Spurgeon and the ‘Downgrade’
by E J
Poole-Connor
Prominent amongst the imposing figures of the
Victorian era was that of Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, rightly regarded as the greatest Nonconformist of
his day. A preacher whose voice
could on occasion reach an audience of 24,000 people, and that without a
microphone, who for 30 years could keep the then vast Metropolitan Tabernacle
crowded; whom men from all parts of the world came to hear; whose sermons were
translated into most European languages, attaining an average weekly
circulation of 30,000 - rising once to 200,000; who founded almshouses, an
orphanage and a training college; who
was a powerful and voluminous religious writer; to whom thousands owed, under
God, their every hope of heaven ‑ such a man towers above his fellows
like a mountain peak.
Spurgeon was a
convinced and outspoken Baptist,* and, although he
was himself too large-hearted to confine his interests to his own denomination,
few men did more for the Baptist cause than he.
But firmly as he held to Nonconformist and Baptist principles, he held more strongly to what he believed
to be the unchanging truth of the Gospel; and when he saw it denied he
was prepared to sink all lesser considerations in its defence. To do so cost him much ‑ obloquy, the
loss of friends, separation from lifelong associations; it may even have
shortened his life - but so seriously
did he regard the issue, even in his day, that nothing could deter him from
undertaking the task.
[* Note. The Baptist Union of Ireland
today would appear to be predominately Anti-Millennialist!! This shocking statement was shown to be
accurate and true, when the editor of this website was ordered (by the
present principal at the Baptist Bible College, Moira,
Northern Ireland), for him not to be leaving any more tracts with
him on
the millennium, or, at the college for others to study!]
The article in which he first sounded the alarm was
written in 1887, and appeared in ‘The Sword and Trowel’
for August. The tone of it may be judged
from the following extract: ‘Read those newspapers
which represent the Broad School of Dissent, and ask yourself, How much farther
could they go? ... The atonement is
scouted, the inspiration of Scripture derided, the punishment of sin is turned
into fiction, the Holy Spirit is degraded into an influence, and the
resurrection into a myth ... It
now becomes a serious question how far those who abide in the faith once delivered unto the saints should fraternize with
those who have turned aside to another Gospel.’
This article, and those which followed, aroused the
strongest possible feeling, both of assent and dissent. While many confirmed
the necessity for Mr Spurgeon’s protest, others charged him with gross
exaggeration, or with sowing discord amongst brethren. Some resorted to personalities, and,
affecting to attribute his article to the depression of ill-health, advised him
to take a long rest. Others, again,
found in the subject a source of merriment.
A month later Mr Spurgeon returned to the charge: ‘We have received abundant proofs,’ he wrote, ‘that our alarm was none too soon. Letters from all quarters declare that the
case of the church at this present time is even worse than we thought it to be
... A chasm
is opening ... Let us take our places, not in anger, not in the spirit of
suspicion or division, but in watchfulness and resolve.’
To those who charged him with ‘sour pessimism,’ he replied: ‘We are denounced as gloomy. Well,
well! The day was when we were censured
for being wickedly humorous, and many were the floggings we received for our
unseemly jests. So the world’s opinion
changes. A half-a-farthing would be an
extravagant price to pay for the verdict one way or another ... Our
amiable critics will possibly be pleased to know that they will not find us bathing
in vinegar, nor covering our swollen foot with wormwood, nor even drinking
quinine with our vegetables; but will find us rejoicing in the Lord, and
buckling our harness for the war with as firm a confidence as if all men were
on our side.’
A still further article from his pen entitled ‘The Case Proved,’ contained quotations confirmatory
of the position he had taken up. One of
these was from Dr Brown, Principal
of the
Not less to the point was a quotation from a current
number of ‘The
Christian World,’ one of Mr Spurgeon’s most outspoken antagonists,
which, so far from denying the prevalence of ‘modern
thought,’ gloried in it, and taunted those who endeavoured to conceal
the facts. ‘Modern
thought,’ it said, ‘is in Mr Spurgeon’s eyes 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 ... 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 manifestation cover polytheism.’
At the close of his article Mr Spurgeon indicated what he felt must be his attitude to the
Baptist Union, which included some who no longer held the orthodox
position. ‘We cannot,’ he said, ‘be expected to meet in any Union which
comprehends those whose teaching is on fundamental points exactly the reverse
of that which we hold dear ...
Garibaldi complained that by the cession of Nice to France he had been made a
foreigner in his native land; and our heart is burdened with a like
sorrow.’ ‘We retire at once,’ he wrote
later, ‘from the Baptist Union ...
It has no disciplinary power for it has no doctrinal basis whatever, and we see no reason
why every form of belief and misbelief should not be comprehended in it ...
Those who originally founded it made it without form
and void and so it must remain.’
On this ground Mr Spurgeon felt it useless to bring
any cases of heterodoxy before it, but pleaded that the Baptist Union should
adopt a credal basis similar to that of the Evangelical Alliance. Not only was this refused, but the Council of
the Baptist Union stated that a creed in any form was objectionable, and would
come between man and his God: a position which Mr Spurgeon strongly
controverted, asserting that ‘The objection to a creed
is a very pleasant way of concealing objection to discipline, and a desire for
latitudinarianism. What is wished for is
a Union which will, like Noah’s Ark, afford shelter both for the clean and the
unclean, for creeping things and winged fowls.’ But the Baptist Union steadily refused to
accede to his request, and passed upon him a resolution of censure.
One feature of the controversy was, and still
remains, very puzzling. Mr Spurgeon
affirmed, as we have seen, that what we now call Modernism was making serious
headway amongst the Baptist Churches.
The Baptist Union Council replied in effect that this was a groundless
assertion. This position is apparently
still adhered to. Dr Glover, a leading Baptist in the period between the two world
wars, whose ambition it had always been to be an historian, has given us his
view of the matter. ‘It is,’ he says, ‘no strange
thing, unhappily, that a great man ...
will at last prefer the homage and tattle of admirers to the challenge of
independent minds ... In 1887 ...
Spurgeon launched his Downgrade Controversy. Baptists, he said - people told him so and he
believed it - were abandoning the Bible and the evangelical faith, and going
down hill at breakneck speed. The
Baptist Union Council quietly asked for proof, and begged him to see old
friends; but nothing served. The Council
then gravely voted that as no evidence was forthcoming, the charges ought not
to have been made - moderate enough, one would think. Spurgeon withdrew from the
The writer of these words does not always make
himself very clear; but he seems here to mean that no evidence of Mr Spurgeon’s
assertions was forthcoming because no such evidence existed - in other words,
that there was no such departure from the evangelical faith as Mr Spurgeon
affirmed. But if that was so; if Mr
Spurgeon’s serious and manifestly sincere concern had no basis than the tattle
of admirers, or alternatively, was due to gout, a bad conscience (as presumably
the writer means) and Satan, how comes it that Mr Spurgeon’s defeat is hailed
by Dr Glover as a veritable ‘victory of the Marne’
for liberal theology, a crowning mercy of deliverance from ‘obscurantism,’ a glorious ‘holding
open of the door for new conceptions of truth’? We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. Either Mr Spurgeon’s assertions were true, or
they were not. If they were true, they cannot be put down to tattle or gout; if
they were false, his failure to substantiate them could be no triumph for a
form of theology which was non-existent.
Nor is this the only puzzle this summary presents to
the plain mind. ‘The Council of the Baptist Union,’ our historian relates, ‘gravely
voted that as no evidence was forthcoming the charges ought not to have been
made.’ If by thus gravely voting the
Council meant that they could see no sign of departure from the older
evangelicalism, it not only demonstrated how dim was their vision, but it also
showed how clear-eyed was the prophet whose warning they disregarded - for no
man living can deny that what Mr
Spurgeon saw as a stream now runs at full flood. On the other hand, if their grave vote meant
that they were aware of the newer theological tendencies, but intended to keep
the door open for such ‘fresh conception of truth,’
what need was there for Mr Spurgeon to supply further witness? Such a vote would in itself furnish all the
evidence required.
It is strange and sad to observe how the hostility
that Mr Spurgeon’s action excited nearly half a century ago (Mr Poole‑Connor wrote this many years
ago ‑ Ed.) still pursues
his memory. In the article above quoted
(written in March, 1932) he is admitted - somewhat patronizingly, it must be
confessed - to be a popular preacher of great natural gifts, ‘a large-hearted
human creature,’ ‘one of the stamp’ of
Calvinists who live in the profoundest sense of the love of God, while holding,
‘or think they are holding,’ tenets which other
minds find strangely incompatible therewith.
But Dr Glover also permits
himself to use terms in reference to this servant of God which vividly recall
the phraseology with which he was wont to be assailed during his lifetime. ‘He had a squat,
ugly exterior,’ he says; he had ‘an untrained
mind without discipline of ordered study;’ he prepared young men for the
Baptist Ministry, ‘in a rather amateur way;’ ‘little busts and cheap prints of him were in thousands of
small homes;’ he ‘preferred the homage and
tattle of admirers to the challenge of independent minds;’ less famous
and gifted men ‘had a wider intellectual range and
outlook;’ and in the failure of his protest, ‘obscurantism’
suffered its greatest defeat. It might
be thought by some to be beneath the dignity of the Public Orator of a great
University to descend to references of alleged physical defects. He seems to have forgotten that when the
Corinthians anticipated him with their gibe that Paul’s bodily appearance was
weak and his speech contemptible, they were setting an example rather to be
avoided than followed.
But other words have been spoken. ‘I suppose that such
a gathering as this,’ said Dr
Maclaren, standing by Mr Spurgeon’s bier, and addressing representatives of
all sections of the Christian church, ‘a gathering of
men more or less directly and exclusively engaged in the ministry of the
Gospel, differing widely from one another in opinion, forms of government,
casts of mind, methods of discharging our work, and yet giving one unanimous
suffrage to the supremacy of our departed brother, is an unheard of thing. It was not only the genius that we admired ... it was the profound faith, the
earnestness, the devotion, the self-oblivion, which endeared him to so many
hearts and were the secret of his power.’ ‘Beloved president,
faithful pastor, prince of preachers, brother beloved, dear Spurgeon,’
said Archibald Brown, standing later
before his grave, ‘we bid thee not farewell, but only
for a little while, good-night ... Hard
worker in the field! thy toil is ended.
Straight has been the furrow thou hast ploughed ... Harvests have followed thy sowing, and heaven is already
rich with thine ingathered sheaves ...
Champion of God!, thy battle, long and nobly fought, is over ... Beloved,
sleep. We praise God for thee, and by
the Blood of the everlasting covenant, hope and expect to praise God with thee.’
Mr Spurgeon’s protest did not stem, in any marked
degree, the tide of Modernism. It served
rather to reveal the strength of the current than to lessen its flow. His action won the approbation of great
numbers of Evangelicals in all sections of the Christian church, including the
Church of England; but it was a shock to him to find how many of his own
denomination refused to endorse it. Dr J C Carlile once preached a sermon
from the text, ‘Thou stoodest on the other side,’
in the course of which he delivered a powerful reproof to those who in any hour
of crisis failed to support a righteous cause.
When Mr Spurgeon took his stand for orthodoxy, many even of those who
had been trained in his college (Dr
Carlile being one of them) ‘stood on the other
side.’
But Mr Spurgeon cleared his conscience. His was the meed of the watchman, who,
apprehending danger, fails not to sound his trumpet in warning.
It may be urged by some that, in dealing with error,
the right course is not to protest, but to preach positive truth. Let us preach positive truth, by all means, but habitually to avoid controversy, is,
in the first place, contrary to apostolic precept and example, and, in
the second, obviously ineffective in
practice. The result of doing no
more than to ‘preach positive truth’ is that in
almost every sphere - religious, educational and literary - Modernism has
practically swept the field.
It may be objected that the need for unity is of
such urgent importance that it is inexpedient to introduce disruptive topics,
and that the spirit of Christian love should be shown in a gracious tolerance
of opposing views. True, when the
opposing views are not vital to the Christian faith. Unity is desirable, but there are limits when
it comes to the question of cost. When
the divergence concerns such basic questions as authority in religion, and the
divine way of acceptance for the sinner, compromise
is too heavy a price to pay. It may,
indeed, be paving the way for the larger
apostasy that many believe the Scriptures clearly and solemnly predict.
Variations of the objections stated above are that
the difference between the older evangelicalism and modern theology is not as
great as is alleged, and that an effort should be made to find points of
contact; or alternatively, that even if Modernists are in error, to separate from them is to leave all
denominational machinery in their hands.
To the first suggestion it may be replied that it is not in terms and
modes of statement that the differences lie, but in essential principles. Even some years ago it was possible for ‘The Christian
Century,’ an American Modernist journal, to say: ‘We may sing, Blest be the tie that binds, until doomsday,
but it cannot bind these two worlds together.
The God of the Fundamentalist is one God; the God of the Modernist is
another; the Christ of the Fundamentalist is one Christ; the Christ of the
Modernist is another; the Bible of the Fundamentalist is one Bible; the Bible
of the Modernist is another. The issue
is clear.’
The issue is likely to be increasingly clear. It may be frequently noted that in certain
spheres of thought it is extremely difficult to maintain the midway
position. In the matter of our Lord’s
Deity, for example, the tendency has always been to move forward or backward -
toward the unqualified acceptance of the Trinitarian faith, or to sheer
Socinianism. So will it probably be with
the questions that are at issue between the Conservative Evangelical and the
Modernist. As to the second objection,
is it not open to question whether, after all, anything is really achieved by
the presence of the Conservative Evangelicals in Unions that are mainly
Modernist? If they are there vigourously
to strive for the older faith, well and good; but if otherwise, does their influence
stem by one inch the flood of Modernist teaching in the pulpits, or alter by
one iota the Modernist curriculum of the colleges? Does any Modernist writer ever withhold for
their sake a single taunt at the doctrine they hold dear? The truth is that co-operation with those who
hold advanced liberal views tends largely to condone them, for every
Evangelical so acting is saying, in effect: ‘Modernist
theology is not as bad as it is painted; for, see, I tolerate it.’ As to whether expediency, or a clear
testimony to what is held to be the truth, is of major importance, each man’s
own conscience must decide.
The Reformation was mainly a return to apostolic
teaching, the rediscovery of doctrine buried under human accretions. To go forward it was necessary to go back to
the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Let there be such a return in our day; for in spite of the confident
assertions of modern theologians, scholarship is not all on one side. Let the testimony to the Evangelical faith be
clear and unhesitating; let it be accompanied (in God’s grace) by loving
compassion, spiritual power, and righteousness of life.
* *
* * *
* *
Psalm 110: 1
by C H Spurgeon.
The LORD said unto my Lord. Jehovah said to my Adonai; David in spirit heard the
solemn voice of Jehovah speaking to the Messiah from of old. What wonderful intercourse there has been
between the Father and the Son! From
this secret and intimate communion
spring the covenant of grace and all its marvellous arrangements. All the great acts of grace are brought into
actual being by the word of God; had He not spoken, there had been no
manifestation of Deity to us; but in the beginning was the Word, and from of
old there was mysterious fellowship between the Father and His Son Jesus Christ concerning His people and
the great contest on their behalf between
Himself and the powers of evil. How
condescending on Jehovah’s part to permit a mortal ear to hear, and a human pen
to record His secret converse with His Co-equal Son! How greatly should we prize the revelation of
His private and solemn discourse with the Son, herein made public for the
refreshing of His people! Lord, what is
man that Thou shouldst thus impart Thy secrets unto him!
Though David was a firm
believer in the Unity of the Godhead, he yet spiritually discerns the two
persons, distinguishes between them, and perceives that in the second he has a
particular interest, for he calls Him ‘my Lord.’ This was an anticipation of the exclamation
of Thomas, ‘My Lord and my God,’ and it
expresses the Psalmist’s reverence, his obedience, his believing appropriation,
and his joy in Christ. It is well to
have clear views of the mutual relations of the persons of the Blessed Trinity;
indeed, the knowledge of these truths is essential for our comfort and growth
in grace. There is a manifest
distinction in the Divine persons, since One speaks to Another; yet the Godhead
is one.
Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.
Away from the shame and suffering of His earthly
life, Jehovah calls the Adonai, our Lord, to the repose and honours of His
celestial seat. His work is done, and He
may sit; it is well done, and He may sit at His right hand; it will have grand
results, and He may therefore quietly wait to see the complete victory which is
certain to follow. The glorious Jehovah
thus addresses the Christ as our Saviour; for, says David, He said ‘unto my Lord.’
Jesus is placed in the seat of power, dominion, and dignity, and is to
sit there by Divine appointment while Jehovah fights for Him, and lays every
rebel beneath His feet.
He sits there by the Father’s ordinance and call,
and will sit there despite all the raging of His adversaries, till they are all
brought to utter shame by His putting His foot upon their necks. In this sitting He is our
representative. The mediatorial kingdom
will last until the last enemy shall be destroyed, and then, according to the
inspired word, ‘cometh the end, when He shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ The work of subduing
the nations is now in the hand of the great God, Who by His Providence will
accomplish it to the glory of His Son; His word is pledged to it, and the
session of His Son at His right hand is the guarantee thereof; therefore let us
never fear as to the future. While we
see our Lord and representative sitting in quiet expectancy, we, too, may sit
in the attitude of peaceful assurance, and with confidence await the grand
outcome of all events.
As surely as Jehovah liveth Jesus must reign, yea,
even now He is reigning, though all His enemies are not yet subdued. During
the present interval, through which we wait for His glorious appearing and
visible millennial kingdom, He is in the place of power, and His dominion
is in no jeopardy, or otherwise He would not remain quiescent. He sits because all is safe, and He sits at
Jehovah’s right hand because omnipotence waits to accomplish His will. Therefore there is no cause for alarm
whatever may happen in this lower world; the sight of Jesus enthroned in divine
glory is the sure guarantee that all things are moving onward towards ultimate
victory. Those rebels who now stand high
in power shall soon be in the place of contempt, they shall be His footstool. He shall with ease rule them, He shall sit
and put His foot on them; not rising to tread them down as when a man puts
forth force to subdue powerful foes, but retaining the attitude of rest, and
still ruling them as abject vassals who have no longer spirit to rebel, but
have become thoroughly tamed and subdued.
(Taken from ‘The Treasury of
David’).
* *
* * *
* *
Not Far Away.
By C H Spurgeon.
This is a
crafty word from the lip of the arch-tyrant Pharaoh. If the poor bondaged Israelites must needs go
out of
[* Presumably the first step down this road toward a millennial
inheritance, is through the waters of Christian baptism: (1 Cor. 10: 2. cf. John
1: 33; Acts 5: 32; Rev. 3: 21.)]
According
to the carnal policy, purity is admitted to be very desirable, but we are
warned against being too precise; truth is of course to be followed, but error is
not to be severely denounced. ‘Yes,’ says the world, ‘be
spiritually minded by all means, but do not deny yourself a little gay society,
an occasional ball, and a Christmas visit to the theatre. What is the good of crying down a thing when
it is so fashionable, and everybody does it?’ Multitudes of [regenerate] professors yield to this cunning advice, to their
own eternal [age-lasting] ruin.
If we would follow the Lord wholly, we
must go right away into the wilderness of separation, and leave the
When the town is on fire, our
house cannot be too far from the flames.
When the plague is abroad, a man cannot be too far from its haunts. The further from a viper the better, and the
further from worldly conformity the better.
To all true believers let the trumpet-call be sounded, ‘Come ye out from
among them, and be ye separate.’
(Taken from ‘Morning by Morning’)
* *
* * *
* *
Mr C H Spurgeon
By Raymond
Chaplin
Amongst God’s servants who have been a blessing to our
land,
Charles Haddon Spurgeon we revere, who for the truth did stand.
For when we hear of how he preached, and thousands who
were saved,
Our hearts are moved, and for this man we say ‘God’s name be praised.’
We love to hear of how he came at first to know the LORD,
And on one snowy morning went where he the gospel
heard;
And God a rustic preacher used, so Spurgeon then did
look
Unto the LORD,
Who saved his soul, Who all his sorrows took.
Then what a preacher he became! for though in barn and
home
He started preaching, through his youth men felt to
them had come
God’s Word in such a powerful way that sin to them
became
A burden, so they Christ did seek, and precious found His
Name.
And when London Spurgeon came so many help received,
And children homeless in the streets were cared for
and relieved.
Then for young pastors there was built a college, so
that they
Instructed could be for their work, and might God’s Word obey.
And surely we are glad that though a cent’ry has
passed on,
Through books from Spurgeon’s pen yet still souls unto
Christ are won.
And glad we are that though we live in days when all
around
The devil’s active, yet through him, some blessedness
have found.
So as we think of how God used this man of His own
praise,
We long to see God’s Spirit move with power in these [evil] days;
That once again in our loved land large numbers may
appear
In chapels like in Spurgeon’s days, and God’s word truly hear.*
[*Sadly in these days of open
apostasy, if large numbers attend chapels of churches, they would not be likely
to hear ‘the whole counsel of God’ in its
purity, but we desire that God’s conditional promises mught be fearlessly proclaomed
to His redeemed people! “If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we
endure, we will also reign
with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are
faithless. He will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself,” (2 Tim. 2: 11-13, N.I.V.)]; and again: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken
later about another day.
There remains, then, a
Sabbath-rest for the people of God.”
… “Let us,
therefore, MAKE EVERY EFFORT to enter
THAT rest, so that no-one will fall by following their [Israel’s] example of disobedience:” (Heb.
4: 8, 9, 11. cf. Num. ch. 14; 1 Cor. 9: 24-10:
1-13.).]