Chapter 72: A Testimonial—Spurgeon and the House of Lords

Chapter 72.
A Testimonial.—Spurgeon And The House Of Lords

Whit-Monday at the Orphanage—Dr. Binney's Speech—Stone-laying Ceremonies—References to Spurgeon in the House of Lords—Speech of Bishop Wilberforce—Opinions of the Press—Spurgeon's Reply.

Monday, June 1, 1868, being Whit-Monday, was another high day with the founders of the Stockwell Orphanage; for it was then that what was called a Testimonial was presented to Mr. Spurgeon by the Baptist churches. This consisted of the cost of two orphans' homes, the memorial-stones of which were laid on the day named. The avenue leading from the Clapham Road was decorated as became the occasion, while the grounds, in which between three and four thousand persons assembled, also presented a holiday appearance.

Dr. Binney presided at the afternoon meeting. From Mr. Spurgeon's statement it appeared that a sum of close upon £30,000 had been subscribed, and that £3,400 additional would be required to complete the whole of the boys' buildings. Dr. Raleigh, Dr. Binney, and others gave addresses, and the then famous pastor of the King's Weigh-house Chapel referred to the criticisms to which Spurgeon had been subjected:—

"Mr. Spurgeon does not look any the worse for all the criticism he has received. I myself have been at one time of my life the best blackguarded man in London. I never took up a newspaper or a magazine without finding some abuse of me in it. And when Mr. Spurgeon lives to be like myself, who am now somewhere between seventy and a hundred years of age, he will not appear to be personally any the worse for all the abuse he has met with."

Mr. Aldis of Reading, who laid one of the memorial-stones, had formerly been associated with friends in Southwark, and understood all about the old days when Spurgeon commenced work in London. In the course of a brief address some interesting reminiscences were given, e.g.:—

"I am glad to be with you. All along I have felt great esteem for Mr. Spurgeon. I had something to do with promoting his way to New Park Street Chapel. I never heard such an eloquent discourse from him in my life as I heard when he addressed some Sunday-school children on my first visit to London. I thank God for all that God has done for him, and I hope that all that has been done will be but a beginning to what shall follow. The most splendid address I ever heard in my life I heard from Mr. Spurgeon in connection with the Southwark branch of the Young Men's Christian Association. At the close of that address, a very godly man came to me and asked me to go aside into an adjoining small room. I did so. The man said, 'You do not know me, but I know you, sir. Could you not constitute a little meeting for prayer on behalf of Mr. Spurgeon?' I asked, 'Why do you want a special prayer-meeting organised for so special a purpose?' The good man replied, 'Because, sir, I think Mr. Spurgeon to be a man of great talents, and is exposed to great temptations.' At the time I felt indignant that my brother should be marked out as a greater sinner than others. But I have altered my opinion since then, not because I have changed my opinion as to Mr. Spurgeon, but because I more greatly value prayer. I do not know how much my honoured friend owes to the prayers that have been put up to God for him." The stone of the second house was laid by Mr. A. B. Goodall. As "Father" Olney, the senior deacon, was able to give reminiscences of the church extending over a period of sixty years, his address was of more than passing interest. He came to London in 1808; two years later he joined the congregation at Carter Lane, and he had witnessed the death of Dr. Rippon. This veteran had been a deacon since the infancy of Mr. Spurgeon. The tea which followed was an occasion long remembered. One friend lent a great steam-engine in which to boil the water, besides giving £5 to the general expenses. Mr. Spurgeon himself paid for the decorations. The age of wonders had evidently commenced as regarded the Orphanage commissariat department. "Upwards of a ton of bread and butter was cut up by a machine, and judging from some complainers, there were not a few horse-leeches' daughters who asked for more. The arrangements evidently occupied many hours, and we were not surprised to hear that the deacons had been engaged on the grounds from three o'clock in the morning, when the stars were shining, up to the hour of opening the grounds, in preparing for the visitors."

Mr. Aldis presided at the great open-air meeting of the evening, and Mr. J. T. Wigner presented Mr. Spurgeon with a bag containing two hundred new sovereigns, a cheque for £1,000, and an address engrossed on vellum. These came from 460 Baptist churches. In reply, Mr. Spurgeon said it was not often difficult for him to speak, but he experienced some difficulty on this occasion. After thanking every church and every individual, the President of the new institution went on to say:—

"Something has been said in the course of the day about the form the testimonial has taken. It could not have been a better one. If we make a testimonial to a soldier, it is generally a sword that he may use in his work; and I, as a soldier engaged in my work, will use the money you have now given me, which is the best possible sword, to do still more of that particular kind of work in which I am engaged. There is no earthly requirement that I myself personally need. God has blessed me with an abundance of everything that wealth can furnish for my own necessities, and therefore I am not hungry after more earthly goods for myself, but I am beyond measure greedy on behalf of God's cause. If I had received the gift from my friends at the Tabernacle I would not have been so much surprised, for I know their love for me. It does not come from them at all, but from the Baptist churches throughout the country. I did not know that they cared much for me. I have been reminded this day of times gone by when my room was better esteemed than my company. It has been my misfortune to be put into a peculiar position. I have often been suspected of sinister designs. A little time ago I was talking to a brother who honestly told me the reasons why he used to dislike me. He said he was afraid, for one reason, that I was going to start a new denomination. 'Well,' I replied, 'I could have done it had I liked—could I not?' 'Undoubtedly,' was the answer, 'and many would have followed you.' 'Well, but I did not do it.' The thought of doing such a thing might have been pleasing to human flesh, but I consider there are sects enough without making another. Then another reason why my friend had disliked me was because he was afraid I was going to eat the vitals out of the denomination. Now I have a band of young men around me of whom I am proud. They have built more chapels than the others have done. But the thought of starting a new denomination, if ever it entered my head, was resisted as a temptation at once. Well, let all these things be bygones, and buried in oblivion. I am a Baptist by conviction, and I look upon the Baptist Church as the old Catholic Apostolic Church."

Mr. Spurgeon went on to say that he was not born in the Church of which he was a member. At an early age he marked out a course for himself; and as it had been necessary for men to rise up to strike out forms and ceremonies from other churches, so, it was hoped, that if ever Baptists were eaten up by forms and ceremonies, God would raise someone up to strike down mere routine. As Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, so Spurgeon confessed to being a Baptist of the Baptists. But while he loved his own denomination with all his heart and soul and strength, as well as his neighbour as himself, he did not ignore others; he wished to hold out the right hand of fellowship to all. No man was to be accused of showing disrespect to women in general because he loved his own wife best. There was a great work before them as a denomination; they loved the work in which they were specially engaged; but still he thought there had been an excess of conscientiousness, which had degenerated into bickering. In speaking of the great work in the future, he referred again to the question of the day—the Irish Church, as a battle in which go-betweens would be swept away. A hand-to-hand fight with Romanism was coming on:—

"A person wrote to me the other day stating he was surprised that I, as a Baptist and Nonconformist, was on the side of the Roman Catholic3, in taking part in the disestablishment of the Irish Church. I wonder how long that man's ears must be. I wonder how it is that he failed to see that by the disestablishment of a Church that is the aider and abettor of Romanism, the general body of Protestants would be brought face to face with Roman Catholicism, on superior grounds of reason and right, and that Protestantism would be strengthened. But whilst it is our duty to oppose error, we have no right to commit an injustice. If I saw a man knocked down in the street and robbed, I would help him whether he was a Protestant or a Catholic; and as I believe that the Irish Church is an injustice to nine-tenths of the Irish people, so I would relieve them of that injustice; but Martin Luther himself did not love Protestantism and the doctrine of justification by faith more than I do. I hope, therefore, that as a body we shall keep together. We do not know what God has in store for us."

Then came some reminiscences of early days, which excited great interest and some merriment:—

"I am a Baptist from conviction, and became one through being sent to a Church of England school. In asking me my catechism they asked me the usual question, 'What is your name?' and I replied, 'Spurgeon.' When they asked me my Christian name I said I hadn't got one, for I was not a Christian. They told me I had the name my godfather and godmother gave me; but I replied I had no godfather nor godmother. They then said that I had not been baptised rightly; but I replied I was sure I had, as my grandfather christened mo in the big china basin in the back parlour, and as he had done lots before he must have known how to do it properly. I did not know at the time that there were any other people in the world who were Baptists besides myself, and it gave me great joy when I found others held similar opinions to those which my early thoughts ripened into. You must not be surprised, therefore, if I do fail to see the usefulness of those old-fashioned proprieties which have belonged to you, but have never grown up with me." The various agencies in connection with the Metropolitan Tabernacle continued to prosper. When the almshouses were built a day-school for boys was attached and proved an admirable success. The annual meeting of the Colportage Association, which had now been on trial about two years, showed that that enterprise was destined to extend in England no less than in Scotland. Reports which came in from men educated in the College were also highly encouraging. On Monday, June 29, Spurgeon was the subject of a speech by Bishop Wilberforce in the House of Lords, and, as was to be expected, the Bishop's deliverance attracted general attention. The speaker had been greatly chagrined by reading the letter addressed to John Bright which Mr. Spurgeon had written on the disestablishment of the Irish Church. The Bishop spoke as follows, and his speech was repeatedly cheered, and at times provoked much laughter:—

"The argument of voluntaryism is a very favourite one; and a very remarkable statement has recently been made on this subject, to which I would wish to call your lordships' attention—made not by the noble duke, but by one to whom a great many look upon as an authority on this subject of endowment—I mean Mr. Spurgeon. Mr. Spurgeon has written this letter concerning it. I have the greatest sympathy for him—he had a sharp attack of rheumatic gout in the leg, and could not, therefore, attend the meeting, but he wrote this letter. He says:—'It is in no spirit of opposition to the Irish clergy'—no, my lords, nobody has any enmity to the Irish clergy when they propose to disendow them—everybody has the most wonderful feeling of interest in them, anxiety for their welfare, and so has Mr. Spurgeon. Your lordships will remember how Isaac Walton said they were to treat the frog—put it on the hook 'tenderly, as if they loved it.' But he says:—"'It is in no spirit of opposition to the Irish clergy that I would urge upon the House of Commons to carry out the proposed resolution, for I believe them as a body to be among the best part of the Episcopal clergy, and to hold evangelical truths most earnestly. But because they are the best of the clergy, they should be the first to be favoured with the great blessing of disestablishment. They will only be called to do what some of us have for years found a pleasure and advantage in doing—viz., to trust to the noble spirit of generosity which true religion is sure to evoke. They little know how grandly the giant of voluntaryism will draw the chariot when the pitiful State dwarf is dismissed.'

"Now, my lords, allow me to set before you the other side of the picture—not by another writer, but by the same writer, viewing the same question from another aspect. In 'an epistle addressed to the members of the baptised Churches of Jesus Christ,' Mr. Spurgeon thus writes:—"'Beloved Beethren,—An exceedingly great and bitter cry has gone up unto heaven concerning many of us. It is not a cry from the world which hates us, nor from our fellow-members whom we may have offended, but (alas, that it should be so!) it is wrung from hundreds of poor but faithful ministers of Christ Jesus who labour in our midst in word and doctrine, and are daily oppressed by the niggardliness of churls among us. Hundreds of our ministers would improve their circumstances if they were to follow the commonest handicrafts. The earnings of artisans of but ordinary skill are far above the stipends of those among us who are considered to be comfortably maintained. We are asked repeatedly to send students to spheres where £40 is mentioned as if it were a competence, if not more, and those who so write are not always farm labourers, but frequently tradesmen, who must know what penury £40 implies.' [Is that the provision the Irish clergy are to have?] 'I speak not without abundant cause. I am no retailer of baseless scandal. I am no advocate for an idle and ill-deserving ministry. I open my mouth for a really earnest, godly, laborious, gracious body of men, who are men of God, and approved of His Church. Are these for ever to be starved?' Imagine my right rev. brethren here having their stipends reduced to £40, and uttering an exceeding bitter cry. Now, my lords, it is because I do not wish to see the Irish clergy reduced to such a state that I protest against their being left to this specious protection of voluntaryism." In making his speech, of which the above is an extract, Bishop Wilberforce played the mimic to some extent; and while affecting to imitate the wonderful voice of the great orator of the Tabernacle, he purposely represented it by a snuffle or nasal twang, which amused the peers as something to be identified with a conventicle. The reference to the Archbishop of Armagh was also thought to be out of taste. The Bishop's argument, of course, tended to show that ministerial poverty existed only outside of the Establishment. He, and those who thought with him, soon found out their mistake. As one wrote:—

"When we read the Bishop's quotations it struck us that we had seen proof of similar wretchedness to that Mr. Spurgeon complained of, but existing under Established endowments. Niggardliness of those who ought to be liberal no doubt often causes great suffering under voluntaryism, but it seems that unjust apportionment of endowments and the cruel selfishness of incumbents (a class of ecclesiastics we cannot find mention of in the writings of the Apostles) may inflict equal misery. We remembered having seen and commented on a pamphlet entitled, 'Startling Facts respecting the Poverty and Distress of Four Hundred Clergymen of the Church of England.'... We only wish the Bishop would read it in the House of Lords, for we believe that enormously wealthy body would not rest till they had done something to relieve the dire distress of worthy sufferers under the State endowment system." The comments of some of the daily papers were hardly more complimentary to the Bishop:—

"The Bishop's speeches are out of place in a deliberative assembly. When he is in his liveliest vein the House of Lords lays aside its courtly dignity for a moment, and gives itself up to be amused. Nor is the Bishop at all scrupulous whence the amusement comes. That he should put in contrast Mr. Spurgeon's praises of voluntaryism and Mr. Spurgeon's appeals against the deficiencies of the voluntary principle was perfectly fair, but that he should read them in a tone of solemn mockery was beneath the dignity of the House and utterly unworthy of the subject. It was even more: in that tone of mockery the Bishop was defiling the graves of his own ancestors, for Mr. Spurgeon is to-day the most prominent representative of that Clapham sect with which the name of Wilberforce is inextricably associated. That he should quote the declarations of a Roman Catholic dignitary was also legitimate, but that he should enunciate the letters of honourable distinction which followed the name of the ecclesiastic in a tone of theatrical contempt was an insult to the whole Catholic community and an outrage to the good manners and good feeling of every Protestant gentleman who heard him."

We find another paper condemning the had taste of Dr. Wilberforce in reading out to the peers, in a tone of sanctimonious caricature, Mr. Spurgeon's letter, in which the Irish clergy were congratulated on their near prospect of tasting of the benefits of the voluntary principle:—

"Mr. Buckstone, as Aminadab Sleek, could not have uttered the words with a more puritanic snuffle; but in spite of the art of the Episcopal comedian, the peers opposed to him cheered the best passages of Mr. Spurgeon's letter with evident sympathy, while those on his own side were ominously silent, and seemed totally unable to share his enjoyment or his own joke. Even less was the Bishop's success when he suggested the awful contingency of the Archbishop of Armagh being reduced to a pittance of £40 a year. To judge by the demeanour of the House, the actual £12,000 of the Archbishop flashed upon their lordships' minds at the moment as a rather more absurd and rather less pleasant subject of contemplation than even the impoverishment which the witty speaker had awkwardly imagined." The Bishop had stimulated the controversy, and there were many who were ready to take it up. People in London had become excited, but probably it was in provincial towns that the fever reached its height. What took place in Shields may have been similar to what occurred in other places. At a lecture given by Mr. Miller of Huddersfield the hall was crowded; but among the audience were a number of Orangemen and others, who unsuccessfully endeavoured to prevent a petition to Parliament being adopted in favour of disestablishment. A lecturer on the other side was then engaged, and the town was placarded with a caricature of Spurgeon, his letter commencing "the giant Voluntaryism," and then the appeal on behalf of poor Baptist ministers which he had also published. Mr. W. Harrison, a Baptist minister of Shields, replied to this with some vigour; and such were the clamour and the misrepresentation on all sides, that it became necessary even for those who in general took little or no notice of attacks made upon them to defend themselves. In his sermon on Sunday morning, July 5, on Psa 67:6-7, Mr. Spurgeon made some references to Dr. Wilberforce's speech in the House of Lords:—

"It is not the instrumentality which we have to look to, but it is the power from Heaven which is given to the instrumentality that makes the Church irresistible. We heard it said the other day that the religion of Jesus Christ could not bo expected to prosper unless it had a fair start given to it; and, strange to say, that observation did not, as you might suppose, come from an infidel, but it absolutely came from a bishop. A fair start, indeed! Put up the religion of Jesus Christ anywhere, and it asks for nothing. It only wants its own inherent strength to be developed, and to be let alone by the kings and princes of this world. To be let alone, did I say? Yes. Let these kings and princes oppose it if they like; only let them withdraw from it that deadly thing, their patronage, and the truth of God will always prevail against every obstacle. We do not tremble, then, for the success of the Church of Christ, though the servants of God be poor, or comparatively weak in numbers, for we know that 'God will bless us;' and, if we be few, we remember that the twelve unlettered fishermen who first went out to plant the Church were fewer still, yet that they made old Rome to shake from end to end, and levelled colossal citadels even with the ground; and so shall it ever be with Christianity, if only God shall bless her with the ancient might that made her strong in days of old!"

It was thought that something else was still needed to correct any wrong impressions in the public mind, and hence Mr. Spurgeon wrote the following important letter:—

"To the Editor of 'The Times.'

"Sir,—I have asserted frequently the superiority of the voluntary principle to that of State support in the matter of religion, and I have also at other times lamented the poverty of many ministers whose stipends are subscribed upon the system which I prefer. The two things appear to me to be quite consistent, but several of the newspapers judge otherwise, and one or two of them have printed my two statements in parallel columns as if they contained a self-evident contradiction. The Bishop of Oxford was evidently much amused with the now well-worn paragraph, and being in a facetious vein, felt moved to read quotations from my two letters for the delectation of the peers of the realm. I am happy to have afforded some little mirth to the grave and reverend bishop, and would willingly share in it, but I am quite unable to see the point of the joke. Perhaps a parallel case may render my obtuseness less remarkable. If the Bishop of Oxford, after having in such a becoming manner, with such solid reasoning, defended the union of Church and State, should nevertheless be found at some future day pleading for starving curates, or even preaching for the excellent society which relieves distressed clerks in holy orders with pecuniary grants and bundles of cast-off clothing, or if we should hear him deploring that a clergyman should, according to advertisement in The Rock, be subsisting upon buttermilk and potatoes, would his lordship be charged with inconsistency, and would it be commendable for some humorous member of the venerable bench, in tones of mimicry, to make him the subject of public ridicule? The case is precisely parallel to mine: but if there were any fun in it, it would surely lie in the folly of the person who should imagine the non-existent inconsistency.

"The poverty of some Dissenting ministers is only an argument against the voluntary principle as far as the extreme distress of a considerable number of the Anglican clergy is an argument against State support. The painful evil of clerical poverty exists under both forms of maintenance, and it ought not to be made the ground of mutual attack or recrimination, but should be deeply deplored and manfully grappled with. From reasons not essential to either system a great evil arises; a zealous emulation as to which shall soonest rid itself of the mischief would be most honourable, but to twit each other with our sorrows is as unwise as it is ungenerous.

"Every man who speaks freely what he believes, and follows truth with a confident unreserve, will be open to the charge of inconsistency, and yet there will be only an apparent ground for the accusation. Such, I am sure, is the fact in this case. If I advocate the voluntary system, must I shut my eyes to its failures, or be impeached for folly? Must I defend its working as absolute perfection, or else be grossly unreasonable in preferring it? If I point out its shortcomings in order to amend them, am I self-convicted of inconsistency? It may seem so to the Bishop of Oxford, but I claim the right to differ from him without being ridiculous. One illustration, and I will not further occupy your space. Suppose that two farms in Ireland are put in comparison. I declare my preference for number two, and yet regret that it is much depreciated in value by a piece of incorrigible bog. A gentleman, who vehemently advocates the superiority of farm number one, hearing my two statements, resolves to make me his laughing-stock at the next agricultural dinner, and, being in the full swing of his oratory, exclaims: 'This Mr. Spurgeon, to whom some people look up to so much, has spoken in a certain letter most glowingly of the farm which he is weak enough to admire, and yet I will read to you from a document in which he admits that there is a horrible and irreclaimable bog upon it. Ladies and gentlemen, the absurdity is manifest even to the blind; but what a prospect is before you if his judgment is followed! What say you to universal quagmires? How would you feel if your homesteads and estates were all turned into quivering morasses, and if the fine property of his lordship in the chair should be transformed into a vast slough of despond?' In some uncivilised rural nook there may be a benighted population sufficiently moonstruck to admire the logic and applaud the humour of such observations; but even with so congenial an audience the acclamations would soon be silenced when the conveniently forgetful orator was reminded that his own favourite farm, about which he could not utter sufficient laudation, was afflicted with a bog equally bottomless with that which he so much decried. It is probable that our imaginary orator would scarcely have sense enough to wish that he had not spoken; in this only does his case differ from that of Mr. Samuel Wilberforce.—Yours truly, "C. H. Spurgeon."

"Clapham, July 3. When Mr. Spurgeon took the chair at the quarterly meeting of the London Baptist Association at Hampstead, on July 14, he again referred to this subject. Dr. Brock had been invited to a meeting for that evening on the Irish Church; and he, the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, would be glad to be invited to a similar assembly, and there to meet "the Rev. Father in God, the Bishop of Oxford, with him to discuss the whole question." In the evening Mr. Spurgeon preached the Association sermon on "Spiritual Health."