Plymouth Related Papers

My dear Brethren,

I have read a paper professing to be a reply to any letter of the 9th ultimo. Its contents may be divided into three parts:

1st, Statements as to certain facts; [which I only refer to, as the writer says, “silence gives consent,” I could not subscribe to the correctness of these statements at all.]

2ndly. A moral portrait of myself [The saints will judge how far this is a caricature of not; may they and I derive all the benefit intended; the rest I leave with the Lord.]

3rdly. There is, what professes to be a sufficient disposal of the matter of my letter. On this point alone I say a few words.

I am thankful for the appearance of the Tract,and consider it an answer to prayer, though much sorrowed by the views it states-for the author’s sake; whom I love, and for whom I have prayed (God is my witness) how frequently! His conscience and mind I must leave where he describes them as being. To his own Master, and not to me, he is accountable; and the mercifulness of that Master, who has had such cause to know as I? But to you, beloved brethren,I would make a few remarks, chiefly in the form of questions.

Is the order which reigns in the tomb better than the confusion which oft attends the services of life?

You used to call the one man system of ministry a human invention-a theory systematizing evil, spite of its fair show in the flesh; and you used to own that liberty of ministry was God's system, in the abuse or careless use of which by man many evil effects might result. Which is worst, the deliberate sanction of systematized evil by willing union- with it, or the unwilling connection with accidental evil, through failure against one's own will? Is it better to bear before man the shame of nakedness, and the reproach of the apostasy ` and ruin of the churches, or to daub with untempered mortar, and bear an appearance before man which is not true to the eyes of God?

Did you come into your present position merely by backing away from detailed evils, or as 'seeking to honor the personal presence of God, the Holy Ghost, as Christ's vicar on the earth?

Because you have not tongues and miracles, will you now deny that 1 Cor. 12 and 14 contain the principle (God's principle) for ministry-the Holy Ghost's directions for mutual edification? Will you set aside the Holy Ghost's present directions in the assembly, under a notion of ordinary and extraordinary operations, and leave the saints to the wretchedness of human preparations for ministry-for it really comes to that?

Are men to take the rule and oversight, and stop those whom you find to be godly edifiers, on the plea that preachers are God's ordinance for the good of souls?

Is "the ministry " (of God's word by whomsoever among you God may administer it) to be confounded with "the ministry " or clergy-the church, a set of self-honorers who would make a class of these teachers, calling them a divine institution? Are Deacons synonymous with teachers and are the joints and bands to be shut out from service, in the public meetings? Was Paul received at Jerusalem first as 'an apostle, or as a brother?

And now, without meaning to measure, much less to condemn, any that may be among you, what are the peculiarities of your position-little as we may have met the responsibility of them?

God's system of the church was not clearly seen at the reformation. What was the movement in that, day? It was the result of the Holy Ghost's testimony to the work of Christ as atonement. What is the Divine: movement peculiar to our days? It is the result of the Holy Ghost's testimony (to those who know atonement by Christ) to the person of Christ in the heavens, and to his works there now; and when he comes again. The movement in Luther's day included neither all nor only true Christians; nor, alas! does the movement in our day do so any more. But the personal presence of God the Holy Ghost, who came down here as Christ's vicar, when he went up into heaven,-and the abiding of this Person (not only Influence) for the care of the household of faith-together with his testimony as to what Christ is, and is doing, and is about to do, for us; this, to those to whom sovereign grace gives the knowledge of it, is a blessed, but solemn, responsibility. Men may murmur and rail at our short-comings: we know them, and would be humbled for them, and humbled for the murmuring too-; yet much more humbled by reason of the blessedness of the portion God has thus shown to us. The movement resulting from the fresh setting forth of this truth (as to what Christ is, and is doing and is about to do), by the Holy Ghost, is as much God's work, as was the setting up of justification by faith in Luther's day; and he who fights against either, fights against God. I do not say the 'results are to man of equal moment in the two cases. Pitiful selfishness, however, is it to put Christ out of the center, and one's Self and tender feelings in the center, and then to measure things by their bearing on that precious self of one's own.

Brethren, among you are many godly and grave ones, who left John-Street and Islington Chapel, &c., because your stay there sanctioned evil-grieved the Holy Ghost: not because of accidental evils, but because God the Holy Ghost's authority could not be owned by you there. Is a Baptist system, or an 'Independent cause, less a sect or system now than it. was seven years ago? Surely time has made no change. A sect is a sect, and heresy is heresy, whether found at Antioch, or London, or Plymouth.

Brethren! Satan is at work, trying, here as elsewhere, to find entrance for some shred of Romanism. And he is trying, too, by all the trouble and sifting, to drive back into the world. He would prefer your turning back to the ecclesiastical world; but if he cannot do that, then to the worldliness of domesticity and ease of circumstances. Watch and pray, lest ye fall in the temptation which tries you, and remember, there must all be heresies among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest.

Your Brother in the Lord,

G. V. Wigram.

The letter I desire to remark upon is one now widely circulated among wise and simple: it cannot be wrong, to help the latter to appreciate it.

In Nov. 1846, Mr. N. came to London in opposition to advice, and held meetings, one in the vicinity of Rawstorne Street, to which certain brethren of Rawstorne Street were invited, to whom he offered his explanations of the charges against him. On this, first, the Saturday meeting by four of its number, and then ten brethren, requested him to consent to a public investigation of the charges in presence of all the parties concerned. This, Mr. N. declined, and left London. Correspondence ensued. The Rawstorne Street meeting took it up, and receiving a similar refusal, have apprised Mr. N. that they feel precluded from fellowship with him at the table until he complies.

This paper we are told, is to inform us of the reasons of the refusal. Observe, the invitation was to satisfy the brethren at Rawstorne Street, "as to the truth, or falsehood of the charges against Mr. N. in the Narrative of Mr. D., and this in the presence of those concerned."

The writers commence by telling us, that "the main bulk of the charges affect them as much as they do Mr. N."; again, "that they are as truly implicated in the main bulk of the charges."

I pause to observe, that so close an implication must necessarily affect their impartiality in any matters closely connected therewith.

I anticipate the reader's surprise, when he is told that from the second to the tenth page, and again from the fourteenth to the twenty-second, the whole of this printed paper, so far from touching the main body of the charges, is exclusively occupied by the charges of untruthfulness in Mr. N., which charges are here, on the very first page, declared to be " an exception" to the main bulk of them.

Thus, unless we are prepared to take up the " exception," and neglect the " main charges," we may pass over pp. 2-10, 14-22, leaving but three pages for fulfilling the promise to inform us of the " reasons for declining the proposed meeting" for investigating the main charges.

But I will dwell a little on these 18 pages: and first, I would not overlook the reference on p. 2, to wider charges: such as, "the way in which certain sentiments were disseminated by those who acted under Mr. N’s influence," "their falsehood and injurious character,"—"the sectarian spirit and purposes betrayed"—"their practice and principles of church government "-and " after this, charges against Mr. N.'s veracity." There is about this paragraph an air of chronologic order, which may justify my recalling, that the complaints of clericalism in church government and ministry are well known to be several years anterior in date.

Seeing how large a space these several charges occupy in Mr. D.'s narrative, and considering that these brethren had-before them-the invitation expressly referring to " the charges in the Narrative," it does seem unaccountable that they should say, " we understand your letter to refer only to the charges against Mr. N.'s veracity,"-which latter were brought forward, as they say, " after" the sectarianism, clericalism, etc.

One word on all this confusion of charges, so different in character and gravity.

The charge of bringing in sectarianism and clericalism is made against Mr. N., he having been long and generally regarded as the principal party. It is not uncommon thus to single out a principal, passing over those who are supposed to have acted under his influence. But it is most unusual, indeed, for any whose names are dropt out of an indictment, to form themselves into a jury, and acquit their principal! We shall see this a little further on!

I recognize an immense difference in the importance of these two heads of charge; namely, the charge of personal untruthfulness, and-that of setting up a clerical system. To me, therefore, it appears a singular want of steady intelligence in the brethren who went to Plymouth to look into the whole matter, to have embarked so earnestly in the question of Mr. N.'s ingenuousness in the matter of the five letters and appendix, and the Clulow letter.

So it was, however: the personal charge was the great concern—and Mr. Newton, we are told, conversed with his coadjutors on the propriety of "those caring for the saints" (that is, themselves, for it seems Mr. Harris had left them!), noticing and examining into these charges. Observe these charges, i. e. the personal charges. To this there could not be any objection, until it should appear that-their examination was designed to supersede investigation by the assembly. In this case, it was to be an examination by those who now tell us they were " implicated as truly as Mr. N." in other and more general charges brought by Mr. D. (comp. p. 5, line 9).

The excitement noticed on p. 5, has much the appearance of a tub thrown to a whale. After much time spent on the question as to the five letters, and the Clulow letter, a judgment was put forth, in which Mr. N.'s complete innocence is certified under the signature of—whom think you, reader?- why of Soltau, Batten, Dyer, and Clulow, the same four who now tell us they feel implicated, as truly as our brother N. in the main bulk of the charges.

But how is this? Did the other brethren from a distance in whose " company" we are told (p. 5) the charges were sifted, give no verdict? Who that loved the truth and the whole truth, would imagine that there is here silently passed over a previous verdict—agreed on and actually printed by five brethren who are less open to suspicion of partiality namely, Sir A. C., Lord C., Code, Potter, Rhind—which verdict, although substantially acquitting Mr. N. of intention to mislead by these said letters, had been suppressed at the urgent demand of Mr. N. himself!

Now add to this the fact, that these five last named brethren, after allowing their own verdict to be suppressed, are silent while the latter verdict is foisted into the place of the former one—the very existence of which, this Plymouth paper passes over in silence! Can the simple ones understand this?

I turn again to the paper I am remarking on- and what do I find following this suppressio veri, but another suppression of a fact most needful to a right estimate of the proceedings.

In p. 6. we are told, that-" Subsequently meetings of the saints in communion were convened," and the freest opportunity afforded and used for questions -Mr. N. attending, and being questioned for some hours. On the following page we have such words applied to this, as, "an investigation by the Church," a "searching" and "protracted investigation," and the "judgment of the Church"-"a case already investigated," etc., etc.

Now what shall we say of the ingenuousness of those who omit to remind the simple reader, that, at this period, " the Church " so called had been diminished in number, and surely in impartiality-by the previous withdrawal of 100 or 200 who disapproved of the course of those in Ebrington-street? So that this searching and protracted investigation was, of necessity, absolutely limited to a friendly majority that had already pronounced in favor of their general course!

Who, I ask, would have gathered this from a perusal of this Plymouth paper?

On the 8th page I notice, by the way, how it comes out, that all that here refers to the personal charges of untruthfulness is beside the mark (that, is, no less than eighteen out of these twenty-two pages); for there we are told that it must not be concluded, that the many who have seceded from Ebrington-street, did so because they believed the charge of moral evil, but that " most of them seceded on quite other grounds."

We have next a letter from Mr. Rhind, and one from Lord C.,—kind and beloved brethren, but not particularly suited for dealing with the occasion in hand. Their letters refer only to the moral and personal question. If the judgment of those two brethren is asked as to the general course of those at Plymouth, we may he allowed to refer to Mr. Darby's Narrative, page 56, and perhaps also to the undisguised and strong expression of Lord C., to those who have had free communication with him on that head.

At length we arrive at page 11. As to pages 18 to 22, we have already said, we are dispensed from even looking at them.

But here, in pages 11 to 13, we have the only reasons given: "Some of the reasons," as it is said, for declining the proposed meeting. They are, briefly:-the violation by Mr. Darby of Christian courtesy and propriety in manner, rendering a meeting face to face inexpedient, in the absence of express texts requiring it; and, secondly, that Mr. Wigram's conduct at Plymouth, and his recent letter, disclose an animus so opposed to holy and impartial judgment, as to render a meeting where he has influence unwise.

" But these objections seem hardly sufficient, to justify our brother N. in refusing the desired investigation, and are such as ought not to hinder, though they might try, his faith in God's present control to maintain order and the power of holy and impartial judgment.

The real question is, Is, it right? Is it due to the saints? Is it founded in Scriptural principles? And by Scriptural, I do not mean enjoined in texts that have the stringent precision of the old law, but the broad and general principles of openness and providing things honest, sanctioned in the Word. I cannot argue with those who want a text for meeting an accuser face to face.

The writers of this Plymouth paper evidently feel this to be the question; accordingly we have it here decided, rather than argued, in a few lines on the 12th page, which is all we have on the really great question. The four brethren settle it as follows:-" It is well known we have always refused to acknowledge that the Scripture recognizes the whole body of assembled saints as invested with authority and capacity to examine witnesses, and debate their verdict. This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service." Again:-" We have always denied that the church is a deliberative body."

Disguise it who will, the real question is here before us. Has the assembled body of the saints in any gathering authority from God to judge evil?

If a certain "capacitated" few undertake to examine into a charge, our brethren at Plymouth will recognize that, even although, as we have seen, those few should be implicated in closely connected charges. If those "serving the saints" in any place convene a meeting to inquire into, or judge, a certain evil, these brethren will recognize that. But, if the hearts of the whole assembly are burdened with a strong suspicion of evil in their midst, and can get no relief from such a jury, these brethren at Plymouth cannot recognize their competency to deliberate, to examine witnesses, and debate, or, as I should rather say, consider, their verdict.

Now, reader, look at the opposite side, the one on which Mr. D. and others appear, who are opposed to the Ebrington-street management. You may discern among them much to grieve a spiritual mind; here and there a pushing head of radical insubjection; but you will, at least, find the recognition of a conscience in every member of the body, and of the duty of keeping that conscience clean in what concerns the gathered church.

You will not wonder that such brethren should press their claim to be satisfied in their corporate character as a gathering, having responsibility to the Lord. You will then learn, that not fewer than seven or eight different propositions, having this object, have been made to our brother N., all of which have been put by as inadmissible or unscriptural; and you will naturally ask, Where is Mr. N.'s method of satisfying them? I have not heard that he has proposed any!

Here then we come to a stand. If the consciences of all are to be met and cleared, it must be through deliberation. If deliberation is to be helped instead of superseded, it must be allowed to hear witnesses. If, in grace and humbleness, the gathering discharges its shoulders of a burden too hard for it, it may, one would think, nominate any of its number, capacitated by impartiality and intelligence, to look into, and report on, the matter. But where, we ask, do the brethren at Plymouth refer their troubled brethren? Where is Mr. N.'s scriptural course? Is it not true, that we are turned back to the judgment of some three or four (nay, it might be one), who, as in this case, may be closely implicated with the party charged?

Where the word of a free Salvation comes, and souls are sanctified in Jesus, the little company, so long as their hearts are tender, will feel that holiness is to be a living pulse, acting continually in the putting away of evil. They will purify themselves as He in whom they hope is pure. They will do this, whether they have, or have not " pastors and teachers,;" and if such are added, in the Lord's grace to them, it will not be to strip them of their conscience, but to help and guide it. I hope this is clear to all.-It ought to be so.

The honor of those who minister is inseparable from the preciousness of that to which they minister by the will of God. It would be strange, indeed, if their presence should incapacitate the consciences of their brethren.

" Let no man beguile you." It will be apparent, from its very substance, that this Plymouth paper is NO defense at all against the main charges,' which are really blinked and eluded. Whether intentionally artificial, or unaccountably beside the mark-the reader may settle. It is enough to have shown that it is not safe for a simple saint to take in hand a Plymouth paper, even though signed by four brethren ministering in that place.

I do not press the misrepresentation (page 12) of the letter from Hackney, It is now acknowledged to have been mistakenly construed as a definite proposition. The writer of that letter made inquiries as to several supposed cases; but no application or proposition whatever was made by the brethren at Hackney. Having seen the answer returned to the letter ***-in which answer I suppose the assent would be contained-I do not regard it as a direct assent to a definite proposition; but as a consent, clogged with suggestions, and not at all recognizing the conscience of the general body of the saints.

(*As thus: "We should see no objection to three or four impartial brethren examining into, and calling for witnesses." "We would suggest-first here (at P.)"-"should object to delegates from other gatherings," &c.)

In a word, the position these brethren at Plymouth have taken is one which I would not acknowledge in brethren in whom I had full confidence; and I have no confidence in those who at present bear rule in Ebrington Street. It is sad to say it. Once, I may have thought that the rule and ordering of the Holy Spirit was a truth honestly held in Ebrington Street, together with much other blessed truth. But that confidence is gone c and I desire to grieve at the thought, that hundreds of dear Christians, brought together in a place where that truth was believed to be truly held, should be furtively deprived of it, and after having doubtless heard much concerning " faith in God," be persuaded to abdicate their individual responsibility; and so be brought again under a sort of clerical bondage.

W.

I own the Church—to be an habitation of God through the Spirit;-the place of light and truth;-the place for ingenuousness;—and inevitably the place of judgment,—for the Lord judges it, if it does not judge the evil in its midst.

To assert—either, that any of its members (as quickened by the Spirit) is not competent and responsible to bring any known evil into judgment, on the one hand;-or, that any of its members (by virtue of office) is above its judgment on the other,-I hold to be a denial both of the presence of the Holy Ghost and of the Lordship of Christ.

The present tract contains matter which many will at once condemn me for printing. I have pondered the step, however, ere taking it. The facts of the case, viewed in the light of the sanctuary, require me to take it; and I am persuaded that the mind which condemns me will be judging rather according to appearances than according to righteous judgment. I may go farther, and state that I believe that every sound christian mind which fairly considers all the facts of the case, must approve my doing what I do.

To the heedless reader I expose myself to the charge of the breach of all gentlemanly feeling, as well as of the law of copyright; because the heedless reader will think that I am publishing part of a private correspondence not addressed to myself. The facts of the case, however, are quite otherwise. With the letter as a private communication I have nothing to do; I never knew it in that character, and I was not the publisher of it, though I have a right now that others have published it, so far to modify its circulation as to deliver the souls of the little ones.

Let us look at the case. A man has so far organized a party throughout England as practically to have agents all over the country for the dissemination of his principles. Some papers are sent by his emissaries from Plymouth through a series of persons resident in different parts of the country, so many days being allowed to each for perusing or copying the manuscripts ere forwarding them. And this is frequent. A sort of Depot is thus formed on every side. The understanding at these places, is that the papers may be shown wherever they will do good, but great discretion to be used. The poor, simple ones in the neighborhood are often deluged with these papers any teacher in the place having heard by report of any one of these papers, asks for a sight of it, he is refused, until Mr. Newton's leave has been obtained. This leave has been peremptorily refused, when the teacher was one whom Mr. Newton was trying to underwork. And further, a grave and moral teacher when indoctrinated by Mr. N., was told to act upon his principles, but that he need not avow then.*** Sisters, moreover, distinctly told what they may, and what they may not read. I could, if needful, mention places, north, south, east, and west, in England, let alone the other countries in Great Britain, Europe, America, and Asia (as to Africa, I know nothing, though I have my suspicions that the Cape, at least, could show the same manuscripts, or some of them), which have agents such as I refer to:—not paid or formally commissioned, yet bona fide agents of the system. Now here is a system, as I regard it, of Satan's development and energy, and the less of human intention there has been in the building of it, only so much the more of Satanic power. Two or three hundred copies of the circulating medium of this new sect are thus brought into existence, and I call this publication. To say it is not publication, because, forsooth, the work is not in print and on sale is what I call a disingenuous quibble. And Mr. N. and employees are the publishers. I consider too, that when the secret instruction to the order of Jesuits was discovered in MS., he, into whose hands it fell, was quite free, and bound, if he loved the saints, to print it.

(** Two brothers from different countries, both conversant with this system, (one of them just escaped from its influence), have declared that Michelet's exposure of Jesuitism, in a book entitled Priests, Women, and Families, is fraught with instruction, as to the principles of these Plymouthists. This book I never saw. I do not advise any one to read it.)

The-Letter is a singular one, containing a sort of double entendre, fitted on the one hand to mislead the unwary, and on the other to be a refuge to the misleading; while at the same time to the intelligent reader it presents the solution of all the apparent discrepancy between the principles avowed in, and the practice of Ebrington Street, and at the same time its untruthfulness is plain to any one acquainted with the facts it refers to. I say this, as showing the desirableness of brethren generally reading it.

And now I will state what, as it seems to me, I have done, and how far I really stand committed. There is a paper which all will feel Mr. Newton had no right, as a gentleman or a man, to circulate at all, without Mr. Eres's leave. We will take for granted that he had that leave, as far as he or you please; and that he has not overstept the leave given to him in allowing this paper to get upon the list of his copyists' publications. So far all may be well, and I have no right to interfere. But what is the next step? Why some sisters introduce it in a serpentine, stealthy trail into the church of the living God. There I meet with it, in more places than one, recognize its character as being unsuited to the Holy place, and drag it from the shade into the fair day-light. Whatsoever makes manifest is light. That such undercurrents are proper for the Church of the living God let who will believe: I do not think so. On the contrary I believe it to be the solemn though painful duty for every one that has competency to challenge, to lay hands on, and drag out into the light all such documents. Any Christian who finds such things in God's Church, is, as it seems to me, free to nail them up outside the door, with or without or against the consent of the publishers. And for any one to pretend to be a watcher for God's name and his brethren (however feebly) and yet to allow such things to go undetected and unrebuked, would be folly if found defiling the Church of the living God.

It seems to me that we are all verily guilty in having allowed the five MS. letters to be circulated during the last few years; letters so evidently sectarian and separative. Watchful wisdom and energy would, I believe, have called the author to account before the saints at their first appearance. This was not done, and we have had to escape a heresy characterized by a dark delusion, sectarianism, and untruthfulness almost incredible. I repent of this as also that when Mr. Newton made statements to myself derogatory to the Divine glory of the Son of God, and other statements were credibly reported to me denying that Christ had human feelings, I did not seek to call him to account. What is past must rest between God and our humbled souls. But now that I am outside the camp again, God helping me, I will not allow the deceptive process to go on, where I am, unmanifested. To the world in Plymouth Ebrington Street is the " Puseyism" of Brethren.

And here I may state, further, that my own domestic circle and the Church which, through grace, is in my house, has been the scene of the working of this leaven.

I will name three instances. A copy book, six years ago was left by some zealous partisan of the system, on my dining-room table at Camdentown. Who was to blame? Mr. Newton? he was at Plymouth. It was his paper sure enough, but I could not suppose he sent it. Whose hand put it where it was found? No one could tell. In whose hand was it written? Nobody knew. [Since I have found out by a singular circumstance that it is Miss Jeremie's handwriting.] Again, a sister in town last Autumn brought to her own house from a depot of MSS. (directed thither I understood by Mr. Newton himself) a MS. (This depot had been five or six months existent, the guardian of the MSS. a person constantly speaking against Mr. Newton, but acting for him. It was only the fact I refer to which brought the existence of such a depot to my attention). A friend of the sister brought the paper to my house -the paper was injurious and untruthful. The member of my household to whom it was brought, very wisely brought it to me for a judgment, which I gave. Again a paper of one just returned from Plymouth was brought to me as received by a friend staying in my house, so slanderous and calumnious that I begged it might be given to me. My wife and child and household shall not be subjected to such trials or to the example of things done in so immoral and demoralizing a way. But how can I prevent it? Captain Wellesley and Mr. McAdam may refuse to soil their own hands by receiving any such questionable underhand papers. This is well. And their plainly saying so before the saints was well. But it will not act on those transgressing in the matter. They have no shame. I shall try another plan, and that is, expose to the public all such papers.

To be quite plain-I believe distinctly that Satan. is using Mr. Newton (unconsciously) to defile the Church of the living God by the mode and matter of his underhand publications, and that the poor of the flock are despised. The systematic untruthfulness surpasses everything I ever met with-it is in God's house; often about God's people; and about God's things; and if not actually about God himself, yet about offices and actions in which God is supposed to have been the energizing Power. If in myself the chief of sinners, I have as a saint to preserve my soul from tolerating such evil; how can the evil of these publications (in which the leaven is) be stopped? By their being forced out into the light. But who has a right to touch them? Whose are they? Are they mine? My heart sees quite clearly where the lion is; but I answer boldly, Christ had a right to overthrow the table of the money changers and drive out of the temple the sellers and buyers. Neither the money nor the doves, &c. were his: but God's claim was paramount to all: so verily though these things are not mine, I can say that the Spirit of Christ has a right in any one to lay the hand upon that which defiles the temple and force it into light. Private end I have none to answer. If Satan is angry-the Lord's sheep are worth suffering for, if it be that they may escape; and though Satan and man may accuse, if Christ and conscience acquit and approve, all will be well. I appeal to the Church of God who is to blame, Mr. N. or myself? Yea, whether the forcing into light such documents is not praiseworthy.

And if Mr. Newton supposes that when papers are being issued from his own peculiar friends as papers of his-(calculated to mislead the saints-in a mode which is undermining all moral feeling in the Church of the living God and in the domestic circle,) that I shall allow him to plead part proprietorship, and to prevent my so putting the papers into the light as the positive untruths they contain may be seen by all-he miscalculates. Come what may, he will not so screen himself.

I would just remark that because some sisters have so far forgotten themselves as to have allowed themselves to be debased to become the mere tools of a party, it is not to be thought for a moment that this is the case with all, or (blessed be God) with most of them. If some have acted and others are acting so improperly as to require that their names be mentioned in rebuke before the world for their misdeeds, it is a common shame to the family; and if, as a husband, a father, and a brother, I feel indignant at what degrades the female sex, it is indignation for them against their degraders.

As to the letter-observe the date. It is a mark as to Ebrington Street:-1st, as connected with the recognition of the Guides, " of 'whom there are at present three or four;" 2ndly, it is within six weeks of that letter which Mr. Hill in part answered. In which letter they complain that even personal veracity is impeached.

It is not truthful to speak as though not more than four or five persons had been stopped in ministry in 14 years, and then only by those who addict themselves to the ministry. Mr. Newton autocratically stopped Mr. Hill. And in London alone there are three whose ministry was interfered with at Plymouth. Neither did the plan always succeed so well as it is said.

As I was in Plymouth at the beginning, I must utterly deny that the process recommended to Mr. Eres is a true account of what we did; it is the very opposite.

The following letter is circulated by Mr. Newton's friends, as a correct exposition of his present views. If I know of ten copies in various places, four of which are certainly open to any one to copy, and the fifth was in the hands of one of the most active agents of these things,-and of some fifty persons who have read the same, what report would a chief copyist give of the extent of publicity given to this letter. It has been shown in proof of how very clear he is upon " Open Ministry," and how foolish it is to accuse him with having attempted to shut up ministry.

I print it upon my own responsibility without his leave. If it is not a correct copy, I am sorry for it, the fault is his. A publisher surely is responsible for his mode of publishing and for all its results. If he chooses a MS. circulation, mistakes are attributable to him, not to those to whom the copies come, and especially if he might have chosen another and a more accurate mode. To my own mind it is clear that in putting forth into circulation,-it may be through the pens of sisters,—such a paper, he has put it into the Church of God; which is the place where everything can and must be judged,—for the Spirit is in and among the saints;-and I have no scruple before God in presenting it and every similar publication before the saints for judgment, that God's children may be warned of the snare and falsehoods contained therein.

I say snare of the statement; it seems to be a vindication of open ministry; nay more, a theory "how to form open ministry." The simple are caught hereby How wrong to charge the author of such a paper with denying Open Ministry! they say. But this is merely a snare. Open Ministry formed and allowed and regulated by a Patron or Guide is one thing,-and Open Ministry formed and allowed and regulated by God the Holy Ghost is quite another thing: the one is the very opposite and in the most direct contradiction conceivable of- the other. In the former case too a man stands between me and God;-if he nods assent, or pauses, I am sanctioned;-if he dissents, or gives no pause, I am to be silent. My own weakness and responsibility and God's strength made perfect in weakness are never felt by me, and I have virtually a priest between me and God, this as to the saints so acted upon and among. As to the man who takes such a place, or fancies himself put into it of God, I will say nothing. Yet surely it is a turning back to build again the things which some of us at least have destroyed. That we began upon this ground, as asserted, is not true, as any one may see who will study the tracts " The Nature and Unity of the; Church of Christ" and " God's system" or vol. l. of " The Christian Witness;" or let them ask Mr. Hall, Darby, Jarratt, Rowe, Saunders,-who were at the beginning before Mr. Newton left Oxford; or, if they wish for other witnesses, let them ask any of the intelligent godly clergy who were in Plymouth at the time, as Mr. Hatchard, &c. &c.; or dissenting Ministers, as Mr. Nicholson, &c.; or such men as Mr. Hill, Harris, &c., who were among the first laborers.

And be it observed that a moderately careful perusal of the letter will show that not only the edification of the assembled body is thus under human control but also the whole discipline of the body. If Mr. Darby had written his tract "A Letter to the saints in London as to the presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church," in refutation of the letter he could not better have answered it. See also an answer to it in the Letter of J. E. Howard to Miss——.

“Plymouth, May 14th, 1846.

My dear Brother:

I have again to thank you for your kind note, and the inclosures;-the latter I had seen before at the time you were so mercifully separated from the Establishment, and feel thankful that you have been counted worthy to suffer for the truth sake. How all the increased light we have been receiving from the prophetic word, shows the rightness of the position you are occupying; and if we are enabled to hold it in humility and meekness in subjection to the Scriptures, we shall find in it a present and everlasting blessing. The points respecting which you are at present exercised, are surely very important, and I trust that the Lord may graciously clear away every doubt, and lead you to a decision clear and satisfactory to your own conscience. You are aware that when we separated in this place, 14 years ago, we were greatly influenced in all movements by the conviction that the gifts of the Holy Spirit remain in the Church, so that we could still apply such c.c. as 1 Cor. 12, and Eph. 4. I think I may say we have never, for one moment, seen any reason to doubt the rightness of the conclusion to which we were then led. On the contrary, all our experience has been, and still is confirmatory of it. Indeed there seems a positive promise in the Epistles, that certain ministries granted by the Lord at his ascension, should continue till we all come into final perfectness. The continual use that we make of the apostolic writing, as the authoritative rule of the saints is a sufficient 'verification of the statement that he has given Apostles to bear upon our edification unto the end. There are still some who speak to edification, exhortation, and comfort, and they are prophets; there are some specially gifted in unfolding the meaning of the Scriptures, and they, I suppose, are teachers, and we find others acting as Evangelists and Pastors. We find also sometimes, the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, and faith, such, for example, as Muller's; ‘helps' also, and governments' κυβερνησεις. Those, I suppose, have this last gift who take as it were the helm, and guide others less skilful than themselves, through perplexing or difficult circumstances-in a word, I believe that every gift mentioned in the Scriptures, whether to be exercised in or out of the congregation, remains, though in weakness, except those which, if present, would invest the Church in the eyes of the world with enviable power, such are the gifts commonly called miraculous-they, I believe, have been withdrawn exactly for the same reason for which God withdrew the Sheckinah from Israel, for it was the visible token of his glorious presence, withheld therefore when they had so sinned, that He 'could no longer mark them as his, in the sight of the nations. But things precious to the poor of the flock still remained, and so I believe it is now. Many a ministration which!, the poor humble saint values above all price, and recognizes as of the Spirit, is still found in the scattered and!; fallen Church; but none in which the world would see any beauty or excellency, such as the gift of tongues, or the healing of diseases, for how could God put his mark of approval on a body which no longer retains its visible unity, and is no longer answering the purposes for which he called it out into visible separation on the earth. But it must be carefully remembered that the assertion of the continuance of the gifts of the Spirit, does not imply that every one in the congregation may minister. There has been the sad and fatal mistake which has almost ruined our testimony in many places; surely none but teachers may teach, none but evangelists evangelize, none but prophets prophesy-and all are not teachers, nor evangelists, nor prophets. Indeed the majority of the gifts given to the saints are evidently not intended for the congregation at all, but find the sphere of their exercise out of the congregation in many an unobtrusive ministration of kindness and love. The mouth is but one of many members in the body, and unless a person have that place in the body, he has no title either to pray or speak in the congregation. Gifts, too, are abiding, not sudden and impulsive. We are exhorted to stir up our gifts, and to wait on our own ministry, so that an acting on Cor. xii., would neither imply that every one would expect to minister, nor would it preclude the stated frequently recurring ministry of some. A friend recently writing to me from abroad, and lamenting over the mistaken views that have prevailed among many of the brethren, as to loose and democratic views of ministry, says we must avoid as to ministry the thought of unrestrainedness and a disavowing the responsibility of recognizing as teachers, &c., those whom the Lord has distinctly set as such. We are responsible also for checking ministry which is not for edification. E. F. used to say that the true thought in connection with ministry is "stated ministry, but not exclusive." I mean by stated ministry, that such and such are the persons, who, at such and such a place, are wont to minister, and in fact, whose ministry may be expected, whilst at the same time, there is no shut door, so as for any whom the Lord may fit for ministry, to be excluded from exercising any gift he may have received. Such is the principle on which we have been acting for more than 14 years; and we have every reason to be satisfied with it, and to say it is the principle of God. Every Lord's day morning we meet for communion at the Lord's table. It is a meeting open to the ministry of any whom God may have gifted for such service; there are generally 3 or 4 brethren present, who are known either to speak or pray to edification in the congregation, and although we do not know beforehand which of them may pray or speak, nor in what order, yet we always expect that some or all of them will take a part in the meeting. We believe it to be their duty to stir up the gift that is in them. But whilst we thus expect the regular ministry of some, pauses are allowed to occur, which afford the opportunity for rising gifts, if such there be, to be developed and proved. If any speak, and after due trial their speaking is found not to be to edification, the brethren who are regarded as "addicted to the ministry of the saints" here (of whom there are at present 3 or 4) after consulting others of spiritual weight, wait on the individual, and advise him (or if the case needs it) request him not to minister. We have not had occasion to act thus more than 4 or 5 times during 14 years, but when we have been obliged to adopt this course, we have never found it to fail. Besides the meeting for communion, we have another meeting in the week, and several prayer meetings, in which the ministry is similarly open; but in addition to these, we have many meetings, some for reading the Scriptures, some for lectures or teaching the saints, and some for preaching the Gospel to the world, in which the meeting entirely rests on the responsibility of the individual who undertakes it. The room in which he thus lectures or reads or preaches is regarded for the time-being as his own private room. It is a ministry with which the saints unitedly do not interfere, it is undertaken and carried on solely by the individual in his own manner and time, and he asks whom he pleases to be his substitute at his own discretion-of course where brethren who are laboring together love one another and confide in one another, such meetings will naturally become subjects of united interest, but still of freedom and responsibility. We believe that in such matters the Church may advise, but it has no right to interfere authoritatively except in a case of positive evil. Then, of course, it must exercise its discipline. I have now I think said enough to lead you to infer what my counsel to yourself would be. I should judge that the Lord has for the present devolved on you the responsibility of watching over the saints gathered under your care, both in doctrine and manners. If there be any others of whom you can say that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints like the household of Stephanas, I think it would be your duty to recognize such, and encourage such in the exercise of any ministration, whether in ministry of the word or of pastoral oversight, for which they have proved themselves fitted. If no such gifts have as yet appeared, I think you must wait, and he most careful not to force on any prematurely, nor by encouraging any who have not proved themselves qualified to fall into the old error of human ordination. This mistake, I might almost say sin, has not unfrequently been fallen into amongst brethren. Here, for example, at an early period of our gathering, a meeting was formed of six or seven brethren, for purposes of general oversight or rule, before any of them had really proved their qualifications for such a position; the result was that several soon showed they had no qualification for such a service, and the meeting, after lingering out an unprofitable existence for many years, was at last dissolved by the consent and desire of the majority who composed it, but not without leaving in the bosom of one or two an unhealed wound, which has operated most banefully in many ways; so that we have had our chastisement, for virtually we ordained or put persons into a position of rule without waiting for the Lord to manifest whom He would really qualify by His own gifts. I should think your prayer meetings would furnish an opportunity for your judging who might be qualified to pray. If there be any whom you deem able to pray to edification there, or wisely and with godly discretion to read a chapter or give out a hymn, then you need only at your meeting for communion afford the same opportunity by pauses, and you would introduce the principle of open ministry into your chief meeting. The presiding at the Lord's table would probably for the present remain in your own hands until it had pleased the Lord to raise up some amongst you of sufficient weight and judgment to undertake it in your room; for though we have to avoid the assumption of the clerical position, and though it is not necessary to be either teacher or prophet or evangelist in order to break the bread, yet it does require that he who gives thanks to God as the representative of the congregation on such an occasion, should be of grave character and of good report both in the Church and in the world, and able fitly to speak in the presence of a congregation for them to God. I do not doubt that all those who find themselves placed in a position similar to that which you now hold in Sunderland, will find their progress and blessing mainly to depend upon their willingness to receive and acknowledge anything that they may judge in their conscience to be of the Spirit and their faithfulness in discountenancing that which they believe to be of the flesh. Your title to act in such a way is the fact of being placed in the relation you hold to the saints around you-necessity is laid upon you by force of circumstances; so was it with Nehemiah of old-he had no other title to his authority-he was neither of royal nor priestly lineage,-but he was devoted in heart, and he had the word of God, and God brought him into circumstances in which every godly eye could see that he was doing the Lord's work; and though he had no outward authority-no ordination-yet every one who was true in heart to the Lord gladly owned authority in him. And now if we in Plymouth, and you, dear brother, in Sunderland, seek to go on using whatever advantages and influence the Lord may place in our hands for Him and His truth according to His written word; and if whilst we diligently and regularly wait on our ministries, we do not improperly exclude others, and do not seek to put ourselves or others into formal office or into positions beyond our strength, I do not question that, we shall find it the one path of real blessing and prosperity in service. I am fond of quoting, and applying 1 Cor. 16:16, I believe it just exactly indicates our present condition;-it is not exclusive, it leaves an open door for the manifestation of any gift; at the same time it recognizes a definite relation held by those who are known as fitly ministering, and points them out to their fellow-saints as worthy of love and honor for their works' sake.

Yours, in sincere Christian affection, (Signed) B. W. NEWTON.”

In correcting the above, by a second MS. copy, two verbal differences appeared. The word Epistles, p. 13, line one, at top, read Ephesians; and the word request, p. 15, line 15 from top, seemed to read require. The paragraphs differed materially, as also the stops.

This letter was first brought to my attention in London, by Mr. Howard's answer in print to part of it; and secondly in a note from Mr. Hill, (declining, from domestic affliction, to attend the Meeting in Rawstorne Street on the 9th ult.) I give, according to his permission, a few extracts, showing the impression the perusal of it produced upon his own mind.

"Rest assured, as to the meeting in town, that no one will appear (as accredited) from Ebrington Street. I am confirmed in this assurance by my perusal this day (just five minutes previous to the receipt of your letter) of Newton's epistle to Eres, of Sunderland, which (to say nothing of its plausible strain) contains in it (in MY judgment) two utter misstatements, so bad that I can do no otherwise than believe he advances them ignorantly. The one is, he ventures to assert, that ab initio i.e. fourteen years ago we met on the same principles on which they now meet in Ebrington Street; and secondly, he departs from the truth in the reason he assigns for the dissolution of the Friday Meeting.

I have now not a particle of doubt, since the perusal of Newton's letter to Eres, that what that letter develops has always been ab initio, i.e. fourteen years ago, in the secret of Newton's heart to develop so soon as he could do so with safety.

Five years ago my eyes were first being opened to his working at a plan, and the result has justified my suspicions. If the ground of our gathering had been fourteen years ago the same as that practically recognized now in Ebrington Street, what occasion for such clandestine mode of action? Were we not as men HONEST enough, or as Christians GRACIOUS enough, to be dealt with in an open and ingenuous manner? or was it not rather the truth that in his own conscience he was planning to do something subversive of the original principle on which we met? or else (in corroboration of this assertion) why is it that the original Brethren have to a man (so far as I can discover) left? and why is it that Newton, in the evident anticipation of being left alone by the original Brethren in the development of his plans, so warily encircled himself with a new set, not one of whom I believe ever accepted in their hearts (as now proved by their ways) the principles left us in the great grace of Jesus towards us, of meeting together simply in his blessed name, as our alone gathering point, in the energy of the Holy Ghost, because of the utter ruin as to its organization, &c. of his visible Church here on earth. I can truly say that had I recognized any other principle twelve years ago, I should not have come amongst the Brethren, for constituted as they now are in Ebrington Street, I think their position is more evil than that which is usually understood by the term Dissenter, because they profess to be different whilst essentially their position is the same-for wherein is the difference except it be merely circumstantial.

And with reference to the Friday Meeting usually held at Harris's, it was Newton himself' who was the first cause of its dissolution; and I feel perfectly disgusted at his palpable misstatement of the true reason. I was myself the first Brother who resisted his quiet tyranny over that meeting. His practice was, whenever he attended (which never or seldom was in a deliberative capacity, but only when he had a special point to gain), to enter the room five or ten minutes previous to the usual time of separating, and throwing himself into an arm chair, inquire what had been done in such and such a case? If it happened not to accord with his judgment, our decision, the fruit of prayer and two hours perhaps of deliberation, was to be reversed on his dictum, and such proving the case once after my personal remonstrance with him before all the other Brethren there and then present, I abstained from attending any more, and found that ere long the meeting was dissolved.

I can now see it was a meeting in Newton's way at that time, but it was himself, who in the way I have stated, contrived to dissolve it-at least (to answer for myself) his conduct was the sole cause of my leaving, and others followed shortly after.

Excuse the length of this; but I have been led on. In a measure it may speak for me in my absence, but at your discretion. I could perhaps have added more.

Yours affectionately in our Lord,

Richard Hill.

The three things which appear to have struck Mr. Hill on the perusal of the letter, are—1. the departure from original principle; 2. the purposely concealed yet well-concerted and pre-arranged mode of this departure; and 3. the positive falsehoods contained in the statement.

Note.-The Friday meeting referred to, consisted I am told, latterly, of Hill, Harris, Saunders, Rowe, Soltau, Clulow, Batten, Lean; Mr. Newton was rarely there. Now the meeting " was at last dissolved by the consent and desire of the majority who composed it," means, I suppose, Mr. Newton: he is the majority. Not only was there no consent and desire in the brethren Hill, Harris, Saunders, Rowe, Lean, Soltau, for the giving up of the meeting, (as to Clulow and Batten I know little)-but the very opposite-the very strongest desire in one and all of them to see it restored, and no one was the barrier to the restoration but Mr. Newton. Upon his solitary obstinacy in refusing this, in a great measure, hinged the withdrawal of Mr. Darby from the table and of Mr. Harris from ministry, with all the sad consequences. And the saints know this very well.

In conclusion I would only observe that I am not responsible for the document which I have printed ever having been penned by Mr. Newton; I am only responsible for the truthfulness of the statement I have made, viz. that it has been shown by his direct employees as an authentic document of his-a very clear view of his principles. It is because I believe it to be so, and therefore a key to many perplexities among brethren that I have printed it. In this view, authentic or not, it will be of value. In my own mind, however, I have no doubt that it is both an authentic and a correct document.

G. V. Wigram.

Since the printing of this commenced, I wrote, as urged upon me, to Mr. N., enclosing him a copy (in letter-press) of his letter. I stated that the paper was about to be published; that it was sent for corrections according to the original copy, and that it might be declared a forgery if not Mr. N.'s. I add his reply below. The reasons why I heed not his prohibition, may be seen above.

[I understand that Mr. Tregelles called on the Printer and stated that I was not to print Mr. Eres’ letter without the permission of the proprietors.]

B. W. Newton.

To Mr. Wigram. March 3rd, 1847.)

As John Howard has quoted from a MS., as purporting to be a " copy of a letter from Mr. Newton to Mr. Eres of Sunderland;" and as " Mr. Eres of Sunderland" is already a public character, as a name known to every one, all scruple about mentioning his name is set aside. The letter evidently shows that he and Mr. Newton are nearly strangers the one to the other.

And now, ere closing, I would just advert to the obvious and all-important difference in the conduct of a saint toward God and toward Satan; or toward a work of God and toward a work of Satan. If our brother Bellet is pleased to circulate, in MS. papers for the edification of his brethren, I can bless God; and I can bless God if such an one allow me to see and to have many of his more reserved thoughts or to print some fen; of his papers (as " Heaven and Earth." &c.) As a Christian I have to be subject to, to serve and wait on all such; and most unchristian would it be to break or betray his brotherly confidence. I would. add (to the praise of God's grace) who is so perfectly ready, if in any such paper, there should seem to be anything contrary to fellowship or beyond the measure of our faith and power, to give account of himself and to recall and suppress the part objected to, as our brother B. But when another has avowed the intention of making a party every where; has said he will do it underhandedly if he please, by means of sisters if he can; when a paper is so evasive as to bear three meanings; when it is replete with falsehood as to facts; when the writer will give account to none, save a few in whom, for the time, his spirit energizes-the case is quite changed; and decided unflinching contention becomes right. The more so because sober and Godly Fathers have said that the falsehood is so alarming in extent, and yet so subtle and evasive in character, as that it must be left (to work its way among the little ones) until God Himself shall arrest it. The tender Christfulness which made Paul a nursing mother to the saints in their weakness, made him a stern resister of Peter himself, when he was doing that which destroyed the foundation and energy of the saints.

One family may leave Plymouth to save the children from "being demoralized;" another may refuse to return from dread of " the poisoned atmosphere;" and many others, tied to the spot, may be longing to escape from it. They are right as to what they would shun-wrong, now, in localizing it to Plymouth. It is a system which has worked, from Plymouth, in London, Paris, Switzerland, &c. I shall not do so, but openly attack it at head quarters.*

I do not lay the blame to any door save that of Satan; though I believe that Mr. Newton, duped through his ambition by another, is the man most to blame. If people suppose I write in harshness they are mistaken: till this letter I never so fully tasted. " My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels;" besides, I myself am as one, throng grace, escaped.

Statements contrary to, or more highly colored than the facts authorized, I do not think I have made. A few which I thought others might deem so, I have suppressed. If the impressions of my mind have misled me, or if my language misleads others! am ready to explain or to confess.

To sum up in closing. I appeal to the saints as dwelt in and among by the Holy Ghost.

What is their estimate of this system, whence does it arise? whither does it lead? and by what spirit is it energized, What think they of that which in the midst of a controversy as to whether Ebrington Street has continued upon its pristine principle or not, is found to be secretly and underhandedly circulating by some sisters, a paper like this? It is a paper calculated to mislead the simple: to be a refuge for the misleading; a solution to the intelligent of the discrepancy between principles and practice, and yet full of falsehoods and misstatements as to facts.

If Mr. Eres and if the saints of God in England rightly understand The Letter,-they will, I am persuaded, be as wary of the system and its agents-as are their brethren, whose painful duty it has been to separate from Ebrington Street.

Plymouth, 2nd April, 1847.

Dear Friends, -In this tract, Lord Congleton has referred you to me (p. 17, 7th line from top)- [" See a copy of this document in Mr. Wigram's possession"]. "This document" is the statement which, he says, Sir A. Campbell prepared and signed, and which others countersigned. As he has publicly referred you to me, without informing me of his intention to do so, he cannot be surprised, if I state, as publicly and candidly, my reasons for declining to be his referee in this matter.

I object, then, to showing the document to any applicant, for the following reasons: -

1st. It contains " a judgment" (given a year ago), by a certain party upon part of a case. The same evidence as was before that party, is now before you. If that judgment were sound, and still unquestioned, it ought to have no weight with you, apart from the grounds on which it is formed: those grounds it does not give. Read for yourselves the evidence of the case prayerfully, humbly, and soberly; and God will, if you wait on Him, form in your souls a conclusion (of more value than the common consent of all the good men that have lived since the days of the apostles), because the result of grace, faith, and prayer.

Saints are not to be put, by those who own the lordship of Jesus and are guided by the Holy Ghost, upon the; technicalities of human law. If a bill against Mr. Newton had been ignored, or if he had been tried and acquitted in the world, the question would be at rest forever. But what self-constituted, or church-constituted, grand jury can, in the same way, ignore a charge of moral dishonesty in the church? And if the church had judged a case, and then questioned whether it has judged it rightly, surely it ought not to find rest; for it has to do with the present thoughts of the living God.

2ndly. The document came into my hands irregularly (i.e. not by gift of the author), but from another, under a pledge that I would not allow its contents to get abroad.

3rdly. I could not, consistently with what is lovely and of good report,—with what is honorable among men—show (save as a literary curiosity) a document bearing credentials of a secondary confirmatory character, when the parties themselves (so countersigning) have withdrawn their names. Lord Congleton, in my presence, insisted upon the canceling of his signature. So did Rhind and Potter. Each had a right to do so, on any grounds he deemed adequate; so had Mr. Code, upon what grounds he pleased. Lord C. may, perhaps, without consideration, wish to revive the document now; Mr. Newton's friends certainly do: but Lord C. has no power to do it, any more than he had power to suppress it then, or had a right to tell the printer to stop the press (which he inconsiderately did), without Sir A. C.'s leave. He can publish, if he pleases, another paper like it, signed by himself and those who are now willing to sign it; but he cannot use the names of Campbell, Potter, Code, and Rhind, without their leave; so I judge: certainly I shall not give him assistance in any such work.

4thly. The primary signature of the document has been erased. Sir A. Campbell, the author of the paper, for reasons which he can state, canceled his own name, and the paper became a nullity and a fiction. He has said, before 180 persons, that within three days of the suppression, he felt he could not sign it, and that his judgment is now opposed to its contents, and that he can be no party to its going forth at all.

Lord C. cannot be aware of the position he wants me to stand in, as his referee. It is to become the publisher. What would be the probable effects of my presenting, at his banker's, a bill, with a counter-signature erased; or a check, with the signature canceled; or of my presenting a legal document, similarly circumstanced, in any court in the world? And are liberty and character among men to be prized by me; and is the church of God to produce no respect in my soul? Let who will, try to SET ASIDE legally executed documents, or try TO REVIVE actually canceled documents; I trust grace will keep me from it.

5thly. The document (which has no more reality than an unsigned deed or bank note, or a patent of nobility without the name or rank being inserted) contains a falsehood; and if it had ever come into existence, I should, long ago, have said so. Sir A. C. drew up a paper, and the four countersigned it, in which they (as self-chosen representatives of ten persons) say so and so. What is stated there by Sir A. C. doubtless he thought to be the case; but by what right could he have sent forth a document which I never heard of, committing one to what I did NOT hold? God stopped the execution of it; and so be and the counter-signers were saved from palming off upon the saints what, had it ever existed, would have been an untruth.

To explain this, Lord C. says (page 17), " 1. When Mr. Darby says, ‘........' he must, I suppose, know that, the difficulty that arose at the close of the investigation was not whether Mr. Newton should be considered innocent of any intention of untruthfulness or dishonesty, because it was a clear case for charity to step in and claim the accused, even. Mr. Wigram said, after hearing Mr. Newton's paper read, (5) 'I can receive it from Mr. Newton,' alluding to the Clulow letter, Mr. Morris having proposed the same line of defense the previous Friday which Mr. Wigram was unable to receive from him. But the difficulty that arose was, whether we could give a corporate (4) testimony to his innocence or not; Mr. Wigram and Sir Alexander Campbell were chiefly opposed to it, and their arguments prevailed, because (3) Mr. Newton and Mr. Darby had both met us, on the understanding that we were certain individuals seeking information, not a Court having authority to judge and decide. But there was no question (2) as to whether Mr. Newton was to be reckoned innocent of the personal charges; (1) at all events, it was not avowed." [The numbers, 5, 4, 3, 2, I, refer to the following remarks:-]

Let others speak for themselves: all I shall do is, for the sake of candor and truthfulness, to speak as to myself.

(1) I certainly avowed no judgment. I should have felt it out of place to have done so; because I distinctly understood I was at the meeting to hear evidence, for my own information, and not to give a judgment. (Who got up these meetings, I know not; I was asked, when the plan seemed maturing, if not matured, for them). But-

(2) There was a question in my mind, as to whether Mr. N. was innocent, as I shall state. It existed before the investigation; was lulled for a few hours during, but revived with tenfold force before the close of, the investigation.

(3) I thought, and do think still, that there was an important difference between Mr. Darby's and Mr. Newton's understanding, in meeting us. I understood, that Mr. Darby was willing to meet and tell all he had to say to any one who could say, "that conscience, and not curiosity, made him desirous to hear"; and that he left each and every such party to do what he deemed right with the information—only he would NOT say a word, if persons understood that by his so doing, HE pledged HIMSELF to recognize them as a tribunal, in place of the congregated church. The double pledge, then, I thought I stood in to Mr. Darby was, that " conscience led me to inquire;" and that he " had not constituted me his judge, but still stood before the church." The pledge which I gave to Mr. Newton at Little Saltram, was, that I would not use the information he gave me, to settle consciences with, at Plymouth, one way or the other.

(4) Morris and others, at the commencement of the meeting, had insisted much that we were there, not as a court, but only as individuals, for our common and individual convenience. I understood Mr. Newton also to pledge the meeting, ere he read his defense, not to use the information given by him, to settle the consciences of Plymouth saints. I did feel that it would be a shame, in the world, to any man, to have gathered information under a pledge given by him, and then to use that information contrary to his pledge. I remember using no arguments, however; and I do not think I did. My journal of the meeting helps my memory. When Lord C. did say, " Well! all I have to say is, if we had found Mr. N. guilty, I am sure we should not separate without corporately saying so" (as I understood, addressing himself to me, after my saying, I could not cooperate in a verdict). These thoughts struck me: "An ungenerous remark! but he did not mean it.- How little he knows my desire to cover over evil I but he shall not provoke me.—How strangely they seem to forget their honor; but we are amid delusion."

(** In writing to a friend at the time, I said. "The delusion is so strong here, and the spirit of misapprehension, that if you meet a friend in the town, and say, 'I am glad to see you,' you will be heard and reported as having said, 'I wish you were dead.' The observing this increased my natural taciturnity.")

I did say these words: "I can receive it from Mr. Newton;" but not exactly in the connection here (I have no doubt, by mistake, not intention) stated by Lord C. Mr. Morris had said, that the Clulow letter was in substance equivalent to Mr. Darby's account of the meeting in 1845. This I denied: and asked him how he could prove it. He took two sentences from different parts (as I thought) of the Clulow letter, and, putting them together, deduced what he said was equivalent to it (i.e. Plymouth being made a focus of testimony against the views of brethren, etc.) I said: “I cannot receive that;” I was then told, “This is what the paper means.” I replied, “I cannot receive that from anyone but the writer.” Again, I did say, after Mr. Newton had repeated, in substance, Morris’s remark: “I can receive it from Mr. Newton.” But what could I receive? Why simply that he meant to say in the Clulow letter what he had said at the meeting. But when I came leisurely to see and to weigh the two statements, could I say that ten shillings and a crown made a sovereign? No; I could only hold that, indeed and in truth, Mr. Newton did mean to propagate that gloss. It was within a few hours, when I had considered the arithmetic, that I felt his having said this was an additional proof of the evil. Lord Congleton says, p. 18, of the document of acquittal:—" But what is the truth? Why it stated that Mr. Newton had read a paper which entirely satisfied the investigating brethren, -that is, the ten brethren. This was signed by Sir A. Campbell. And then it further stated, that this account (Sir Alexander's) of the investigation met with the entire approbation' of Code, Potter, Rhind, and myself, our four signatures being attached to this certificate."

I was one of the party; and I was not satisfied. The four entire approvers have escaped publishing a falsehood on paper; and also the " entirely satisfied" has escaped originating a false certificate. But they did escape, and have trespassed nothing, either against me, or others, in having merely drawn it up-nor against God, His church, and their own souls, as those of them whose judgment is now changed, must feel they would have done had they published it,

" III. A paper drawn up by Sir Alexander Campbell, and signed by him, and some other brethren, stating, that the two latter of Mr. Darby's charges had been met. This was accompanied by a letter, from Mr. Newton to Mr. F. Prideaux, in which he stated why he had not himself published and circulated the paper so drawn up.

" This last is the document which some have called the suppressed verdict; and this name has even been applied to it since it was publicly tendered, and peremptorily rejected. No one ought again to call it a suppressed document, unless he adds, that it was suppressed by this meeting, in Rawstorne Street, with Messrs. Darby, Wigram, and Dorman, present and concurring in the suppression."

This is not true. Neither the paper, nor the letter from Mr. Newton to Mr. Prideaux, were tendered or rejected. ("Publicly tendered, and peremptorily rejected," are the terms used above).

I am here again referred to; and I have only to say, that, if the document had been tendered, what I have said above, would have applied to the tender much more strongly; because, while Lord Congleton indirectly brings forward its contents (that is, merely as in proof of the inaccuracy of the narrative), such a tender would have been a direct pleading of its contents as evidence, which Lord C. does not. In this case, however, I must say more; and that is, that the intention being avowed that it was to have been done, I can only deplore the Ahitophelian counsel which could stand in the background, and propose to use an affectionate and inexperienced and honorable young man, in his innocency, to do a deed, which the standard of what is upright, neither in the army, navy, law, nor in the commercial world, would tolerate for a moment; and which, in civilized society or domestic relationship, would indelibly stain the intelligent and willful doer of, with infamy. As a Christian, I have no desire to habituate my mind to such things -or, as a man, to lower my standard of right and wrong below that of the lowest of the low. The four—Clulow, Soltau, Batten, Dyer (as well as Mr. Newton)—have appealed directly to the evidence of this document in The Reasons; and so has Mr. Tregelles, for himself, in Appendix B. And they must take the consequences.)

I beg that particular notice may be taken of " the how" Lord Congleton came to refer to the document. It was by accident. It was, as I trust, in simplicity, while, showing out what he considered an inaccuracy in a passage in " The Narrative;" which passage, as referring to himself, he had a full right to comment-upon. In doing this (as not being guarded enough), he has left himself exposed to a heavy charge; because he, has practically brought into public his version (at all events) of a suppressed document, without even saying, that, properly speaking, it never had existence as a document, and now is canceled. At Ebrington-street, they are glad enough to use him as their cat's-paw in this matter, and to drag out this document,-which, though rejected by Mr. Newton, and therefore at first canceled, is found to be the best testimonial he ever had offered him, Lord Congleton has, in fact, done this for them; and his action in this (the more so, because he does not even give a protest against its being thought that he means to present the, document as a reality) is injurious to the saints, and therefore I have commented upon it. The intention of doing this, I dare not adjective: I do not charge him with it. I am sure my heart loves him too well to be willing to believe he had it. Others have avowed it. Mr. Tregelles, as will be seen, criminates Mr. Newton with it; and Mr. Newton himself committed himself to the same at Mr. Cronin's, before Mr. Howard, Mr. Dorman, and others.

In conclusion, I would only remark, that, while I have stated freely what I had to say, I am quite aware that, in the retrospect of one's mind at a period of a year ago, at a time when (however the judgment had been previously forming, or the spiritual apprehension might be opening) the heart was rebelling against (as mine certainly was), and writhing under a certain conclusion (namely, that Mr. New- ton was untruthful), it is hard to apprehend, and say accurately what was in one's mind: the more so, because the scene was such a one of excitement, delusion, and separation, as I never witnessed before. With the view I take of their appeal to this document, I can only suppose it to be part of the delusion of Satan. There is a moral foolishness in a steward referring to a testimonial which himself begged might be destroyed; from which the counter-signers erased their names at the same time; from which the drawer canceled his, and has declared, that, within three days he could not have signed it, now differs from it, and could be no party to its appearing now; and which, moreover, makes five men the representatives of others, as myself and Naylor, without our leave; all this (which is the case before us) is delusion. I beseech saints, however, to remember for themselves and others, that " evil communication" corrupts; and to keep clear of it all. And, further, I pray them to remember, that moral inability to detect evil is sinful, and needs our prayers. A strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, is the worst form of Satan's power: and part and parcel of it is, that levity and carelessness with which our souls talk about Satan and delusion without dread.

I may have misapprehended the circumstances through which I passed at the time: and the thoughts of my mind then may have been inconsistent, or crude. Here they are, however, to the best of my power. I pretend to no great accuracy or divine keeping in writing: let the saints judge them and me. I feel persuaded, that the statement of them may help, and cannot hinder, others in the forming a correct judgment of the case. I do not give them as vindicating myself, or as criminating any one; but, as I judge, for the sake of candor and ingenuousness.

Yours, dear Friends,

In the Lord,

G. V. W.

As the contents of these three letters have, without my leave, through the instrumentality of those to whom addressed, been made public, there can be no breach of delicacy in my using them.

I add a few explanatory remarks, and print them as an answer to the question put to me by many, " What sufficient warrant could you have had for the act of withdrawal from Ebrington Street?"

They contain a brief account of the act of my withdrawal, but none of the details of the many months' deep exercises of conscience upon other facts connected with quite other matters (some of which are, as yet, known only to few, but), all of which will appear in their true light shortly.

The cause of withdrawal was not difference of judgment upon the prophetic question; neither was it a question of doctrine; my act of withdrawal took place solely and simply because a new and a human church system had been introduced, and one which appeared to screen guilt. I am thankful for this; because while it forced me to separate from the congregation as such, it left me free to have fellowship with any as individuals in the congregation. They are all accredited as Christians; and I can accredit them as such without a question. Moreover, the present question is one of common interest to all Christians.

There is a system called Independency or Congregationalism, the distinguishing peculiarity of which is this-that "each congregation is to be independent of others."

Provided this independency, the one of the other, of the churches is maintained, the system of " the denomination of the Independents" admits any and every variation. In one congregation of Independents there might be a presbytery; in another, a dictator; in another, bishops, priests, and deacons; in another, managers; in another, "brotherhood and liberty of ministry." The form. which holds inside the congregation matters not-the point of peculiarity which distinguishes the system, is each congregration is sufficient for its own edification and rule. The Brownists received Christians as such, and had liberty of ministry. When Mr. Dorman was about to leave Islington Chapel, I heard some one say, "Why leave because you want liberty of ministry, our principles permit that." Yes, they might permit liberty of ministry to those that were of that congregation; so far the Holy Ghost was free;-but they did not allow those whom He had gifted and set in other congregations, if' they came, to interfere, by sole virtue of the common connection of the one congregation, and the other, with the body in Christ. I give, as proofs that Ebrington Street is an Independent cause:-

First, What Mr. Newton distinctly told me: " I had no right to interfere to help some of the 300 poor Saints who (once of Ebrington Street) were in perplexity of mind, on account of certain grave charges laid by Mr. Harris and Mr. Darby (though he, Mr. N., said he meant to do nothing); and he assigned as the reason that I did not belong to the congregation in Ebrington Street, or its organs." See also Sir A. Campbell's letter.

Secondly, Some intelligent Independents, in Plymouth, distinctly recognize that this is the case in Ebrington Street.

'Thirdly, The theory of the thing is avowed in Thoughts on the Apocalypse, p. 23:—

" This order was what has since been called metropolitan. The Church at Jerusalem, like a sun in the center of its system, had other Churches, like so many planets, revolving round it. It was strictly a mother church, and therefore, when the church at Antioch was in difficulty, it sends Jerusalem for direction, and receives an authoritative reply: 'It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' This then was a relation that could not be fitly symbolized by two candlesticks unconnected, equal and alike. One candlestick, with many branches and many lamps, would have been a more appropriate emblem; and this is the character of the symbol employed to represent Jerusalem when she shall nationally assume her metropolitan position in the millennial earth. To her alone it belongs, and for her it is reserved by God.

" But when Jerusalem had rejected the testimony of the church, St. Paul was raised up to carry the truth among the Gentiles. He preached the same Gospel; but he established a new order among the churches which he gathered. This order was not metropolitan. Seven Gentile churches are represented by seven candlesticks of gold, separate one from another-all equal-all alike.; connected by no visible bond, neither revolving round any common center. They were independent one of another; but not independent of Him who invisibly walked amongst them, and who was able to preserve the likeness to Himself, and to one another, which His grace had given them; to keep them what He had made them, alike in faith, manners, and testimony."

See also " The Examination" of this book by Mr. Darby.. But in addition to this, the peculiar form of independency assumed in Ebrington Street is such, that its organs can and do crush inquiry when they please, and in several cases, lately, they have done so, contrary to the consciences of very many sober and godly brethren.

London, 14th January, 1846.

[The following letter to Mr. Newton wag written on the 12th; but I did not send it; because brethren Campbell, Code, Potter, Rhinde, and Parnell, thought. they could act from inside the congregation in Ebrington-street: they were men of God, and, wishing them success, I refrained from every act which I thought could impede it.]

20th December, 1845.

My Dear Brother,-When I left London to come hither, I did so with the thought, first, of challenging the grounds of secession of Mr. Darby from the table, and of Mr. Harris from service, in the hope of preventing a schism; and, secondly, if possible, of attempting reconciliation.

One of the first facts which struck me after my arrival, was that a separation in the body of the congregation meeting in Ebrington-street was already in part an accomplished, and not only an anticipated thing.

Owing to the detailed explanations of their conduct given by Mr. H. on the Friday evening, and by Mr. D. when sent for by the saints on the Monday evening [of neither of which meetings I was aware ere I left town], about one hundred and twenty had withdrawn to their own rooms, there to await results-some eighty more seemed prepared to do likewise; and about one hundred more were disaffected.

My observing that God had already permitted this, became a new and an important, though most sad item, in my mind.

In answer to the thought condemnatory of such a step, Paul did not separate from Corinth or the Gal. 1 found that the final actings of these two (D. and H.) had not taken place till every testimony, as they thought, in their power had been given, and in vain; and until their quiet continuance where they were would have been a sanction, as they thought, to the evil.

The position which I took hereupon, and have tried to hold, was this—to catch things as they were when I came; and to prevent, 1st, the separation becoming formal and fixed by the spreading of another table; and, 2dly, any in their neglected state wandering to the establishment, etc.

I have felt very much, especially during the last five days, how deeply your feelings, as a man, must, at this present time, be in exercise and pain, and have this testimony of true sympathy for you, that I have prayed and waited upon the Lord for you.

I desire to grieve that my present letter will add to your sorrow. Fourteen years ago I bought Raleigh-street Chapel, and lent it, as I then said to you, for the use of brethren, so long as there was continued consistency with their then principles.

At present I do not say whether I think the departure of the congregation in Ebrington-street from its principles is only apparent or real; or, if real, whether or not it is remediable. Time will show whether or not God will, according to my earnest desire and prayer, clear consciences there enough to make practice harmonize with profession. But I do feel that I have a formed judgment with regard to yourself; and sad as it is to me to write it, one which prevents my having any assurance with regard to you as holding a place of ecclesiastical service. Accordingly, my conscience is not at ease while I leave Raleigh-street in your hands.

"To the Brethren and Sisters breaking bread in Ebrington street Room.

“Beloved Brethren and Sisters,

"I am sure that your hearts have been kept in a state of much distress and agitation by the charges lately brought against our beloved brother Mr. Newton, by Mr. Darby, reflecting on his moral honesty; and, if what I now state should, in however feeble a measure, be made the means of allaying such feelings, I shall be most thankful. To this end, I rejoice in being able to inform you that those charges have been, to my mind, most satisfactorily answered, and that I believe our beloved brother to be entirely innocent of the imputations which have been thus cast upon him.

I am, beloved brethren and sisters,

" Your affectionate brother in the Lord,

" H. W. Soltau.

" 7, Woodside, Plymouth, 17th Dec. 1845.

" Should any of you desire to know the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion stated above, I shall be happy to afford you any information.

" Having come to the same decided conclusion with our brother Soltau, on the charge above referred to, we cheerfully unite with him in the preceding testimony.

" J. E. Batten, " W. B. Dyer,

" J. Clulow."

[Some of the poor at Plymouth observe that it is a pity that this testimonial is not from the many brethren from distant places who have gone into the case, instead of from four who are, in measure, involved in the same charge as Mr. N.]

Partial delusion (acting upon a peculiar mind, little acquainted with itself, and holding a situation beyond that which God has assigned it) may be the cause; but the course pursued has destroyed in so many the conscience between right and wrong, that, till the evil is judged, I must, in self-preservation, stand apart from it.)

I wish it to be understood that this act of mine is meant to express no judgment as to the congregation at Ebrington-street. It refers simply to yourself-and to yourself not as an individual Christian, so much as a servant among saints.

Till I see what the congregation does, H. Soltau, a friend of your own, will perhaps accept the loan I thus recall from you.

With many prayers, not I hope to be relaxed for you, in much sorrow, yours in the Lord,

G. V. W.

If any expression calculated to irritate your feelings is in this letter I am not aware of it, but would ask your forgiveness for it.

To Mr. B. W. Newton.

[A copy of this was sent in the foregoing.]

My Dear Soltau.-Fourteen years ago I bought

Raleigh-street Chapel, and afterward lent it, under conditions, to our Brother N. I think these conditions have been infringed upon his part. I do not mean, in saying this, to blame him, but to explain why I wish the congregation which has met there to have the use of it, as lent to you, and not to him.

While I doubt whether the congregation has renounced its primitive principles or not, I would not withdraw it from them on any account. Will you accept the loan of it for the time being, then, and be a go-between me, Newton, and the congregation, etc.? G. V. W.

[At halt-past ten, on the night of the 26th, I saw brother A. Campbell, and understood from him that Mr. Newton had opposed him in his proposed attempts to clear the consciences of the saints as to the charges laid upon them by Mr. Darby and Mr. Harris. Among other reasons, upon the ground " that the church at Ebrington-street was independent of the church in Exeter." At which place, since leaving Plymouth, brother C. had resided. That he, C., meant to leave and state his reasons. As brother Campbell's letter is printed, all can judge for themselves.

On the morning of the 27th I went to Mr. Soltau, and said that my Sunday meetings for humiliation had hitherto prevented a second table being spread; that I heard this was to be done on the morrow; that thereby all question would pass out of the sphere of judgment of individuals or of the church into the Lord's hands; that, though I had refused to go to Ebrington-street at all this visit (in my visit in June I had been there), I was now prepared to yield to his urgent request and do so, cast my lot in, and endeavor to take up the whole of the work brother Harris had left. My sole condition was, that I knew that there was some court of appeal; brethren Darby, Harris, and Campbell had left, laying charges-the neglect of which criminated the congregation. I would neither sanction the appearance of sin, nor appear to brave the charges of three such men and of many others. If I was told; the congregation as a whole, or the brothers in it, or the working brethren, or sixteen or twelve godly and impartial men, might hear the charges, I could go in and break bread on the morrow; for then, in a few hours, such godly assembly would have said and handed out their verdict, either " the charges are true," or " the charges are false;" or, " the charges, if true, are not tangible to us from want of being evident."

I stated what charges most pressed upon me, as in the following letter.

I understood that my brother did not see how, under the present circumstances of Ebrington-street, such a thing could be done; I might " appeal to Mr. Newton."

My answer was, " I have done so; but let me ask, If our brother Mr. N. had been currently accused, through these towns, of (the most unlikely thing in the world) shop lifting, and you four were accused of being accomplices, should I have no redress in the congregation of Ebrington-street, for the Lord's glory or the saints' consciences?"

After further conversation, I left, not knowing whether I would go down next day, and, after breaking bread, raise the question in Ebrington-street or not. Two things weighed in my mind against doing so, first, that I am conscious of natural love of such a scene of difficulty; and, secondly, that the testimony of brothers Darby and Harris had drawn out from, and not produced action inside of, Ebrington-street. How far was this God's ordering? After prayer, I decided to write this note, which not only states my ground of withdrawal, but in its being accepted WITHOUT ANY REMONSTRANCE or entreaty, does MUCH MORE; so I judge, at least.]

My Dear Soltau,-I have come to the conclusion that the congregation in Ebrington Street has given up the principles it was originally built upon, and gone to the opposite. Upon this ground, I recall the loan' to it of Raleigh-Street building.

The April letter to Clulow I look upon as an open avowal of sectarianism by Mr. Newton, though not so distinctly made as he has since done by word of mouth. And in the fact, that there is no one to whom I can appeal in Ebrington Street to try the question, Is not Mr. Newton a causer of divisions?-Soltau, Batten, Dyer, and Clulow " being accomplices" save to themselves-I find the sorrowful necessity of withdrawal, if I would retain a clear conscience.

Yours in the Lord, &c.

I am willing to undertake the preachings there to-morrow.

On giving this letter into our brother's hand at the prayer meeting in Raleigh Street, I said that the time of taking possession was to me immaterial [I then expected to have to lock it up as an unused building], whenever its present engagements were ended would do; or I would take the responsibility of the preaching on the morrow if they liked. Our brother distinctly said, that he would prefer its being so, and that he would rather give it up at once under this impression, I went to preach there on the Sunday afternoon.

These, so far as I can remember them, are the leading facts connected with my act of withdrawal. The hinge of all is a new ecclesiastical polity having been introduced, and acted upon, and avowed in Ebrington Street, new, and opposed to what I had known there from the beginning.

The old principle was dependence upon God in mutual dependence of all the members of the body of Christ.

The new principle is that of independency. That each congregation is sufficient for its own edification, rule, and discipline, whatsoever form, in other respects, it may take. I was told myself by two, in plain words, I had no right to interfere in the congregation in Ebrington Street, because I was of London. Sir A. C. was told the same as to himself, because he was of Exeter. And the theory of this is vindicated in the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse." Ebrington Street congregation is as a congregation of independents" ruled by a Dictator who can suppress inquiry into any charges which rise against himself as evil; and who in point of fact does so; and I am not an " independent congregationalist."

Of the five reasons which made withdrawal from Ebrington-street appear to me needful, I have stated that on which the act of withdrawal took place; it is the one which is of most common interest to the people of God.

On the others I shrink from entering, though prepared to do so if the saints demand it, or if circumstances make it imperative.

Beloved Brethren,

In ourselves, by nature, the chief of sinners, the mercy of God has been found to be our only refuge. This mercy, being through Christ Jesus, is perfectly holy. This mercy, also, not only reigns through righteousness, but reigns unto holiness-because unto eternal life.

If we fail in holiness of walk, God's word requires us to vindicate Him, and renounce the evil by confession.

I judge, that in those cases in which you have withdrawn from communion with those who have sinned openly, until they were humbled, that you showed not C' only true zeal for God, but real compassion for those in failure, and the proper sense of dread- about the evil still dwelling in your own flesh.

I feel pressed to lay before you what may help your judgments in regard to the painful case of matters at Plymouth, as bearing upon the question of the moral failure of one there who has held the place of a teacher, and the screening of his case by those who guide the congregation with which he is connected.

You have hitherto judged untruthfulness to be as great a sin as any other.

In the month of April, 1845, there was a meeting at Plymouth, at which about fifteen persons were present, by name Messrs. Darby, Harris, Newton, Naylor, Pridham, A. Pridham, Young, Johnson, Hill, Batten, Dyer, Soltau, Clulow, Rhinde, and McAdam.

Of this meeting I received the following accounts:-

I have no difficulty in communicating the result.: while I hoped further might have been attained, I did not. Newton declared that he desired to make Plymouth a focus, and that his object was to have a union of testimony here against the teaching opposed to his views; that he trusted to secure it in Devonshire and Somersetshire, and elsewhere, if he could. In subsequent explanations given, he stated that he did not mean to refuse to work with those who differed from him (this he had said: It was only against those who taught these views), that the statement was objectionable if taken irrelatively; which was explained by Dyer, who received this modification from his lips, that it was neither his only, whole, nor entire purpose, because there were other subjects on which he could preach and teach, on which the others might agree. Harris communicated to me his mind as stated to him, that it was not the object, but an object. In general the brethren, and in particular Harris, disavowed absolutely any principle of the kind, and told Newton it made co-operation very difficult, and, indeed, spoke yet more strongly since; that he was quite separate from Plymouth, and if any principle of the kind was set-up, he should leave it. He considered, however, what Newton had said to him as -amounting to a disavowal of it. Dyer said, that Newton had been misunderstood. However, all others, save one, who would say nothing, agreed that he had said it plainly and positively, whatever his explanations since might have modified of it. Dyer's explanation of 'irrelative' being that he had other common objects as well as this. I said I considered this as recognizing that he had this; and Harris having communicated the statement, that it was an, and not the object, confirmed this. Here, I may say, it ended; for every one to act as he thought right before God; Rhind, feeling that good had been done, and that it should not be pressed further now, as it might be in fact not acted on, and so practically disavowed. Harris stated his conviction, that a sectarian tendency had been brought to light during these six weeks. I have, whatever my manner (for it is impossible for any one to have been more thoroughly disgusted), the full conscience of having acted in peace, and without the smallest shade of party spirit, so that I am perfectly happy as to that before God. I believe His hand was in the avowal made, and that the very avowal of it was of great importance"; though the disavowal of it afterward would have been happier than modifying or explaining it. I do not think one went along with the statement taken as it was originally made. There were two meetings intervening between the first and the last, that he might show how it was so fundamental as to oblige him to denounce the brethren who taught it; which he stated, convincing all the brethren that it was not so. Such are the facts in summary. I add no judgment on them, as each one would form his own." J. N. D.

Second Account, given to me in manuscript by Mr. Clulow; since printed, and widely circulated.

“Beloved Brother,—You ask me to give you on paper the substance of what I said at our recent meeting; and I willingly comply with, your request for open and explicit statement, I believe to be deeply important at such an hour as the present.

" The charge preferred against me in a meeting, was, ‘A systematic effort to form a sect, and discrediting and denouncing those who do not adopt the opinions which form its basis.'

" I allow that I should he open to this charge, if I refused to hold communion at the Lord's table, or if I insisted that all should hold my views of truth, before they were allowed to minister. But I have never done either the one or the other of these things-invariably, and without one exception, I have maintained the opposite. About twelve months ago, when a valued brother came here from Ireland, whose views were known to be, at that time opposed to mine, he was asked no question; and every door of private and public ministry was thrown open to him-the like is now done to Mr. Darby. I should object to his being denied any on privilege that I might myself have-I only claim co-equal right to write and to teach as and how I please, subject only to the judgment of the Church if I do it in an evil manner.

" I maintain, therefore, that there can be no semblance of sectarianism where such principles are held, and consistently acted on. Our Brother Rhind, at the meeting, bore testimony to his having invariably found it thus in Plymouth.

" But while I desire to hold this principle very fast, I reserve to myself the right of forming an individual judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of the doctrines taught by various brethren: and I distinctly avow, that I cannot welcome, as teachers, with the SAME cordiality, one who opposes, and one who sustains, what I believe to be the truth, But this is simply an individual question, with which others have no title to interfere. It is between myself and God.

" The reason why I cannot welcome some brethren as I would others, is, that I have seen for many years, a very peculiar system of doctrine prevailing among the Brethren, which, unless counteracted, will assuredly bring in the worst of all sectarianism amongst us—I mean, sectarianism of doctrine, It is one thing for God to add fresh stores of knowledge to those which the Church has already had-it is another for us, by means of these new truths, to derange and subvert old truths which the Church of God has ever held sacred.

“This, I believe, has been done. I mention as examples,

“The assigning to others than the Church of God, scriptures which, till now, the Church has ever regarded as addressed to itself, and itself alone-such as the prophetic discourses in Matthew, and the sermon on the mount.

“The deprecation of the service and standing of the Pentecostal Church.

“The division of what the Scripture declares to be one-the resurrection of all that are Christ’s at His coming.

“The division of the Church in glory, by the exclusion of Abraham and the redeemed from the full blessedness of the. Church of the First-born.

" These, and other such doctrines, too many to be enumerated here, have produced a peculiar system, as peculiar as Wesleyanism, in its way; a system not containing merely added truths to those which the saints of God have heretofore held, but subversive of them: and it is this system which I feel bound in conscience to oppose in every legitimate way. If, in my speaking or writing, I make use of any harsh or ungracious expression, I am willing to ask the pardon of any Brother whom I may have offended, and to strive to avoid needless severity of expression: but beyond this I cannot go. I desire to produce in the minds of the dear Brethren everywhere, the same strong sense that pervades my own, of the evil of this system-and this is one object of my labor everywhere. At the same time, my hostility is against a system, not against individuals. Doctrinal truth, dispensational truth, and truth connected with the order of the Church on earth, are three divisions which I am accustomed to make, in treating of these subjects; and though I believe it is impossible for our minds to go wrong very widely on dispensational truth, without doctrinal truths in secondary minds being ultimately affected—yet I regard no one as a heretic, or unworthy of having his ministry received with all honor, who adheres to the doctrinal truth in which we find the primary ground of united labor.

"Perhaps I may make a few more remarks in another letter. For the present,

" Believe me, affectionately yours,

"B. W. Newton."

" April 18, 1845.

To Mr. Clulow.

The substance of these two letters is conflicting.

Digest of the First.

Mr. N. declared that he desired to make Plymouth a focus; and that his object was to have a union of testimony there against the teaching opposed to his views; and that he trusted to succeed in Devon, Somerset, etc.

[The virus of this is, in plain language, that Ebrington street is to be the citadel of a party adversative to the views of Brethren.]

Digest of the Second

While permitting others the same liberty as himself, Mr. N. means to fight for his own views against those of such as differ from him, and to endeavor to unite others in every place to do likewise.

[The essence of which is, that a man means to make a party every where he can against the views of the Brethren.]

(Will the saints not exclude the man who avows, and the party who sanctions, such sect-making intentions?)

I have printed these letters, as being in part the basis of the moral charge against Mr. Newton, to which I referred in a former tract, as the reason of my inability to recognize him as a teacher any where. I shall just restate the case in brief.

After a meeting in April 1845 (at which were fifteen brothers present), Mr. N. wrote a letter to Clulow, purporting to be an open and explicit statement of the sub- stance, or essence, of what he had said.

In that letter, since printed, most important expressions used by Mr. N. at that meeting, are not to be found.

That Mr. N. did use expressions of a very peculiar nature in the April meeting, which expressions, or their essence, are not in the Clulow letter, I cannot doubt.

1st. Because the account of that meeting, written to me by Mr. Darby, and the said letter to Clulow in manuscript, when I put them together into a brother's hand in London- in May 1845, drew forth the expression, " Any stranger would say, One of these is surely lying." This could not have been said if the letters were essentially the same.

2nd. Because, the majority of the fifteen have admitted that certain expressions were used by Mr. N., the essence of which is not in the Clulow letter.

3rd. Because one brother who was at that meeting went to Mr. N., after seeing the Clulow letter in circulation, and entreated him for his own sake to withdraw it, saying, " If any one asks me, I must say it is not truthful."

4th. Because the defense on the other side seems to me to break down. While almost all the fifteen admit that certain expressions were used, some of them maintain that what was said objectionable was to be qualified by the context, so as for its objectionable matter to be nullified. My answer to this is:-Mr. Newton has lately avowed, that the objectionable thing which you would nullify, is desirable now; and this desirable thing (was not only the objectionable matter you want to nullify, but) has been sought after and labored for by Mr. N. for many years past. The case stands, to my own mind, thus: N. has held and worked for a plan, B. S., for six years.

In a moment of unguardedness, in April, he said; " B. S. is my plan."

After saying so in April, he, in the same month, wrote, " B. R (and not B. S.) is my plan."

In December, it becomes plain that B. S. is his plan, and that it has been his plan for six years.

In such a case, I say, it is plain to me, that he said what he meant in April, though he did not mean to have said it.

When at Plymouth, I found Mr. N. was driving at one point, and admitted it to several as a thing which must come sooner or later, and the sooner the better; which thing agreed not with the Clulow letter, but with the statement of the other letter. He tenaciously retained Ebrington Street, and avowed he thought it impossible to go on beyond a certain point of time in fellowship of labor with those whose views he so much disapproved; and thought the separation desirable, as at once leaving him more free, and putting the prophetic rhapsodies, which he calls " the truth," into their rightful place of testimony. And further, Newton, as well as Dyer, Clulow and Batten, committed themselves thus far, that they said they think " a correct view of redemption is involved in their own views, and denied in the views they oppose;" which in principle commits them to the needs be, not only of a separation as to ministry, but as to communion. Upon this ground, then (viz. that the avowals in December were tantamount to the statements in April, and this has been confirmed by actions abundantly, since), I do, not consider the Clulow letter, in that it is not tantamount to the same, an honest statement.

I may just add, that I very well know Mr. Newton has written, and widely circulated (though in an underhanded manner) in manuscript, a paper explanatory of the apparent differences between his own letter to Mr. Clulow, and that of Mr. Darby's to me. This paper he read before me and others. This paper, most specious and artful as it is, contains to any simple mind, conversant with the facts, anything but an exculpation of himself: to such it proves, not untruthfulness only, but a jesuitical mode of acting, which is most painful. Feeling, when at Plymouth, that I should be asked by one and another my judgment upon the moral question of Mr. N.'s truthfulness or untruthfulness, arising from the conflicting statements of his own and Mr. D.'s letters; ands; being unwilling to give this my judgment as so unfavorable to him (an old friend of twenty years' standing), I wrote and told him so; and I' asked him for a copy of the manuscript referred to, feeling that if his own explanation of the differences made people say,. as to the moral charge, " Guilty", I should be more, free, than if they said so on my report.

I have felt called upon to give this statement, though it charges upon one who was called a brother the sin o lying, and the leaders of the congregation which shelters him, in the sin of sheltering lying; though, I am most grieved to say, it constitutes only a small part of the evidence adducible by me. I repeat here, most distinctly (what Mr. Newton and others have chosen to deny), that he told me, " that being of a congregation in London, I had no right to interfere to endeavor to settle troubles among Plymouth saints." This he did three several and distinct times; once by his own fire-side, once where I was lodging, and once before others elsewhere.

But I mug add, that the " Narrative" published by Mr. Darby seems to me to put the question upon other grounds, and in some measure, therefore, to neutralize this, because it makes the question not " Has—-told a lie, and not repented of it?" but rather, " Is not——led by a lying spirit, and, through a lengthened course of actions, trying to bring in something like Romanism?"

May the Lord of all mercy preserve and restore the sheep of his pasture. G. V. Wigram

October, 1846.

P.S. The two facts, 1st. that a congregation of two hundred have left Ebrington Street; and, 2nd. that men now disconnected from the place, as McAdam, Campbell, Hill, Hall, Potter, Harris and Naylor (cognizant of the facts) could not go to Ebrington Street, ought surely to lend weight among you to " The Narrative of Facts."

I declare plainly, that it seems to me wrong for those who know the facts of the case, to break bread with either Mr. Newton, or Messrs. Clulow, Soltau, Dyer, Batten; and much more so to sanction them as teachers under existing circumstances.

For myself; I would rather expose my family circle to the results of the friendly intercourse of any Irvingite teacher, or a Roman Catholic priest, than of any one of the five, though mourning and praying for all of them.

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.