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.