The Downgrade Conflict

God's truth, so far as I know it, and I have not been ashamed of its peculiarities.

That I might not stultify my testimony I have cut myself clear of those who err

from the faith, and even from those who associate with them. ¹ S purgeon was not in the business of creating a stir over minor issues. He despised wrangling over minutiae, splitting over whims, and arguing over issues that could be reduced to merely personal differences. In an 1879 woodcut article entitled "Much Ado about Nothing" he pictured a ploughman, a young boy, four horses, and a plough all stopped in a field with the cause being the capture of a small field mouse. Such was typical of much religious squabbling that arose over a "point of order," "merely personal differences," a "personal feud," or an "infinitesimal point of opinion." These things went on while "the masses are perishing for want of the gospel." Good men are willing to spend time and money in "inventing and publishing mere speculations, while the great field of the world lies unploughed and the hemlock of vice is running to seed all over it." Away with small matters that divide and sap spiritual strength for truly mammoth challenges that demand legitimately all the Christian's energy and wit. "O that love to God and a concern for the salvation of men would lead good men to use their brains and their hearts, and leave little things alone while eternal matters call for their attention." A particularly onerous violation of Spurgeon's perception of Christian calling occurred when "a whole denomination of Christians will debate and dispute over merely personal differences which only in the smallest degree affect the grand enterprise in which heaven and earth are

concerned." ² A denominational dispute over style, merely personal preferences, or even new ideas that were harmless in consequence but thieves of precious energy and time did not attract Spurgeon at all. He would never have involved a denomination in battle over mere personality. Truth was too dear, souls were too precious, and the glory of Christ of too much consequence to detract from them for lesser things. Only when those very things were the issues would a confrontation be commensurate with the cost of it.

Spurgeon Reveals an Impasse

In addition to his reticence to promote division over a field mouse, he had enjoyed great popularity in the Baptist Union and frequently was asked to occupy the prime place of preaching at Union meetings. In 1875 he wrote, after having returned from the Baptist Union meeting in Plymouth, "We felt ashamed to be so very prominent, for it is the last thing in our thoughts to wish to be placed in the front; but friends would have it so, and we yielded." He wanted other and younger men to be brought forward and the preachers and speakers to

be selected from "as wide a range as possible." ³ It was not, therefore, in the interest of a petty personal concern, unless Spurgeon's sense of proportion completely vanished, that he led a charge beginning in 1887 that threatened the existence of the Baptist Union. More than mouse-catching was at stake. The historic Christian faith was receiving scourging and beating in the house of supposed friends. As Spurgeon put it, "The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at

faith." ⁴ When Spurgeon began publishing articles in his monthly magazine, The Sword and the Trowel, in which he lamented the theological direction of his denomination and of non-conformity in general, he had little comprehension of the widespread nature of the movement he characterized as the "downgrade."

The preface to The Sword and Trowel that year remarked:

We have had enough of "The DownGrade" for ourselves when we have looked down upon it. What

havoc false doctrine is making, no tongue can tell. Assuredly the New Theology can do no good

towards God or man; it has no adaptation for it. If it were preached for a thousand years by all the most

earnest men of the school, it would never renew a soul, nor overcome pride in a single human heart...

The sword and trowel have both been used this year with all our might. We have built up the wall of

the city, and have tried to smite the king's enemies. How could we help it? No loyal soldier could

endure to see his Lord's cause so grievously wronged by traitors. Something will come of the struggle

over the DownGrade. 5

This preface was written after the events of 1887 and, therefore, after Spurgeon's withdrawal from the Baptist Union. Even with his jeremiad concerning the DownGrade, Spurgeon indicated a greater optimism than, as later events proved, he had any evidence for exhibiting. That he really expected something to come of the struggle is indicated by a letter he wrote from France to his wife. Some of his brethren had accused him of unscriptural conduct by leaving the Union after making only general accusations concerning the theological integrity of his brethren. Spurgeon courteously but soundly denied their accusations and claimed

that he had laid his specific complaints before the leaders of the Union on various occasions in private. He contemplated the hope that his leaving might provoke some progress. "Now, something will be done. Not until I took the

decided step could I effect anything." ⁶ In March of 1887, an article entitled The DownGrade appeared in The Sword and the Trowel. The author, Robert Shindler, traced the historical development of several non-conformist denominations from soundness of doctrine into various hues of heresy. Spurgeon attached a footnote to this first article in which he requested "earnest attention" to the warning implied by Shindler. He

continued, "We are going down hill at break-neck speed." ⁷ Article two, appearing in April, continued the historical study of languishing denominations and sought to pinpoint the "causes of the sad decay in piety and

principle."

In the case of every errant course there is always a first wrong step. … Is it doubting their doctrine, or

questioning that sentiment, or being skeptical as to the other article of orthodox belief? We think not.

… The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All

the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to

its teaching … But let a man question or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the

Bible, and he is without anchor to hold him … If this be a fact—and who can disprove it? —then we

live in dangerous times, and there is great peril very near all those, whoever they may be, who call in

question the inspiration—the divine inspiration—of the Word of God. 8

Shindler, though personally devoted to Calvinism as an overall theological system, was clear in highlighting the problem as directly linked to one's view of the authority of Scripture rather than any disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Spurgeon agreed. He had pleasure in his fellowship with evangelical Methodists, though he would wish them Calvinists, and stated "we care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system." Those who agreed in affirming the eternal verities of salvation, even though they would sidestep Spurgeon's Calvinism, were "by no means the object of (Spurgeon's)

opposition." ⁹ In 1877 Spurgeon pointed out that the Wesleyan Methodists "have adhered to their own distinctive creed while nearly all other denominations have been unfaithful to theirs." If they have changed, he said then, it has been for the better, for neither the favor of the wealthy classes nor the pressure for "freedom on inquiry" had moved them from their first principles. Spurgeon counted them as "fellow witnesses for Christ: witnesses to his atoning death and justifying righteousness, though not to the same extent to the glorious privileges derived

from them." ¹⁰ When Spurgeon reviewed Record of Events in Primitive Methodism, written by a Primitive Methodist minister Thomas Russell, he noted

that "There is more similarity between this humble Methodist and the apostles than could be found in all the bishops of the United Kingdom, even if their

cathedrals and palaces were searched with candles." ¹¹

Our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy

Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the

question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. 12

Even though this position was taken early in Spurgeon's presentation of the issues, some continued to pass it off as his desire to stir the coals of the feud between Calvinists and Arminians. On the contrary, he insisted many Arminians are "earnestly on our side," he wrote in December. He made no effort to conceal his Calvinism but this battle was for foundation truths that do not belong to one party or another. Don't drag that red herring across our path, Spurgeon, chided, for Calvinists and Arminians can argue other points and "maintain Christian harmony at the same time." The relationship is quite different, however, with those that "treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution." "We have come out in earnest protest" against this clear infidelity

"and feel great content of conscience in having done so." ¹³ Robert Shindler, in June of 1887, continued focusing his attention on the issue of biblical inspiration. He wrote an article highlighting the trial of five professors at Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts. It served as a case in point providing evidence that the first step "in departure from orthodox belief" was variance with the creed of the seminary "and the general belief of orthodox Christians" on the subject of inspiration. The trial showed that they held the Bible to be fallible "not only in matters of science and chronology, but in some

of its religious teachings also." ¹⁴ Scripture, according to these Andover professors, did not arise from revelation but rather from the inner consciousness of the religious writers and must be interpreted by the present-day reader's inner consciousness. Therefore, the words of Scripture are not infallible but serve only as vehicles of inspiration. In light of this tendency, these professors taught that the humanity of Christ limited his faculties to the point that he was fallible; the atonement consisted merely of his assumption of human nature, adopting all humanity into himself rendering them salvable and giving them power to repent, and had nothing to do with a vicarious death fulfilling the just demands of the law. Other doctrines suffered a similar fate under the guidance of a so-called Christian consciousness. In fact, the Christ of the Gospels and the Epistles is gone and the whole church might well weep with Mary, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."

Only firm conviction in the full inspiration of Scripture will save the church

from such a plight according to Shindler:

Look at the work of Luther and others in Germany, at the work of Zwingle in Switzerland, at the work

of Calvin in France, and at the work of the Puritans in England. Mark the career of President Edwards,

of George Whitefield, of the founders of Welsh Methodism, of the Haldanes in Scotland, of Robert

Haldane at Geneva, of the late Dr. Malan in Geneva, … and the most successful soul-winners in

England, and you will find them to a man sound on the inspiration of Holy Scripture. The Wesleyan

Methodists of all parties are sound on that question. And whatever "downgrade" tendency there may

be in their Arminian theology, faith in the inspiration of the Word of God and in the atoning work of

the Lamb checks all downward progress. 15

Spurgeon himself entered his protests to the Downgrade in August of 1887 in an article entitled Another Word Concerning the Downgrade. He showed as much concern for the evidence of spiritual decline as for theological decline. "At the back of doctrinal falsehood," Spurgeon opined, "comes a natural decline of spiritual life." To discern which of these comes first poses a difficulty, but Spurgeon later reiterated, "It is clear to every one who is willing to see it that laxity of doctrine is either the parent of worldliness, or is in some other way very near akin to it." The connection is indissoluble and the "men who give up the old

faith are the same persons who plead for latitude as to general conduct." ¹⁶ In fact, as the controversy unfolded, some were more eager to question Spurgeon's theological critique than his analysis of the spiritual life of the churches. "Doctrine has been the ground of battle in the DownGrade struggle which has been chosen by our opponents," Spurgeon revealed, "but on the matter of prayer-

meetings and worldliness, they have been prudently silent." ¹⁷ Since the counter-attackers chose doctrine as the place most likely to discredit the alarmist, Spurgeon, while not ignoring the distressing spiritual decline, went from sermon to sermon and journal to journal pointing out what he considered obviously fatal doctrinal errors. Primary sources for illustrating his point throughout the controversy came from his perennial nemesis, The Christian World magazine. Spurgeon described his relation to this magazine when he wrote, "We view matters from a point of view which is precisely the opposite of The Christian World." As mentioned earlier, he formed a principled objection to their theological agenda shortly after having given a positive mark to them for the theological candor of the editor. When he quoted it, as he did frequently, in confirmation of his own observations, he referred to the paper as "our

antagonistic cotemporary." ¹⁸ In exposing the doctrinal slide among so-called evangelicals, Spurgeon pointed to The Christian World as the periodical to which was "largely due the prevalence of this mischief." By 1887, the publisher claimed a weekly readership of 500,000. Spurgeon was happy that they did not

hide their hand but manifested their faith, or lack of it, in bold contours for all to see. He looked to the following paragraph as peculiarly symptomatic of the

downgrade slide of theology:

We are now at the parting of the ways, and the younger ministers especially must decide whether or

not they will embrace and undisguisedly proclaim that "modern thought" which in Mr. Spurgeon's

eyes is a "deadly cobra," while in ours it is the glory of the century. It discards many of the doctrines

dear to Mr. Spurgeon and his school, not only as untrue and unscriptural, but as in the strictest sense

immoral; for it cannot recognize the moral possibility of imputing either guilt or goodness, or the

justice of inflicting everlasting punishment for temporary sin. It is not so irrational as to pin its faith to

verbal inspiration, or so idolatrous as to make its acceptance of a true Trinity of divine manifestations

cover polytheism. 19

That magazine's admission of the facts, including the cavalier dismissal of the importance of Trinitarian theology, justified, in Spurgeon's view, his earlier attacks upon the tenets of modern thought, which was "no more Christianity than chalk is cheese." Destitute of "moral honesty" and posing as the old faith with needed improvements, in the new theology "the atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, the Holy Spirit is degraded into an influence,

the punishment of sin is turned into fiction, and the resurrection into a myth." ²⁰ This skepticism which "has flashed from the pulpit and spread among the people" has emptied, and kept empty, places which the preaching of the gospel had filled. As they ply destructive ware, these "destroyers of our churches appear to be as content with their work as monkeys with their mischief." Spurgeon expressed his conviction that "a little plain-speaking would do a world of good just now." In the same way that thieves hate watch-dogs and love darkness, so the downgraders want no noise raised and desire to be left alone. He warned believers to buy new latches for the door, keep the chain up because some under the pretense of begging for the friendship of the servant really aim to rob the

Master. ²¹ Spurgeon found 1887 to be a year, similar to that of Zephaniah's time, when many were "sorrowful for the solemn assembly" and "to whom the reproach of it was a burden," when "in our solemn assemblies the brilliance of the gospel light is dimmed by error." Spurgeon pointed to doubtful voices among the people that spoiled the clarity of gospel testimony. Truth has been replaced by the imaginations of men and the ephemeral assertions of recent thought. Philosophy replaced revelation, the "larger hope" replaced the infallible pronouncement and judgments of God; "The gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the same yesterday, today, and for ever, is taught as the production of progress, a growth, a thing to

be amended and corrected year by year." ²² Such a situation brought about personal remorse because "the house of the Lord is to many of us, our own

house, his family is our family." If Christ be not praised and honored and his gospel thus lose its luster, "we feel that our own personal interests are blighted, and we ourselves are in disgrace." This is no small thing, Spurgeon contended,

for "it is our life." ²³ Infinitely great is the matter of doctrinal dilution and divergence. Trivialities do not exist on the issue of the comfort of God's people in his truth and their increasing joy in him, increase of holiness, and reliance on his daily grace. "When the pure gospel is not preached, God's people are robbed of the strength which they need in their life-journey." Poison and barrenness replace bread and luxuriant pastures. They become wearied and despondent when instead of true spiritual food "they are worried and wearied with novelties which neither glorify

God nor benefit the souls of men."

When the doctrines of grace and the glorious atoning sacrifice are not set clearly before men's minds,

so that they may feel their power, all sorts of evils follow. It is terrible to me that this dreadful blight

should come upon our churches; for the hesitating are driven to destruction, the weak are staggered,

and even the strong are perplexed. The false teachers of these days would, if it were possible, deceive

the every elect. This makes our hearts very sorrowful. How can we help it? 24

In agreement with a correspondent who commended Spurgeon and pointed to the dismal state of theological instruction in an unnamed theological college, Spurgeon queried "Is there no doctrine left which is to be maintained: Is there no revelation? Or is that revelation a nose of wax to be shaped by the finger of fashion? Are the sceptics so much to the fore that no man will open his mouth against them?" Spurgeon contended that one could find no common ground between inspiration and speculation, between an affirmation and a denial of the atonement, between a doctrine of the fall and "the evolution of spiritual life from human nature," and between the punishment of the impenitent and the indulgence in a "larger hope." But that is precisely what many were willing to do and what they believed he should consent to do. "As a matter of fact," Spurgeon noted, "believers in Christ's atonement are now in declared religious union with those who make light of it; believers in holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is

another probation after death, and a future reconciliation for the lost." ²⁵ Close at hand, again, to confirm Spurgeon's analysis of the present state of doctrine among dissenters, The Christian World in December 1888 pronounced Mr. Spurgeon "well within the mark" in pointing to a "marked defection from the doctrinal standards maintained by their fathers, and still upheld by him." The

defection became more visible every day, so they said. They were not congratulating Spurgeon on his rock-solid antiquarianism in theology, but did, for his purposes, serve as a convenient verification of his contention.

Spurgeon quite agreed and only two months before had written, "Every day affords more and more evidence that while many are true to their Lord, unbelief has sadly eaten into Congregational and Baptist churches." Throughout the controversy, Spurgeon did not swerve from his central argument that the issue was neither denominational nor sectarian, but Christianity or infidelity. While he did call for a confessional basis for unity, that basis did not go beyond an affirmation of Protestant evangelicalism as opposed to infidelity. "We are represented as wishing to force upon the churches a narrow creed. Nothing was further from our mind," Spurgeon argued, and pointed out that he had been represented as a "sectarian bigot" because of his "demand for agreement to vital truths common to all Christians." There he stood as a Calvinist, not demanding that the Union espouse a Calvinistic creed but embrace "one which will let the whole world know that brethren are associated as Christians, and that those who

do not agree to the first principles of our faith will be intruders." ²⁶ Doctrine alone was not the problem, but its fragmentation led to other difficulties. "At the back of doctrinal falsehood comes a natural decline of spiritual life, evidenced by a taste for questionable amusements, and a weariness

of devotional meetings." ²⁷ When pastors of repute defend the playhouse because they have been there, at the same time they diminish the spiritual meetings in their churches, so is there any wonder that "members forget their vows of consecration, and run with the unholy in the ways of frivolity?"

Spurgeon was sure he would be accused of prudery, bigotry, and joylessness, but he was just as sure that these epithets would demonstrate the low state of spirituality in the churches. When the narrow way and the shouldering of the cross become bigotry and worldly joy is seen to trump "joy unspeakable and full of glory," the church has lost its light and salt. Decline in doctrine and decline in spiritual life go hand in hand. "The doctrinal soon affects the practical," he

emphasized. ²⁸ "When the old faith is gone, and enthusiasm for the gospel is extinct, it is no wonder that people seek something else in the way of delight.

Lacking bread, they feed on ashes; rejecting the way of the Lord, they run

greedily in the path of folly." ²⁹ As he waited for demonstration that the case was far otherwise than he had stated, Spurgeon found that no one "has shown that prayer meetings are valued, and are largely attended; no one has denied that certain ministers frequent theatres." ³⁰ Rather, in this Laodicean syndrome, prayer is neglected, vain

amusements of the world take the luster of holy zeal off the saints, and when Christ by his atoning sacrifice would give them "gold tried in the furnace, and white raiment," they learn to be content with "education, oratory, science, and a

thousand other baubles." ³¹ Spurgeon was convinced that "even irreligious men, who themselves enjoy the amusements of the theatre," realize that ministers that attend the playhouses are "unfit to be their guides in spiritual things." When Spurgeon saw that The Nonconformist, a "fit companion for The Christian World," argued, "If the conventional prayer-meetings are not largely attended, why should the Christian community be judged by its greater or less use of one particular religious expedient?" and at the same time was unwilling to see a "great branch of art [the theatre] placed under a ban, as if it were no more than an agency of evil," he concluded that "the fact that it is debated is to us sufficient

evidence that spiritual religion is at a low ebb in such quarters." ³² Prayer a mere "religious expedient?" Absurd!

Given this state of affairs, Spurgeon did not wonder that many serious-minded persons among the Dissenters were moving back to the ritualism of the established church while others went to the "Brethren," the Darbyites, and still others opted for complete detachment from any identifiable denominational connection. Dissent for the mere sake of dissent is the "bitter fruit of a willful mind," a "degradation," mere "political partisanship," and a "travesty of religion" thus not worthy of maintenance. Some unspiritual men care nothing for truth and grace but pursue finances, numbers, and respectability. Doctrine does not matter as long as "the political aims of Dissenters are progressing, and there

is an advance in social position." ³³ When the gospel is fully preached, however, with the Holy Spirit's blessings and the churches consequently thrive in conformity with the New Testament pattern as a vital spiritual force, nonconformity may justify its existence. But when "the gospel is concealed, and the life of prayer is slighted," the entire enterprise "becomes a mere form and

fiction." ³⁴ During these months Spurgeon engaged S. H. Booth, Secretary of the Baptist Union, in private conferences concerning the new theology and even infidelity of many members of the Baptist Union. Readers of The Sword and the Trowel frequently sent Spurgeon reports of issues in their own churches or in other churches that they knew in some firsthand way that verified the substance of the theological and spiritual alarm bell he was ringing. He solemnly laid specific evidence before Booth while he continued in The Sword and the Trowel to write about theological problems without connecting them with persons in the Baptist Union. Booth reciprocated with some tales of his own. Spurgeon's hesitation to

call specific names in his publication, though he continued his theological lamentation, was fueled, in part, by a hope that the situation could be set aright without name-calling, and perhaps he hoped that Booth would support his revelations to such a degree that the weight of their joint testimony would bring about some positive action. In fact some of Spurgeon's information had come

from S. H. Booth himself. ³⁵ Spurgeon never retreated from maintaining that he had sufficient facts, and could give a precise list of names, with clear and indisputable supporting evidence, to assure the veracity of his claims. "Never let anyone suppose," he wrote, "that we build up our statements upon a few isolated facts, and bring to the front certain regrettable incidents which might as well have been forgotten."

He then committed to God alone the prerogative to "reveal the wretched facts which have come under our notice." As far as he was concerned in the matter, "their memory will, we trust, die and be buried with the man who has borne their

burden, and held his peace because he had no wish to create disunion." ³⁶ A flurry of letters and analyses concerning the theological tone of British Christianity in denominational papers including The Baptist gave the impression that, overall, all was well and very little departure from accepted theological positions could be detected. Spurgeon read the letters differently and what others regarded as "mere changes of expressions" he saw as "novelties which we judge to be fatal errors from the truth." He observed a "careful balancing of sentences, and a guardedness of statement" which, knowing what he did privately, enabled him "to read a good deal between the lines." The confidence that he shared with S. H. Booth was beginning to aggravate the theological convictions of Spurgeon and make the possibility of continued fraternity in the Baptist Union seem even more remote. "To break the seal of confidential correspondence or to reveal private conversations would not occur to us," he insisted; "but we feel compelled to say that, in one or two cases, the writers have not put in print what we have personally gathered from them on other occasions." In an effort to allay the fears

of others, Spurgeon suspected that they had forgotten their own. ³⁷ With these facts before him, and the expected support exponentially receding from view, Spurgeon wrote more desperately of the situation than he had in any previous time. He despaired of help among the Baptists. Spurgeon pointed to reports that appeared in other religious monthlies of decline from orthodoxy and spirituality among the ministers and in the churches, and inferred that "There is no use in mincing matters: there are thousands of us in all denominations who believe that many ministers have seriously departed from the truths of the gospel, and that a sad decline of spiritual life is manifest in many churches." ³⁸

At the beginning of Spurgeon's protests he was challenged by a "friendly critic" to produce the "names of those who had quitted the old faith." Had he done so, Spurgeon surmised, the critic would have been "among the first to lament the introduction of personalities." Now, however, Spurgeon believed that the papers, both liberal and evangelical, had proved his case in their introduction of letters from Baptist ministers that constituted "an ingenuous avowal of the most thorough-going advance from the things which have been assuredly

believed among us." ³⁹ In this way, Spurgeon "unwillingly … fulfilled our unhappy task of justifying a warning." If what he had provided in this article did not give "overwhelming evidence, it is from want of space, and want of will, and not from want of power." Sadly, however, "those who have made up their minds to ignore the gravity of the crisis, would not be aroused from their composure

though we told our tale in miles of mournful detail." ⁴⁰ Spurgeon's Decision to Withdraw In a clear indication of an announcement he soon would make, Spurgeon justified his absenting himself from the upcoming meeting of the Baptist Union.

He posed the question to his readers, "Are brethren who remain orthodox prepared to endorse such sentiments by remaining in union with those who hold and teach them?" After several paragraphs of laying out more of the disgusting phenomena of spiritual and doctrinal downgrade, he answered, "We cannot be expected to meet in any Union which comprehends those whose teaching is upon fundamental points exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear. …With deep regret we abstain from assembling with those whom we dearly love and heartily respect, since it would involve us in a confederacy with those with whom we can

have no communion in the Lord." ⁴¹ In this action, however, he maintained the hope that "those who banish us may yet be of another mind, and enable us to return." There was a very small window of opportunity, however, for the possibility of Spurgeon's "return" to his rightful place of fellowship among his beloved Baptists. His words had made it clear, that, contrary to later interpretations, he had great respect for the many that held firm to the faith, did not condemn them either for their views or their conscience, but that the few that did not hold firm and yet were received as fully in accord with the purposes of the Union caused a stumbling-block to his conscience that he could not overleap.

The autumn meeting of the Baptist Union failed to mention the Downgrade.

Spurgeon concluded that he had no hope of changing the structure from within.

This was a matter of deep disappointment to him, for he felt that those that did not belong were being successful in ousting one that did belong. They may maintain their liberty, but "that liberty cannot demand our cooperation." From

others, the liberals received both cooperation and liberty, and Spurgeon felt invaded. "If these men believe such things, let them teach them, and construct churches, unions and brotherhoods for themselves!" but, for the honor of honesty, "Why must they come among us?" But they had come, and were determined to stay, and the body turned its head away from dealing with it. Even so, one thing was sure: "In no case will we give them fellowship, or profess to do so." He resigned, therefore, from the Union in October of 1887 and announced his action in the November Sword and Trowel: "We retire at once

and distinctly from the Baptist Union." ⁴² On October ²⁸, 1887, he wrote to Booth, "I beg to intimate to you, as the secretary of the Baptist Union, that I must withdraw from that society." He regretted but had no choice and would give his reasons in The Sword and the Trowel for November. "I beg you not to send anyone to me to ask for reconsideration" because he had delayed too long already and each day proved that he had taken his action none too soon. He professed that no "personal pique or ill-will has in the least degree operated upon me" but he took the step only on the highest grounds. Booth responded with a "sense of pain," felt this put some uncertainty in the future, let Spurgeon know that he had "wounded the hearts of some—of many —who honour and love you more than you have any idea of,

and whose counsel would have led to a far different result." ⁴³ That Booth felt a different result could have come from counsel demonstrates how far less he was disturbed about their common knowledge than was Spurgeon. Carlile, in his striking and contemplative biography of Spurgeon, noted that "Dr. Booth believed that agreement would be reached by conference and compromise, he was 'a born amalgam'; his policy was to keep silent in order not to widen the

dispute." ⁴⁴ The deacons and elders of the Metropolitan Tabernacle wasted no time in giving their pastor assurance that they united with him in his stand of conscience. On October ²⁷, 1887, the day before Spurgeon actually penned his

letter to Booth, they wrote succinctly;

Resolved, That we, the deacons and elders of the church, worshipping in the Metropolitan Tabernacle,

hereby tender to our beloved Pastor, C. H. Spurgeon, our deep sympathy with him in the circumstances

that have led to his withdrawal from the Baptist Union. And we heartily concur in our sincere

appreciation of the steadfast zeal with which he maintains the doctrines of the gospel of our Lord Jesus

Christ in their inspired and apostolic simplicity.

Spurgeon had convinced the officers to say no more and omit several paragraphs that went into great detail as to their high esteem for him and his ministry. Later the burden of opinion, in light of the momentous issues and the part their pastor

had played in clarifying what was at stake, they insisted on the publication of a

larger statement.

Our former resolution was passed with unanimous and unhesitating concurrence. But, touching only on

one point, it was generally thought inadequate to convey to you, our dear Pastor, a full sense of the

affection, the confidence, and the esteem in which you are held by us all. Of this, however, we can

offer you no more fitting exposition than the readiness of each and every one to approve ourselves as

"Helps" in the diversified gifts, administrations, and operation of the Holy Spirit with which you have,

after the divine order, been so largely entrusted.

And it may not be altogether inappropriate, or inopportune, to record our conviction that you have

done good service, on a wide and constantly-widening scale, by affirming the inspiration of the Holy

Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; by inculcating the doctrines of grace, as taught by the

apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God; and by

preserving in our midst the uncorrupted simplicity of public worship.

Permit us to add our fervent hope, and our devout prayer, that your vigorous protests against the

innovations of "modern thought" in pulpits supposed to be orthodox, will eventually largely promote

the unity of the churches of Christ throughout the world. 45

From the beginning of his actions in this controversy, Spurgeon had recognized that loss of fellowship would be the natural outcome. The extent to which he would be isolated in that eventuality, he did not understand. In his first personal interaction in April 1887, Spurgeon knew that the call for unity and peace would be strong. If not based on the truth of God, however, no real unity existed, though external harmony may persist. a confederacy without truth was a conspiracy rather than a communion. "It is exceedingly difficult in these times," Spurgeon remarked, "to preserve one's fidelity before God and one's fraternity

among men." ⁴⁶ The former must be preferred to the latter. He sang the same tune in August by stating, "It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel." While love and unity have their legitimate claims, one cannot lend support to betrayers of the Lord. One might have to "overleap all boundaries of denominational restriction for truth's sake," even against the protest of those that argue instead for "denominational prosperity and

unity." ⁴⁷ It is certainly as irrational as it is unbiblical for the "enemies of our faith" to expect Spurgeon to call them brethren and "maintain a confederacy

with them." ⁴⁸ In September, Spurgeon proclaimed that a chasm had opened between orthodoxy and heterodoxy and no man could go both ways. "Neither when we have chosen our way can we keep company with those who go the other way."

He urged every person to use caution, each to take his place conscientiously, not in the spirit of "suspicion or division, but in watchfulness and resolve." On such consideration, "Let us not pretend to a fellowship which we do not feel,"

Spurgeon went on, "nor hide convictions which are burning in our hearts." ⁴⁹ When the October meeting failed to produce any action, Spurgeon was bewildered, but not entirely surprised. He knew how deeply the desire for unity ran and he was "far from undervaluing it." He also knew how often and shrewdly the argument for liberty resounded among his fellow Baptists, and to him "the mercy is that we do not know of any man who desires" the submission of one man's conscience to another. But surrender of truth under the guise of these things is "treason to the Lord Jesus." The refusal of the Union to consider the problems Spurgeon pointed out caused him to make the observation that

"they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil." He explained:

Believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who

hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the

personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another

probation after death, and a future restitution for the lost. 50

In view of this situation, Spurgeon concluded that he had no choice but to separate. His solemn conviction taught him that where "there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship." To seek to maintain such where "known and vital error" dominates "is participation in sin."

Those who accept "Holy Scripture to be the inspired truth of God cannot have fellowship with those who deny the authority from which we derive all our

teaching." ⁵¹ After Spurgeon's resignation, S. H. Booth denied having received any critical information from Spurgeon "such as would have justified them in laying it

before the council of the Assembly." ⁵² When Spurgeon, now in Mentone, France, heard of Booth's claim he was perplexed to bewilderment: "For Dr. Booth to say I never complained is dismaying. God knows all about it and will

see me righted." ⁵³ On December ³⁰, 1887, he wrote to Mr. C. M. Longhurst: "When centered upon my painful task, I did not expect that so many whom I esteem would deny the existence of the evil. It would be far easier to deal with

the erring than with those worthy brethren who protect them." ⁵⁴ It was probably faint comfort to Spurgeon when, on November ³, The Christian World confirmed his complaint while criticizing him by certifying, "It is a plain and literal fact that those who share the opinions he condemns constitute a very large

majority of all thinking Christian people." ⁵⁵ Spurgeon spoke sincerely and with some sympathy of the "paternal partiality" of a denomination's leadership that made them turn a blind eye to evil and influenced, not their truthfulness, but their judgment. It gave them a guardedness

of statement natural to an administrator determined to preserve the prestige of a body. This was "so natural, and so sacred" that Spurgeon did not have the heart to censure it. But also, the protective instinct he recognized as so powerful that "quite unconsciously and innocently, they grow oblivious of evils which, to the unofficial mind, are as manifest as the sun in the heavens." Concerning the

power of this protective attitude Spurgeon wrote:

If we were not extremely anxious to avoid personalities, we could point to other utterances of some of

these esteemed writers which, if they did not contradict what they have now written, would be such a

supplement to it that their entire mind would be better known. To break the seal of confidential

correspondence, or to reveal private conversations, would not occur to us; but we feel compelled to say

that, in one or two cases, the writers have not put in print what we have personally gathered from them

on other occasions. Their evident desire to allay the apprehensions of others may have helped them to

forget their own fears. We say no more. 56

While Booth and Spurgeon were mutually aware of difficulties and had common knowledge of the specific views of several individuals, the denials of others made Spurgeon say in some amazement, "their not seeing cannot alter the conviction of a man in his senses who has seen it, has seen it for years, and is

seeing it now. The witness rubs his eyes to see whether he is awake." ⁵⁷ As for Booth, he simply did not consider the nature of the problem worthy of reprimand, or loss of unity a fair exchange for theological confrontation. Giving some direct thought to this phenomenon after forty-six years of mulling it over, Carlile, in 1933, made the striking observation: "Spurgeon never was righted.

The impression in many quarters still remains that he made charges which could not be substantiated, and when properly called upon to produce his evidence he resigned and ran away. Nothing is further from the truth. Spurgeon might have

produced Dr. Booth's letters; I think he should have done so." ⁵⁸ Spurgeon found this politicizing of theological truth that led to the coddling of heresy as alarming, saddening, and infuriating. "My blood boils that so many men should dare to assail that which the Lord Jehovah has appointed," Spurgeon preached in the month following his resignation from the Baptist Union. He viewed the atoning work of Christ as elemental, as constituent, to Christian faith and he "would not speak sweetly of those who deal scurvily with Christ. If they be enemies of Christ, our Sacrifice, they cannot be friends of ours. We shake the dust off our feet against those who reject the doctrine of a crucified Saviour, slain in the sinner's stead." The intellectual commitment to the doctrine so inhered in his affections that his whole being revulsed at any tampering with this God-given remedy for sin. "Oh it brings the tears into our eyes, and the blood into our cheeks, that any should trample on the precious blood, and speak ill of

the vicarious sufferings of Christ!" The glory of God, the grace of God, the covenantal arrangement of salvation, and thus the sinner's hope all are bound up in the substitutionary death of Christ and, therefore, Spurgeon said, "As we love the souls of men, we will spend our last breath in the defence of our Lord's

substitution." ⁵⁹ For the modern reinterpretations of Christ's atonement that marginalized substitution as out of keeping with an enlightened ethical sense, Spurgeon felt an

alarm in his soul:

We cannot help regarding those as worse than carrion crows who would desire to touch this sublimest

though simplest of all doctrines, that Jesus Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree. They dare

to say that it is immoral to suppose that our sin could be transferred to Christ, or his righteousness to

us. Thus, to charge the essential act of grace with immorality, is to profane the sacrifice of God, and

count the blood of Jesus an unholy thing. 60

Thus, Spurgeon saw the Downgrade not only as an assault upon any number of verities of the Christian faith, but as an attitude toward doctrine. He said he had been "slenderly cheered lately by a large number of brethren who have greatly sympathized with me, and helped me to fight the Lord's battles by bravely looking on." Spurgeon found lack of theological nerve quite a bother. He also found theological indifference quite opposed to the spirit of the gospel. His desire was faithfulness to "the doctrine of truth" as well as the "spirit of love."

While seeking to avoid personal bitterness, the Christian nevertheless must "spare none of the errors which insult the sacrifice of our Lord, destroy the way of salvation in this life, and then seek to delude men with the dream of salvation after death." These errors are complicated by the fact that many who know better "closed their eyes to serious divergencies from truth." Perhaps they felt that these errors would simply go away as those who held them passed from the scene or reformed under the influence of advancing knowledge. Spurgeon had no such confidence but contended that the "new views are not the old truth in a better dress, but deadly errors with which we can have no fellowship." Spurgeon regarded the so-called modern thought as "a totally new cult, having no more relation to Christianity than the mist of the evening to the everlasting hills." ⁶¹

Response of the Baptist Union Council

Spurgeon's persistence in withholding specific information of the sort that the council would consider "proof" of heresy, was due in part to the presence of John Clifford on the council. Clifford's personal admiration for Spurgeon's spiritual qualities is a fact well-attested as is the fact that Spurgeon was personally fond of Clifford. Spurgeon had preached at the opening of the new facility at Westbourne Park. Spurgeon published an article by Clifford in the first year of The Sword and the Trowel, July 1865, entitled "The Utilization of Church Power." Clifford asked a very Spurgeonic question as the basis for the article, "In what way may the entire spiritual force of each redeemed man and woman be brought into the most efficient activity of the well-being of men and the glory of Christ." What could Spurgeon possibly have been suspicious of in Clifford's very practical and spiritual word of admonition to ministers in this

context:

Let me speak freely unto you brethren. Do you think that we, as ministers, have sought sufficiently for

the means of quickening and encouraging our own spiritual life, our own religious fervor, our devout

aspirations for deepened holiness and zeal? We have meetings for the discussions of doctrines; they are

good. Not a word will I say against them. We have attended to organizations which sharpen the

intellect, please the fancy, and extend the range of scriptural knowledge; these are good. Not a word

will I say against them. But when I remember that the apostles gave themselves to prayer, as well as

the ministry of the Word, and further that the efficiency of Church-work hinges in so large a measure

upon the character and spirit of the overseer, I am impelled to the conclusion that more attention ought

to be paid by ministers of the gospel to those means which may issue in the quickening of their

religious life and the increase of their spiritual fervour. 62

His practical suggestions harmonized perfectly with Spurgeon's view of seeking to implement every gift of every member and every opportunity for gospel influence. Every addition to the church should not be the mere addition of a name but of a life fully intent on practical work for the advance of the gospel, holiness, and the glory of Christ. The talents and peculiar gifts of women should be fully utilized, with the exception of teaching in the assembly. Christian businessmen can elevate the moral influence of a neighborhood by investing in strategic places and being successful at helpful constructive enterprises.

Conversation meetings in church on Sunday evenings can bring sinners to a knowledge of Christ and engage church members "possessed of special aptitudes for such work." Clifford also found useful the practice of inquiring into the spiritual condition of the relatives of church members "followed up by advice concerning the unconverted, as to the means most likely, speaking after the manner of men, to bring about their conversion to God." ⁶³ Spurgeon did all of

these things and the advice for such relevant and spiritual means of making the gospel known he was happy to give wide distribution through his monthly paper.

Fullerton reported the incident in which Spurgeon said to Clifford, "I cannot imagine Clifford, why you do not come to my way of thinking," referring to Calvinism. Clifford responded, "You see, Mr. Spurgeon, I only see you about once a month, but I read my Bible every day." Fullerton, who knew them both

well, listed Clifford as "one of Mr. Spurgeon's most ardent admirers." ⁶⁴ A review of the General Baptist Magazine, bound volume for 1871, began with the commendation, "Our General Baptist friends were wise in their generation when they obtained the able services of Mr. Clifford. He has made their magazine

worthy of them." ⁶⁵ Seven years only increased Spurgeon's estimation of Clifford's ability. " The General Baptist Magazine is edited with marvelous vigour," Spurgeon wrote in 1879, "and in every page reveals a masterly hand.

Mr. Clifford is eye and soul to the General Baptist body: long may he be

preserved to fill his place among the brethren." ⁶⁶ When Clifford edited a book of eight lectures given by General Baptist ministers, Spurgeon commended the book, though "all the world knows that C. H. S. is not a General Baptist," as an important and well-executed undertaking by the General Baptists. He commented, "Our friend, Dr. Clifford, speaks too generously of C. H. Spurgeon,

otherwise we have no fault to find." ⁶⁷ Early in 1882 Spurgeon gave a notice to the General Baptist Magazine, particularly the editor "whose vigorous intellect

has made their magazine a power." ⁶⁸ This conflict had the potential to diminish the luster of that admiration in both parties.

Spurgeon may have hoped that Clifford would resign from the Union and encourage those of his mentality to do likewise. Perhaps he was one that Spurgeon described when he wrote, "Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by a clever man and a good-natured brother, who

has so many fine points about him." ⁶⁹ When it became evident that Clifford was firmly entrenched in Baptist Union life and had no intention of leaving and even failed to see any degree of equivocation in his own position, Spurgeon abandoned all hope of reversing the direction of "downgrade" theology.

Drs. Culross, McLaren, Clifford, and Booth wired Spurgeon that they were coming to visit him in France to deliberate how the unity of the denomination might be maintained. Spurgeon discouraged their coming and asked that they await his return. He had no desire to be put at a disadvantage by being the cause of such great expense, especially when he suspected that they only intended to

fix on him "the odium of being implacable." ⁷⁰ From Mentone, he wrote to an American pastor and newspaper editor, T. T. Eaton, in Louisville, Kentucky,

explaining his actions, since some aspects of his resignation from the Baptist

Union were not quite clear. He told Eaton:

I do not wish friends in America to judge the matter hastily. They cannot know the ins and outs of the

case. But I would have them believe that I would not have quitted our Baptist Union if I had not felt

driven to do so.

It has never comprehended the more strongly Calvinistic brethren; but that is not my complaint. It

has in it a few very pronounced "modern thought" men. These are by no means to be charged with

reticence, they have had sufficient opportunities to inflict their novelties upon us. I have protested and

protested but in vain.

Many do not believe that this "new theology"exists to any degree worthy of notice. I know that it

does and cannot but wonder that any should question it. Of course those who think all is well think one

a needless alarmist.

Another section is first of all for peace and unity and hopes that the erring ones will come right, and

therefore they are grieved to see the matter ventilated.

Others hope to purge and save the Union. All my best desires go with these; but I have no hope of it.

Essentially, there is no doctrinal basis to begin with and many believe this to be a great beauty. "Down

with all creeds" seems to be the watchword.

Protests failing, I left; and this has caused more enquiry than a thousand papers would have done. I

do not see that I could have done else. Others might not be under such a compulsion till they have tried

to mend matters and have failed as I have done. With no confession of faith, or avowal of principles,

there's nothing to work upon; and I do not see the use of repairing a house that is built on the air. 71

Spurgeon summarized themes that would be visited many times in the coming months, and particularly with the conciliation group appointed by the Council.

Spurgeon met with this group, minus Dr. McLaren, in January of 1888 and their subsequent, if not consequent, action confirmed Spurgeon's suspicions and justified his confession that he had "no hope" of a doctrinal purging. One week after that meeting, the council of the Union met and voted a virtual "censure" of Spurgeon because he had not supported his charges of doctrinal laxity by naming the offending parties. Again, Spurgeon could not bring himself to name individuals but was content with describing the problems in general, being fully convinced that everyone could plainly see that his concerns had abundant substance and that he had made his case by necessary inference in his October article. Such charges, according to the council, ought not to have been made.

The resolution of the Union was as follows:

That the council recognizes the gravity of the charges which Mr. Spurgeon has brought against the

Union previous to and since his withdrawal. It considers that the public and general manner in which

they have been made reflects on the whole body, and exposes to suspicion brethren who love the truth

as dearly as he does. And as Mr. Spurgeon declines to give the names of those to whom he intended

them to apply, and the evidence supporting them, those charges, in the judgment of the Council, ought

not to have been made. 72

Spurgeon responded quickly to this action in an article entitled "The Baptist Union Censure." Technically, this was not the action of the Baptist Union nor did the Council indicate their action was a "censure." Spurgeon, however, took advantage of the action to make clear his stance toward this reprimand. In addition to his confidential arrangement with Booth and his personal deference toward Clifford, Spurgeon revealed another reason that he felt the revelation of names would be useless. It was a major theme of his letter to Eaton. "I brought up no charges before the members of the Council," Spurgeon explained, "because they could only judge by their constitution." The constitution, however, had only one proposition for a doctrinal basis for the Union, the belief that "the immersion of believers is the only Christian baptism." Only if one foreswore his baptism would he be in default of the doctrinal basis of the Baptist Union. If he had brought charges the Council could do nothing. Should he expose himself to the threat of a lawsuit and gain nothing by it? The Union, as it

stood, was incompetent for doctrinal judgment. ⁷³ As he had suggested earlier, it seemed that the Union was not "an assemblage of evangelical churches," but "an

indiscriminate collection of communities practicing immersion." ⁷⁴ Spurgeon felt the council had betrayed him by sending the four men to "deliberate" with him on the best means of preserving the unity of the denomination in "truth, and love, and good works." Though such was the stated intent of their attempt to "deliberate," their real intent was to provoke a recantation from Spurgeon, the failure of which would produce a censure. "It is quite as well," Spurgeon philosophized, "that their resolutions should be as incomprehensible as their doctrinal position is undefinable." That, in fact, was the particular issue that he initiated as a valid point of "deliberation" in the meeting. He spoke to the men about the necessity of a more substantial doctrinal basis for the Union, that is, "that it be formed on a Scriptural basis."

One of the saddest aspects of this episodic meeting was the inevitable break of relationship with these four men for whom Spurgeon had had deep respect.

Booth had been an intimate friend and confided much in Spurgeon, but his capitulation to denominational policy could do nothing but sever that trust. He used Spurgeon's honor as a means to keep him from exposing the information that was common to Booth and Spurgeon. Alexander MacLaren was a great preacher whose books Spurgeon had often reviewed and given superlative marks. In 1875 the Baptist Union met in the lecture hall at the Tabernacle and MacLaren chaired the meeting. Spurgeon called him a "noble example of the cultured master and the simple believer united in one. The influence of his inaugural address must be salutary to an immeasurable degree." ⁷⁵ Spurgeon

welcomed the weekly publication of Maclaren's sermons with a sincere bravo for messages "so full of grace and truth." Maclaren—so Spurgeon wrote in 1885 —was a "man of no ordinary stature." He was "eloquent, thoughtful, masterly, and for this reason, and because of the divine life which is in him, he does not pander to the age, but abides by the gospel of all ages." Spurgeon could think of no other sermons that he would more heartily commend to the younger brethren.

76

Clifford, a General Baptist had been an object of Spurgeon's affections and admiration for decades. He viewed the gifts of Culross as superlative and his potential for good unlimited. Spurgeon's review of Culross' book on the church at Laodicea made the point emphatically. "Above all living teachers," Spurgeon affirmed, "we prefer Dr. Culross. He ought to preach to all the ministers in London at least once a week." It was neither Culross' voice nor eloquence that so commended him to Spurgeon, but his "ripeness of thought and beauty of expression which in our judgment are scarcely equaled, and not in one instance surpassed, by those of any other living teacher known to us." Spurgeon saw the world as richer for every book he published and prayed that his life would be

long and that he would send forth a large number. ⁷⁷ When he reviewed his book The House at Bethany, Spurgeon gushed, "In him we find depth without obscurity, breadth without laxity, unction without affectation, and orthodoxy

without bigotry." ⁷⁸ If any could have persuaded Spurgeon to stay, these were the fellows. But they all knew too much to make an appeal other than that of peace and unity; for Spurgeon, purity preceded both.

The Hardening of the Positions

Soon after that meeting, on February ⁵, Spurgeon preached a message on Jesus' words to the church at Pergamos, "Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith." The meeting and the censure were fresh on Spurgeon's mind.

His refusal to be swayed by the reasoning of the sub-committee meshed with certain points of the sermon. Eternal punishment, in the theological discussions of the day, often came up as a shocking and, therefore, incredible concept. "Horrible doctrine! cried one the other day." That it is horrible does not mean that it is untrue. "It is not ours to judge of our Lord's teaching by our sentiment, we are to receive it by faith," Spurgeon countered; "He speaks terribly of the doom of the wicked, and he is not capable of exaggeration." In light of attack on him because of his belief of Jesus' words, Spurgeon asked aloud for "grace to persevere to the end! Oh for fidelity and constancy, so that neither gain nor loss,

exaltation nor depression, may induce us to quit our Saviour!" ⁷⁹ Spurgeon's stirring the coals of this doctrinal fire revealed several that professed to believe as he believed but had no heart for pursuing a conflict over doctrine. Spurgeon reminded his listeners that in a day of battle, "Those who sneak into the rear, that they may be comfortable, are not worthy of the kingdom." He felt keenly the insults heaped on him by many whose general disdain for Spurgeon's doctrine made them take advantage of his having provoked this conflict. He knew that he must "bear ridicule for Christ's sake, even that peculiarly venomed ridicule which 'the cultured' are so apt to pour upon us." Though he sought to keep the conflict at the level of principle and not resort to a defense of his person, sometimes the arrogance set against him made him grab for self-respect. While being willing to be "thought great fools for Jesus' sake," he also maintained that "some of us have forgotten more than many of our opponents ever knew, and yet they style us ignorant." Faithful soldiers bear shame for the courage of their convictions, yet "they call us cowards." "For my part," Spurgeon continued, "I am willing to be ten thousand fools in one for my dear Lord and Master, and count it to be the highest honor that can be put upon me to be stripped of every honor, and loaded with every censure for the

sake of the grand old truth which is written on my very heart." ⁸⁰ For Spurgeon, doctrinal divergence meant that the gospel he preached was seen as unnecessary, the Christ he preached did not exist, and the souls saved under his ministry he had labored over uselessly. When he surveyed these implications, modern redefinition looked absurd. "When I remember my dear brethren and sisters in Christ who have fallen asleep, whom I saw die with triumph lighting up their faces, I feel quite content with the salvation which

saved them, and I am not going to try experiments or speculations." He held that confidence because of the perfection of the Saviour. "To talk of improving upon our perfect Saviour is to insult him. He is God's propitiation; what would you more?" To change such perfect good news as the gospel set forth made no sense and reached the depths of Spurgeon's disgust. "My blood boils with indignation at the idea of improving the gospel. There is but one Saviour, and that one Saviour is the same for ever. His doctrine is the same in every age, and is not yea and nay." If modern proposal for theological change were authentic, what an absurd scene would eternity hold forth. "What a strange result we should obtain in the general assembly of heaven," Spurgeon envisioned, "if some were saved by the gospel of the first century, and others by the gospel of the second, and others by the gospel of the seventeenth, and others by the gospel of the nineteenth century!" Imagine the scene. "We should need a different song of praise for the clients of these various periods, and the mingled chorus would be rather to the glory of man's culture than to the praise of the one Lord. No such mottled heaven, and no such discordant song, shall ever be produced." The scene presents too ridiculous a vision to justify the movement of one inch. "To eternal glory there is but one way; to walk therein we must hold fast one truth, and be quickened by one life. We stand fast by the unaltered, unalterable, eternal name

of Jesus Christ our Lord." ⁸¹ Virtually at the same time that Spurgeon was delivering his soul in that message, John Clifford delivered a public statement defending the Council's action and warning against any reversal of its reprimand at the Union in April.

Voices to "reverse the vote of censure" were being heard. Clifford said that a reversal would be tantamount to the Union's absorbing into itself all the worst and most unfounded accusations made by the pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Do Union ministers really "make infidels" and "scout the atonement, deride the inspiration of the Scriptures, degrade the Holy Spirit into an influence, turn the punishment of sin into a fiction and the resurrection into a myth?" Should those men that will meet to discuss the work of the Baptist denomination say to the world, "We turn the Bible into wastepaper?" Surely, Clifford argued, it is not right that Spurgeon be allowed to say anything that he likes and none may whisper a word of objection. Spurgeon's energies, gifts, and influence should be put to better use than causing baseless suspicion and

quarrels:

Is it too late to ask Mr. Spurgeon to pause and consider whether this is the best work to which the

Baptists of Great Britain and Ireland can be put? Is not the fateful crop of disturbing suspicions, broken

purposes, imperiled churches, and wounded but faithful workers, already in sight enough? Oh! It pains

me unspeakable to see this eminent "winner of souls" rousing the energies of thousands of Christians

to engage in personal wrangling and strife, instead of inspiring them, as he might, to sustained and

heroic effort to carry the good news of God's Gospel to our fellow-countrymen! Would it were

possible even now to reverse the direction of those newly quickened forces and guide them into the

application of Christianity to the lessening of the sin and misery of our race! 82

Spurgeon felt heartsick. On February ¹⁷ he wrote to a "venerable friend" saying, "My heart has been ready to sink within me. The subtlety of those who defend union with the errorists is amazing, and come upon me every now & then as if a sheet of fire flashes in my face. Friends have forsaken me, & foes wrest my words." Though he acknowledged a bright side to the entire conflict, he felt that at times "the dark side is most present." Both foes and friends, as he mentioned, gave his emotions such a work-out that "sometimes a fit of weeping & sobbing comes over me." He felt that he might die under the strain, and would willingly

do so, but "the feeble would draw ill inferences from it." ⁸³ Fresh on his mind at the writing of the letter was a brewing conflict with some few of his "own men."

Even with the growing and more determined tide of criticism arising from within Baptist ranks, among the most difficult developments Spurgeon faced in this turmoil was the defection of men that had graduated from the Pastors' College. "The evil leaven," he wrote "has affected some few of them who were

educated in our College." ⁸⁴ The attempt to remove them from the association uncovered other sympathizers, a group of one hundred that signed "a mild protest" against Spurgeon's attempt at creating clarity and certainty of the theological basis for the conference. Up to this time Spurgeon believed they had a unanimously held consensus. The Downgrade spirit in the midst of his own men was a fact that Spurgeon described as "the sorest wound of all."

C. A. Davis, a leader of the opposition party, had frequently contributed articles to The Sword and the Trowel, and had been active in the college conference. Davis contributed "How we get Peace by the Substitute" in September 1870, writing as a man after Spurgeon's own heart. "Christ is all in all to the believer," he began. "Not only at conversion, but all through life the doctrine of the cross is the life and soul of his peace. In proportion as he retains a

clear view of Christ as his Substitute, he enjoys peace with God." ⁸⁵ In April 1878 Davis, a pastor in Manchester, had presented an "extraordinary paper" on

"Jesus, the Preacher's Model." ⁸⁶ A decade later, Davis received an imploring letter from Spurgeon on February ¹⁸, 1888 explaining that his attempt at protest would be a "purposeless conflict" and that Spurgeon had had "all I can bear of bitterness." Ironically, at this very time, Davis sent a letter to The Sword and the Trowel giving a positive report of the work of Fullerton and Smith, Spurgeon's evangelists, in Reading. as "solid and helpful." ⁸⁷ Approval of evangelism,

however, did not substitute for faithfulness to the revealed truth of God.

Spurgeon wanted a clear understanding of the "basis," that is the theological commitments, on which the college conference proceeded and wanted no one in the conference that did not agree wholeheartedly. He proposed, therefore, and told Davis his proposal, "I propose to resign my office, and I shall hope that those who vote 'Yes' will support me in forming a new Conference." The "Yes" vote would be an approval of the interpretation given by some of the London alumni of the "basis" for the conference and strictly enforced in forming the new conference. Davis' procedure opposing this, "which I will not describe," Spurgeon wrote, "has caused me the utmost grief, and forced me to this

decision." ⁸⁸ He did not wonder that some might suspect his motives as well as his procedure because so much dust had been thrown in the air that even the eyes of an archangel would be blearied. Nevertheless, he had hopes for clearing the

air:

It is no small solace that nearly four hundred have voted yes right straight; and it will be a still greater

joy, if, after the explanation given, many of you will do the like. By your love to me, I beseech you do

nothing which would be half-hearted. We can do each other more good apart in open-hearted honesty

than together with suppressed ill-will. It has been my joy to serve you, and I hope it will still be my

privilege; but we can only work together on the lines of the old Gospel, and if any of you are in love

with "advanced thought," why do you wish to stay with such an old fogey as I am? Go your way and

leave me an immovable old man, possibly the proper object of your pity, but assuredly not of your

enmity, for I have striven to benefit you all according to my light and capacity. May the grace of our

Lord be with the faithful among you, leading you to be wholly and boldly on the Lord's side in this

day when men cannot endure sound doctrine! Yours heartily, but in much sorrow, mingled with

hopeful love, C. H. Spurgeon

When the votes on the "Basis" were given, 432 of 496 voted for the procedure recommended by Spurgeon. During the process of receiving votes Spurgeon, having extended the time of voting to February ²³, wrote in the March Sword, "We cannot, therefore, announce the final result here, but after the scrutineers have presented their report, we shall have an important communication to make direct to all our faithful brethren." "All that we can do now is to indicate that an overwhelming majority has voted in favour of the explanation of the basis of agreement on which the Association was formed." The others gave different levels of objection to it. As Spurgeon explained it, at least in part, "Some protest against our method of procedure, and others threaten to force themselves into

our assembly, though they have departed from the faith that we hold." ⁸⁹ A light in a dark place a letter from his students in New Zealand must have been. They expressed their admiration for "the loyalty towards the claims of conscience and the convictions of duty that has led you to withdraw from the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland." Their memories of the college were

delightful and refreshing and they still sought to maintain the truths that he had propagated with valor and faithfulness. As they mentioned the names of former students that were now men at work for the gospel in this remote corner, it could not have hurt Spurgeon's spirit that the letter included the information, "It is your son's privilege to preside over the largest church in the Colony, and to be

the preacher of the Union sermon at this Conference." ⁹⁰ Much closer to home, however, former students moved Spurgeon to a distasteful, perhaps even bitter, procedure.

According to his previous plan, Spurgeon dissolved the conference. Ian Randall has investigated the letters received by Spurgeon during this crisis and has summarized the variety of responses that the college men had to Spurgeon's attempts at a clearer theological basis for the conference. The flexibility they desired on the meaning of the term "doctrines of grace" and their desire for maintenance in membership of those that held sympathy for the "larger hope" shows why Spurgeon was driven to such distress during this critical moment of

the controversy, and explains his desire for starting over. ⁹¹ Should any object that his power to do so was unwarrantable, then he would merely state that "I personally retire from my office as president." He asked others not to seek to convoke the old conference; it would only bring about "an unpleasant collision."

At the same time he invited all that voted "Yes" to unite with him in forming the conference anew. They had given him great encouragement by their enthusiastic love for him and for the old faith. To those who had not treated him kindly, he hoped "to erase from my memory the whole of the unhappy past, and to begin a new Conference without an atom of resentment towards those who will not be

with us in it." ⁹² The conflict, though uncovering another point of division among Spurgeon's connections, proved the making of greater unity and of greater theological resolve for many others. While the "evil leaven" had affected many, the "great bulk of the host" he found to be lovingly enthusiastic for his stance and to be "faithful and thorough brethren." Spurgeon believed, "as a band of men we shall march on with all the greater and clearer confidence in God." He wanted the college and its men to provide a "great breakwater, firmly resisting the incoming

flood of falsehood." ⁹³ This February 1888 affair of dissolution and reconstitution must have been one of the most distasteful and trying, not only to Spurgeon, but to those graduates that dissented from the president in some way, and to his wife who was aware of the constant stress on her husband's mind because of such a surprising and counter-intuitive aspect of the doctrinal dispute. Even after his

death this conflict within the fraternity of college men weighed heavily on the mind of Mrs. Spurgeon. She wrote a letter of gratitude to them for their genuine expression of grief in the death of her husband and their devoted mentor. She mentioned their "responsibility" as his students. After a series of statements about his courage and consecration and unique gifts, she brought them to think candidly about "the faith he loved so well, and fought for so valiantly (even unto death); the gospel of the grace of God which he preached so fully and faithfully; the 'sound doctrine' which was at the foundation of his power and success."

Turning from him to them, she wrote, "These are yours still, and are left for you to defend and proclaim in the stormy days to come." As her husband would have done, she urged all to be faithful to their charge and not "depart from the faith" or "turn aside unto vain jangling." This straying age will focus its eyes on "Spurgeon's men" and will exult when any depart from the old paths or fail to keep the up-grade. " Never let them be successful in your case, dear brethren!

Better never to have been connected with the 'Pastors' College' at all, than to be

one of 'our own men', and afterwards dishonour the Lord." ⁹⁴ Having cleared the air for the college conference on the confessional basis for their union, Spurgeon now looked for the Baptist Union to do the same. In earlier times, before the intrusion of advanced thought and the consequent manipulation of language, members in the Union had clear knowledge of what their brethren meant by their use of historically confessional words such as deity, incarnation, atonement, inspiration, justification, and final judgment. He told the reorganized meeting of the conference, "The Pastors' College Evangelical Association," on April ¹⁶, that when men differ on some issues yet hold in common fundamental truth, a confession is not needed; but "when men come in who count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing," the time for plain speaking has come. Spurgeon, increasingly savvy about the inner workings of the process and distrustful of the great latitude offered in mere assertions, looked for a substantial and clearly evangelical document. Inclusivism would not meet the demands of the moment but would be treasonous. When he used terms, he did not claim to have an idiosyncratic definition to which all must heel, but he wanted them understood "in the common and usual sense attached to them by the general usage of Christendom." At all costs, and the costs would be dire, he believed, policy should not dictate the outcome, but plain truth. "Let it above all things avoid the use of language which could have two meanings contrary to each other. … Right is safe, and compromise by the use of double meanings can

never in the long run be wise." ⁹⁵ Once Spurgeon grabbed the principle that fellowship depended on the

willingness to declare with no uncertainty the truth as the basis of union, he carried it through every organization of which he was a part. He had participated for years in the London Association and was instrumental in giving it new life when an organizational meeting convened at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on November ¹⁰, 1865. He sent the invitations that brought about the new organization and presided at the first meeting. The purpose was described as "the cooperation of the Associated Churches in efforts to advance the kingdom of Christ in connection with the Baptist denomination in London and its suburbs."

This included the erection of at least one chapel per year. The only doctrinal statement in the founding document was article one of the rules that described the Association as "The London Association of Baptist Ministers holding

Evangelical Sentiments, and the Churches under their care." ⁹⁶ When, twentytwo years later, a resolution calling on the executive of the Association to "prepare a sound evangelical basis" for its membership was moved but not passed, Spurgeon resigned from the Association. After his resignation the Association continued its talks about a "creedal basis," some saying that Spurgeon was at the bottom of that continued struggle. Spurgeon flatly denied it, and never held over the Association's head "the arrogant bribe of personal return if a creed should be adopted." His course was simple and final. "As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my counsel has been, 'Come

ye out from among them.'" ⁹⁷ By 1891, this conviction reached even into Spurgeon's political connections with the Liberation Society. Though it always had included theological liberals, it seemed, with an exception here and there, that the intent was political and religious equality for all denominations. The theological issue became so overwhelming in Spurgeon's mind during these years, that he could not risk fraternity at any level with those that held diminutive views of Christ, the cross, justification and the Bible. He was in league with too many of them in the Liberation Society. If he had broken union with Baptists over these issues, how could political goals have a greater claim on his loyalty? Now he saw that their influence was just as much toward the liberalization of theology as it was toward the liberalization of English politics, society, and ecclesiastical relations. Hoping for their success in achieving religious liberty, Spurgeon, in 1891, pointed to the spiritual issues of "these days" as prompting his words, "We will not by this question be brought into a parent union with those from whom we differ in the

very core of our souls upon matters vital to Christianity." ⁹⁸ This theme of confessional clarity he repeated with resolute consistency, and

he reported that he knew number of others that would "never discontinue their request until they obtain it." The strangest phenomenon of all would be that the majority would have to recede before the minority. An inclusive document, so he believed, would bring the entire Baptist Union to a great crisis, a "parting of the ways, and the old school and the new cannot go much further in company; nor ought they to do so." He had written for the April edition of The Sword and the Trowel, "The Baptist Union meets in full assembly on April ²³, and the great question before it will be —'Is this Union to have an Evangelical basis or not?'" He hoped the question would be discussed "with good temper, and that the

decision will be of the right kind." ⁹⁹ As Spurgeon learned more of exactly what the Council would propose for acceptance as a confessional statement, his spirits sank again. Rumors spread that he requested a "narrow sectarian form of teaching," or a "personal peculiarity of persuasion;" he wanted only the "faith once for all delivered to the saints," a clear agreement on "the central teaching of revelation" and that the "grosser forms of error should not be tolerated within the bounds of the Christian body to which we belonged." He had proposed a "form of sound words" to the Council as a basis for union, but feared that "a strenuous endeavour will be made to get the scanty and objectionable historical statement of the Council carried through as a substitute for that which is requested." Though his lament appeared in the May number of The Sword and the Trowel, he wrote in anticipation of the

annual meeting of April ²³, and confessed, "We write hopelessly." ¹⁰⁰ When the Baptist Union meeting in April of 1888 finally did vote a confessional stance as a basis for union, the wording was purposely ambiguous and, according to Spurgeon, "could legitimately have two meanings contrary to each other." This type of confession appeared designed for the lack of

decisiveness characteristic of the Union as Spurgeon perceived it:

After next Monday's Union Meeting, several brethren may have made up their minds; but until then,

they will sit uneasily upon the fence. I have, with commendable forethought, endeavoured to drive a

number of tenterhooks and other useful nails into the top of that fence, to assist them in retaining their

hold; but I fear they are not deeply grateful to me. Theirs is a position which I never was able to

occupy myself, and therefore I have no very profound sympathy with them. One or two learned divines

are trying their utmost to get down on both sides of the fence; but it as a perilous experiment. Some are

trying to get down on the winning side, and others would prefer to keep their judicious position world

without end. Neutrals, in the end, have the respect of neither party; and, assuredly, they are the

difficulty in every controversy. 101

Giving opportunity to assuage the conscience, no matter which way one voted, was the intention of the document, largely the work of John Clifford, the Baptist Union president for that year. Clifford wanted all members of the Union to be

able to sign the document in good conscience and set the stage for broad acceptance of the ambiguous confession by an equally ambiguous but exceedingly powerful presidential address. The Spring Assembly of 1888 was ready to explode and Clifford was intent on defusing the situation. Sir James

Marchant describes Clifford's address:

The task was threefold. The message must express convictions held strongly by the speaker, or it could

not honorably be given; it must encourage the more liberal thinkers among the delegates, and those

who cared most for freedom of thought and speech, for they were entitled to this support from a man

like Dr. Clifford, substantially of their own school; it must reassure the more conservative and, if

possible, the most conservative, who feared that the fundamentals of Bible truth and evangelical faith

were in peril. Not only were these things essential at any time, because right: they were specially so

now, because the situation was strained and irritated and near disaster. The address deserved to

succeed. 102

Succeed it did—at least as far as Clifford's intentions were concerned.

Spurgeon, who had looked forward to this vote with vital interest, had written,

"It will be wise to see what the respective numbers are." ¹⁰³ If winners and losers were to be pointed out, Clifford won and Spurgeon lost. The confession was adopted by a majority of ²,000 to ⁷, including the affirmative votes of many of Spurgeon's most ardent followers. Given the overwhelming affirmation of such a non-committal confession, Iain Murray expressed the puzzling nature of the event by speculating that "a number of evangelicals voting could not have

understood what they were voting about." ¹⁰⁴ Rather, they thought it was a great victory and to the advantage of orthodoxy. Spurgeon's own brother, James, seconded the motion and considered that Charles Spurgeon was vindicated.

Other Spurgeon supporters cheered and felt his point was gained. "My brother," Spurgeon wrote to a friend, "thinks he has gained a great victory, but I believe we are hopelessly sold. I feel heartbroken. Certainly he has done the very opposite of what I should have done." Even with that disappointment, Spurgeon

believed that James had "followed his best judgment." ¹⁰⁵ What was so ominous in all of this to Spurgeon was the manner in which it all came about in the rush of the moment. Charles Williams of Accrington moved the acceptance of the resolution along with a footnote acknowledging that some brethren differed on the interpretation of Matthew 25:46 on the point of "everlasting punishment." He made a speech defending the intent of the footnote to tolerate that difference. When James seconded the resolution of the council, he did not intend to second Williams' defense of the footnote. Spurgeon received a full account of the entire affair and viewed it as exactly consistent with the tottering theological condition of the Union. He had hoped, if with only scant reason, that something positive might be done. "But what was done?" he asked.

"The resolution, with its footnote, with the interpretation of its mover, and the re-election of the old council, fairly represent the utmost that would be done when everybody was in his best humour." Was the adopted confession satisfactory? Did any two parties share the same sense of its meaning? Does not the whole virtue of the thing, in fact, lie in its pleasing both sides a little? And at the same time is this not the "vice and the condemnation of it?" How strange that James Spurgeon would think that such a hybrid would vindicate his brother, or answer his deepest concerns. On the contrary, however, the vote merely confirmed the Council's previous censure of Spurgeon and unquestionably solidified him in his conviction that he could never recall his resignation. "I was afraid from the beginning that the reform of the Baptist Union was hopeless, and therefore I resigned. I am far more sure of it now, and should never under any probable circumstances dream of returning." ¹⁰⁶

Attempts to give Meaning to the Conflict

The drama of this conflict over creeds continued to haunt the historiography of Spurgeon. J. C. Carlile in 1933 commented, "Among Baptists there has been age-long hostility to authoritative creeds. Baptists stand for liberty, the right of each individual to receive the truth from his Lord." Using language of E. Y.

Mullins, Carlile called creeds "barriers to the free development of personality," causes of division and hypocrisy, and "instrument[s] of persecution." Carlile believed that Spurgeon's desire for a definite theological basis for union meant

that "he had gone back upon the traditional position of Baptists." ¹⁰⁷ Carlile's own misperceptions of the use of confessions in Baptist life made him misjudge the concern of Spurgeon in matters related to a union of churches as opposed to the necessity of perfect religious liberty in civil society.

One week before the April meeting, Spurgeon preached to the alumni of his Pastors' College on the subject "The Evils of the Present Time, and Our Object, Necessities, and Encouragements." Spurgeon clearly outlined the issues at stake in the Downgrade controversy. Again he pointed to the inspiration of Scripture as the main issue. Other doctrines mattered, but without a divine revelation, conceded to be such, the construction of doctrine with hopes of unity was a moot

point. Second to that, Spurgeon mentioned vicarious atonement.

Brethren have always differed on minor points, and it has not been unusual for us to meet each other,

and discuss matters of doctrine upon the basis of Holy Scripture. All were agreed that, whatever

Scripture said, should be decisive; and we only wished to ascertain what the Lord had revealed. But

another form of discussion has now arisen: men question the Scriptures themselves.

We used to debate upon particular and general redemption, but now men question whether there is any

redemption at all worthy of the name. We used to converse upon which aspect of the atonement should

be made most prominent, but in the vicarious sacrifice we all believed. Alas! We have doctrine of the

putting-away of sin by the blood of our Lord Jesus is spoken of in opprobrious terms. 108

Without affirmation of the full inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, preachers are like weather-cocks spinning in a different direction with every wind that blows. For any doctrine to have certitude and permanent meaning it

must proceed upon an unerring basis:

Unless we have infallibility somewhere, faith is impossible. The true faith teaches us facts which

cannot be questioned. Where is faith to build if there be no rock, and nothing left us but shifting sand?

As for us, we find infallibility in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and our one desire is to

have them opened up to our minds by the holy Spirit. 109

In spite of Spurgeon's specific and clear references to this paramount issue and his explicit disavowals that his conflict arose from narrowly Calvinistic

sympathies, his contemporaries virtually unanimously failed to see the theological concerns he so ardently and energetically expounded. There were four basic reactions to Spurgeon's claims. Many claimed that he was merely trying to bind the Union to the back of John Calvin. A second group lamented that he had forgotten his natural gift of soul-winning and succumbed to being a mere controversialist. A third judgment concluded that Spurgeon's sickness and age (though he was but fifty-two when the controversy began) had caused him to be irrational and reactionary. A fourth reaction, which served to confirm Spurgeon's claims concerning the entire situation, stated that Spurgeon's theology was out of date and harmful to the progress of the modern mentality.

Though outbursts against Spurgeon's supposed intention to commit the Baptist Union to the "hateful doctrines of Geneva" were widespread, two illustrations of this will suffice. George Hill, a Baptist minister, insisted that Spurgeon would exclude all from the Union who had "learned anything about the ways of God with Men" since their college days and could not agree with Hodge's Outlines of Theology or Cole's On Divine Sovereignty.

One of the harshest and most unfair, as well as irrelevant, caricatures of Spurgeon and his position came from the famous Joseph Parker. Spurgeon had regularly reviewed Parker's new works when they appeared, found something to commend in each one, but always issued a caveat concerning his theology. In December 1870 Spurgeon had reviewed Parker's Ad Clerum with the recommendation, "Young men must be great dolts if they can read his advice and derive no profit from it." He added, "Our grief that Dr. Parker should have gone aside to certain modern heresies is intense, and we pray that he may soon

see his way out of them." ¹¹⁰ He made sure the reader knew that "none of that mischief" marred the volume before him. Parker took advantage of the

Downgrade stir to issue an insult around a compliment:

When people ask me what I think of Spurgeon, I always ask which Spurgeon—the head or the heart—

the Spurgeon of the Tabernacle or the Spurgeon of the Orphanage? The kind of Calvinism which the

one occasionally represents I simply hate, as I hate selfishness and blasphemy. It is that leering,

slavering, sly-winking Calvinism that says, "Bless the Lord we are all right, booked straight through to

heaven first-class". … But when I turn to the Orphanage all is changed. All is beauty. All is love …

111

By September 1888 Spurgeon could say, "The Pastor and Church at the Tabernacle are now free from all hampering connections with Unions and Association but by no means without communion of the warmest kind with the Lord's faithful people." He declared his patience on this matter, asked the people to believe nothing that the newspapers wrote about his intentions because his

only intent was to wait and see what God would do. ¹¹² His desire for fellowship with "the Lord's faithful people" found an outlet in an informal fraternal that he and several like-minded friends began. Having learned his lesson well about religious affiliation that had no clearly stated, conscientiously subscribed doctrinal basis, the brethren convened their fraternal on the basis of a confession of faith. This confession expressed the beliefs of the "fraternal" begun by seven men and gradually endorsed by others. The original seven were C. H Spurgeon, A. G. Brown, J. Douglas, W. Fuller Gooch, G. D.

Hooper, J. Stephens, and Frank White. Spurgeon's son, Charles, was one of the signers. The articles were brief. After a statement of their belief in Scripture in light of the contemporary challenges to its authority, they lined out an abstract pointing to doctrines clearly defined in the long history of Reformed

Protestantism concluded by an affirmation of the premillennial return of Christ.

We, the undersigned, banded together in Fraternal Union, observing with growing pain and sorrow the

loosening hold of many upon the Truths of Revelation, are constrained to avow our firmest belief in

the Verbal Inspiration of all Holy Scripture as originally given. To us, the Bible does not merely

contain the Word of God, but is the Word of God. From beginning to end, we accept it, believe it, and

continue to preach it. To us, the Old Testament is no less inspired than the New. The Book is an

organic whole. Reverence for the New Testament accompanied by skepticism as to the OLD appears

to us absurd. The two must stand or fall together. We accept Christ's own verdict concerning "Moses

and all the prophets" in preference to any of the supposed discoveries of so-called higher criticism.

We hold and maintain the truths generally known as "the doctrines of grace." The Electing Love of

God the Father, the Propitiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, Regeneration by

the Holy Ghost, the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, the Justification of the sinner (once for all)

by faith, his walk in newness of life and growth in grace by the active indwelling of the Holy Ghost,

and the Priestly Intercession of our Lord Jesus, as also the hopeless perdition of all who reject the

Saviour, according to the words of the Lord in Matt. xxv. 46, "These shall go away into eternal

punishment"—are, in our judgment, revealed and fundamental truths.

Our hope is the Personal Pre-millenial Return of the Lord Jesus in glory. 113

The word was about that Spurgeon wanted to force this creed "down the unwilling throat of the Baptist Union." Spurgeon pitied the "poor souls" that felt so intimidated and quickly sought to dispel their fears of his intention. He did agree with Joseph Parker on at least one point of his protest, the orphanage stood as a testimony to his true faith, a translation of creed that "even men of the world can understand, … where living faith shows itself in works of mercy for the

widow and the fatherless (James ii. 14-18)." ¹¹⁴ An abundance of religious pundits seemed more than willing to give Spurgeon as much verification as he needed that his representations about the religious climate, including that of the Baptist Union, were not bugbears of his imagination but real. The Christian World more than obliged him in their

sarcastic description of the signers of the confession as "a little band of faithful adherents to the truth amidst a faithless church." He and his friends were among those little-minded people to whom "the profoundest thought, the highest learning, the devoutest inquiry, are by implication branded as treason to the truth, if they have reached conclusions different from those propounded in this manifesto." The idea of infallibility is "the reward of the resolute refusal to allow the light of science and scholarship to fall upon the divine Word. All must be wrong except the few who can pronounce this Shibboleth." Spurgeon considered their resistance a compliment. Another paper, The Echo, called the Manifesto "a voice from the Dark Ages." A paper that he identified simply as "a northern

newspaper," wrote

No one who does not possess the power to an alarming extent of persuading himself anything, can

possibly, if he have any real acquaintance with the controversy, hold the views as to the sense in which

the Bible is divine revelation which prevailed in almost all the churches fifty years ago, it is not that

theories have been formed; but facts have been brought to light which must modify old-fashioned

opinions, and have already modified them to a considerable extent. It did not, however, require any

new discoveries of criticism to disprove the dogmas of verbal inspiration upon which Mr. Spurgeon

and his friends insist as one of the prime essentials of Christianity. If it be an essential, then

Christianity is not better than a myth. And these men, with all their boasted loyalty to religion, ought

surely to see that in associating the Christian belief with unnecessary, unprovable, and directly

disprovable dogma, they are doing the work of the atheist and unbeliever, who stand by smiling to see

the process of destruction going on from within. If religion and verbal inspiration must stand or fall

together, then it is the latter alternative which will happen— assuredly they will fall. 115

This continual misrepresentation on the part of many of Spurgeon's contemporaries indicated one of three things: they refused to believe he spoke the truth about his real concerns; or they really did not understand what he was trying so desperately to point out; or they deliberately misrepresented him in order to cloud the issue so as not to be found out themselves. Spurgeon knew this was the case and in May 1891, some four years after the first Downgrade article appeared, wrote, "We spoke not without knowing what we were about."

For reasons we have listed above, he said, "It was not possible for us to give up all our authorities, nor would it have served any useful purpose to have published names," but he spoke the truth without exaggeration. "Matters were even worse than we knew of," he continued, for he dealt "not only with the lion of open unbelief, but with the foxes of craft, who profess to love the gospel which they labour hard to undermine." He would not soften one syllable of his witness against the doctrinal and spiritual deception of the age, but would add

emphasis to it. ¹¹⁶ The second reaction was characterized by the creation of a dichotomy between theology and missions. These decriers claimed that theological

controversy would destroy evangelism. The natural implication is that toleration of all kinds of theology would enhance evangelism. John Clifford lamented that Spurgeon, that eminent winner of souls, insisted on "rousing the energies of thousands of Christians to engage in personal wrangling and strife, instead of inspiring them, as he might, to sustained and heroic effort to carry the good news

of God's Gospel to our fellow countrymen." ¹¹⁷ Spurgeon decided that he no longer needed to protect the name of Clifford since he was so bold in his public opposition to Spurgeon's stance on the Baptist Union and so careless in his doctrinal associations otherwise. He feigned evangelistic concern as a façade of Christian spirituality but had no clear view of the uniqueness of Christ or the absoluteness of the Christian gospel. In May of 1889, Spurgeon noted Clifford's presentation of an address at South Place, Finsbury, a chapel consisting of auditors more radical than the Unitarians. He appeared there, not just as John Clifford the local church pastor, but as John Clifford the president of the Baptist Union. The chapel had a series of plaques around the wall commemorating Moses, Voltaire, Jesus, Thomas Paine,

Zoroaster, and others. Spurgeon was unable to contain himself:

The blasphemous association of our Lord with Thomas Paine and Voltaire creates an indescribable

feeling in a Christian mind, and makes us wonder how a man, professing to be a servant of the Lord

Jesus, could associate himself with such a place. Well might the Union resent our complaints against

its more obscure wanderers, when its President, before he closed his year of office, would thus publicly

associate himself with the deniers of our Lord's divinity. Has the body of Baptists over which this

gentleman presides become so easy-going and docile that it will by its silence endorse the action of its

President? Is it really so, that to preserve their confederacy any amount of looseness will be tolerated?

We do not see that anything worse can be invented than that which the governing party either

condones or admires. On the "DownGrade" the train travels very fast: another station has been passed.

What next? And what next? 118

It was precisely in service of evangelism that Spurgeon so insisted on a common doctrinal stance — a stance that would have been recognized as the same gospel preached ⁵⁰ years before, ¹⁰⁰ years before, 300 years before, and preached by Christ and the apostles. For Spurgeon, there could be no evangelism without a clear knowledge of the gospel and he would not be tempted by empty rhetoric. "When we lie a-dying," Spurgeon mused, "if we have faithfully preached the gospel, our conscience will not accuse us for having kept closely to it." He would have no sorrows that he did not turn fool or politician to increase the congregation. If one would refuse to be saved by the substitution of Christ, no other hope could be proffered and Spurgeon knew that he would be cleared at the great white throne "of all complicity with the novel inventions of deluded men." All the evangelism that he knew was to set before the eyes of sinners "the

unaided attractiveness of the gospel of Jesus," to give with earnest entreaty the "message of free grace and dying love." Only in doing this would he be clear of

the blood of all men. ¹¹⁹ The evangelistic power of the immutability of the "old gospel" as opposed to "progressive theology," a new establishment of purgatorial hope by way infidelity instead of pious superstition, grounded his thought in his aggressive

expose of the destructiveness of "Anythingarianism" and "Pan-indifferentism."

Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will

there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing

the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different

doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation

between varieties of faiths? 120

The destructiveness of the new theology to true evangelism surely was on his mind when he included in his volume The Soul Winner a chapter entitled "Encouragement to Soul-Winners," based on James 5:19f: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." The verse teaches, so Spurgeon believed, that the error was a doctrinal error, "some truths which must be believed … essential to salvation." Neologians, while feigning concern for warm-hearted evangelism, really do not believe in such a thing as conversion or any untruth, if there be such, worthy of condemnation. They utter wicked nonsense about "more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds." Firmness they regard as bigotry, and, unlike the apostles, they do not seek the conversion, but the congratulation, of a man in doctrinal error. Men of "modern thought" have learned that "the Deity of Christ may be denied, the work of the Holy Spirit ignored, the inspiration of Scripture rejected, the atonement disbelieved, and regeneration dispensed with, and yet the man who does all this may be as good a Christian as the most devout believer!" What fools the martyrs were to suffer flames here to avoid flames hereafter. "O God, deliver us from this deceitful infidelity," Spurgeon prayed.

He added two reasons as benefits of this deliverance. Doctrinal infidelity "does damage to the erring man, and often prevents his being reclaimed" and at the same time "does mischief to our own hearts by teaching us that truth is unimportant, and falsehood a trifle, and so destroys our allegiance to the God of

truth, and makes us traitors instead of loyal subjects to the King of kings." ¹²¹ The third attitude expressed relative to Spurgeon's concerns sought to make him an object of ridicule and pity. The Sword and the Trowel in February of 1890 reported that one newspaper attempted to comfort Spurgeon at his "worst

stage of depression concerning the doubts of the day" by the assurance that religion can never pass away. Other English Baptists informed some American inquirers that Spurgeon conducted himself in such a manner because "sickness

and age had weakened his intellect." ¹²² A twentieth-century historian of English Baptists, A. C. Underwood, continued that ridicule of Spurgeon by stating "A sick man, he viewed with deepest concern all departure from the theology of the Puritans." Underwood added to the insult by implying that Spurgeon was simply

intellectually incapable of appreciating the advances of modern thought. ¹²³ When one critic suggested that Spurgeon's accusations came from his sickness, not his theological acumen, Spurgeon showed his entire disgust with this dodging of theological issues. "Our opponents," he says, "have set to work to make sneering allusions to our sickness." His solemn observations about theology are suggested by his pain, according to the critic, not his brain. This lack of Christian courtesy showed, in Spurgeon's judgment, that the new theology had introduced a new tone and spirit. Adherence to old-fashioned faith determines that a man must be an idiot and should be treated "with that contemptuous pity which is the quintessence of hate." If a theological watch-dog is known also to be ill, "impute their faith to their disease, and pretend that their

earnestness is nothing but petulance arising from their pain." ¹²⁴ The fourth reaction to Spurgeon was the most straightforward and honest of all and came in the form of an emboldened rejection of the theology and bibliology espoused by Spurgeon. The most popular, politically astute, and outspoken representative of this school of thought was John Clifford. Clifford published a book after Spurgeon's death entitled The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Clifford's forthrightness certainly vindicated Spurgeon, for Clifford affirmed in unambiguous terms that he definitely rejected the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. In fact, Clifford believed that "we seriously imperil the authority and limit the service of Scripture every time we advocate its absolute

inerrancy. ¹²⁵ In a chapter entitled "Three Defences of an Inerrant Bible" Clifford makes a determined effort to dismantle the major defenses presented in favor of an inerrant Bible. First, the autograph theory is indefensible since it can be neither proven nor disproven in the absence of the autographs and assumes God was careless in not preserving them. It is "as unwarranted as it is useless, and as mischievous as it is unwarranted." Second, Clifford denied that the Bible claims infallibility for itself. Neither Jesus nor the apostles should be quoted in favor of inerrancy; in fact, it is more consistent with all we know to believe that men moved by the Holy Ghost should not be error-free. Third, to use inerrancy as a doctrinal safeguard was useless and unnecessary according to Clifford. Most

people are saved simply upon hearing a simple testimony from a preacher of the cross and have no concept of inerrancy one way or the other. Furthermore, the dogmatism demanded by the inerrancy doctrine is out of harmony with the actual facts of Scripture. True doctrine can only be harmed by such close identification with this untimely doctrine. Given the spirit of the modern world, the teaching of inerrancy is one of the surest ways of frustrating the redeeming

purpose for which the Revelation of the Christ is given. ¹²⁶ The authority of Scripture for Clifford lay in the believer's encounter with the living Christ. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will guide us into all truth, the simple Christian can discern the true Christ from the false or embellished Christ in Scripture. One can discern the Christ of faith from the Christ of history simply by reading the text and bearing in mind the tendencies of admirers to exaggerate and embellish by manufacturing deeds and words Jesus never did or said. The pious, like Clifford, will have no trouble discerning

where he hears the true Christ and where he hears the echo of the community. ¹²⁷ Clifford's criticisms and reconstructions, however, are both inadequate and pointless. His rejection of the autograph theory because it is hypothetical shows that he never grasped the principle that a stream is never purer than its source. A corrupt source can never produce a pure stream. A stream that can be identified with its pure source is itself pure. Any downstream corruptions that can be isolated and corrected make the stream again as pure as its source. Also, his arguing against the autograph theory was irrelevant since Clifford rejected the authority of many textually certain passages. Parts of the Old Testament teach a mechanical deism, a low morality is justified by attributing actions to God's command, and the imprecatory Psalms advocate unrestrained hate towards one's enemies, according to Clifford. The finding of the autographs would neither change those passages nor Clifford's rejection of them. Clifford well recognized that fact.

His treatment of Christ's view of Scripture is shallow and reveals his epistemological inconsistency and subjectivity. He claimed that Jesus "distinctly and with repeated emphasis, sets his authority against, and over, that of the

legislative records of the Old Testament." ¹²⁸ He also denied that Jesus ever had any intention of defending the verbal truth of Scripture, but was here in person to

"bring the Divine ideal into the actual experiences of the hour of men". ¹²⁹ His exegesis of the Scriptures with which he dealt is faulty, and reflects prior adherence to the results of the burgeoning historical-critical method. He also omitted the preponderance of Scriptures relevant to that subject and dismissed the apostolic witness to the inspiration of Scripture with incredibly insufficient

investigation. His mishandling of 2 Timothy 3:16 is so pathetic as to be almost

comical:

Is there no "breath of God" in Eccesiasticus? Are not the books of the Maccabees profitable for

instructions in righteousness? … Was the New Testament in existence as a whole before the middle of

the Second Century? Surely these and similar considerations ought to make us pause before we take

the sayings of Paul about his own Inspiration, and of Peter about the Inspiration of the Prophets and

use them as if they had in their minds at the time every chapter and verse of either the Protestant or the

Roman Catholic Bible. 130

Paul, as indicated above, was not the only apostle to suffer at the hands of Clifford. Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:16 concerning Paul's writing is not mentioned and his affirmation concerning the Spirit's activity in inspiration is

managed in an equally irresponsible manner:

Inspiration is not always Revelation. It is a movement of God within the soul. It is essentially

subjective; it is human and it is perfectly consistent with all we know of God's action... that men

moved by the Holy Ghost... should not be error-proof. The Bible... is a collection of fragments, of

quotations, of comments upon quotations,... of genealogies and laws, written by men, and in parts

edited and re-edited by men, and it is not fair to contend that Peter's statement includes every line

within the Testaments, and is applicable to each part in the same sense. 131

In rejecting the necessity of inerrancy as a doctrinal safeguard, Clifford severely begs the question. He begins by assuming that any doctrine affected by his "experiential" method of interpretation is certainly not essential to the Christian faith. If a doctrine falls it is not essential, ergo, the loss of inerrancy affects no essential doctrine. A thorough reading of Clifford's works, however, show that he had in fact compromised some basic evangelical truths that Spurgeon considered essentially and broadly Christian.

For example, Clifford's highly rhetorical messages on evangelism fail to escape an implicit if not an explicit universalism. In 1920, Clifford delivered the first series of "The John Clifford Lectureship" established by the National Council of British Brotherhood. The lectures were published as a book under the title The Gospel of World Brotherhood According to Jesus. Chapter ³, "Is man

as man a son of God?" Reveals these tendencies quite clearly:

Jesus never treats the fact of sin as breaking off or hiding the filial relation of the offender to God... As

sin does not destroy God's relation to us as Father, so it cannot prevent or end our relation to Him as

sons. … As the holiness of the new redeemed and regenerated soul does not create the relation, so sin

does not extinguish it. It is eternal. It is fundamental. The prodigal son is still a son, and it is not likely

the fatherly heart will forget him, or that he will find rest till he sees him seated at the family table. …

According to Jesus, then, man's sonship to God is an indefensible fact, a glorious gospel, Sin does not

destroy it, … Thus the truth that we are the children of God, and that he is our Father, embraces,

completes and harmonizes all other truths we possess regarding Him, ourselves and our world. 132

Consistent with his universalism, Clifford rejected eternal punishment and interpreted those biblical passages which seem to indicate such as judgments upon world civilizations. Empires which failed in incorporating adequately the concept of the brotherhood of man into their culture would perish never to rise again. These judgments, however, according to Clifford, were not brought against individual people. The "post-mortem" salvation against which Spurgeon warned found a warm advocate in the enlightened, modern thought of John Clifford.

Clifford had certainly denied a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, another touchstone of orthodoxy in Spurgeon's view. He sought to maintain the word "vicarious" but so interpreted it as to render it senseless as far as any historic understanding of the word is concerned. Clifford had no patience with "the 'appeasing' content of the symbol of propitiation" and claimed that the "paying a debt" metaphor is "so seriously charged with error as to make it more mischievous than useful." He reduced the rich storehouse of New Testament allusions to sacrifice and death to an ambiguous affirmation that these simply refer to, in the words of Livingstone, "the inherent and everlasting mercy of God made apparent to human eyes and ears. … It (the death of Christ) showed that God forgives because he loves to forgive." He rejected the ransom and satisfaction theories. The concept of imputation central to substitutionary atonement and justification by faith were appallingly unethical. His caricature is so common as to defy comment but certainly clear enough to justify the

suspicions of Spurgeon.

Add to this the non-ethical doctrine of the external transfer of guilt, and merit; the acceptance of the

processes of courts of law with all their glaring faults and inevitable imperfections as adequate

representations of God, though always obscuring and often omitting the very heart of God; and it

becomes clear that the whole forensic theory bases the redemption of man not on the fact of the Divine

Fatherhood revealed in it, but on the arbitrary and cruel despotisms of the Imperial Court of Rome. 133

Clifford believed he had escaped the cultural aberrations that made the old encasements of theology disposable. Now the contents could be enjoyed in purity. Spurgeon believed this attempt to separate form from matter illconceived in theory and absolutely devastating in practice. The virginconception is not a form that embodies another and more timeless truth; it is the truth. Substitution is not a mere vehicle for another way of viewing Christ's death; it is the truth. Imputation is not a simple accident of culture within which the essence of justification is hidden; it is the essence, the real truth. The deity of Christ is not simply a gaudy verbal dress intended to protect the lasting reality of another view of Christ's person and his unique power and holiness; it is form

and substance in one and cannot be altered without the absolute loss of all that Jesus brings to us. Rather than seeing himself as helplessly bogged down in a number of socially constructed forms irrelevant to the modern age, Spurgeon looked at the self-proclaimed rescuers of Christianity and saw them, not as robed in the righteousness of Christ, but as smothered by the swaddling of cultural anti-supernaturalism. They had lost their lives without knowing it, and felt themselves more fit for the age. Perhaps so, but unfit for eternity. Perhaps he had them in mind when he preached about the wedding garment in May 1888. Who

is the man that appears without the garment?

He says that he is loyal to Christ, and he expects all his fellow guests to be firm friends with him, for is

he not in the banquet as much as they are? But he does not mean by loyalty what they mean by it. He is

among believers, but he is not truly of them. He talks about atonement; he does not mean substitution.

He talks about the divinity of Christ; he does not mean the Godhead of Christ. He talks about

justification by faith; but he does not mean the old-fashioned doctrine. He speaks of regeneration, but

means evolution. He girds himself with the garment of philosophy, but he refuses the robe of

revelation, for the cut of it is too old-fashioned for him. He is no more a wedding guest than he is a

merry-andrew; perhaps, not so much so. He wears raiment in which the robe of righteousness and the

garments of gladness are not to be seen. The looms of free grace and dying love have never woven him

a wedding dress. His robe is not of God's provision; it is from his own wardrobe. He glories in his own

culture, and not in the revelation of God, nor yet in the work of divine grace upon the heart. He is in

the church, but he is not in Christ. He has a name to live, but he is dead. 134

The Tension between Time and Eternity

From the perspective of more than a century and a quarter, one must now vindicate Spurgeon's representation as true and unembellished when he warned, "But how are we to act towards those who deny his vicarious sacrifice, and ridicule the great truth of justification by his righteousness?" He contended that these are not just "mistaken friends, but enemies of the cross of Christ."

Circumlocutions and polite turns of phrase are inappropriate to characterize such ideas for "where Christ is not received as to the cleansing power of his blood and

the justifying merit of his righteousness, he is not received at all." ¹³⁵ Another doctrine Spurgeon saw as essential which Clifford minimized was the historic space-time fall of man. Spurgeon had warned that "those who hold

evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable." ¹³⁶ Clifford accepted the judgment of biological evolution concerning the ascent of man and transferred that into the spiritual sphere. Just as evolution experienced many deviations and degradations along the way, so has man's spiritual progress seen intermittent periods of decline, though, in both cases the predominant trend

is upwards. "In short, not one 'fall of man,' but a succession of falls." ¹³⁷ Clifford's method of interpretation leaves many questions unanswered and provides no criteria by which to judge the claim to credibility of any doctrine.

Disagreement over which words and actions are really those of Jesus can be resolved by no court of appeals, outside of the "spirit-led consciousness" of a third party. Clifford was quite confident that Jesus' promise of the Spirit to "guide you into all truth" was given to all the generations of Christians as well as the apostles. Through much painstaking, proper application of reason, and scientific interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit guides us into the truth. "It is not that truth itself is given us, as you may give a book to a reader, … but we ourselves are taken where the truth is." In the final analysis, one can only be sure of the voice of God, when his consciousness assures him that he has properly read the universal Christian consciousness and he speaks the mind of the Spirit.

Clifford's universalism rescued him from the dilemma proposed by the possibility that one's reason might fail to assure him of truth. Even in those cases where the searcher is beset by confusion, Clifford assures him that since he is God's workmanship, God can never leave him or forsake him. "He will not

leave man to perish." ¹³⁸ Furthermore, if the community in writing the Gospels tended to embellish or exaggerate, as Clifford was quite willing to admit, one could only conclude that the most exalted and extreme claims of Jesus were those produced by the community. "The disciple … surrounds his master with a

spectacular magnificence on external and meretricious glory, a flimsy and gaudy

covering that the original would despise." ¹³⁹ The supernatural events of his life as well as his radical claims to deity must certainly, therefore, arise from the community. The theologians can hardly defend the deity of Christ in its traditional orthodoxy upon that basis. Yet, the Baptist Union was much more accepting of Clifford and his mentality than of Spurgeon.

Three decades after Spurgeon's death, a History of British Baptists by W. T.

Whitley could explain the Downgrade Controversy in half a paragraph and never mention the name of Spurgeon. In an amazing display of grammatical passivity,

Whitley narrated:

Here and there the experiments were widened so as to provide amusements on church premises on

many evenings, hoping thus to prevent a drift to the theatre, the dance-hall, the billiard-room, the

public-house. But these churches seemed to some onlookers [Spurgeon?] to be not inoculating against

these places, rather training for them; at last there came a trumpet-blast against the Devil's Mission of

Amusement. While this did much to steady and rally, … a fresh turn was given by a series of articles

which traced the harm back from outward amusement to doctrinal declension, and which presently

threw out vague charges against denominational leaders. When these were not formulated, nor any

definite men were named, the Council of the Union sought explanations unavailingly, and at last had to

say mildly that a charge ought either to be substantiated or withdrawn. The incident led to a painful

severance of friendly relations, in some measure compensated by a happy emulation in various forms

of Christian service. The check was soon balanced by the eager union of the New Connexion with the

main body of Baptists. 140

In view of these positions assumed by Clifford, vice-president and president of the Baptist Union in the initial years of the Downgrade, it is no wonder that Spurgeon considered the case hopeless and proved hesitant to reveal the names of those he opposed. What Spurgeon had feared and ridiculed in "Modern Thought" in general for decades had now become painfully concentrated in the people that he had viewed as the future hope for a pure and powerful expression of biblical Christianity free from all the emoluments and corruptions of a state church.

Now the Baptists were on a road to something even worse. Baptists, unlike former days, were unwilling to set forth precise doctrinal definition and tended to reduce Christianity to an amorphous evangelical "experience" or "spirit" rather than evangelical doctrine. Sir James Marchant in speaking of Clifford's strategic address before the Spring assembly of 1888 said "it gave the central position to the cross — and that is the gist of 'evangelicalism'." However, merely a central position to the cross does not mean that one has a historically evangelical interpretation of the cross. Clifford obviously did not. The word evangelical became so debased that A. C. Underwood could apply it to T. R.

Glover (as well as call Glover "Christocentric") who expended great amounts of

intellectual energy seeking to undercut the supports of historic Christianity.

Underwood also calls Clifford "an ardent evangelical" and betrays the present stance of the Baptist Union by commending Clifford for not confusing "the

permanent element in Christianity with its theological expression." ¹⁴¹ The Downgrade movement revealed that many Baptists had joined the spirit of modern skepticism by giving up any confidence that in Scripture one had before him the infallible rule of faith and practice. For the Baptist Union, believer's baptism by immersion was the only basis for union, but, unsurprisingly, several churches in good standing did not even require that.

Clifford's church left the whole question of baptism to the individual conscience.

Also, the leaders became much more jealous of a humanistic view of liberty of conscience than for the Lord God of hosts. Even the six-point statement of 1888 was worded in such a way that men of opposite opinions could agree with it. The Union had been formed for the practical benefits a closer association of individual churches would give and few safeguards were taken to protect their doctrinal integrity, probably because they never fathomed that such safeguard would be needed. When trouble came, the vast majority preferred unity at any cost rather than obedience to Scripture.

The Downgrade controversy became a classic display of the dynamics of controversy. Alternate pressures play upon the conscience and reveal the location of the most potent affections. Love of truth, fear of disapproval, care to maintain existing relationships, awareness of public impression—all of these converge, clash, amalgamate, and synthesize to form a complex variety of responses when a clear cause of division moves from the horizon toward the center of our being. This conflict showed that many ministers were either unwilling to come to a full understanding of issues at stake or were willing to compromise truth for the sake of unity. Disunity will hurt the spread of the gospel was the cry which Spurgeon often heard. He was urged to stay within the Union and resist the drift from the inside. Spurgeon was willing rather to lose his position as a leader, which he did, than to compromise his stance for God's truth by showing external unity with those who denied that truth. In a sermon preached in 1891, "Three Names High on the Muster Roll," based on Daniel 3:16-18, Spurgeon wondered at what the outcome would have been had the three Hebrew children taken the course of saying, "We can do more good by living, dying would cut short our opportunity of usefulness." Spurgeon applied the

answer to himself in bold strokes:

If an act of sin would increase my usefulness tenfold, I have no right to do it; and if an act of

righteousness would appear likely to destroy all my apparent usefulness, I am yet to do it. It is yours

and mine to do the right though the heavens fall, and follow the command of Christ whatever the

consequences may be. 142

1920), 28, 29, 46.