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