William Blair Neatby

“ It is true that at one time, five of the ten, Campbell, Lord Congleton, Code, Potter and Rhind, signed a statement that “the brethren who investigated matters ... were entirely satisfied that Mr. Newton had no intention to deceive or mislead in the letters referred to, though through being over cautious on the one hand, and deficient in carefulness on the other, he had laid himself open to accusation”. Wigram, who treated this document with great contumely, could only deny its allegation in so far as it related to himself. ”

“ Newton must have felt that a right of selection lay with himself, and that Darby was determined to secure every possible advantage over the man he had defamed. That this should rouse a spirit of opposition in a man of Newton’s temperament may possibly be an occasion of regret, but scarcely of surprise. ”

“ Of course, if Darby referred to the profession of the Brethren in the earliest years, his statement is quite erroneous, [6] and in view of his use of the preterite tense it is difficult to know what other meaning to assign to his words. His constant appeal to original practice, in his controversy with Newton, is indeed always futile. The Brethren started almost without defining anything, and every man was at liberty to work out the problem for himself. ”

“ Dorman actually took advantage of this courteous intimation to withhold the real reply altogether. Without even waiting for it, he informed the Rawstorne Street meeting that Newton had refused; “adding that, without judging upon the charges, a person that refused to meet them must lie under them—that he could not receive reasons for not meeting them; ... that after what had passed, if Mr. Newton came to Reading or Oxford, ... he as an individual would not break bread with Mr. Newton”. The full reply—a very long document—reached Dorman on the 27th. ”

“ They had received without remonstrance Wigram’s disgraceful Address, in which Newton and all his friends were most recklessly aspersed; and then they proceeded to summon Newton before their tribunal, on his mere appearance at some houses of Brethren in the neighbourhood. What would have been the result of obedience to the summons? Probably, that Darby would have found the very weapon he was seeking—the verdict of an assembled church given against Newton on the moral charges. Once more, Newton was bound to lose whichever way things went. He was fighting his battle against hopeless odds ”

“ Zealous ladies were circulating manuscript notes of his Bible readings far and wide, and were (it was stated) making things very unpleasant for all whose zeal for Newton was less ardent than their own. How far, on the other hand, such a course may have struck Newton as mere self-defence it is hard to tell, because of the scantiness of our materials for the fourteen years preceding Darby’s fatal visit to Plymouth in March, 1845. ”

“ Long afterwards, amidst wholly different circumstances, Newton certainly showed the arbitrary temper with which Darby charged him. That first-rate men found it difficult to work with him, that he surrounded himself with those that were unable to withstand his imperious will, and with their help carried things at Plymouth with a high hand, cannot be positively asserted when we have little evidence beyond the accusations of his implacable foes ”

“ It was private explanation that he contemplated; but some of the Rawstorne Street Brethren took the opportunity to propose a public investigation. Newton replied that the ministering brethren at Plymouth, following the ordinary usage of their church in such cases, had published a document exculpating him; and that the ten investigators of the previous December had “all with the exception of Mr. W [igram] declared that” he “was free from the charge of moral dishonesty”; and that “after all this” he did not feel that he could “be properly asked to plead again”. ”

“ It is hard to imagine how a man of Dorman’s intelligence came to persuade himself of the propriety of taking up such an extraordinary position. Everything, as a matter of fact, turned on the competency of the tribunal. As Tregelles said, “It is no answer to say that he [Newton] had come within your jurisdiction by reading Scripture at the house of a sister in Pentonville”. ”

“ The circumstances in question, and many that follow, are stated on the authority of Darby’s Narrative of Facts Connected with the Separation of the Writer from the Congregation Meeting in Ebrington Street. It is right to say that some people whose judgment is entitled to respect have considered that this tract is anything but a narrative of facts. I am not prepared to speak positively. The tone of the tract inspires no confidence. ”

“ At the same time, my hostility is against a system, not against individuals.” Newton can scarcely be said to make light of his determination to oppose Darbyism; nevertheless, Darby afterwards felt justified in accusing his antagonist of lying. This was the more remarkable that the opening words of Newton’s printed statement were: “You ask me to give you on paper the substance of what I said at our recent meeting”. ”

“ It was deemed however that this “masterly inactivity” should stop short when Mr. Newton’s faults came in question, and in November a letter was sent to him inviting him to answer to Darby’s charges before the assembled saints at Rawstorne Street. It might be presumed that Newton had at the least applied for communion there, but this was not the case. He had come up to London and had held some private Bible-readings. In conversation he expressed a wish “to satisfy the minds of any brethren as to the charges made against him”. ”

“ Yet Darby could express earty disapprobation of Dissent for settling things by majorities. This he constantly condemned as a most carnal proceeding; and even in his Account of the Proceedings at Rawstorne Street, issued after the conclusion of the whole matter, he is not ashamed to write as follows: “Among the dissenters they vote ... and a majority determines the matter. ... It is a mere human principle, such as the world is obliged to act on, because it has no other way of getting out of its difficulties. But the church of God has. ”

“ He was not a supporter of the Ebrington Street Church, for he felt that there was “a sectarian and clerical spirit” there, though “that did not constitute grounds for leaving”. Yet he would not “break bread with them,” because “they did not do all they might have done to prevent the division”.
Wigram continued to exercise his virtual leadership at the Rawstorne Street meeting as before. Darby, who was equally involved in Lord Congleton’s charge, was received there without enquiry. In April there was a meeting at Rawstorne Street of “brethren from other parts”. ”

“ Any reader of the tract can see for himself that Darby never fails to throw the benefit of the doubt into the scale against his rival; that he attempts to discredit him by dwelling on acts of his supporters with which he may well have nothing to do ”

“ On the face of it, it is the work of a passionate partisan; and even if the writer had the fullest intention to speak the truth, it is very doubtful that he was in a state of mind to know what the truth was. ”

“ Three weeks after his secession, Darby was invited to attend a meeting at Ebrington Street. The object of the meeting, which was held on Monday, November 17, was to enquire into his reasons for seceding; and he then made his first public complaint against Newton’s personal integrity. Thenceforward the charge was urged with a pertinacity to which few men would have been equal. ”

“ These charges were left uninvestigated.
In October Wigram addressed to the Rawstorne Street meeting a violent printed attack on Newton, alleging (presumably as the principal charge) the discrepancy between Newton’s account of the April meeting and Darby’s, and claiming confirmatory evidence on Darby’s behalf. Passionately as the charge is urged, it breaks down ludicrously. Mr. Newton, he tells us, had circulated an explanatory paper, “most specious and artful,” but proving “to any simple mind ... not untruthfulness only, but a jesuitical mode of acting, which is most painful”. ”