The Bierton Crisis

By David Clarke

Abshott Publications

All things work together for good to them that love God and are the called according to His purposes

ISBN 978-0-953947-4-8

First Published as a private document in 1984 Then in the Philippines on 16th January 2003 In the UK 16th January 2012

Abshott Publications 11 Hayling Close Fareham

Hampshire United Kingdom


ISBN 978-0-953947-4-8

Introduction 1984

The following pages contain a collection of recorded events, which seek to explain the reason for my secession from the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Church.

Bierton is a

village near

Aylesbury in


The Bierton

Church was a

society, in law, called Strict and Particular Baptists,

formed in 1831 and was presided by the son of John Warburton of Trowbridge, Wiltshire. It and became a Gospel Standard listed church in 1983. My succession from this church was not a separation from any other Strict Baptist church just the Bierton Church. I was not the subject of church discipline but rather I withdrew from the communion as a matter nod conscience.And according to our church rules practice I am still a member.

Conscience free

My voluntary leaving of this society leaves me free in conscience to relate my experiences, being bound only by the Law of Christ and not the rules of that society. The date of my secession was the 26th of June 1984.

Love covers many errors

I am certain I shall make more enemies through this publication, for they will say it is all wrong, names ought not to be mentioned nor letters published without prior consent from their writers. Even of this be the case, for the truths sake I will not remain silent, knowing this: the day is coming when we shall all appear before the Judgement set of Christ and then all shall be revealed. I apologies if I cause unjust offence for this is not my aim.

It is hope many may learn from my sad experience and that my treatment of the serious matters that I write able will be helpful for any who find them selves having to deal with the issues that I have spoken of.

Let them that have ears to hear, hear what I say and judge for them, bearing in mind charity covereth the multitude of sins (I Peter 4 8). All the members of the church have now passed away. Only I and another member of the church are left alive.

A common problem

I hope this will help others to avoid similar pitfalls and that this record will be of aid to recover

the fallen (Deut. 22 4).

Pastor less churches and churches not run on biblical lines must surely fall by the same means unless they be faithful to the word of God and obey the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14 15).

The issues spoken about range from Particular Redemption, dealing with offences, the Law of Moses and the rule of the gospel. I speak about Gospel invitations rather than offers. I speak about the Gospel Standard Articles, the Sabbath day and gospel rest.

I believe what is recorded reflects similar situations throughout the land in these days where men have lost sight of the cause of Christ and the purpose of His Gospel Church (Hos..... 4 6, Isa 5 13).

A testimony for the elect of God

My prayer is that the Gospel of God will be declared to this generation and the elect of Christ be gathered and called unto him. That my testimony may serve to the glory of God.



Introduction 1984 3

Conscience free 3

Love covers many errors 4

A common problem 4

A testimony for the elect of God 5

General letter to all those Persons 14

listed below: 14

This letter general is sent to: 15

Note from the publishers 16

David’s views are very clear 22

Church rules and Church Business 25

  1. Truth Causes a Division (Luke 2 51) 27

    An attempt to resolve the difficulty 28

    The examples given in order 29

    Effects of this address 29

    Church meeting called for 30

    Transcript from the minutes 30

    Chairman forbids discussion 30

    Chairman comments upon the sermon 31

    Chair opposed 31

    Chairman’s Disapproval 32

    Help called for 32

    Chairman re-instated 33

    Post Script to the church minutes 33

    My observations 34

    Leaving the meeting 34

  2. My method of dealing 35

    with the problem 35

    My Letter To Mr Arminian the 2nd of May 1983


    Mr Arminians Reaction to my letter 46

    Mr Arminians Response 47

    My Response to Mr Armenians’ Letter 48

    Mr Arminians response was as follows: - 48

    My response to Mr Armenians’ second note


    Requested Help from Mr Faith 50

    Request Help from Mr Collier 50

    Called again to speak to Mr Arminian 50

  3. Controversy 51

    over Strict Communion 51

    Mr Pickwick preaches at Bierton 51

    Letter from Mr Pickwick 53

    Mr Opponent of Dunstable Baptist Objects


    Letter to Mr Opponent 60

  4. Visitors and Strict Communion 66

    The following is a transcript sent to Mr Howe

    7.II .82 67

    Mr Howe’s reply 69

  5. Evangelical Repentance 72

Erroneous views of Mrs Moses 72

A transcript of that meeting is as follows: - 73

Mrs Moses’s response 76

Mr Howe and the Added Articles 77

6 Problem of the Children’s Hymn 79

book 79

The church meeting 79

Minutes cause embarrassment 80

The Hymns in particular were: - 83

Letter from Mr Trustee 1st (Trustee) 86

My Response to the Church Meeting 88

  1. I Consider leaving the Church 89

    Circumstance 90

    Mr Arminian cannot remain in fellowship with the church 92

    Secretary’s Response 94

    Church not governed by the bible 95

    Example 1 96

    Example 2 97

    My last example: 98

    The Church teaching general redemption 98 Second reason 98

    The Church’s response to my letter 99

  2. Decision to Stay 99

    Battle number three 100

    Heresy or Holy Table 101

    The matter unresolved 106

    No church order 106

  3. Discovery 107

    of more Uncommon Ground 107

    Concern over Ecumenicalism in Aylesbury 107 Letter to Mr Trustee 2nd: Re Lectures on the Reformation 108

  4. A Dream 112

Background to the dream 112

A dream and its effects 112

Further attempts to resolve our disorder 115

Mr Arminian speaks of The Table of God 117

Help from Mr Evangelical 118

Reaction to the letter 118

Four members of the Church walk out 122

The scripture speaks 123

Speaker from the Congregation 127

Dream Recalled 128

  1. Communion Refused 129

    Withdrawal from the communion 129

    Refusal to conduct the communion 129

    The churches response to my actions 134

    Further attempts to remedy our disorders 134

    Letter sent to Mr Croydon 145

    Mr Paul Crane asked to be our Overseer 146

  2. Mr Fuller 155

    Gospel Standard Articles 155

    Church unable to deal with the issue 165

    My letter to the Gospel Standard Committee


    Matter to be brought to the church. 167

  3. Leprosy Discovered 167

    Restoration of the communion at Bierton 168

    Leprosy cannot be cured 168

    Church meeting reveals the disease 169

    Baptism, sin and the commandments 173

    For the record in references to baptism: 174

    For the record regarding Sin 175

    For the record regarding 176

    Reaction to the church meeting 176

  4. Announcement of Registration 177

    Mr Overseer makes a special visit 177

    I am persuaded to stay 178

    An Address given 178

    My resignation from office as secretary 181

    Resignation from office 182

    Resignation from membership 182

    Three Areas of Compromise 183

    Call of Abraham 186

    Recommendation 187

    Cessation of truth 187

    Conclusion 192

    Where does this leave us? 192

    Letter sent to all our visiting ministers 193

    Conscience speaks 197

    Mrs Moses refuses to attend meeting 197

    What should I do? 198

    Matters relating to Mrs. Evered 199

    My endorsement of Bierton 199

    The Law not Believers Rule of Conduct 200

    Gospel Standard Articles 201

    A course of action 202

    How does this concern us 203

    Solution 204

    Two alternatives 204

    My preference 205

    The disputed articles 205

    My version of Articles 26 206

    Need for clarification 208

    The Church aught to be a guide to others 213

    The activity of ecumenicalism 214

    Conclusion 215

    Recorded cassette abhorrent to Mrs Moses 218

    My response to Mrs Moses objections 219

    Mr Overseers response 219

    Church discipline 226

    Response to my letter 230

  5. I seek a City 231

    My hopes and desires 231

    Conclusion to the whole matter 232

  6. Bierton Articles of Religion 234

    of 1831 234

    The Articles are as follows: 234

  7. History of Bierton 239

    a Gospel Standard Cause 239

    Joining the Bierton Church 242

    No knowledge of churches government 250

    How the church functioned 251

    I was thankful for this reply 260

    The second move to join Gospel Standard 261

    New chairman elected 262

    The church vote against 262

    Differences of opinion 266

    My Conclusion 268

    The third move become Gospel Standard 271

    Fourth move to join the GS cause 272

  8. Bierton a Gospel Standard 272

    Cause 16th January 1981 272

    Joining the Gospel Standard 272

    My visit to the Bierton folk 275

    Mr John Just letter to the church at Bierton 278 My reactions 279

    Church reaction to John Just letter 281

    Enquiry Gospel Standard Committee 282

    Reply from Gospel Standard Committee 284

    Repercussions of My letter to GS Com. 286

    Reaction from Mr Fuller 289

    Conclusion 294

    Letter Mr Role’s of Luton Added Articles 297

    Dear Mr Roles 18th Aug. 1984 297

    Repentance and responsibility 303

    My comments Article 32 307

  9. Gospel Standard Articles 309

Articles of Faith and Rule 310

  1. Church Rules 325

    Admittance Into Church Membership 325

    Severance of any member from the church 332

  2. Note from David the Author 335

  3. Other Publications 337

General letter to all those Persons

listed below:

Please find enclosed a copy of an article written by my own hand called the ‘Bierton Crisis.’ I have sent a copy to each of the persons mentioned below for they are all in some way connected with these things related in my article. Some names are mentioned others have their letters reproduced in this account. Others are trustees and some are Churches were I am engaged to preach.

It has been suggested I should have asked permission to mention people’s names or reproduce their letters sent to others or me. But for the cause of truth such is not the way I am lead to act. I see in the New Testament letters sent and read public ally many containing named persons of saints and enemies to truth. Ought we to let any differently?

I do hope my readers will seek the Lord that he gives them wisdom to judge and discern between good and evil. My prayer is that this testimony of mine may be of help to all concerned.

I would ask the reader to pray for me and my family and the folk at Bierton; I have a fond love

for my friends their. Who can tell what the God of all grace may do for us.

I would value help, advice, reproof or correction from them that are moved with a concern and love for the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus the Lord.

This letter general is sent to:

Mr Fuller, minister, Watford.

Mr Overseer, overseer of the Bierton cause, Lakenheath.

Mr 1689 2nd, trustee and minister of the gospel, Bedford.

Mr Trustee 1st, trustee and deacon (Eaton Bray), Eddlesborough.

Mr Fuller 3rd, minister of the gospel, Dunstable. Mr Pickwick, deacon of the Baptist Church,


Mr John Just, Dunstable.

Mr Evangelical, minister of the gospel, Southborough.

Mr Senior, minister of the gospel, Luton.

Mr Croydon, minister of the gospel Croydon.

Mr Fuller Aylesbury, former minister of the gospel, Ivanhoe.

Mr C Lawrence, minister of the gospel, Harold. Mr S Scott – Pearson, minister of the gospel,


Mr Roles of Luton

Mr Faith, minister of the gospel, Reading.

Mr Trustee 3rd, trustee, minister Blunham Strict and Particular Baptist

The churches at: Evington, Oakington, Attleborough, Bierton, Blackheath and Stamford.


David Clarke I Cor. 16 22-24 31/10/84

Note from the publishers

David Clarke is the sole remaining male member of the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists, a Gospel Standard cause, and this book is David’s personal testament that tells of his conversion from crime to Christ, on 16th January 1970, whilst suffering from the effects of a bad trip on LSD. It continues and tells of his pursuit of truth and wish

to follow Christ, as best he could. In this pursuit he read the bible intensely, along with a range of classical Christian literature, and sought the help of many professing Christians.

David sifted through the many differences and contentious issues that divided professing Christians at that time because he and his brother Michael were both criminals in the 60’s and brought up by their parents in Aylesbury and had not come from a religious background. He finally joined the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Church, in 1976 concluding that their doctrinal base, which formed the basis of their society formed in 1831, was a faithful representation of those truths taught in the Bible. Those truths being expressed as the distinguishing doctrines of grace and more fully expressed in the First London Baptist Confession of Faith 1646, 2nd Edition.

The Bierton Church became a Gospel Standard cause in 1981, whose Articles of Religion are a clearer distillation of the 1646 Baptist Confession, and so were not inconsistent with the beliefs and practise of the Bierton Church. However this caused serious opposition from various quarters from without the church resulting in a dilemma

and problems that David had to deal with. This was because he was the churches secretary and felt those issues that were raised were important and it was necessary to resolve them.

The story tells of David’s call to preach the gospel that involved a church process in sending him to go wherever the lord opened the door, in January 1982. Both Mr Hill of Luton Ebenezer, and Mr Hope of Reading, recommended David’s application to preach to the Church and it was accepted.

The story relates his experience as a sent minister of the church, preaching in many churches in England, during which time he learned of the many difficulties that churches were experiencing and believers were struggling with issues. David believed these issues needed to be addressed. David says he became aware that the people of God were suffering and were in need of help as expressed by Isaiah 5 13. Isaiah 5: 13

Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.

This book also tells of David’s endeavour to

reach is former friends in crime when he invited them all to a meeting at the Bierton Church, on 5th June 1983, at which meeting David was able to tell of all what the Lord Jesus had done for him. Significantly Michael, David’s brother was there, with his family. David and Michael were both criminals in the 60’s and were sentence to prison for malicious wounding and possessing a firearm without a license.

Providentially this meeting was televised and available on this link.

It was 16 years later that Michael too became a Christian and was baptised in an old oil drum in New Bilibid Prison, on 16th September 2000, whilst serving his 16-year sentence in this Philippine jail.

It was after this meeting that David noticed his troubles appeared to begin and he contended with his church over matters of doctrine and practice. A fall into error of belief and conduct that were Hymns relating to general redemption had been introduced to the Church, views with respect to the Law of Moses were held, that were contrary to their articles of religion and false views relating to giving reverence to holy tables and buildings.

As a matter of principle and conscience David seceded from the church in 1984 and wrote his privately published book, “The Bierton Crisis”, which he circulated to all the Trustee’s and all concerned. The church did not terminate his membership as they wished him to return.

It was David’s argument that when men look to tradition, and were not governed by scripture, then there is a cessation of truth among them because truth is no longer of prime concern, only in so far that it keeps or preserves their traditions and order that they have become use too. Whether that order, or way of life, be according to the word of God or not.

David realized that men might begin well, according to the faith of Christ, but fall from grace and turn aside to vain jangling following the traditions of men and false notions regarding the Law of Moses. By falling from grace he means a lapse from teaching the way of grace. David also witnessed this fact during his preaching tour of the Philippines and in New Bilibid Prison in 2002. This occurred when speaking to criminals in New Bilibid Prison when certain so called converted criminals and religious volunteers who were mostly

Arminians opposed David’s preaching and ministry because he drink wine and mixing with sinners late a night in the Prison. David now calls them the Don’t Doers and this was just the same religious spirit that he had opposed at the Bierton Church. This account is written about in David’s book, and our publication, “Before the Cock Crows”.

Bierton Church was a Gospel Standard cause and as such was governed by strict rules relating to membership, only the church can terminate the membership of its members and this is a very important rule. See Gospel Standard Rule 22, Severance of any member from the church.

During David’s time in the Bierton Church he had to deal with a range of contentious issues that plagued the professing Christian church in that day. These contentions ranged from Calvinism and Arminianism, the Gospel as a rule of life rather than the Law of Moses. The preaching or none offer of the gospel as opposed to offering the gospel, now referred to as Fullerism. Problems relating to the added articles of the Gospel Standard trust. The charges of being a Hyper Calvinist and an Antinomian. The role of women in the church, head coverings, and holy tables the use or none

use of a television set or cassette recorder to record meetings.

David also discovered a great divide that existed between the Gospel Standard Baptists and Grace Baptists, a division that is very serious. David noted that many were falling into the lapsed position of offering the gospel and turning from their Gospel Standard position. This divide was sinister because the London Grace Baptists Association contended earnestly against the Bierton Church because they were a Gospel Standard cause and that contention is current, on going and a threat to many his day.

David’s views are very clear

and he believes they are according to the scripture and principles of truth.

Our own articles of religion govern our Church and they we free to associate with any society provided this does not conflict with our articles of religion as expressed in our trust deed.

Only the church are permitted to elect their own trustees.

Trustees cannot pass on the churches trust deed, or church property, to another body without the

Churches permission.

Particular Redemption is a truth and any hymns expressing general redemption should not be sung or taught in the Church.

The Gospel or Royal Law of liberty is the rule of life for the believer and not the Law of Moses.

The gospel is to be preached with no “free offers”of grace to men.

The added articles of the Gospel Standard need clarification as they have caused some to stumble. They are essentially correct and are saying it is not right to offer Christ to men because the atonement is limited and unless a man be regenerated he cannot believe in or lay hold on Christ.

Women have their place in the Church but not as elders, or ruling the men, and head coverings for ladies is a custom taught in scripture.

There is no place in the Christian faith to hold views that relate to holy tables and buildings or relics.

The use of television sets, radio, reading of newspapers,

Recording equipment and other electronic means

of communication, such as the cell phone and Internet, are not to be dictated by a churches or another person’s conscience.

David’s books treat these subjects very seriously and he believes that he has been called by the Lord Jesus to share his experience to all who are concerned and are seeking to honour and follow the lord Jesus Christ. It is David’s desire that it may prove a very helpful read as it has been written as it were, with a pen of iron on a lead table. That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! Job 19:24

When David first published, “The Bierton Crisis”, it was sent only to those who were directly involved out of courtesy. In that edition he informed the reader that his secession left him free in conscience and not governed by the church rules, but rather for truths sake, being governed only by the law of Christ.

The Church did not terminate David’s membership, as they wanted him to return, as can be confirmed by Mr Overseer of Lakenheath. Mr Overseer was the churches over sear and is able to confirm that it was the Churches wish that David

return to Bierton. And also when David returned from mission work in the Philippines in 2003, he suggested he reopen the Bierton chapel that had been closed for worship in December 2002.

David has written this account out of conviction, conscience and principle that what is written is of great importance. He does not wish to high light personal issues or breach any rule of confidentiality and will not be printing any persons personal identity, without their expressed permission. He is contacting all who have been mentioned in his first edition of, “The Bierton Crisis”, seeking permission to print their letters or communications or alternatively to remove their identity to avoid their personal infringement or privacy.

Church rules and Church Business

It is normal courtesy for all church matters, that are spoken in private, should not be discussed out side of the church with out the churches permission, in just the same way as personal matters within a family are private and not to spoken about without permission of the parties concerned. How ever this rule is the ordinary rule and matters of a serious nature can be spoken about in an appropriate way.

In the same way the law of the land states that if a person witnesses and is privy to a crime they are legal bound to report the matter to the police. David believes in this case and cause of truth the Lord Jesus has addressed this issue.

What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matth. 10:11. David is the last remaining church member and has the right to speak of all those issue affecting the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

David is the sole remaining member of the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Society and now responsible for all the Church affairs. And in David’s first edition of, “The Bierton Crisis”, he said that his secession left him free in conscience, not bound by the rules of that society, being bound only by the Law of Christ, to tell of his experience. This left him free to make a stand for truth, which is what he did. The church was a liberty to terminate his membership but they did not do so as they wanted him to return.

Abshott Publications

Churches: Dunstable, Evington, Oakington,



Leicester, Nottingham,



Luton, Oxford, Reading,


Kendal, Dunstable, Bedford,Attleborough, Rowley Regis, Prestwood, Linslaid, Blackheath, Evington, Walgrave, Fenstanton, Uffington, Colnebrook, Grove, Ebenezer Luton, Tamworth Road, Hedge End.

In this publication personal names have been removed in the interest of privacy.

  1. Truth Causes a Division (Luke 2 51)

    The following sermon notes were made before and after I preached at the weeknight meeting at the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Chapel on Wednesday the 20th of April 1983. I believe that sermon was the instrument laid at the root of the error, which caused the division, and parting of the way between myself and the Church at Bierton. I seceded from the Church on the 26th of June 1984.

    Our church had run a Sunday school for many years and each anniversary Mr Arminian, one of our members and a sent minister from the church, would conduct the service. I was surprised to observe the Mr Arminian had selected, for the second year

    running, two children’s hymns for the children and their unconverted parents to sing. The hymns were “Jesus love me this I know, co’s the bible tells me so” also “There is a green hill far away”. In his comment he stated that Jesus loved them each one. It was matter that cause me concern for Mr Arminian was a sent minister from the Bierton Church who had become a Gospel Standard cause and he was teaching general redemption rather than particular redemption.

    An attempt to resolve the difficulty

    On Wednesday, the 20th of April 1983, I preached a sermon, during our week evening meeting, at the Bierton Baptist Chapel. The text being, this is a faithful saying and these things I will that thou affirm constantly. That they, which have believed in God, might be careful to maintain good works’ (Titus 3 8). In my attempt to apply the truth of this text, bearing in mind the current needs and position of our church at Bierton, I gave examples, by way of direct application. I stated how we might be found to take heed to this exhortation if we restored a suitable children’s hymn book which did not contain hymns expressing general redemption &

    universal redeeming love to all children. I stated also it would be a good work to set our church in order even though some would not credit this to be a good work. That in this pursuit there may be things not acceptable to our natural carnal desires and us as individuals.

    The examples given in order

    We had no ruling authority and needed a pastor or minister for teaching and ruling well.

    We should teach truth in our Sunday school and not error such as ‘ universal redeeming love’ for all children. I asserted it was wrong to teach the children or lead them to believe in general redemption and that a step to avoid this would be to restore a suitable hymnbook, which was in accordance with our own Confession of Faith.

    Effects of this address

    During this address I observed the countenance of Mr Arminian who shook his head from Side to side. This was at the point I said it was heresy to teach the children Jesus died for them each one. He said, at another time, he knew not by what spirit I spoke that evening.

    Church meeting called for

    Mrs Gurney, after the meeting, asked when we could have a church meeting to discuss these matters. Our quarterly meeting was due to be held that April so we booked the 27th day of April at 2:30 p.m. At this meeting Mr Arminian was the chairman and read from the 23rd Psalm.

    Transcript from the minutes

    At this meeting Mr Arminian was the chairman and the minutes read as follows:

    The chairman made introductory comments regarding his position as chairman and that by the next church meeting he would have fulfilled that office for one year and that he wished the church to seek a chairman to succeed him. This was because he could not conduct church affairs whilst there were disagreements amongst the members.

    Chairman forbids discussion

    The chairman informed the church that our rules relating to matters of serious Importance could not be brought forward at any church meeting unless notice is given at A church meeting one-month

    previous thereto (according to rule 15 of the Gospel Standard rules). Therefore any matters arising from the sermon preached by Mr D. Clarke could not be raised or dealt with at that meeting.

    Chairman comments upon the sermon

    The chairman stated that I had made serious charge against the Bierton church and that he wished the ‘ chair ‘ to be respected and honoured by this ruling authority

    Chair opposed

    After general matters had been discussed and church business had finished Mr D. Clarke opposed the Chairman regarding the sermon preached explaining he wished the church to give their opinion as to their belief in respect of teaching the children and their unconverted Parents, at the Sunday school Good Friday meetings, general redemption in opposition to particular redemption. I said my charge of them teaching heresy was justifiable for Mr Arminian had said himself, at the Good Friday service both last year and this year, Jesus had died for each one of the children. Also they were teaching the children to sing Jesus had died for them and he loves them all.

    Chairman’s Disapproval

    The chairman expressed his disapproval since he said this matter could not be raised since it was contrary to the rule 15 of the Gospel Standard rule book. Also Mr D Clarke was out of order and must have permission of the church to discuss this matter.

    Mr. D Clarke expressed his view that since it was a case of serious disorder and the Cause of truth would suffer prejudice if left for one month, rule 15 allowed for his action. Also that it would be wrong to leave for a whole month such a charge being unanswered. (P.S. Mr. Clarke Believed this delay was a tactic of Satan and so the Devil was resisted in the same way as Cromwell deposed the King of England who maintained “the divine right of a King to rule in unrighteousness”.

    Help called for

    I put to the church that they call independent witnesses, such as a minister of another Cause and one of the trustees. I suggested Mr. Hill of Luton, or Mr. Hope of Reading, but Miss G Niece expressed a minister who was not so well known to them might be better. I suggested Mr. Ramsbottom, of Luton, and Miss B. Mother suggested Mr. P Trustees 1,

    (Trustee) of Eaton Bray. This motion was put to the church seconded by Mrs. M Clarke and carried by vote, 5 to 2.

    Chairman re-instated

    Since I had assumed the office of chairman to deal with the above I then asked Mr Arminian to close the meeting; with he did leading in prayer.

    Post Script to the church minutes

    There is a postscript to the above church minutes and they read as follows:

    During the debate Mr Arminian asked the church if he could have an honourable dismissal to seek membership elsewhere and that in his view it was wrong for Mr D Clarke to join the church knowing these hymns were tough the children; therefore he aught not to seek such changes. The church gave no reply to M. King except Mr D Clarke who explained the church could not give him honourable dismissal but for a justifiable reason and that this issue could not be considered justifiable, but rather if he taught these views (of general redemption to children) the church could not license him to preach.

    After the postscript a note explains the church

    could not recall the last paragraph of the postscript and would note adopt it as part of their minutes.

    My observations

    At this meeting I saw something of sanctimonious religion wriggling like a snake; my conscience would not allow me to remain silent but rather stamp on the serpent.

    Leaving the meeting

    Coming with grief from the chapel both my wife and I meet to our joy and delight Mr Hill, of Luton, He was standing on the corner of Bierton cross roads outside the Pentecostal Chapel. I had left the church some 10 years ago because of their Arminianism. Mr Hill had come by us from Luton and walked some two miles along Bircott Lane, having mistakenly come to preach at Bierton that evening. We believe he was sent of God to our aid and comfort for after we embarrassed him and poured our hearts out unto him he encouraged us by words of exhortation saying we should honour the Lord, for they that honour me I will honour (I Sam 2 30).

    After tea Mr Hill and I attended the evening

    meeting and heard Mr Goode preach the word of God.

  2. My method of dealing

    with the problem

    I wrote the following letter to Mr Arminian and gave it to him by hand by hand at the weeknight meeting of 2nd. May 1983. No one in the church knew the contents of this letter until Mr Arminian read parts of it at Church meeting. (See Church minutes. Unofficial Church meeting 19/10/83). It was difficult to approach.

    My Letter To Mr Arminian the 2nd of May 1983

    Dear Mr Arminian;

    It would seem your conduct and policy, as displayed at our recent church meeting amounts to shameful behaviour and I wish you to know not only have you caused me offence but also my wife who also is a church member and could only serve to harm the church at Bierton. But thanks be to God who given more grace is careful and watchful over his little ones and will not suffer this harm to destroy his own work in the people of God. But

    through this disorder my God will turn these evils to their good.

    In the first instance your opening comments, the church, expresses doubt as to the spirit by which I preached at the chapel on Wednesday last.

    Then you attempted to prohibit any matters arising from my exhortation, to the people of God, to be diligent in all good works, by informing them there were standing orders which forbid any matter of serious concern from rising unless one month had elapsed and a meeting ordered for that expressed concern. Even Mrs Gurney expressed her frustration saying that it would be wrong to prohibit any member of the church from expressing their views for a whole month.

    The rule 15 in question, Mr Arminian, is connected with motions being put to the church and not discussing matters of serious concern. You cannot make a rule saying these matters are not to be discussed simply because you are averse to them.

    A correct understanding of rule 15 us this: any matter which is of a serious nature, requiring church approval, must not be put forward as a motion for

    the church to decide unless it has been given due consideration, and one month has been allowed to elapse before the matter be put as a motion to the church to be carried or rejected by a vote of the church.

    Now after this you then claimed that I was out of order when bringing these matters rightly to the church. You them proceeded to charge me and others with joining the church to cause disorder and disturb the peace and since we were not baptized as strict Baptist in the Bierton Church we ought to have remained in the churches from where we came. All of which conduct serves to show your conduct as a Christian, a minister and member of the church is unacceptable.

    My suspicions are, you are an enemy to those doctrines I seek to preserve, or you see no need to be careful of your choice of words when teaching the children and unconverted parents. Both of which attitudes are contrary to the church at Bierton of which I joined.

    It is on this basis I content with you Arminius, that I was perfectly in order and disclaim your accusations of bulldozing methods in the church

    meeting. It was necessary for the cause of truth and decency to take charge of a runaway horse. Now what would you say of Phinehas (Numbers 25 – verses 7-8). It was you who gave me the ‘chair’ and I that gave it back to you after the matter had been rightly put to the church. And those who may claim lawful membership. And the distinguishing love of God.

    We hold that the Lord God does not love all individuals the same nor does he love all infants and children as you put forward in public meetings. But he has distinguishing love, which was set upon his people, who are stilled in scripture as the little ones, having set this love upon them before the foundations of the world. These are the elect the body of Christ, those for whom the Lord died and of the rest, children included, they are hated with the hatred he had towards Esau. For as it is written Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated. Being said for them before they were born that the purpose of God according to election might stand. We ought therefore to be careful when selecting Hymns for the children to sing and in front of their unconverted parents. For the children’s Hymnbook contains doctrines contrary to the scriptures and our articles

    of faith. This, Arminius, is not what you call changing things at Bierton, but rather doing a good work and putting things right in our own church and returning to the old paths, in the spirit of true Christian charity and love for the Lord Jesus Christ.

    There were several other issues, which came to light in that meeting which I now seek to examine and call your attention to, apart from the spirit by which of, which you preached were in doubt of.

    You charged the Rev. Stephen Scott – Pearson with wearing a Romanising Clerical collar and by your inference smeared his character. Now while this is true, he wears, such a collar on certain occasions, it is not true to say from that inference that he supported and advanced Roman Catholic friends who would be offended.

    For the records, which you know to be true, the magazine in question show Mr Pearson in a public protest meeting against the visit of the Roman Pontiff. It can be said of the Rev. Stephen Scott- Pearson, he is a faithful contender for the Christian faith.

    Can this be said of you?

    Secondly, you accuse myself and others of

    having what you call a free will Baptism (what ever that means) and we ought to have remained in the churches from whence we came. You say we came to disrupt the church for we knew of all the conduct and the Sunday school before we came. Bertha actually testified it was only of recent days these Hymns in question have been sung by the children. And my testimony is this; I questioned you last year on the same issue, the first time I heard such matters being put to the children.

    Now let me remind you again, it was you who put the motion to the chair, contrary to the rule you accuse me of violating, when the church voted to join the Gospel Standard causes. Therefore, who has been seeking changes and affected them, and who is in breach of the rules?

    I remind you again, you are a trustee and have public ally acknowledged, before God, the Church and the world, to carefully promote, preserve and keep watch over the doctrines are those stated in our articles of faith. Now if you do not believe them nor seek to preserve them, not only as a trustee but also a minister, you have lied on oath, and in court of law is criminal.

    Your concern, Mr Arminian, ought not to be am I being personally attached and under an inquisition? But rather, do I advance views contrary to the scripture and dishonour Christ, and are my views in conflict with his word and the articles of the Church I have joined? You ought not to fall back upon your age to justify your activity for as Elihu says (Job 32 – Verse 9) Great men are not prophesying. But to prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil (2 Thess. 5 – Verse 22). My charge being it was not just an appearance of evil but an actual evil doctrine being advanced at the children’s school. This doctrine being contrary to your own church and confession of faith.

    See supplement: Bierton Articles of faith and trustees responsibilities

    Now I read the situation like this: - you being Baptized with a Free Grace Baptism at the Bierton Church, (whatever that baptism means, for that can only be the counter part to a free will Baptism), are the lawful son of the household of faith at the Church at Bierton. That I and others having a free will Baptism, not being baptized at Bierton are not the lawful children. That you have the right to

    hold views and conduct yourselves contrary to the scriptures and the articles of the church which you joined by reason of the lawful Baptism. This, Mr Arminian, is not Christian doctrine but rather the opposite. For they that do and hold the practice and believe the articles having given themselves up to membership and been received into membership are the lawful children and not they who speak with the mouth and act contrary to their affirmations.

    You say you are under inquisition. Pray let me know how can you be given an honourable discharge to join another church if you will not subject yourself to the lawful enquiry of the church you are in membership of. You are a Minister of the Bierton Church and therefore have professed a calling to it, now here are those Graces accompanying this call to assist and support you in such diligent enquiries as to the doctrines you preach. You cannot advance views contrary to the scripture and fall back and hide behind a cloud of weakness when the church, or congregation or private member questions your advances, Now, Mr Arminian, I as a lawful member of the Bierton Church protest to you. You have before the church stated by inference that I spoke by an evil spirit when preaching at the church on

    Wednesday last and by your conduct lately pointed out in this letter oppose my actions. Now where is your charity here to the little ones of Christ’s fold and his ministers? My great consolation is this, they said the same of My Lord Jesus Christ and that he had a devil. It is you, Mr Arminian, by your traditions do violate the Gospel of Christ and make it void. For you say, being a lawful son of the church you can act as you feel and believe even when in conflict with the articles of the Church, objecting when questioned with these words; the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. Hence you misquote scripture to support your conduct. Therefore you by your traditions (that is unwritten beliefs and current behaviour in the Church) seek to prevent and resist the lawful children from exercising their privileges by smearing their profession and opposing their Christian stand against error and falsehood. You charge me with being out of order by not respecting the ‘ chair ‘. Mr Arminian, the ‘chair’ was out of order when seeking to administer a ruling contrary to the rule. We have no such view of the ‘ Divine Right of the Chair’, for if the ‘chair’ acts contrary to the rules. But I do realize you may have been ignorant of this matter but you had one whole week

    to consider and deliberate your actions.

    From the outcome of that meeting it appears you deliberately attempted to oppose the cause of truth and frustrate the children of God seeking to continue in your traditions and false ways.

    My charge to the church still stands and you as a member of that church must also answer. The Charge is a follows:

    To say to the children God loves them each one and that Jesus died for them all each one is contrary to the Scripture, is false doctrine and is opposed to the articles of our church.

    To teach the children and their unconverted parents by encouraging the children to sing the Hymns, such as ‘ Jesus loves me this know, for the bible tells me so’, etc. Is not a good work. -Nor should we put words in their mouths expressing faith, hope and love, and teach them to call God their Father and Christ their Saviour, when they will most likely find one day to their confusion, that Satan is their father, and Christ their Judge.

    This is not a good work but rather an evil one, for it serves to delude their minds as to the nature of the love of God in Jesus Christ to the elect children

    of God.

    Now listen, it was the whole Church at Bierton who recently gave assent to the truth of these articles of faith that I seek to preserve, maintain and promote, for I believe them and preach them. These truths of the distinguishing love if God and particular redemption have always been the doctrines of the Church at Bierton, ask those who were there before you.

    I am seeking to preserve and maintain these doctrines of the faith once delivered unto the Saints and my question to the Church at Bierton is their objective: are they? – And my question to you, Mr Arminian, is: are you?

    Now Arminius, Christian Charity covers a multitude of sins, but only those sins which are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ, and if you review what has transpired I will forgive and receive you as a Christian brother of you show the evidences of grace and obey the scriptures. For I exhort you with the words of the Apostles, ‘ be ye reconciled to God ‘. I come to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and say may we be reconciled through Christ and be united by His Spirit in the

    common cause of truth and grace.

    Yours in the name of Jesus Christ, the beloved Son of God the Father, seeking the good and peace of Zion,

    David Clarke.

    P.S. For your own good and those involved I am willing To submit what I have said to the judgment of any Christian and Minister being in membership of a Strict Baptist cause to judge the spirit by which I Act and the matters in question.

    Mr Arminians Reaction to my letter

    In order to resolve the conflict I sought to speak to Mr Arminian personally but he was out when I called to I left him a note.

    I called and left a note to Mr Arminian, which read as follows: -

    Dear Arminius,

    Sorry you were out when I called this evening. I wonder if you would be willing to discuss

    some of the matters I mentioned in my letter to you

    in the presence of Mr Faith and Mr Hill or some other ministers or brethren in order to correct our

    differences according to the scriptures. Math. 18 Verses 15-17.

    David Clarke.

    28th May 1983.

    Mr Arminians Response

    The following is a copy of the reply of Mr Arminian to my note of 28th May 1983

    Dear David,

    Thank you for your note of Thursday last. I’m sorry that we were out.


    I am quite willing to meet Mr P. Hope at some convenient Prearranged time.

    My heart sorrow, grief and contrition with solemn humbleness Is before God.


    Sincerely in Christ Jesus My Lord.

    Amen. Arminius

    My Response to Mr Armenians’ Letter

    I responded to Mr Armenian’s letter as follows: - Dear Arminius,

    Thank you for your note of Saturday, I note you do not mention Mr Hill. If Mr Collier will be willing to come with Mr Faith, would you be willing to discuss the matters I have raised with them present.

    Math. 18 Verses 15-17 and Math. 5 Verses 23 Yours Sincerely,

    David Clarke.

    P.S. The reference to the door being shut if felt was a manipulation craft practiced by witches.

    Mr Arminians response was as follows: -

    Monday, 6th June 1983. Dear David,

    I am sorry for this delay since your last note regarding TWO ministers to carry out some enquiry. I did not realize you were enforcing TWO ministers when the scripture suggests and states ONE OR TWO witnesses.

    Never the less, if you feel that two ministers would be more satisfactory for your conscience sake, you may do as you feel.

    Mr Collier is not very well and I do not think it would be kind to ask him to become involved.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know your further arrangements. My heart before GOD is to forgive even as I pray I have been forgiven.



    IN LOVE, Arminius.

    My response to Mr Armenians’ second note

    Because of the serious nature of the problem I thought Mr Collier was ideally suited to discuss and judge in these affairs since he was a Pastor and Minister of the Gospel and his personal knowledge of our church would be very helpful. I believed that if he knew the natures of my charge against Mr Arminian he would be able to show that I was not making an issue our of nothing.

    Requested Help from Mr Faith

    I telephoned Mr Faith and briefly explained the problem

    And Mr Faith said he would come only if Mr Arminian was in agreement.

    Request Help from Mr Collier

    I then called to see Mr Collier and asked his advice. In his View the matter was clear, particular redemption is the truth of the Bible, Therefore, the Hymnbook must be changed.

    He then suggested I try to speak again to Mr Arminian before any such meeting with him.

    Called again to speak to Mr Arminian

    I called again to speak to Mr Arminian very fearfully under much pressure. I explained firstly, that I sought an apology from him since. He had offended me, as I had already indicated in my letter. I then apologized to him for any unjust offence I may have caused him.

    Mutual terms expressing sorrow were exchanged and we left

    After an embrace, scripture reading and prayer.

    I though the matter was now really resolved and that Mr Arminian

    Did not really see my concern and his simplicity were excusable.

  3. Controversy

    over Strict Communion

    Immediately following that notable church meeting of the 27th April, another wave of trouble hit us at Bierton.

    Again I was at the forefront and held in derision of them that are quick and hasty in judgment.

    Mr Pickwick preaches at Bierton

    We had engaged to preach for us at Bierton the Deacon of the Baptist Church at Dunstable, Mr Pickwick. This day was the 1st May 1983. And after the evening meeting and according to our usual custom the Bierton Church had their communion. It is normal for the minister who preaches that day should conduct that meeting.

    However, I was confronted that evening after our normal preaching service with a problem.

    Mr Pickwick was perplexed, he had asked me

    what I wanted him to do for we had now become a Gospel Standard listed church and he was not in membership of such a church. Also the communion of the church at Dunstable was not restricted in the same way as expressed in the Gospel Standard articles of religion, which meant things would be out of order for him to conduct the communion service. Herein was a problem to me.

    At the same time I had Mrs Moses come to me and instruct me saying I was to conduct the proceeding of the communion that night myself.

    At this point I was vexed in spirit. The church had enlisted as a Gospel Standard cause without due consideration given to what they were doing. Things were very out of order when women issue instructions to men and, after my charge to the church regarding allowing general redemption being taught in the Sunday school and their unrepentant concern; I realized what I must do.

    I briefly explained to Mr Pickwick he must do as I say, there were things going on which require I must act, as I am to do.

    We proceeded and entered the chapel from the

    vestry. I said to the church Mr Pickwick was not in membership of a strict communion Baptist Church and I asked Mr Pickwick to confirm this before them. After which I said Mr Pickwick could not sit down with us since our rules and order forbid it. At this the faces of some of the members showed their disapproval, but I was determined, if they trifle with jointing league with a body or denomination they will go by the rule book of that association and hence avoid disorder. After all they had joined the Gospel Standard and not me.

    I suggested Mr Pickwick remain with us and sit in the Chapel while we partake of the communion.

    This caused me much grief; nevertheless, one must do what one must do at times like this. Having apologized to Mr Pickwick he said he quite understood.

    Letter from Mr Pickwick

    After 10 days I received a letter from Mr Pickwick and this following is a transcript.

    10TH May 1983.

    Dear David,

    This is just a brief hurried note, which John has

    kindly offered to pass on to you on Thursday.

    You will I believe have by now received a letter from Pastor Dix relating to the relating to the Communion Service when I was with you recently.

    This was just mentioned by me to the Pastor casually when I went on a recent car journey with him. I was very surprised at the hostile attitude he took and told him that I could see no reason for him to write you in the manner he has.

    Mr Opponent of Dunstable Baptist Objects Mr Opponent’s letter of objection DUNSTABLE BAPTIST CHAPEL

    10th May 1983.

    Mr David Clarke, Bierton.

    Dear David,

    I am very, very distressed at the way in which Douglas Levy was treated during his visit to Bierton on the first Sunday in May. As I understand it, he preached at both morning and evening services as had been arranged. He then tells me that prior to the evening service you indicated your intention

    of personally conducting the Lord’s Supper. Then, when this was about to commence, with Douglas actually sitting in one of the chairs at the Tables, you raised a point of order saying that according to the rules now adopted by the Church Douglas was not entitled to join with you at the Table. I gather that in spite of verbal protest from one of the members present, you then asked Douglas either to withdraw, or alternatively to take a seat at the back, which in fact he did. Douglas tells me he had no notion of what your intentions were, and from what happened it appears the members had no indication either.

    It is not my practice to interfere in any way with the affairs of another church, unless of course I am asked, but on this occasion conscience demands that I write to you. Douglas is a member and a deacon here, and I believe he has been shamefully treated. As his pastor I would be utterly failing in my responsibility if I did not express to you, and to the friends at Bierton, my deep sorrow and concern that he should have been subjected to such a humiliating experience. I would also like to make the point that by coming to Bierton on that day Douglas was obviously unable to join at the Lord’s

    Table in his own church; through what happened he was kept from it altogether.

    Sadly, through events of this kind, through this lack of sensitivity and the rigid application of what after all are man made rules, all to many have been driven away from S.B. Chapels. It has caused untold sorrow and heartache, as I know through accounts heard from my childhood onwards. Honestly, David, I cannot believe we can look for the blessing of God, either at Bierton or elsewhere, when we are prepared to treat fellow believers for whom the Saviour died, in this unkind and ungracious way.

    There are, of course, other issues involved. Douglas came as a minister of God’ Word to your souls, but was then debarred from joining with you at the Table of the Lord whose Word he had preached. If you think this through you will see this can only undermine the word he had preached. If there is some reason why he may not sit at the Table, is there also some reason why his ministry may not be received? I also believe that what happened is coming dangerously near to sacramentalism by giving a higher place to the Table than to the Word. This has always been the sacramentalism position, whether high Anglican or Roman Catholic.

    Believe me, I have no desire to cause any kind of upset or strife, particularly among those whom I have know and loved in the Lord for almost 25 years. Neither would I wish to see you change from that rule of you sincerely believe it is according to the Word of God. But I do feel that if the is upheld, then you ought not to invite Douglas, or others in the same position, to come and preach for you. If you have Particular Baptists to preach for you, who are not allowed to commune with you, then it does seem to me that the sacrament is being exalted above the Word.

    With all best wishes,

    You’re sincerely

    Copy to Mr Arminius Let the spiritual judge

    Kenneth Dix.

    Now again, for the spiritual, for them that have been tried and exercised in these things, let them judge. Are there any wise amongst the people of God?

    What should I do?

    I put pen to paper and wrote to Mr Pickwick.

    The following is that transcript: -

    12th May 1983

    Dear Douglas,

    Re: your letter of the 10th May 1983. Thank you for your letter and explanation of the circumstances following your visit with us at Bierton. I have received a letter from Mr Opponent and shall write in due course.

    I am sorry I am unable to elaborate in detail the reasons for my actions at this stage, but I believe you have sufficient understanding in these matters and are neither offended nor humiliated over the events, which transpired during the communion service.

    This whole matter I wish to bring before our coming church meeting because of the serious repercussions, which must inevitably take place.

    My view as to ought or may preach in our church, are those who are sound in the faith and have a gift and are also in church membership of a church where there is a structure for discipline for obvious reasons.

    Now whether they are of the same order (Strict

    Communion) it matters not in so far as they preach the faith once delivered unto the Saints. But this rule for preaching does not apply to the Communion if the articles of the church stipulate the order of Communion is limited to Strict Communion Baptists. However, our position at Bierton is slightly different for whilst the Church endorse the G. S. Articles of faith they do have their own articles set out in the Trust Deed and these I believe allow for the Pastor of the Church to exercise His own Judgment in the name (authority) of the Church to admit or bar from the communion those who he has scriptural reasons for so doing. However, at Bierton this flexibility cannot easily function for we have no Pastor (elder) to regulate these affairs and as a private member I acted on Sunday last with reasons not yet fully disclosed to you, but gave sufficient reasons for you to understand and agree. In the fear God, I believe I acted and look to Him to justify my actions in the courts of your conscience.

    In no way did my action call into question your standing in Christ and no way can it be said you ought not to preach at the cause of Bierton, for the previous mentioned reasons and for the same

    reasons why W. Huntington, Toplady or Newton ought to be allowed to preach in a Strict Baptist Chapel.

    I am sorry, however, you missed your own Church Communion but I do trust this incident will prove to be of God and turn out for the good of the cause at Bierton.

    In the absence of a Pastor and having no authority except as a Private member I was unable to act lawfully in allowing you to sit at the communion. But had we a pastor no doubt you would have been permitted.

    The problems arising from a pastor less church have proved to me that unless the Articles of Faith and Order have rule not only does practice and order fail but also truth and doctrine falls and error creeps in which is very difficult to put right.

    Yours with Christian Regard

    David Clarke

    Jude Verse 3

    Letter to Mr Opponent

    After delivering my letter to Mr Pickwick by and hand I wrote to Mr Opponent believing he had

    really stepped out of place.

    1st July 1983

    Dear Mr Opponent,

    Thank you for your letter of the 10th May 1983, I am sorry not to have written sooner but I had hoped to bring the matter to our church meeting, but matters have been delayed.

    I cannot as yet write on behalf of the church for we have not yet been able to discuss the matter to settle such affairs, but hope to at the next church meeting.

    I have written to Douglas regarding the incident and expressed my personal views, which I believe would the founders of the Church at Bierton hold the views. However, we are without a Pastor and the Church have recently aligned with Gospel Standard Churches and are in agreement with their ‘ Articles of Faith ‘ which express the doctrinal views of the Church at Bierton in greater detail than those expressed in our Trust Deed.

    In order to ascertain the legitimacy of the Church at Bierton in so joining and aligning with Gospel Standard cause I wrote to Mr Secretary

    (the secretary of the committee) in respect of our association, also Mr Hill of Luton. I questioned the matters of our own Trust Deeds and it’s written Articles and Practice believing any deviation from their expressed tenets would be in fact unlawful and immoral. Now whether or not our people at Bierton are aware of the issues involved I cannot really say, although I have reason to believe they are not. The actual position of the Church at Bierton is as follows:

    We have our own articles of faith and rules of practice expressed in our Trust Deeds and cannot deviate from them in matters of faith or practice.

    Our alliance with the Gospel Standard cause is by mutual agreement and the articles of faith and practice set out in ‘ these Articles ‘, so long as they are not inconsistent with our own articles already mentioned.

    Our order as set out in the trust deeds is clear, we are a Strict Communion Baptist Church and so membership and Communion of the Lords Supper is restricted to Strict Communion Baptists. Although I believe our articles allow for the Pastor or elders to admit or bar the communion to they

    whom they have scriptural reasons for so doing. But we are without a Pastor or means of flexible Church Government, which such officers could allow. Therefore the articles of faith and practice must bear rule in such absence.

    For the record Mr Howe and his wife recently sought to partake with us at the communion, but were prevented by myself (I believe with the churches agreement) for their non –membership of a church of same faith and order (but again without a pastor or elder who should decide these policies?). I wrote immediately to him and his wife and he assured me there was no offence made.

    Concerning the event causing concern; we had at the evening service before the communion service, none church members, those who felt they ought to be allowed to commune with us (who are in membership with no church, nor believe they need to be), John Just, and his friend, who I don’t believe would expect to commune with us but these would be discriminated against had Douglas been admitted to the communion.

    I would maintain that since our Articles restrict the “Communion” to Strict Communion Baptists,

    the church ought to preserve their order during the absence of Pastor and seek God earnestly and by all means seek a Pastor. In effect a gracious and Lawful means of church government.

    I expressed to Douglas there were certain reasons why I acted but could not elaborate to him since it involved discussing church business, which was causing some concern amongst some of the matters.

    In respect of who may preach in a Strict Baptist Church, I maintained thus to Douglas, that my view is, faith comes before order and I see no biblical reason for excluding a particular Baptist or Presbyterian from preaching in a Strict Baptist Church provide they were of the same faith. Otherwise it would be equally inconsistent for hymns and read sermons by none Strict Baptists being public ally read and voices in our meetings. This I believe has always been the view of Strict Baptist in the past: (I cannot say of today, but each church are responsible for their own judgments in these matters). And held responsible by the Lord for their judgments.

    Now surely a particular Baptist Minister would not be offended at Strict Communion and would

    respect the order of the church he be engaged to preach at. (He may not agree).

    This practice, I believe, do not make the ordinance sacramental nor points to it for the preached word is held above the communion in every case. This view I would argue is perfectly in according to Christian unity and liberty and in bonds of the Gospel of Christ. To say Douglas ought not to preach if he cannot partake of the ordinance surely makes or points to a sacramental view of the Super for that view makes to supper equal to the preached word, which it is not and neither is Baptism. See G. S. 1862 enquires w.r.t. Ministers preaching J.C Philpot?

    I maintain Faith and the Word by which it comes is before all of these things.

    I am sorry if I have caused any grief. I am equally opposed to man made traditions particularly when they oppose the Gospel and truth. We have common enemies, our carnal self, natural man’s wisdom, anti-Christian principles, and apostasy in the professed churches all to contend against. Not forgetting the great enemy of the church, the Devil and his spirit and ministers.

    I expect the church will send word when we have discussed the matter you have raised.

    Yours with Christian Regards in the fear of God

    David Clarke

  4. Visitors and Strict Communion

    This series of events and letters were submitted to the judgment of the church and are recorded in the minutes of the 6th July 1983, meeting.

    Letter to Mr Peter Howe, Ivanhoe Particular Baptist.

    Former minister of the Ivanhoe Particular Baptist In my letter to Mr Opponent I mentioned an

    incident, which occurred at the Bierton Chapel with

    Mr. Peter Howe. Both he and his wife attended the Bierton Chapel on the first Lord’s Day in November 1982, and requested to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

    Mr Dawson, from Kent, was the minister engaged to preach on that day and since did not know our two visitors. I spoke to Mr Howe and his wife explaining our communion was restricted to they of the same faith and orders.

    Mr Howe’s circumstances were such that the

    Church at Ivanhoe had down and hence Mr Howe and his wife were not now in membership anywhere. I also knew Mr Howe held to duty faith and duty repentance. He had also recommended I read Andrew Fuller’s book titled ‘ The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation” which supported his views. He also held that the Ten Commandments were the rule of life for the Believer. All such views were in conflict with my views and the Bierton Church (or so I thought). Knowing these things I was not at liberty to invite Mr Howe and his wife to the communion. I said to them in much fear and tender consideration that they would not be permitted to partake of the communion. I wrote to them immediately, the next day to explain the Churches order of communion and apologized for any offence caused.

    The following is a transcript sent to Mr Howe 7.II .82

    Dear Peter and Pauline,

    I do hope we did not offend you on the Lord’s Day evening, we do not wish to offend in any way. I call to mind those scriptures as, Matthew 18 v 6, and I Chr... 16 verses 21 – 22. May I explain our position

    in respect to the matter of Church communion? We hold the administration of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper to be in the hands and authority of the local Church (it’s self being subject to Christ Jesus and His Laws) and our order is such that we restrict the communion to.

    Baptized believers (by immersion)

    Who have given themselves to Church membership of the same faith as ourselves?

    That they are actually in communion with his or her own Church.

    Therefore in respect to yourselves it would be viewed you are not in membership anywhere, but would hope you be graciously helped and directed as to what you should do.

    Please do not think we wish to hold ourselves aloof more orderly than others but rather seeking to hold to those things once given unto the saints and aiming at a defence of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In pursuit of these things decisions have to be made which often are against our natural inclinations.

    Trusting you are well,

    Yours with Christian regards,

    David Clarke.

    Church approved of my letter and actions

    At the next church meeting I informed the members of this letter sent and also the reply Mr Howe had sent to me. The churches approved of my actions and were in agreement with my judgments.

    Mr Howe’s reply

    The following is a photocopy of Mr Howe reply:


    David Clarke Esq. 187 Aylesbury Road

    Tel: Aylesbury 85480 PWH/MH

    7th January 1983 Dear David

    I do apologized most sincerely for the delay in replying to your letter of 7 November. This is a busy time of year for me and December particularly is a difficult month because virtually nothing can be

    done in the week leading up Christmas.

    It was kind of you to write to me setting out the position with regard to the Lord’s Table, and may I say at once that my wife and I were not in any way annoyed at what transpired when we were last at Bierton. Indeed it is good to know that some churches exercises some measure of discipline with regard to the Lord’s Table.

    However, having said that, clearly you were uncomfortable at what took place and I can well understand your grounds for discomfort. It is one thing to say that those coming to the Table should actually be in communion with their own church, but you are well aware that we were brought to the position of closing the Chapel at Ivanhoe for reasons beyond our control and which I trust do not reflect on us after having put in nine years’ service there. As things stand, I concluded to myself rather wistfully as I left your church that evening that we would have been in exactly the same position had we been forced to leave a church having run off with the collection! Had the positions been reversed and you had been approaching me as to whether in those circumstances you could have participated in the communion service, without doubt I would have

    replied in the affirmative. As to your penultimate paragraph about church membership, we hope indeed to be “ graciously helped and directed as to what (we) should do “. We find ourselves in the difficult position however where no church has given any indication that an approach by us about membership would be welcome. Regrettably I have to say that, spending as I do much time on the road each year, I find when I go to a pub for a meal (which I do from time to time when I am not quite sure where to eat) I receive a far more friendly welcome than I do in some churches. I hope indeed that we will receive the help to which you have referred, but it is a matter of great sadness to me that, having been involved in active Christian service for over 30 years I have never felt at such a loose end.

    May I conclude more positively in wishing you and Irene and your children every blessing for 1983?

    Yours very sincerely PP. Peter Howe

  5. Evangelical Repentance

    I believe I am now in a better position to speak to Mr. Howe about this matter and feel I should do so. At that time I acted as a private Church member and not with the authority of the Church because I was neither a deacon nor an elder. Had I public office to act, for and no behalf of the Church, then I could have asserted the churches doctrinal position and taken the matter up with Mr Howe as far as far as it was necessary. In order to show our differences, for the truths sake and Mr Howe’s good.

    I now feel I should have been even more open with Mr Howe over his position and doctrinal statements. We were a Gospel Standard cause and in that light is was only right to explain and discus differences in doctrine with any visitor.

    Erroneous views of Mrs Moses

    At that time I knew that Mrs Moses prominent member of the Bierton Church, had erroneous views as to the doctrine of repentance toward God, and that since we were now a Gospel Standard cause as a church we had committed ourselves to defend those articles set out in the Gospel Standard articles of religion.

    Mrs Moses false views came to light when she rejected the use of the term ‘ evangelical repentance’ used by Mr J Tanton who preached at Bierton, earlier that year of 1982. The matter she raised at the church meeting of October 13th 1982.

    A transcript of that meeting is as follows: -

    Mrs Moses also made mention of the fact the Mr Tanton had used the words ‘ Evangelical Repentance’ to which she objected. Since there was no such mention in the scripture. What action the Church aught to take was not specified; however no response from the remaining members by way of objection was made.

    The secretary (myself) reminded the Church of Article 26 of the Gospel Standard causes where our position was specified as to our responsibilities or otherwise of men towards God in this matter.

    I wrote immediately to Mrs Moses to help sort our some of her views in respect of the subject.

    Letter to Mrs Moses 13th October 1982

    Dear Mrs Moses,

    Re: The terms Evangelical Repentance used by

    Mr Tantum during his preaching engagement on the Lord’s Day evening 19th September 82

    May I offer for your consideration the following thoughts on the subject above? The term evangelist as used in the scripture, means: One who announces good tidings; see Acts 21 verse 8, Ephesians 4 verse II and Timothy verse 4 & 5. All protestant churches since the reformation were known as Evangelical Churches. The term repentance is another scripture word; see acts 22 verse 21, Acts 3 verse 19, John 16

    verse 7 & 8 Matthew 5 verse 4 and many other places mentioned. The nature and kinds of repentance the scripture mentions are various.

    There is a natural repentance which the light of nature and natural conscience dictates Romans 2 verse 4 & 5.

    There is a national repentance an outward humiliation for sin. Such as Ahab exercised I King 21, verse 29, and such had Tyre & Sidon exercised would have remained until the day of Jews, if they were privilege, as the Jews were, by the preaching and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    There is a hypercritical repentance, which the

    children of Israel exercised when in the wilderness. See Psalm 78 verse 34 – 37 and Hosea chapter 7

    verses 16.

    There is a legal repentance, which is mere work of the law, which in time wears off and comes to nothing. Both of which Pharaoh and Judas exercised. Exodus 9 verse 27 and Matthew 27 verse 4 and Cain, Genesis 4 verse 3. All of which may be experienced by reprobates and is none other than the sorrow of the world, which worketh death. 2 Corinthian 7 verse 10.

    There is an evangelical repentance to which Mr Tantum referred too in his ministry, although he did not draw the distinctions just mentioned. This evangelical repentance is not a duty but a Free Grace Blessing and a Gift of God for which our article 26 contends is not the duty of all men. It may be called evangelical repentance for such penitent sinners derive comfort and consolation by the gospel. Since through the blessings of the blood of Christ which when applied to the conscience it cleanses from all unrighteousness. It flows from the free grace of God. His Spirit who reproves of sin and enlightens the eyes to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin and to which the gospel invites

    such men to rest in Christ Jesus, and of which are may references. Proverbs 28 verse 13. I John chapter I verse 6-9, Isaiah 4 verse 7, Jeremiah 3

    verse 12-13, Luke 24 verse 47, Acts 5 verse 31. Those who experience this Blessing are the elect only, and it is a gracious privilege and the gospel exhorts them to exercise. A full treatment of this subject may be found in Dr Gill’s body of Divinity, under the subject repentance toward God. Dr Gill is held in very high regard by the Gospel Standard ministers to which both Mr Gadsby, William Huntington, John Warburton, John Kershaw and Mr Philpot, paid particular respect. A further exposition has appeared in the Gospel Standard magazine September 1967 to which I would refer you to for further explanation.

    Trusting this will be of some help. Before and since joining Our Church I have been much exercised over this matter and am persuaded that our article 26 expresses a scriptural view, although the wording of it needs clarification.

    Yours with Christian regards David Clarke.

    Mrs Moses’s response

    To my letter Mrs Moses stated that my points were not relevant to her rejecting the term evangelical repentance and she had spoken to another minister and he too agreed with her; there was no such thing as evangelical repentance.

    I never did find out the underlying reason for anyone rejecting the term evangelical repentance nor would Mrs Moses state whom the minister was she had asked about this matter.

    Mr Howe and the Added Articles

    This problem was directly connected with Mr Howe, for he had now approached the church at Bierton to partake of her communion. Connected because we had recently become a Gospel Standard Cause no scriptural references to the added articles (1878) of the Gospel Standard Strict Baptist. Also, in his view, that stand mentioned in these articles of religion could not be supported from the scriptures. This matter Mr Howe mentioned to me sometime during 1972 to 1976. At that time I had not closely studied the Gospel Standard position but I did reject the notions of duty faith and duty repentance of which Mr Howe maintained. I was obliged to support my view entirely from the scripture and

    answer his objections from first principles without reference to any articles of faith. I had read of Mr Howe’s views in a book written by Mr A.W. Pink but I did not agree with him on this matter. The book entitled ‘ The Total Depravity of Man’.

    My concern, when Mr Howe asked to partake of the communion at Bierton, was that we were in disagreement over these issues and the church was now a Gospel Standard cause; so how could Mr Howe now wish to join with us in our communion? The concerns that I had were those if the views of Mrs Moses were held and taught by others in the church and I taught the truth of the scripture then it would appear to our visitors we were not of one mind and at variance.

    At that time I realized there was a difficulty if I spoke to Mr Howe over his views on repentance and saving faith. Because had I advanced, what I considered to be, a biblical position as specified in our articles of religion and acted on that occasion as a church representative, whilst some of our members advance different views and denied evangelical repentance when we would be out of order as a church.

    I began to realize folk were not clear in their thinking and in error in their doctrine as regards repentance towards God and their understanding of our articles of religion. The matter had to be put right but the way to do it was not clear to me. People were generally of the opinion that if you left the matter alone it would all clear up in the end. I am not of that opinion. Nevertheless the matter never was settled in a biblical.

  6. Problem of the Children’s Hymn


    In this chapter I relate how an attempt was made to resolve the issue connected with the children being tough hymns containing doctrine contrary to our articles of religion and scripture.

    The church meeting

    I do not think it possible for anyone to know the anxiety and stress, which such matters cause unless they have gone through similar paths.

    Nevertheless they had to be faced. Who is sufficient for these things?

    Truth was at stake and must be preserved. I was certainly alone, for none of the church appeared to

    stand with me save my wife.

    Church meeting held the 15th of June 1983 Scripture reading I Cor. II 20-30

    This was an interim church meeting seeking to bring to the church the correspondence from Mr P Jane (trustee) and Mr B. Ramsbottom, minister of the gospel, Luton.

    After reading the minutes of the last meeting a matter of the 27th April, clarification was raised by Miss G Niece regarding the postscript of these minutes. (This postscript has been quoted on page under this heading). It was asked, “ What views were meant. When stating they would prohibit Mr Arminian from preaching’. I explained, ‘ the views which prohibit any preacher from teaching at Bierton were that of teaching children God loves them all and the Lord Jesus died for each of them.

    Minutes cause embarrassment

    It was felt the paragraph ought to be removed for the sake of future generations and so avoid conveying wrong information.

    The secretary expressed the purpose of the minutes were to convey a true and accurate account

    of what actually took place in the meetings whether the church were in agreement of what transpired or not.

    It was suggested that since some members could not call the events, related in the postscript, taking place then a clarifying note to be made. This was agreed by the vote.

    It was further motioned the whole postscript be removed but could not be carried by vote.

    The chairman resolved the impasse by signing the minutes under the end of the minutes before the postscript. This was done to the satisfaction of the members.

    It seems evident from these notes that the church did not like what was recorded and sought to clear Mr Arminian of all possible blame. Some wanted the minutes to be tampered with and hide the truth, an evident sign of the natural man and his ways.

    If they wished to clear Mr Arminian of the charge I had made, then they could have asked him what were his views and doctrines. Mr Arminian to this day has never denied my charge of teaching “Universal” love to all children and has never expressed he though himself wrong when saying

    to all the children Jesus had died for them each one.

    I realized again that this business about voting and women dictating that was or was to be was wrong.

    However, back to the minutes: -

    The secretary informed that church the reason for the gathering was on two accounts: -

    ALetters from Mr. Senior, minister of the Gospel (Luton Bethel) and Mr. P. Trustees was to be read to the church respecting the question of teaching methods used in teaching children.

    BThat a letter from Mr. Dix, minister of the Gospel (Dunstable) was to be red to the church.

    The two letters from Mr. Senior and Mr. P. Trustees were read and the secretary expressed that they both conveyed and supported he views expressed in the Bierton “ articles of faith’. After some discussion the possibility of changing the Hymn book used by the children was raised but the teachers said those hymns which appeared to some as teaching general redemption were always viewed by them as scripture, which contains the

    word ‘all’ as in Isa. 53 Verse 6, and so on; but in a limited sense.

    The Hymns in particular were: -

    There is a green hill far away.

    Jesus love me this I know for the bible tells me so.

    Mrs. G. Ellis suggested that the Hymns ought to be carefully selected.

    Mrs. Gurney motioned that the church retained the hymnbook, and the motion was carried by the vote of the church.

    Letter from Senior

    The following are the letters sent to us from Mr. Senior

    And Mr. P. Trustees 1

    To the church of God at Bierton


    Beloved friends,

    Mr. David Clarke has visited me and brought your church’s request. In the fear of God I have tried to put down a few thoughts on Sunday Schools,

    which I hope will be helpful. I have sought to avoid personalities and keep to principles.

    Desiring your real spiritual welfare. With Christian love,

    Yours sincerely, Mr Senior

    To the church of God at Bierton


    The purpose of a Sunday school is to teach the Word of God to our children.

    With the Lord’s help an attempt will be made to put things are simply and clearly as possible; otherwise there is no point in having a Sunday school.

    Though the teaching must be simple, it must be in absolute agreement with the doctrines we believe: those set out in the trust deed and the articles of faith, preached in the pulpit, and, above all, revealed in the Word of God.

    Great care is needed in the choices of the teachers. Obviously they must be gracious; in complete

    agreement with the truths we profess: and, in my opinion, church members.

    These four points would seem to be clear.

    It is on points 3 and 4 where there has been deviation in recent years. Yet even a hundred years ago one or two eminent ministers had to raise their voice against “ another gospel” being preached to children. Though simple, it must be the same truth: the vital necessity for the new birth; the sinner’s complete helplessness. We must beware against lowering standards in our desire to simple. It is the same way to heaven for a child as an adult. (NOT: if you love Jesus you will get to heaven.”)

    Thus, it should be evident that the Sunday school hymns are in complete agreement with the truth, though in simple language. Some of the popular children’s hymns are very beautiful: some are erroneous. Care must be taken. Our great concern must be for the honor of the Lord Jesus out of love to him. (I do not see how, believing in particular redemption, we can teach children, “ Jesus loves me, and this I know.”) Also some children’s hymns speak as if all children are “ lambs” – a lamb is a new believer, however young or old.

    Above all it is wrong to teach children that Jesus loved them and died for them.

    Finally, great weakness has crept in some Sunday schools in the loose appointment of teachers. We hear (concerning some girl who shows no signs of grace): “ Well, she just takes the little ones!” To be a Sunday school teacher is a long solemn thing, a weighty responsibility.

    May we not deviate from the standard of truth with sentimental views of being loving and kind?

    Letter from Mr Trustee 1st (Trustee)

    To the church worshipping at Bierton Street Baptist Chapel

    Dear Friends,

    As a trustee of your chapel I concede to your request to comment on certain teaching practices in the Sunday school.

    My wish is to avoid confrontation, which often results in division, and seek wisdom to write in such a way that may be helpful in resolving your differences/.

    It is very easy for all of us who profess the Lord’s name to continue in certain practices and adhere to

    modes of worship without realizing that we may be wide of the mark.

    On the one hand it can be argued that God’s people will not be ultimately deceived by teaching, which suggests a general atonement, because many who have listened to have proved this that doctrine and their eyes have been opened to see otherwise.

    On the hand to give anyone, whether it is believers in an unregenerate state or world lings, a false sense of security must of necessity be wrong.

    Many religious bodies are guilty of giving a false hope so we must be careful not to do the same.

    I don’t think there can be any doubt but what the hymn ‘ Jesus loves me this I know’ etc. Is not a suitable hymn for one our Sunday school because it gives this false sense of security and is not doctrinally correct.

    I suppose that one of the other hymns in question

    i.e. “ There is a green hill far away” could be sung by a group of true believers and be applicable language, but if believe the generally accepted interpretation of this is that Christ died for all men, which is not what the word of God teaches.

    It is often quiet difficult not to put words unto people’s lips that a mixed congregation cannot with all honestly hymns, but I say again it is very difficult.

    I often fear that my hope is false, but I feel I can say to the honour of my God that through the spirit’s teaching

    My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness I dare not trust the sweetest frame But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

    My prayer and desire is, that all who enter the door of Bierton Chapel, including the Sunday school children might know this true foundation.

    With Christian love, Trustee 1st

    My Response to the Church Meeting

    From the last section of the minutes and the response, or lack of it from the church. Even after I had called my two witnesses to confirm my views. Not to myself, but for the benefit of the women.

    I realized the voting system falls down and that these women ought not to determine doctrine or practice of the church.

    Now what was I to do?

  7. I Consider leaving the Church

From this time I thought seriously that I must leave the Church of Bierton for truth was not now a prime mover of our faith and practice. I had sough my God in prayer much engaged in contention for the faith, and now the people of Bierton are holding on to what they are used to. I could not see that truth could be restored whilst things remained as they had been.

I had two children now and twins on the way, and wished my children to be brought up where truth would be taught and not from a sentimental point of view. If God hated some men then let the children know. If God loved some men let the children know. But I could not remain among those who teach a sentimental, universal love for all. That was how it appeared to me. I had enough of that whilst touring the wilderness of the Arminian Churches of Aylesbury, in which Mr Arminian had said I should have remained. I announced to the

church shortly after, my intention to leave and then I placed the house on the market ‘ for sale’. We had though we could move closer to my work and perhaps go to the Church at Eaton Bray.


My wife was with child at the time and due to give birth in November, and if we were to move, then if it be of God then we concluded we must sell our house without delay.

The house was sold ‘ Subject to Contract ‘ to our first customer, After looking at properties at Eaton Bray and Eddlesborough, and sounding out the folk at the Eaton chapel we began to doubt what we were about.

Sale falls through

After two or three weeks we had word our prospective buyer could not go ahead with the purchase, and so withdraw from the procedure of buying.

The effects of our doubts regarding Eaton Bray and the imminent birth of our twins, we concluded we could not go ahead with the sale of our house at present, and hence whilst at the Bierton Church

must continue and fight the cause of truth even though the people hated the contention.

Next Church Meeting 6th (July 1983 2. 30 p.m.)

Our next church meeting was held on the 6th July 1983 at 2.30 p.m. At this meeting the letter from Mr. Dix was read to the church. The secretary then informed the church of the letter received by Mr. Levy, for he had written to say he did not agree with Mr. Dix’s response to the event mentioned. To the contrary he was not humiliated but approved of the action taken by myself.

The secretary explained in greater detail the circumstances relating to that accusation, and Mr. Evered, had suggested that I on that occasion was to conduct the service. Further to this the secretary reminded the church of their recent approval of the Gospel Standard Articles of religion. They express that the communion was restricted to membership of a church not practicing strict communion, nor holding to strict communion principles.

Mr. D. Clarke then explained he had written to both Mr. Levy and Mr. Dix apologizing for any offence wrongly caused, also explaining the whole

matter to them both.

It was also expressed by some members that the incident had upset them and they disapproved of it. Also that since Mr. Clarke had written it was not necessary for a further letter of apology, explanation, or otherwise to Mr. Dix.

After consideration of the above issue it was mentioned that on future Lords Days when the communion service was to be held, only ministers of Strict Communion Baptist’s are engaged to preach.

This is done to avoid a similar upset. Also, so that open Communion Baptists be free to commune in their own Churches on that day, since this was the general custom. This motion was approved and carried by vote.

Mr Arminian cannot remain in fellowship with the church

It was later on in the meeting that Mr Arminian asked to be excused while the church dealt with the contents of two letters written to the church by him. Upon which he left the meeting.

The following is a transcript of these letters: -

Bierton, Wed. 15.6.83 My Dear Friends,

God who knows me through and through prompts me to have this little note ready to leave with you.

My failings are many. The ability to be composed in argument or debate is not among my virtues.

Rather than be led into saying other things we would regret I feel it wiser to deal with it in this way.

As a preliminary ‘ step ‘ and after much earnest prayerful sorrowing consideration, for the sake of my mind, conscience, health and faith before God, for a period, at least, I am persuaded, fully persuaded, I cannot remain in fellowship with the Church at Bierton.

Only the lord knows the state of my mind at this time and the end from the beginning whether this will be temporary or permanent.

Pray for me.

God bless you all. Deeply sorrowing, forgive me. Christian Love


7. 83

173 Aylesbury Road, Bierton Wed. 6.

My Dear Friends,

The Lord knowing my feeling of weakness in body, mind and spirit, I know I must have this letter ready to leave with you.

I agreed ‘ to chair ‘ the Church Meetings here for one year, that time has now expired.

David has letters from me regarding current engagements with you to speak and also that I have declined any future engagements for 1984.

While I remain in membership with you I feel it is in ‘name’ only. My prayers before God continue constant, that he will show me (painfully perhaps) his way out from such pressure and concerns over these past months.

Enclosed letter 15.6.83. May show something of my concern at that time. “ I waited patiently for the Lord”.

May God bless you all and forgive me. Arminius

Secretary’s Response

The secretary explained he had letters expressing that Mr Arminian requested to be relieved of his preaching engagement in December 25th, 1983 and that on future week night services, if the secretary be present then they hold a prayer meeting only, shared by them both.

Also consideration of these matters it was mentioned and agreed, Mr. Clarke and Miss G Niece speak to Mr Arminian and ask him to explain his thoughts and actions (subject to Mr Arminian agreement).

After treating the above matters I read the following letter to the church: -

5th July 1983

To the Church at Bierton,

May I explain the reasons for my recent announcement to leave the church at Bierton and disclose to you my mind? There are two main reasons for concluding we are being called away, of God, and they are follows: -

Church not governed by the bible

On several issues it appears the mind of the church in general is governed by a different set

of principles from what I have learned of the scriptures. And since every man is accountable to God for the judgments he makes, and governed by his own conscience, then in answer to a good conscience. I cannot stay in a church where the governing principles are contrary to the bible.

Example 1

Rejecting the ministry of Mr Scott-Pearson Un-scriptural

The recent principles which dictated whether Mr. Scott – Pearson should preach at the chapel on the Lord’s day were as follows: -

AHe wore a clerical collar on certain occasions. BHis name appears in print with the term rev.

Prefixing his name

CHe is a particular Baptist and not Strict.

None of the reasons given had a doctrinal biblical basis as to why he ought not to preach at Bierton on my day, Lord’s Day or not. The reasons given were rather a traditional prejudice. As far as church order goes Mr. Scott – Pearson is in the same position as Mr. Levy of Dunstable.

Example 2

Miss treatment of Mr Lawrence

This was the treatment of Mr. Lawrence. If the church believed Mr Lawrence be overtaken in a fault then, according to the scripture Gal.. 6 verse 1, then they which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness: for according to James 5 verse 20 ‘ Let him know that he which recovereth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death.

Both of these men were not judge according to biblical principles had they been preaching false doctrine and continued to do so then they would rightly not be asked to preach again. However they were rejected upon another footing not according to the bible.

A church not governed by biblical principles is not church for a Christian to be in membership. It seems a dreadful shame when a church can be so concerned about issues not biblical and be so slow to stand for real important biblical gospel truths.

Last year when the Anti- Christian Pope came and polluted this land again the general mind of the church was that the chapel building was not the

place to hold a protest against the Anti-Christ for it may offend some friends.

My last example:

The Church teaching general redemption

After I challenged the church with not being careful in the selection of suitable children hymns and the appearance of teaching a general atonement, you were far from being concerned whether my charge had any weight but rather felt you knew better. It could not be said of you which was said of the Corinthians (2 Cor. 7-11), what carefulness it wrought in you, what clearing of yourselves etc. In all things ye have approved yourselves clear in this matter.

However I do realize and make allowance, you are without a pastor to watch over you in these things, and I must take this into account.

Second reason

The second reason is that of a domestic and family nature. It may be better for my wife and inevitably my family if we moved to a community where there are younger families. It is very difficult for my wife to cope with the Church’s difficulties and

the children, especially when I am away preaching and should I not provide for my own household I am worse than an infidel and have denied the faith (1 Tim. 5 v. 8).

I do not know what the future holds excepts my God determines only that which will turn out for the good of His dear people and we must earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints

We believe in the everlasting and unchangeable

love of God; and that before the foundation of the world the Father did elect a certain number of the human race unto everlasting salvation, whom He did predestinate unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will; and we believe that in fulfilling this gracious design, He did make a covenant of grace and peace with the Son and with the Holy Ghost on behalf of those persons thus chosen, and that in this covenant the Son was appointed a Saviour, and all spiritual blessings provided for the elect, and also that their persons, with all the grace and glory designed for them, were put into the hands of the Son as their Covenant Head, and made His care and charge.

We believe in the fall of our first parents, and that by it the whole of the human race became involved in, and guilty of, Original Sin; and that as they are born into the world, the whole of their posterity are, in consequence, actual transgressors against God. And we believe that by the fall all men were rendered both unable and unwilling spiritually to believe in, seek after, or love God until called and regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the only

begotten Son of God, being set up from everlasting as the Mediator of the New Covenant, and having engaged to be the Surety of His people, did, in the fullness of time, really and truly assume human nature, and not before, either in whole or in part. And we believe that, though He existed from all eternity as the eternal Son of God, the human soul of the Lord Jesus did not exist before it was created and formed in His body by Him who forms the soul of man within him, when that body was conceived, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary. And we believe that Christ’s human nature consists of a true body and reasonable soul, both of which, together and at once, the Son of God assumed into union with His Divine Person, when made of a woman and not before; that this human nature was not sinful, peccable, or mortal, though capable of death by a voluntary act, but essentially and intrinsically pure and holy; and that in it He really suffered, bled and died, as the Substitute and Surety of His church and people, in their room and stead, and for no others; whereby, together with His holy, spotless life, He fulfilled the law, and satisfied all the claims of justice, as well as made a way for all those blessings which are

needful for His people, both for time and eternity.

We believe that the eternal redemption which Christ has obtained by the shedding of His blood is special and particular; that is to say, that it was intentionally designed only for the Elect of God, the Sheep of Christ, who therefore alone share in the special and peculiar blessings thereof

We believe that the justification of God’s Elect is only by the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ imputed to them, without consideration of any works of righteousness, before or after calling, done by them, and that the full and free pardon of all their sins, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of His grace.

We believe that the work of regeneration is not an act of man’s free will and natural power, but that it springs from the operation of the mighty, efficacious and invincible grace of God.

We believe that all those who were chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son, and no others, shall, at the appointed time, certainly be convinced in their hearts of sin by the Spirit, be brought in guilty before God, and made the recipients of eternal

life, coming to Christ for salvation, and believing on Him as the Anointed of the Father, and the only Mediator between God and man; but that none can spiritually come to Christ unless drawn by the Father; and that all the elect shall be thus drawn to Christ, and shall finally persevere; so that not one of the elect shall perish, but all arrive safely in glory.

Webelievethatallmenarebynaturesocompletely dead in trespasses and sins that they cannot, while in that state, know or feel anything of God in Christ, spiritually, graciously, and savingly. And we believe that, when quickened into everlasting life in Christ (as the elect alone are, or can be, or will be), the vessel of mercy then first feels spiritually the guilt of sin, and is taught to know, in his own experience, the fall and ruin of man. Thus every quickened child of God is brought, in God’s own time and way, through the Spirit’s teaching, from necessity to depend for salvation on Christ’s blood and righteousness alone. And we believe that this teaching will not lead him to licentiousness, but make him willing to walk in good works, to which he is ordained, and which are acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ

We believe that man can never do a good work, properlysocalled,untilthegraceofGodisimplanted in his heart, and that nothing is spiritually good but what God Himself is pleased to communicate to, and work in, the soul, both to will and to do of His good pleasure. And we also believe that man’s works, good or bad, have not anything to do with his call, or being quickened, by the Holy Spirit.

We believe in the effectual calling of all the elect vessels of mercy out of the ruins of the Fall in God’s appointed time, and that the work of regeneration, or new birth, is the sovereign work of God, and His work only, the sinner being as passive therein as in his first birth, and previously thereto dead in trespasses and sins. We believe in the application of the Law to the elect sinner’s conscience by the Spirit of God, showing the sinner how greatly he has broken that Law, and feelingly condemning him for the same; and in the manifestation of mercy and pardon through Christ alone made known to the soul by God the Holy Ghost.

We believe that faith is the gift of God, as well as true spiritual repentance and hope, and a manifestation of pardon to the soul; that through faith Christ is made precious to the soul, and the

soul drawn out in love to God; that all are the fruits and effects of the blessed Spirit, and that they will most certainly be productive of good works, and a walk and conversation becoming the Gospel.

We believe in the Resurrection of the body, both of the just and the unjust; that the just (the elect) shall be raised up in glory and honour, and be openly acknowledged and fully acquitted in the Judgment Day, before angels, devils and sinners, and made fully and eternally blest both in body and soul; and that the wicked shall be raised up to be condemned, body and soul, to the unspeakable torments of hell for ever and ever.

We believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued till His Second Coming; and that the former is requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only can scripturally sit down to the Lord’s Supper who, upon their profession of faith, have been baptised, by immersion, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that, therefore, what is called “Mixed Communion” is un-scriptural, improper, and not to be allowed in the churches of Christ.

We believe that the Believer’s Rule of conduct is the gospel, and not the law, commonly called the Moral Law, issued on Mount Sinai, which hath no glory in it by reason of the glory that excelleth, that is to say, the Gospel; the Gospel containing the sum and substance and glory of all the laws which God ever promulgated from His throne, and the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts, being permitted some things which the Gospel forbids.

Wedenyandreject,asun-scripturalanderroneous, the baptism of infants, whether by immersion, sprinkling, pouring, or any other mode.

We reject as blasphemous the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration; that is, that the person baptized is or can be regenerated in, by or through baptism, much less, if possible, by infant sprinkling.

We believe in the sanctification of God’s people, the term sanctification signifying a separation and setting apart by and for God. This, in the child of God, is three-fold: 1, by election by God the Father; 2, by redemption by God the Son; and 3, by the almighty regenerating operation of God the Holy Ghost. We believe that the blessed Spirit is the Author of what is styled in Scripture the new

creature, or creation, or new heart; being, in truth, an implantation of the Divine nature, through which the child of God would, according to the inner man, be holy as God is holy, and perfectly fulfil all the good pleasure of the Father’s will; but groans being burdened, being constantly opposed by the contrary workings of the old man. We reject the doctrine of progressive sanctification, or that a child of God experiences such a gradual weakening, subduing, or rectification of the old nature, called in Scripture the old man, or such a continued general improvement as shall make him at any time less dependent upon the communications of the Spirit and grace of Christ for all goodness, or less a poor, vile, wretched, helpless sinner in himself, and in his own estimation.

We believe that the grace of God produces a real change in a man, and teaches him to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live godly, and that there is a growth in grace, which consists principally in a growing experimental knowledge of a man’s sinful self 3, the vanity of the creature, the glory of God, the spirituality of His law, and the want and worth of Jesus Christ. This is accompanied by a deepening distrust of everything but the grace

and love of God in Christ for salvation, and is not a growth in conscious goodness, but in felt necessity and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We reject the doctrine of perfection in the flesh, or that the believer ever becomes free from indwelling sin in this life, or whilst in the body. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

We reject the doctrines that the children of God cannot backslide, and that God does not chastise His people for sin. For, though we believe that a child of God is called from a death in sin to a life of righteousness, and would, according to the law of his mind, or new nature, in all respects obey God’s holy will as declared in the Scriptures, yet through the temptations of Satan, the allurements of the world, and the power and deceitfulness of indwelling sin, he may fall for a season like David, Peter, and other Bible saints did. But we believe that when the children of God thus sin against God, and transgress His holy revealed will, God does in various ways and degrees chastise them for it, not in vindictive anger, but in tender love, as a father does the son in whom he delighteth. We believe,

too, that in this matter of chastisement for sin God will deal in a most sovereign way, and as a God of judgment; so that, though the punished child shall be made to discern the reason of the rod, it is seldom safe for others to judge according to the outward appearance. We further believe that no man living in habitual sin gives any proof that he is a child of God, and we cannot, therefore, have fellowship with him, be his profession what it may.

We believe, as expressed in Article 9, in the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, and that, however much the elect of God may be tried by sin, and opposed by Satan, they shall all eventually attain to everlasting glory. Not one of them shall perish, for none can pluck them out of the Father’s hand.

We believe that the invitations of the Gospel, being spirit and life*, are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Saviour, and to repent of and forsake their sins.

We deny that Christ died for all mankind.

We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these

terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and savingly repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.

We deny that the Holy Spirit ever enlightens the non-elect, to make them capable at all of receiving grace.

We reject the doctrine called “Baxterianism”; that is to say, that while all the elect shall assuredly be saved, there is a residuum of grace in Christ for the rest, or any of the rest, if they will only accept it.

While we believe that the Gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world, as in Mark 16. 15, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.

We believe that the glorified body of the Lord Jesus Christ is the same flesh and bones now in heaven as that which hung upon the cross.

We reject the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked, and believe that all who die out of Christ shall be turned into hell, the fire of which shall

never be quenched, the wicked there suffering for ever the torments of eternal fire.

We believe that it would be unsafe; from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely- different circumstances. And we further believe that an assumption that others have been inspired as the apostles were has led to the grossest errors amongst both Romanists and professed Protestants.

Note: When Articles 32-35 were added to the original 31 Articles

Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

We believe that any such expressions as convey

to the hearers the belief that they possess a certain power to flee to the Saviour, to close in with Christ, to receive Christ, while in an unregenerate state, so that unless they do thus close with Christ, etc., They shall perish, are untrue, and must, therefore, be rejected. And we further believe that we have no Scripture warrant to take the exhortations in the Old Testament intended for the Jews in national covenant with God, and apply them in a spiritual and saving sense to undegenerated men.

We believe that there are various degrees of faith, as little faith and great faith; that when a man is quickened by the blessed Spirit, he has faith given him to know and feel that he is a sinner against God, and that without a Saviour he must sink in black despair. And we further believe that such a man will be made to cry for mercy, to mourn over and on account of his sins, and, being made to feel that he has no righteousness of his own, to hunger and thirst after Christ’s righteousness; being led on by the Spirit until, in the full assurance of faith, he has the Spirit’s witness in his heart that his sins are for ever put away; but that the faith is the same in nature as is imparted in his first awakenings, though now grown to the full assurance thereof.


(Especially for church members)

Nowallandeachofthesedoctrinesandordinances we can honestly say it is our desire to maintain and defend in one spirit and with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.

And we desire, by the grace of God, that our conversation, both in the world and in the church, may be such as becometh the gospel of Christ, and that we may live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present world.

And, as it regards each other in church communion, we desire to walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love; to watch over each other’s conversation, to stir up one another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, but, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to His revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn and admonish one another according to God’s Word.

Moreover, we desire to sympathise with each other in all conditions, both inward and outward, into which God, in His providence, may bring us; as also to bear with one another’s weaknesses,

failings, and infirmities; and particularly to pray for one another, and for all saints, and that the gospel and the ordinances thereof may be blessed to the edification and comfort of each other’s souls, and for the gathering in of vessels of mercy unto Christ.

And for every blessing and favour, both temporal and spiritual, we, who are as deserving of hell as the vilest of the vile, desire to ascribe all the praise to the glory of the grace of a Triune God.

  1. Church Rules

    Admittance Into Church Membership

    1. Any person desiring to become a member of this church must first be interviewed by the pastor (if there be one) and deacons, who, if in their judgment the candidate is suitable for membership, shall duly bring the matter before the church. A copy of the church’s Articles of Faith and Rules to be given to each candidate for their instruction.

    2. At a regularly constituted church meeting (see rules 13- 15) the candidate (whether already a member of another church or not) shall make a verbal confession of faith, and declare what he or she believes God has done for his or her soul. If

      accepted by a vote of the majority of members’ present and voting, signature in the church book to the Articles of Faith and Rules will be required. Thereafter, at the earliest convenient opportunity, the person shall, unless previously baptised by immersion, be so baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and be formally received into church fellowship at the next observance of the Lord’s Supper.

    3. Any person who, having been baptised while only in a carnal profession of religion, has since been called by the Spirit of God to a knowledge of his or her lost condition by nature and practice, and to living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, being desirous of uniting with this church, shall attend to the ordinance of believers’ baptism, according to rule 2 (last clause), for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14. 23).

    4. No minister shall be appointed as pastor until he has supplied at least months on probation, and unless there be in favour at least two-thirds (three- fifths) of the members present and voting at a church meeting duly convened for this particular purpose (see rules 13-15); nor shall any minister be invited to supply on probation without a like majority, also

      at a duly convened meeting.

    5. If at any time where there is a pastor, the conduct of such pastor should be contrary to the precepts of the gospel, or if he should depart from the Articles of Faith or any one of them, or if his ministry should become unprofitable, a majority of the members present and voting at a properly convened church meeting (see rules 13-15) shall be competent to declare that he shall no longer be the pastor; and he shall be removed from the pastorate accordingly. And at such meeting the pastor shall not be present. Always presuming that adequate opportunity has been afforded the pastor to explain himself.

    6. Any member of this church knowingly receiving the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper with any church not of the same faith and order with ourselves, shall be reproved; and should the offence be repeated, be withdrawn from.

      7.Any member knowing another to act disorderly, shall tell the offending brother or sister of his or her fault alone, in the spirit of meekness (Gal. 6. 1); and if not satisfied with the explanation, shall acquaint the pastor or deacons of the church with

      the matter; and if any member neglect to do so, and be found reporting it to others, such member shall be visited and reproved as acting contrary to Scripture rule.

      1. Any member bringing, in any manner, an open reproach on the cause shall be suspended; and no member suspended for any reason shall again be admitted to the Lord’s Supper and to the privileges of membership, until godly sorrow and repentance are manifest, and satisfactory acknowledgement is made to the church.

      2. Any member relating to any other person, not a member, what has been said or done at any church meeting, shall be liable, according to the judgment of the pastor and deacons, to be brought before the church to be dealt with.

      3. If any member repeatedly neglect to attend the preaching of the Word, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer meetings, unless from unavoidable causes known to the pastor and deacons and the church, a reason will be required for his or her absence; and if he or she shall be absent from the Lord’s Supper upon more than three successive occasions, without being able to give the pastor or deacons

        who shall visit such member a satisfactory reason for such absence, they shall bring the matter before the church to be dealt with as it shall determine, whether for reproof, suspension, or withdrawal from the offending party.

      4. Members having private differences between themselves shall not bring the same before the church before the rule laid down in Matt. 18. 15, 16, has been first attended to by the offended party; and in the event of satisfaction not being given, that the peace of the church may if possible be preserved, the offended party shall first inform the pastor or deacons (assembled); but if not satisfied with his, or their mediation or decision, the member shall bring the case before the church, by giving one month’s notice in writing to the minister or deacons.

      5. A church meeting, at which the pastor or a minister agreed by the church shall preside, shall be held every months, and oftener if required; and it is expected that all the members who are able will attend. No person shall be present at our church meetings but regular members of this church, except by special consent of the church. No member who may be under church censure shall be present at any church meeting.

      6. All church meetings shall be audibly announced from the pulpit or desk when the people are regularly assembled for worship at least on the two Lord’s Days immediately preceding the date of any such meeting.

      7. The pastor or deacons shall have it in his or their power to call a church meeting whenever he or they consider it necessary; also he or they shall be required to do so when requested by not less than of the members, in any case considered urgent; but in every case proper notice (rule 13) shall be given; and any meeting held, whether called by pastor or deacons, or both, not according to such rule, shall be of none effect.

      8. No motion of any serious importance (e.g., cases of discipline, application for membership, call to the ministry, appointment of pastor, etc.) shall be brought forward at any church meeting, unless notice thereof shall have been given at a church meeting held at least one month previous thereto; except in such a case as (in the judgment of the pastor and deacons) the cause of truth would suffer prejudice by delay.

      9. All propositions, whether for church

        membership or otherwise, and all motions, shall be seconded before being put from the chair; and in the event of the voting being equally divided on any subject to be decided, the chairman (president) shall be allowed a second (casting) vote.Any debate or difference that may arise shall be settled by the majority of the members present and voting.

      10. When any question has been decided by the majority of the church, if any member shall attempt to set aside or oppose the same decision within six months afterwards, such member shall be accounted as acting disorderly and contrary to rule 16 of this church.

      11. Female members may ask questions through a male member, or may, if asked by the chairman (president), answer any question put from the chair; otherwise they are not permitted to speak at church meetings. Should any female member persistently violate this rule, she shall be liable to suspension from the privileges of membership for months.

      12. A statement of the finances of the cause shall be laid before the church every months, when the vote of satisfaction or otherwise shall be recorded.

      13. The number of the deacons of the church shall

        not be less than two where practicable; no deacon shall at any time be appointed unless at least two- thirds (three-fifths) of the members present and voting at a church meeting held for the appointment of such deacon, be in favour of such appointment.

      14. Members of churches of the same faith and order may commune with this church by giving notice (naming their own church) to the pastor or deacons of their desire to do so not later than before the commencement of the service immediately preceding the communion service; or where the communion service is held separately, not later than the close of the preceding service.

        Severance of any member from the church

      15. The severance of any member from this church may be only effected by the church itself acting under its duly appointed officers (pastor and deacons), at a properly convened church meeting (see rules 12-15), in the following instances: -

        In respect of an orderly member for transfer to another church of the same faith and order, in which event an honourable dismissal should be granted; or,

        By disciplinary action of withdrawal AS A LAST

        RESORT in the case of any disorderly member neglecting to hear either;

        An offended member’s private remonstrance; or, after that,

        The additional exhortations of two or three other brethren; or still further,

        (3) The admonition of the whole church, according to Matt. 18. 15-17.

      16. Any member of the church considering that he has received the call of the Holy Spirit to the solemn work of the ministry of the Gospel, shall, before engaging to preach anywhere, relate to the pastor (or deacons where there is no pastor) his exercises relating thereto; who, if in his (or their) judgment the matter is indeed of the Lord, shall name the same to the church assembled according to rule 13. In the event of any question or reason entertained by any member or members (on grounds relating to walk or character) why the case should not proceed, the same must be raised and considered at this preliminary meeting; and no examination of the credentials of the member’s call shall be undertaken until such question or reason shall have been satisfactorily disposed of by the

      church. If then agreed by not less than four-fifths (two-thirds) of the members present and voting, the church shall assemble, a month later (according to rule 15), to hear from the member a relation of the matter, and (either then or at a subsequent meeting, as agreed) to hear also an exercise of his gift in preaching. If approved by four-fifths (two-thirds) of the members present and voting, the member shall be given the church’s sanction to preach.

      Any member-preaching contrary to or in neglect of this rule shall be dealt with as walking disorderly.

      Should the member consider that his case has been prejudiced, or if through assumed prejudice the pastor or deacons do not bring it forward, the matter may be dealt with according to rule 11. But except for very serious defection in the church, it is believed that when such a matter is truly of the Lord no such course will be needful.


      1. In some cases where the majority stated is not quite reached, that there may be no precipitate conclusion in so solemn a concern, it may be considered advisable for the church to hear the member preach on some further occasion or

        occasions, before coming to a final decision. This course should only be adopted when the church agrees by a majority of four-fifths (two-thirds) voting in favour.

      2. In cases of pastor less churches, it may be proper for the church to agree to invite the pastor of another church of the same faith and order to preside at the meetings relating to this important subject.

      3. Bearing in mind the solemn importance of such cases, and the serious responsibility assumed by the church in deciding the same, much earnest prayer is required that the great Head of the church would so dispose each member to act under the spirit of the fear of the Lord, and in the spirit of discernment, and of love to His truth and cause, that the voting may be regulated thereby with a single eye to His glory, according to the will of God.

      Note – The blanks in Rules 4, 12, 14, 18, 19 should be filled up, and the alternative majorities in rules 4, 20, 23, be defined, by each individual church.

  2. Note from David the Author

    One refelection and with hind sight I fell that I needed good Christian men, at the time of my conversion, to direct me in the way, in particular as to what to do with all the stolen goods that I had. No one was available or saw the need of help me in this matter or get involved. There was clearly a need of pastoral care and any Christian man could have helped in this matter.

    Now in retrospection the same was true in the Bierton Crisis, good men were needed to step in and offer help to me, just like Mr David Oldham did to his credit.

    I have very clear views of the doctrines of grace and full knowledge of the relationship of the Believers and the Law of Moses. I knew very few, in my day who see clearly in this matter.

    That the issues that caused controversy at the Bierton Church would not have happened had there been consecutive teaching in the church over the years and good me who were prepared to step in to help. This failure was due to the reliance on supply preachers with no consistent pastoral care.

    I am also aware that I remain a member of the Bierton Strict Baptist Church since the church

    never terminated my membership and I am entitled to take on the care of the Bierton Church matters now that all former members have died.

    I also am of the opinion that a clear understanding of the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem at 70 AD is important to understand the finality of the Law of Moses as its the rule of life for men as the gospel of the lord Jesus Christ declares clearly this is the rule of life for the believer.

    It is now David’s desire that this publication will serve “To build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down”. Acts 25 verse 36.


    The city and fallen walls to be rebuilt

  3. Other Publications

1 Converted LSD, Extended Edition

My testimony of David Clarke and his conversion from crime to Christ.

ISBN 9780953947324

  1. Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists

    Concise Edition

    This tells of the life of David Clarke as a member and minister of the Bierton Church.

    ISBN 97809539473-2-4

  2. The Bierton Crisis

    David’s Secession: From the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Church in

    1984. This was David’s the first Book.

    ISBN 9780953947348

  3. Trojan Warriors

    David Clarke and his mission to the Philippines and its Jails. Containing over 66 testimonies of convicted criminals who have been converted from crime to Christ.

    ISBN 9780953947319

  4. Before the Cock Crows

This tells of the trials and difficulties that were experienced during Mission to the Philippines.

ISBN 9780953947335

  1. My Testimony Audio recording:

    David’s Testimony made at Luton on, 22nd March 1972

  2. Fishing for Men: Video

    Preaching at Bierton June 5th 1983, The

    Bierton Meeting.

  3. Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

“Does the Lord Jesus want women ruling His Church?” David secession from the Jesus is Lord Church at Warsash, 1999