. This is the real source of the strife, divisions, misrepresentations, heart-burnings, and evil surmisings, which many Brethren still feel, and which has put so many weapons in the hands of their enemies. Mr. Newton and his followers might have been easily disposed of; but the complication of Bethesda was hopeless. And this act, apparently so regardless of the Christian feelings of others, was not the result of accident or of ignorance, but was done deliberately in spite of the remonstrance of godly brethren among themselves, and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views of the persons in question.
Seeing things had taken such a decided form, a few faithful brethren on the spot, members of the Bethesda meeting, protested, and entreated that such doctrine should be examined and judged, and its teachers put out of communion. But, their remonstrance being unheeded, they were obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to be evil, to withdraw from the communion at Bethesda. This they did; one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading brethren, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. This brought forth a paper, signed by ten chief persons at Bethesda, vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. Newton’s followers, and in rejecting all the remonstrance and warnings which had been addressed to them.
As the question of fellowship was first raised at Bristol, and from thence extended to almost every place on the face of the earth where there happens to be an assembly of Brethren, it may be well to look for a moment at the antecedents of this meeting. It was simply what is known as a Baptist congregation, presided over by Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik, and meeting for worship in a chapel called “Bethesda” in Bristol. Some years previous to this testing time, this entire congregation was received into fellowship with Brethren―received as a body. “The whole assembly,” says Mr. Mackintosh, “professedly and ostensibly, took the ground occupied by Brethren. I do not mention names or descend into minute details; I merely give the great leading fact, because it illustrates a most important principle.
“It has been my conviction for many years, that this reception of a congregation was a fatal mistake on the part of Brethren. Even admitting, as I most heartily do, that all the members and ministers may have been most excellent people taken individually; yet I am persuaded that it is a mistake in any case to receive a whole body as such. There is no such thing as a corporate conscience. Conscience is an individual thing; and unless we act individually before God, there will be no stability in our course. A whole body of people, led by their teachers, may profess to take certain ground, and to adopt certain principles; but what security is there that each member of that body is acting in the energy of personal faith, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and on the authority of the Word of God? It is of the very last importance that, in every step we take, we should act in simple faith, in communion with God, and with an exercised conscience.....
“The fact is, Bethesda ought never to have been acknowledged as an assembly gathered on divine ground; and this is proved by the fact that, when called to act on the truth of the unity of the body, it completely broke down.”
“The Letter of the Ten”
The main object of what is commonly called “The Letter of the Ten” was to vindicate the conduct of those who had received the followers of Mr. Newton and adopted a neutral position with regard to the solemn questions which had come before Brethren generally. While the signers of the letter, severally and jointly, disclaimed the doctrines taught by Newton, they strangely say, with reference to communion, “Supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation-truth.” The only ground of rejection is thus plainly stated: “That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton’s views or tracts, should be received into communion.”
Such was the ground taken by the most intelligent men in Bethesda, according to this remarkable document, and that before the error in question had been judged. They refused to judge it. “What,” they said, “have we at Bristol to do with errors taught at Plymouth?” Nor would they agree to any extracts being read to the congregation from Mr. Newton’s writings, or remarks made on his doctrines, until the letter had been adopted by the church. A meeting of the church was called for this purpose in July, 1848; but, as some of the members objected to the congregation sanctioning a paper which had not been explained and was not understood, Mr. Muller rose and said, “The first thing the church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that if this were not done, they could not continue to labor among them; and the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought out.” Thus were the people required, under pain of losing the labors of their pastors, to assume a position of neutrality between the author of the tracts and his adherents, and those who utterly rejected them as unsound and heretical. The majority acquiesced: by standing up they declared their approbation of this paper of “the ten,” and assumed a neutral position as to the great question which then agitated the minds of all Brethren both at home and abroad.
The Division
About fifty or sixty of the congregation, rather than sanction such a loose principle of communion, withdrew from Bethesda. A positive division now existed. The question was now fairly raised as to whether Brethren were really gathered on the ground of the unity of the church, or merely as independent congregations. Bethesda had deliberately given up the ground she professedly occupied in fellowship with Brethren, had adopted independence, and openly avowed it. All who adhered to the principle of the “one body,” as the only true ground of Christian fellowship, were directly opposed to this independency. Several meetings throughout the country followed the example of Bethesda, while others firmly maintained the position they had previously occupied. Brethren everywhere had now to face the question. It had to be looked at straight in the face. The testing time was come, and there was no backing out of it. To all who had not taken in the true idea of the church of God, it proved a terrible stumbling block. Personal feelings, and affection for favorite teachers and friends, misled numbers. In many instances the abstract question was listened to and seemed right; but the moment the principle was applied to some particular person, the arguments were set aside by the hasty conclusion, “Oh! that principle of fellowship can never be right that would exclude such a dear, godly man from the table.” It was difficult, with feelings so fresh and strong, to take an unprejudiced view of the question: unless the soul was delivered from persons and their influence, and steadily fixed on Christ alone and on what is due to Him, no divine decision could be reached. When things merely natural were allowed to operate, the spiritual vision became clouded, the mind more perplexed than ever, and most likely yielded to the pressure of circumstances.
As it was then, so it is now. When we think of what is due to persons, we come to a wrong conclusion. When we think only of what is due to Christ, all is clear and simple as the elements of truth itself. When the blessed Lord takes His place in the church of Philadelphia, He reveals Himself in the character which is to form the standard of reception to the table and of the public walk of those received. He says, “I am he that is holy, he that is true.” What could be more simple than this? Christ is there is His moral glory as the Holy One and the True; and we must look for more than intelligence or cleverness in answering questions; we must look for holiness and truth in those whom we receive to the Lord’s Table. Nothing short of separation from all known evil, and soundness in the faith will suit His presence. We have ever to remember that He says, “there am I.”
At first sight, and to many minds, it does seem more gracious, more loving, to receive to the table those that we believe to be true Christians though they come from an assembly where some of the members hold false doctrine, while they themselves are sound. Is it right, such will say, to cut off a whole meeting because of two or three unsound members? The answer is, None should be cut off but “wicked persons;” but the scripture also says, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” This is not cutting people off, but departing from them; having nothing to say to them so long as they are mixed up with iniquity. Surely the heresy of Mr. Newton is iniquity; it would leave us without Christ, the only foundation and center of union. It is worthless to talk of communion at all unless we have the true Christ of God. But let such true Christians as you refer to judge themselves of the known evil in God’s sight, wash their hands completely of the defilement, and then they will be received with open heart and arms at the table of the Lord. Our first thought in reference to the table must always be, not what suits this brother or that brother, or what seems more loving and charitable, but what suits Christ as the Holy One and the True. When the eye is single, the whole body is full of light; there is no darkness or perplexity in the path.
It is also said, we know, that the Exclusive Brethren―as the protesters against Bethesda’s course were now called―will receive persons to the Lord’s Table from the Church of England, where much error is held, but refuse the most godly saint from a Bethesda gathering. This is true and often most painful and distressing to those who have to do it. Nothing but fidelity to Christ and His word could give them firmness in the face of the appeals that are made, and the subtle pleas that are urged. The explanation is this: strange as it may appear, the Neutral Brethren, as they were now called, professedly assembled on the principle of the church of God as before the division, and professed to own the presence of the Holy Ghost in their midst. Several things might be noticed which appear to us inconsistent with this position; still, as this was and is the ground taken, the gatherings must be dealt with as one body. By acknowledging the presence of the Holy Ghost in this way they profess to be one body though many members: therefore, in receiving a single member from a body that professes to be a unity, the whole body, sound or unsound, is, in principle, received. (See 1 Cor. 12). But in the Church of England and in the various forms of dissent, no such position is assumed. They meet on the ground of a particular system; it may be Episcopacy, Presbytery, or Independency; and the members of the different systems remain as so many individuals, and ought to be dealt with as such. The ecclesiastical position of such is entirely different from that occupied by the Bethesda gatherings so-called, and each individual must be dealt with according to the ground he professedly takes. There may be much sympathy and friendliness amongst the denominations, but there is no such thought as unity; nevertheless, to refuse a godly Christian from the Church of England because he may think the Establishment right would be to make light or intelligence a title to communion, denying the unity of the body and form a sect. It is not a question of degrees of light, but of holiness and truth.
Bethesda Professedly Clears Herself
As the pressure from without became greater, and Bethesda began to discover that her conduct had stumbled thousands of God’s saints, and was giving occasion to so much division and controversy, a meeting was held in that chapel, October, 1848, for the purpose of clearing the assembly of all charges of fellowship with Mr. Newton’s false doctrines or the holders of them. On this occasion Mr. Muller gave his own individual judgment of the tracts. He stated that the writings of Mr. Newton contained a system of insidious error, not here and there, but throughout; and that if the doctrines taught in them were followed out to their legitimate consequences, they would destroy the foundations of the Gospel, and overthrow the Christian faith. According to these doctrines, he repeated, “the Lord Himself would need a Savior as well as others.” Still, while giving so strong an individual judgment as this, Mr. Muller added that he could not say Mr. Newton was a heretic, that he could not refuse to call him brother.
After the lapse of thirty years and quietly looking at these recorded facts, we think them strangely inconsistent. The author of doctrines that would leave us to perish without the Christ of God is surely a heretic; and how could we call him brother? And how could there be a brotherhood? At the same time, Mr. Muller was most careful in maintaining that what he said was not the judgment of the church, but his own individual judgment, for which he alone was responsible. As to the paper of “the Ten,” and all the steps connected with it, he justified them entirely, and said that, were they again in the same circumstances, they would pursue the same course.
But the general feeling was now become so strong, that the leaders saw it would be necessary to go more fully into the question; and although they had stated at the beginning of the troubles that it would be wrong for them to investigate and judge the false doctrine, and so get entangled in the controversy, they were now forced to own it was needful and right to examine the tracts. But the sad mischief was done: fifty or sixty godly brethren had been forced out of Bethesda from the leaders positively refusing to judge the false doctrines, and numbers throughout the country were thrown into a state of perplexity, sorrow, and strife. In November and December of 1848, seven church meetings were held, and Mr. Newton’s tracts were examined. The conclusion come to was, “That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton’s views or tracts should be received into communion.” But this conclusion left the door as wide open as ever to those who were in avowed fellowship with Mr. Newton, provided they did not defend, maintain, or uphold his views or tracts. Few would have the frankness to acknowledge they do this, though many at that time were tainted with his heresy. “The letter of the ten” remained un-repealed and un-repented of, and continues to this day as the studied and deliberate statement of the real ground of Bethesda fellowship.