Brethren Archive

Anna Maria Elizabeth Stoney

Born: 12th August 1838
Died: 21st February 1936
Appears in Stoney / Elwood

Intro, Biographical Information, Notes etc:

    

Brief Notes of the Last Days of Miss A. M. S.
ON February 21st, 1936, a beloved sister in the Lord, Miss Α. M. Stoney, departed to be with Christ.  Βοrn on August 12th, 1839, she was in her ninety-seventh year when she died at her home in Filey, Yorkshire.
For some months, she had been failing in bodily strength.  Her mental faculties were but little diminished, except for some loss of memory, a symptom common to extreme old age.
To the last, Miss S. retained her belief in the fundamental principles of the divine revelation of God in His Eternal Son, and she delighted to speak of the Lord Jesus in these days of failure and declension, as "The Holy and the True."  Having in her mind, too, the words of the Lord Jesus to the seven churches (Rev. ii.—iii.), and the downward course of the church as therein set out, with the introduction of error and the giving up of the truth; His words produced a great impression upon her, especially His exhortation to "hold fast," repeated three times.
Miss S. spoke of Philadelphia as "the last hold fast."  Her great thought was that by holding fast, saints would become "overcomers."  She loved to speak of those whom she called "holy men," men such as J.N.D., G.V.W., J.G.Β., and others whom she knew intimately in her young days, and by whom the Lord recovered truth which for centuries had been covered up by error.  Their lives and example exercised great influence upon her, and the Christ in glory Whom they knew was the One she knew, and of Whom she loved to hear and tο speak.
Miss S. was very fond of a story which she herself told concerning a gardener and his wife whom she knew in Ireland.  They were in very poor circumstances, and the husband was often depressed by reason of the roughness of the way.  At such times, the dear old wife used tο try to help him by saying, "Keep your eye on the glory, William, or you'll never get through!"  These words of the old saint cheered Miss S. many a time, as well as those to whom she repeated them.
As the years passed, she often said, "Ι don't know why the Lord has left me here in my helpless old age and in this position of isolation."   Writing to one of her old friends a few years ago, she said, "I do pray that if it be His will, the Lord will not leave me here till all my friends that have prayed for me have gone.   But my consolation is, that I shall meet them all again.  Like the fragments which were gathered up after the multitude had been fed, nothing will be lost."
She felt more keenly than any can know, the forsaking of οld friends simply because she could not give up the precious truths which the Lord made good in her soul during those ninety-seven years.  Those who visited her, saw her sorrow and its effect upon her, but "keeping her eye on the glory," she held fast," and encouraged others to do the same.  She seldom wrote to any without some reference to "overcomers."
She loved, too, to speak of the thief on the cross, and of the Lord's words to him, "Today, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise."  What is Paradise?  With Me.  What is "with Me?"  Paradise.
It was very remarkable that when the undertaker came to attend to her body, he said, "What a beautiful face! that is the face of an overcomer."  It was all the more remarkable because, so far as was known, she was an entire stranger to him.
The interment took place at Scarborough on February 25th.  Many brethren from various parts attended to have fellowship in this last service to the Lord with regard to the departed sister.  The family mourners were a niece and a nephew of Miss S.  With them was Mrs. G., who had been with her for many years, and had also nursed her father (the late J.B.S.)
The funeral service commenced with the beautiful hymn, "Thou art the Everlasting Word," a hymn singularly appropriate to the occasion.  The prayer that followed dwelt upon the greatness of the Person of the Lord Jesus, the Everlasting Word, the Eternal Son, the revelation of divine love in Him, His lowly grace, and His victory over death.
A brother then read John xvii., which he said was a favourite Scripture with the departed one.  In his frequent visits to her, when asked if she would like him to read to her, the reply was, "Yes. John xvii." [Also a favourite of her father]
Another brother spoke upon verse 24 of the same chapter.  Part of J.N.D.'s hymn, "O Lord, Thy love's unbounded," was sung.  This hymn was a favourite with Miss S., and she had it at her bedside.   It was said that the lines, "Yet sure if in Thy presence, My soul still constant were," were among the last words she uttered.  After a further hymn and prayer, the service was concluded.
Those present felt it to have been a privilege tο
have part in laying tο rest one whom the Lord had been pleased tο use as a standard-bearer in these days of unhappy conflict with regard to His Eternal Sonship.
"The Bible Monthly" 1936







Comments:
Gregory B. said ...
Your year born at the top does not agree with the write-up just below.
Tuesday, Jul 19, 2022 : 11:38
Nick Fleet said ...
1839 is consistent with 1921 Census data and other census information.
Tuesday, Jul 19, 2022 : 16:16
Roger Holden said ...
Presumably at the time of her death she was meeting with the Kelly Brethren, since ‘The Bible Monthly’ is listed on this web-site as a Kelly Brethren publication. This obituary refers to the conflict as to the Eternal Son and that she retained in ‘the divine revelation of God in His Eternal Son’. She had left the Taylor Brethren after Taylor had denied the Eternal Sonship in 1929, although it has been said that she had always looked on Taylor with suspicion. As Raven is not mentioned here, possibly her suspicion extended to him.
Tuesday, Jul 19, 2022 : 17:55
Jonathan said ...

My understanding (via an in-law's aunt, who crossed paths with in AMS in AMS's old age and the aunt's youth), she was with Glanton brethren (EDIT: after leaving the Taylor fellowship).

EDIT: I do not think it was uncommon for differing brethren circles to publish approving obituaries of the recently departed even though not in practical fellowship.

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2022 : 19:11
Mark said ...

"As Raven is not mentioned here, possibly her suspicion extended to him."

That "Raven is not mentioned" and the vague "possibly" are hardly proof that Miss Stoney's "suspicion extended to him."

Documentation points to her father J Butler Stoney having confidence in the teachings of Mr Raven, writing in support of him on the questions of Eternal Life, and the Incarnation and Manhood of Christ. 

See "Letters, J B Stoney, Volume 1 (New Edition)" pages 106 to 115 with regard to the former, and pages 123 to 135 regarding the latter.

If AMES had suspicions of FER then she was not in agreement with, and by implication, suspicious of her father, JBS. Is there any evidence of this?

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2022 : 23:05
Martin Arhelger said ...
I think that Mrs. Stoney was in the Raven-Taylor-Fellowship until the new Taylor-hymn-book (which deleted all references to Christ’s eternals Sonship) came out in 1932.
In a letter (E. N. Cross collection) dated 23rd December 1932 to A. H. Lycett Mrs. Stoney wrote: “I hope you do not accept the new Hymn Book. I think it is the worst blot on the testimony of brethren in the last 100 years. . . . How can a man who has ever sung in the Spirit in the worship of nearness and praise—ever use that book. I don't know. I'm too feeble to get out but they tell me that brethren do not accept it, and often one gives out a hymn, like 61, Mr Bevir's, and when he comes to that wicked change he shuts his eyes and the book. What must the angels think? and where is the Holy Spirit in that singing?”

The letter shows that Mrs. Stoney was too old to leave the communion with the Taylors. But she was excommuicated, soon:
“Just after the issue of the Revised Hymn Book, from which every mention of the eternal Sonship had been expunged, Mr. Lawrence of Bath wrote of the Taylor system . . . Mr. Lawrence quotes the case of Miss Stoney, daughter of J.B.S., who, on refusing the ‘new light’ was excommunicated from the Taylor system. It was reported at that time that J.T. had said that Miss Stoney must be crushed.” (An examination of AJGs Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth, pages 10 - 11)
Wednesday, Jul 20, 2022 : 01:47
Rodger said ...
Is there a digital version of the “Examination” document that you quote from, Martin? I would be interested in reading that.
Wednesday, Jul 20, 2022 : 09:05
Joshua said ...
Martin,
Can you kindly share " An examination of AJG's Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth".
Wednesday, Jul 20, 2022 : 12:38
Nick Fleet said ...
Thank's Martin, I think you are correct - I was trying to find the reference to that letter to Mr Lycett. Her comments about hymn 61 seem to show she must have been in meetings where the '32 edition was used. The situation was well-known in Glanton circles so I assume she had some dealings with them in the last 4 years of her life. There was a Glanton meeting in Filey at the time.
Wednesday, Jul 20, 2022 : 16:59
Mark said ...

I have a copy of AJG's "Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth" in which he seeks to prove that his company of "Brethren" was the only one that had been right all along - at least until 1960 that is. One wonders what he would have had to say by 1970.

Whatever the rights or wrongs with regard to "Glanton," there seems to be a reluctance among those in the various fragments of "London" - otherwise later known as "Taylor Exclusive Brethren" - to judge the line taken afterwards.

This is not only with regard to the denial of Christ's eternal sonship, but also other matters such as the addressing of the Holy Spirit, both of which were incorporated into subsequent editions of the "Little Flock" hymnbook. 

As to the "Examination" referred to above, it would be interesting if this were made available, as also concrete evidence of the statement referred to above, that is, "J.T. had said that Miss Stoney must be crushed.”

The story abounds that it was Mr Raven who introduced among "Brethren" the denial of Christ's eternal sonship The seems to be based on (1) a fragment of a sentence taken out of context and (2) that JT says he learnt non-eternal sonship from FER - but then again, he tried to justify his doctrine from comments in the writings of JND.

If FER denied the eternal sonship of Christ, why did Miss Stoney not notice it back then in the 1890s, rather than after the "Barnet" reading of June 1929, finding its way into the revised hymnbook of 1932?

Wednesday, Jul 20, 2022 : 21:07
Ja said ...
Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 03:30
J said ...
I understand that when FER returned from USA in 1902 he was met by a number of well taught brothers who told him if the remarks concerning our Lord's Eternal Sonship appeared in print, he would split the brethren. He replied that the remarks would not be printed. This was said by an eye witness namely E Rubie. Jack
Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 03:42
Martin Arhelger said ...

Jack,

I know what you have written from a Dutch History of the Brethren written by W. J. Ouweneel (vol. II, p. 143) which I try to translate from Dutch to English:  “In 1929 (...), James Taylor claimed that the idea that Christ's Sonship began only at the Incarnation had been expressed by Raven in America as early as 1902 but had not been included in the printed notes. Indeed, Raven's wild outbursts were always anxiously sifted, especially by T.H. Reynolds. A certain B.C. Rubie mentions how he witnessed Raven being severely challenged by some of the older brethren outside the conference room at Quemerford shortly afterwards. D. L. Higgins said to him: ‘Raven, if you insist on teaching this [i.e. that Christ was only Son from the Incarnation], you will divide the brethren all over the world,’ to which Raven replied: ‘Very well, then none of this will appear in the published notes of the meetings.’ {Footnote: G.A. Lucas, The Sonship of Christ (pamphlet, not published, 1969)}, Similarly, comments attacking Christ's eternal Sonship were deleted from the record of a Bible discussion at Rochester, N.Y., Oct. 1898; but according to a letter from J.S. Allen (included in Letters of F.E.R., p. 146-147) who accompanied Raven on his trip, Raven had remarked there, ‘... that none of these titles ['Son of God' or 'the Son'] are applied to Him in Scripture until incarnation, and therefore we are not authorised to carry these titles back to eternity.’ “

I do not have this text by G. A. Lucas “The Sonship of Christ”. But according to https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/rylands/special-collections/exploring/guide-to-special-collections/christian-brethren-collections/manuscripts/additional-papers-and-recorded-material/ this text is stored in the Brethren Collection in the Library of Manchester in Box 13, item 3. Is anyone able to make a copy of this text for us?

Martin

P. S. I add the original Duch text: “In 1929 (. . .) beweerde James Taylor dat de gedachte dat Christus’ Zoonschap pas bij de vleeswording begon, al in 1902 door Raven in Amerika geuit was maar niet in de gedrukte aantekeningen was opgenomen. Inderdaad werden Ravens wilde ontboezemingen altijd angstvallig gezift, vooral door T.H. Reynolds. Een zekere B.C. Rubie vermeldt hoe hij meemaakte dat Raven kort nadien, tijdens een conferentie in Quemerford, buiten het lokaal ernstig werd aangesproken door een aantal oudere broeders. D.L. Higgins zei tegen hem: ”Raven, als je erop staat dit te leren [nl. dat Christus pas Zoon was vanaf de vleeswording], zul je de broeders over de hele wereld in tweeën scheuren”, waarop Raven antwoordde: ”Heel goed, dan zal niets daarvan in de gepubliceerde aantekeningen van de samenkomsten verschijnen”. {G.A. Lucas, The Sonship of Christ (gestencilde brochure, 1969)} Evenzo werden opmerkingen die Christus’ eeuwig Zoonschap aantastten, geschrapt uit het verslag van een bijbelbespreking te Rochester (N.Y.), okt. 1898; maar blijkens een brief van J.S. Allen (opgenomen in Letters of F.E.R., p. 146v.) die Raven op zijn reis vergezelde, had Raven daar opgemerkt: ”... dat geen van deze titels [’Zoon van God’ of ’de Zoon’] op Hem worden toegepast in de Schrift tot op de vleeswording, en daarom zijn we niet gerechtigd deze titels terug te voeren tot in de eeuwigheid”.

Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 15:42
Martin Arhelger said ...

I was asked about the text “An examination . . .”. I put it (for a time) here: www.martin-arhelger.de/temp1/examination.pdf

I presume the text was printed on a 24-pin printer but should be readable. I do not know the author who is only given as “R.”. From the last line I take that he departed on March 19th 1971. This might help to identify him.

Martin

Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 15:49
Hierus said ...
The author of the cited paper is Wm C. Reid from Edinburgh, the editor of An Outline of Sound Words.
Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 18:42
Martin Arhelger said ...

Thank you!
Yes, W. C. Reid departed on March19th 1971, see the end of this webpage:
https://www.stempublishing.com/magazines/OSW/71-80/osw78f.html

So the author was William C. Reid, a leader with "Little Glanton". Is there more known of him?

Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 20:57
Mark said ...

If FER did teach that "Christ was only Son from the Incarnation" (and I take the supplied evidence into account), then he had changed his mind having once written, 'I should say that if a man intended to deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ I should certainly not care to remain in fellowship with him - for "the Son" is the name that conveys to me the idea of the distinct personality of Christ.' Again, 'He is always the eternal Son. He could not be anything else.' He was therefore going against his earlier teaching.

JT, as early as 1920 stated in a letter, "The only begotten Son refers to our Lord as Man." However, it was not until June 1929 at Barnet that he taught it publicly. Interestingly, then DLH took on board the doctrine of the non-eternal sonship of Christ.

I add that JT refers in quite a number of his letters to JND's "Notes and Comments," volume 7, page7. In one letter he audaciously claims, "But no unbiased person who carefully reads them will fail to see that Mr. Darby's mature thoughts bore the same direction as current teaching among us."

I must be a biased person! I suggest it was JT who did not carefully read these "Notes and Comments." Of course the Word was not recognised as "the only-begotten Son" until after He became flesh. That, among other things, was the very reason for the Incarnation.

Miss Stoney's concern about the changes to the hymnbook to accommodate this "current teaching" is quite justified. If FER's change in direction on the sonship of Christ was only known by few and kept a carefully guarded secret, by the 1930s "incarnational sonship" was now the official doctrine of the "London" brethren, and sadly is maintained by their publishing houses to this day.

Friday, Jul 22, 2022 : 22:55
Kappa said ...
It has come to light that the “ Brief Notes of the Last Days of Miss A. M. S.” published in “The Bible Monthly” is an edited and abridged version.

A comparison of the two versions demonstrate that there was unnecessary and unjustifiable editorial interference in the published account.

The original typescript account was jointly written by two brethren having the initials E.A.P.C and C.W.W.

Is anyone able to identify the names of the two brethren?






Saturday, Aug 27, 2022 : 05:41
Jonathan said ...
Surely a comparison of the two versions can only highlight what the differences are, and not demonstrate that those differences were unnecessary or unjustifiable. Would you be able to explain what these differences are?
Saturday, Aug 27, 2022 : 06:22
Roger Holden said ...
Is the original typescript available? Can it be digitised and posted here? Editors often edit things for space reasons.
Sunday, Aug 28, 2022 : 04:46
Kappa said ...
In answer to Roger’s enquiry on August 28, here is the original typescript of the funeral of Miss A. M. Stoney:


“ Our beloved sister, Miss Α. M. Stoney, departed to be with Christ, at her home, “Sea View” Filey, on Friday evening, Feb 21st, 1936. Βοrn on Aug. 12th, 1839, she was in her 97th year.
For some months, she had been failing in bodily strength although her mental faculties were but little diminished, except for some loss of memory, a symptom common to extreme old age.
Miss Stoney retained her belief in the fundamental principles of the divine revelation of God in His Eternal Son, and delighted to speak of the Lord Jesus in these days of failure and declension, as "The Holy and the True." Having in her mind, too, the words of the Lord Jesus to the seven churches (Rev. ii.—iii.), and the downward course of the church as therein set out, with the introduction of error and the giving up of the truth; His words produced a great impression, especially His exhortation to "hold fast," repeated three times.
She spoke of Philadelphia as "the last hold fast." Her great thought was that by holding fast, saints would become "overcomers." And How she loved to speak of those whom she called "holy men," men such as J.N.D., G.V.W., J.G.Β., and others whom she knew intimately in her young days, and by whom the Lord recovered truth which had been covered up by error for centuries Their lives and example had a great influence in the ]formation of her soul], and the Christ in glory whom they knew was the One she knew, and loved to hear of, and tο speak of.

[With the departure of our sister to be with the Lord, it seems as if the last link with that wonderful movement of the Spirit has been severed!]

Our sister was very fond of a story which she herself told concerning a gardener and his wife whom she knew in Ireland. They were in very poor circumstances, and the poor husband often got depressed by reason of the [hardness] and roughness of the way. At such times, the dear old wife used tο try to help him by saying, "Keep your eye on the glory, William, or you'll never get through!" That dear old saint’s words cheered our sister many a time, as they did us when they were repeated.
As the years passed by she used often to say, "Ι don't know why the Lord has left me here in this helpless old age and in this position of isolation." Writing to one of her old friends a few years ago, she said, "I do pray that if it be His will, the Lord will not leave me here till all my friends that have prayed for me have gone. But my consolation is, that I shall meet them all again. Like the fragments which were gathered up after the multitude had been fed, nothing will be lost."
She felt more keenly than any can know, the forsaking of οld friends simply because she could not give up the precious truths which the Lord had made good in her soul during those ninety-seven years. We who often visited her, saw her sorrow and its effect upon her, but "keeping her eye on the glory," she held fast," and encouraged others to do the same. She seldom wrote to any [of us] without some reference to "overcomers."
She loved, too, to speak of the thief on the cross, and of the Lord's words to him, "Today, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." What is Paradise? With Me. What is "with Me?" Paradise.
It was very remarkable that when the undertaker came to attend to her body, he said, "What a beautiful face! that is the face of an overcomer." It was all the more remarkable because, so far as was known, he was an entire stranger to her.


The interment took place at Scarborough onTuesday, February 25th. Brethren from various places assembled to have fellowship in this last service to the Lord in regard to our departed sister.

[Besides those living at Scarborough and Filey, others came from York, Sheffield, Birmingham, London, Crondall and elsewhere, some having travelled throughout the night.]

The family mourners were a niece and a nephew of Miss Stoney. With them was Mrs. Gill! who had been with our sister for many years, and who had nursed her father (the late J.B.S.), also.
The funeral service commenced with the beautiful hymn, "Thou art the Everlasting Word," a hymn singularly appropriate to the occasion. The prayer that followed dwelt upon the greatness of the Person of the Lord Jesus, the Everlasting Word, the Eternal Son, the revelation of divine love in Him, His lowly grace, and His victory over death.

[Some of the brothers went to “Sea View”, Filey, where there was a short period of prayer, four brothers taking part. Then the cortège left for Scarborough Cemetery, where the first part of the service was held in the Chapel. It commenced with Hymn 150, “Thou art the Everlasting Word”. All stood to sing this beautiful hymn, which was singularly appropriate to the occasion, and was very well sung. This was followed by prayer, dwelling on the greatness of the Person of the Lord Jesus — the Everlasting Word and the Eternal Son, the revelation of divine love in Him, His lowly grace, and His victory over death.]

A brother then readJohn XVII., prefacing the reading by saying that it was a favourite scripture with our departed sister. In his frequent visits he had asked if she would like him to read to her, and she had replied, “Yes! John XVII.” Another brother then spoke on verse 24 of the same chapter,

[“Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedest me before the foundation of the world.” Our brother referred to the love of Christ toward the Father and toward His own whom the Father had given Him, expressed in the desires recorded in this scripture, and to the fact that the whole range of divine purposes and counsels was included — “before the world was”, (ver. 5);the divine operations connected with those purposes and counsels in those whom the Father had given to the Son, during time; and in verse24 the peculiar joy of Him, the Son, when all is brought to full accomplishment. He also pointed out that every desire of the Lord Jesus, the Son, expressed in this beautiful chapter, must be fulfilled. It could not be otherwise. Faith accepted that, even though there was nothing to be seen by the natural eye to confirm it. And the final desire expressed in verse 24 would assuredly be fulfilled also. What would that be for, and to, the Lord Jesus Himself? It would be a marvellous thing for us when we are caught up “together with them” to meet the Lord in the air, but what would it be for Him, when in the place where He now is, He could display, He could display to them all the glory which the Father has given Him?
After the address a brother gave out Hymn 343, Verses 4, 5, and 6, “Yet sure if in Thy presence“, mentioning that our departed sister had greatly enjoyed this hymn. She had it over her bed head, and Mrs Gill, (her faithful attendant), has said]
that the words, “Yet sure if in Thy presence my soul more constant were” were amongst the last words the dear saint uttered.

[The three verses were sung very feelingly, and we went on to sing the remaining verses. A further prayer happily concluded the service in the Chapel, and we moved along to the graveside. Here, after the body had been lowered into the grave, we sang another hymn, No. 323, “The Lord Himself shall come”, and then a brother committed the to the Lord’s care and keeping in a prayer which was much enjoyed and appreciated.

Those present were very thankful to the Lord for the privilege they had had, and felt that His presence, and the guidance of the Spirit, had been distinctly manifested in the happiness and freedom amongst the brethren.]

We felt that it had been our privilege to have part in the laying to rest of one whom the Lord had been pleased to use asa Standard Bearer in these days of [strife] and conflict as to the [Eternal Truth regarding His Person.] “

E.A.P.C
C.W.W
————————————————————————————————————

The editing or abridgement of a document, secular or spiritual, is only permissible if the accuracy or sense of what has been written is not altered or misrepresented in any way.’
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2022 : 04:37
Kappa said ...
The text within square brackets highlights what is not in the edited and abridged version, published by Mr. W J. Hocking in “ The Bible Monthly”
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2022 : 04:48
Hiereus said ...
Brief review of earlier comments:
Mark’ on July 19, 2022;
As far as is known, Miss Stoney, like those who left the “London” fellowship when James Taylor introduced his heretical teaching in 1929, still held to the errors of F.E.R. in 1895. It has oft been reported that J.B.S. was the mentor of F.E.R. and it was he who desired that this younger man should follow him into a place of prominence.

Brother Arhelger, on July 20, 2022,
Re: a letter of Miss Stoney to A.H. Lycett, dated 23 December 1932, in which she wrote of her abhorrence of the 1932 (per)version of the Little Flock hymn book, adding, “I’m too feeble to get out.” It is likely that the brethren who took part in her funeral were of those who, like herself, were no longer breaking bread with “London”, but with whom she had been in fellowship in earlier years. It may be noted that the numbers of the hymns mentioned in the above account are from the 1903 Little Flock hymn book.

According to both printed matter and a private communication before me, by 1931 and in the years following there was no “Glanton” meeting in either Filey or Scarborough. Prior to that time there had been a meeting in Bellevue Street, Filey.

[As an aside, in the year 1873, on leaving home, Henry and Andrew, sons of C.H.M., were commended by the “Scarboro’ saints”.]
Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 05:12
Mark Best said ...

If I might ask Hiereus. "As far as is known." What is the source of this knowledge that Miss Stoney in 1929 still held to the errors of F.E.R. in 1895? This is also to assume there were indeed such errors. 

"It has oft been reported." By whom? "Oft." What are the sources? And primary sources are sought. Two things are to be considered here: (1) that JBS was the mentor of FER; (2) the concept of "a place of prominence."

As to the former, JBS supported FER as the evidence I supplied shows. This does not however in itself prove that he was his mentor. 

As to the latter. Did this idea even exist in those days well before the later JT Snr years? We cannot extrapolate backwards to JBS, and certainly not to JND, notions held nowadays by the PBCC.

Mark Best

Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 15:18
Nick Fleet said ...

There was a Glanton meeting in Filey in the 1968 List of Meetings, at the "Girl Guides' Hut, back Union Lane".

Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 15:37
Syd said ...
Just back to Mark's comments on 22 July.

I’m not sure whose words these are given the many references—“Of course the Word was not recognised as ‘the only-begotten Son’ until after He became flesh. That, among other things, was the very reason for the Incarnation.” This needs to be questioned or clarified.

Christ, the Word, did not become flesh to, inter alia, be “recognised as the only begotten Son.” He became flesh to declare the Father. The Word was ALWAYS the only begotten Son as John 1:18 clearly states – “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father [subsisting in the bosom of the Father], he hath declared him.” NEVER was there a time when the eternal Son was not in the bosom of the Father. It is what He the Son was, what He had been and what He ever is in the Father’s own bosom in the Godhead—the only begotten Son—that was capable of fully declaring the Father.

In light of the Raven error, and that of others, some men may have and some may still recognise the Lord Jesus Christ as “the only begotten Son” AFTER He became flesh, but the Father certainly does not, nor does the Word of God teach this. The bosom of the Father has perpetually been the constant place of the only begotten Son, and that His unique mode of relationship with the Father.

Of course, the Word having been made flesh, John could say - "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14). But He did not become the only begotten Son when He took flesh.

Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 20:39
Mark Best said ...

This is an example of where wrong inferences can be drawn if not careful. 

The words are mine. I was explaining what Mr Darby had meant in his "Notes and Comments" since Mr Taylor was using them in an attempt to prove that Mr Darby later in life questioned the eternal sonship of Christ, even though like Mr Raven he was in the habit of speaking of Christ as the eternal Son. Mr Taylor was doing it to try and substantiate his own teaching, and that Mr Darby and Mr Raven would have seen Mr Taylor's "new light" on the subject and agreed with him. 

Mr Darby would have done nothing of the sort. In "Notes and Comments" he was teaching that the Son had to become a Man that we might be brought into sonship, the Cross being necessary of course that the matter of our sins and sin be dealt with according to God in His nature, and the Resurrection that we might be associated with Christ as the Son of God. 

Let me make it very clear. I believe and affirm that Christ is the eternal Son. He is ever one with the Father in the Godhead. God has from eternity and is to eternity One, eternally subsisting in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

In saying that Christ is the eternal Son, despite what others have said, I am using words which Mr Raven frequently used. 

However, my point is that the eternal Son, though eternally such in the bosom of the Father, could not be seen and recognised by John and the other apostles as the eternal Word and the Son of the Father before the Incarnation. Hence John 1 verses 14 and 18. It is only as become flesh - as a Man - that the Word, the eternal Son, the only begotten of the Father - could be 'beheld' (KJV) or 'contemplated' (JND).   

I reject entirely Mr Taylor's notion that Christ came into the bosom of the Father at the Incarnation. The Greek does not allow it, despite what Mr Taylor tried to make out. This I have explained elsewhere with regard to H D'Arcy Champney's booklet "My Son." They have missed the relevance of the verbs and the tenses of the verbs in John 1. 

I suspect that some will find fault with some of the expressions I have used, but it is neither possible that I explain each and every word as I go along in terms of the way I mean them exactly, nor prevent people, perhaps inadvertently, reading their own ideas into what I have written. The context must be taken into account

Hence the value of conversational Bible readings in which questions can be asked and the precise meaning of words, terms, expressions, and statements made be obtained from one another if doubtful or unclear. 

Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 21:31
Dirk said ...
Hi Hiereus,

could you please explain shortly what “Scarboro’ saints” are? I searched the web in vain to get clear about this expression.

Thanks
Dirk
Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 23:06
Tom said ...

Hi Dirk, I believe Scarboro is just a reference to the town of Scarborough, where CHM was living at the time, so  'Scarboro saints' means the believers who were meeting there.

Wednesday, Nov 2, 2022 : 23:09
Kappa said ...
Could any contributors to this digital repository provide any accounts of ‘open’ burials prior to that of Mr. Wigram in 1879. The earliest published account known to me is that of a very young brother Augustus J Clarke, who was taken to be with the Lord in the mid 1840’s. Mr. Darby was present and spoke at the graveside.

Can any suggest why the character or order of conducting funerals, as set forth in the case of Miss Stoney, and unknown in the religious world, is becoming increasingly less common amongst various ‘sections’ of brethren who gather simply to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Thursday, Nov 3, 2022 : 02:28
Hiereus said ...
As the subject of the thread is Miss A.E.M. Stoney, in particular her final years, the remark made about the Glanton meeting in Filey refers to that time. From the private, handwritten comments by the brother who, in 1929, held a week’s meetings in that town, speaking both in the hall and in the open air, there is a short sentence indicating that all was not well in that gathering. At the time of the printing of the 1931 “List of Meetings”, those gathered in Filey were no longer regarded as in fellowship with other Glanton meetings.
Thursday, Nov 10, 2022 : 21:37
Nick Fleet said ...

I notice that the 'London' meeting at Filey was at Albert Hall, Mitford Street, in all the List of Meetings from 1895 to 1931 inclusive.  I only have the 1968 'Glanton' List so can't help re the above comments by 'Hiereus' except to say that a few years ago on a visit there my late father-in-law pointed out to me the street where his father had preached in the Glanton meeting.  I had the impression that was sometime in the 1970s.

Thursday, Nov 10, 2022 : 23:07
Hiereus said ...
For the sake of accuracy, there were no so-called ‘London brethren’ in 1895, other than those of brethren who gathered in the country’s capital, London. About a decade later, brothers from that city interfered in a local matter three hundred miles distant (see ‘Hear the Right’, W.T.P. Wolston) after which, in 1908, there was a division, one company known as the ‘Glanton brethren’, the other as the ’London brethren’. In the year of the death of Miss Stoney, 1936, there is written evidence that the great-grandfather of the wife of Nick Fleet was in fellowship in a meeting in the same county, but not in the same Riding, as Filey. Four generations in fellowship!
Saturday, Nov 12, 2022 : 16:33
Nick Fleet said ...

OK, well, instead of 'London', I might have written 'Taylor' but some might view that description as prejorative. The Filey address given in the List of Meetings after 1908 to 1931 is the same as that given in the 1895 List onwards.  But, in my experience, brethren with a connection to 'Reading' or 'Stuart' brethren also referred to their erstwhile brethren as 'London' so that description dates back to at least 1885 as well.  'Kelly' brethren also referred to 'London', although perhaps even more specifically 'Park Street'.

As an aside, I may be the only brother who can properly claim now to be a 'TW' brother ;-) although, in truth, every true believer in the Lord Jesus in TW could be so designated.

Saturday, Nov 12, 2022 : 18:02
Hiereus said ...


Mr Fleet writes that those brethren in Filey who went with so-called “London” at the time of the 1908 division remained in their meeting room. This would indicate the continued influence of the deceased Mr Stoney on his local brethren. It was from this date that the appellation, “London brethren”, related to this specific section of so-called “Brethren”. It was not until after the death of the Sligo-born James Taylor, when there were contenders for the position of “universal leader”, that there was again a sad repetition of 1 Corinthians i.12 (a young brother was asked in a meeting, “Are you for G.R.C. or J.T.Jnr?”). The introduction of dictates negating the teaching of 1 Corinthians vii.13 and x.27, and other matters in the decade following, led to much coverage in the English-speaking media, with these brethren being named worldwide as the “Taylor brethren”.

Mr Fleet may like to know that, between WWI. and WWII., perhaps earlier, there was a small “Glanton” meeting in the town of Tunbridge Wells, which was closed when the remaining very elderly, widowed brother moved to a town in which there was a meeting where he was able to break bread.
Tuesday, Nov 22, 2022 : 06:22
Jonathan said ...

I came across this comment in a publication by V. W. J. H. Lawrence, relevant to Miss Stoney:

As regards persecution, the system has wrought a monumental work (perhaps never equalled outside the Church of Rome), in its conduct towards Miss A. M. S—, of F—, and all that has transpired as a consequence, to say nothing of the iniquity evidenced in connection with Bath and elsewhere, following upon the publication of the writer's book, "The Divine Sonship."

https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/eternal_son/VWJHL10.html

Monday, Jan 23, 2023 : 22:44


Add Comment: