did not return to orthodoxy by a retreat, but rather advanced to it, emerging, as it were, on the opposite bank of the stream of error.
Newton’s colleagues in the oversight of the church in Ebrington Street were not moving in any such direction; and consequently the recognition of their error was followed by a wholly different line of conduct.
On the 8th of December Newton left Plymouth for good, and took up his residence in London. He went all unaware of the imminent secession of three of the four men that had until that time so steadily supported him; their defection therefore cannot have influenced his movements. Possibly he judged it best for the peace of the church at Ebrington Street that he should withdraw; but a far stronger reason must doubtless be sought in his growing antipathy to every form of Brethrenism. In London he established a church in total isolation from every ecclesiastical body. So far from there being any recognition of liberty of ministry, Newton was the sole speaker; and if he were compelled to be absent, he would allow of no substitute, unless Dr. Tregelles were available. In the absence of both, a sermon of Newton’s was read.[1] From this time therefore we must reckon him as wholly dissociated from Brethrenism, although he continued to attend his former meeting, and to take part in the ministry, when he happened to be visiting in Plymouth.
Scarcely had Newton departed when Soltau, Batten and William Dyer surrendered at discretion. By the close of the year they had all withdrawn from the Ebrington Street Church, and had published lengthy
- ↑ This I heard from a constant attendant, but I am not prepared to affirm that it holds good either absolutely, or yet for the entire period of his London ministry. It suffices in any case to show that the practice of the church was at the utmost possible remove from anything resembling Brethrenism.
