58

John Clifford (1836-1923):Irrepressible Liberal

Thomas J. Nettles

Thomas J. Nettles has served as

Professor of Historical Theology at The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

since 1997. He has taught previously

at Southwestern Baptist Theological

Seminary (1976-1982), Mid-America

Seminary (1982-1988), and Trinit y

Evangelical Divinit y School (1989-

1997). Dr. Nettles is a prolific author

and has writ ten extensively about Bap-

tist history.

IntroductionWilliam Carey died in June of 1834. Justprior to that, the notable Baptist Pastor andhistorian Joseph Ivimey had died in Feb-ruary 1834. Robert Hall Jr. preceded bothin his presence before the Lord in 1831. Hallhad preached a sermon on the death ofJohn Ryland, Jr., in 1825 that set all of thesedeaths in perspective when he noted thestrength and character of those who werepassing so quickly from the scene.

That denomination of Christians, ofwhich he [Ryland] was so long a dis-tinguished ornament, will especiallylay this providence to heart. Ourhands are weakened this day; and ifthe glory is not departed from us, itis at least eclipsed and obscured. Wehave been visited with stroke uponstroke. Our brightest lights have beensuccessively extinguished; and invain do we look around for a Bed-dome, a Booth, a Fuller, or a Ryland;names which would have given lus-tre to any denomination, and werelong the glory of ours.1

Hall’s own influence generated massiveadmiration, not only for him personally,but for dissenters in general. His eloquence,his masterful and courageous stance onimportant social issues such as freedom ofthe press, his magnificent defense of thecharacter, integrity, and cause of historicEnglish Dissent, his energetic support ofthe Baptist Missionary Society, and hispatient perseverance under the pain andvagaries of poor health garnered accoladesand recognitions of greatness from whichBaptists benefited immensely.

His greatness, however, failed to hide,

and perhaps contributed to, his chief weak-ness. Hall’s power could compensate forthe intrinsic unworthiness of a cause thusgranting it a recommendation far beyondits merits. His insistence on the preemi-nence and unifying effects of the centralissues of Protestant theology, his zeal forthe personal discovery of truth from thewhole Bible without being hampered byshallow assent to narrower, and merelyhuman, formulas, and his zeal for thepractical and moral in Christian thoughtcreated inattention to important aspects ofBaptist witness. Zeal for doctrinal dis-tinctiveness, the positive usefulness ofconfessions, and the conserving power oftheological expansiveness suffered severeblows from Hall’s overall influence andformed the climate for the energetic mod-ernism of John Clifford.

While concerned about doctrinal issuesand willing to be forthright in his defenseof fundamental teachings, Hall steered hiscourse most closely to the side of practicalChristianity. As a convinced advocate ofholistic Christianity, Hall would warnagainst overlooking “the distinguishingdoctrines of the gospel under the pretenceof advancing the interests of morality” justas clearly as he would eschew a tendencyto “inculcate those doctrines, withouthabitually adverting to their purifying andtransforming influence.” His most ardentenergies, however, centered on “the fre-quent and earnest inculcation of the prac-tical precepts of the gospel, in an accuratedelineation of the Christian temper, in aspecific and minute exposition of the per-

59

sonal, social and relative duties” enforcedby both the “endearing” as well as the“alarming” motives of Scripture.2

This concern for the practical, statedmost forcefully in his resistance toantinomianism, found a complementarypartner in his defense of open commun-ion among the churches. This defenseinvolved an interaction with how far erroris to be tolerated in Christian communion.“If, amidst the infinite diversity of opin-ions,” Hall argues, “each society deems itnecessary to render its own peculiarities thebasis of union, as though the design ofChristians, in forming themselves into achurch, were not to exhibit the great prin-ciples of the gospel, but to give publicityand effect to party distinctions, all hope ofrestoring Christian harmony and unanim-ity must be abandoned.” Hall did notdoubt the “pernicious influence of error ingeneral” and he agreed that the “formaldenial of saving essential truth” constitutedreason for refusal of fellowship.3 In issuesnot fundamental to salvation, however,Hall found no reason for division. An heirof Bunyan on this issue, Hall envisions apalpable absurdity in a system that invests“every little Baptist teacher with the pre-rogative of repelling from his communion,a Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, whomthe Lord of glory will welcome to his pres-ence.” Hall found such a claimed preroga-tive at least as revolting as transubstantia-tion.4 “Religious parties,” he had learnedby much observation, “imply a tacitcompact, not merely to sustain the funda-mental truths of revelation, . . . but also touphold the incidental peculiarities bywhich they are distinguished.”5

Though in the preceding context hespoke specifically of infant baptism as aperipheral matter, not an essential doctrine,not fundamental, he spread the umbrella

more broadly in another context. In writ-ing a preface to a republication of hisfather’s remarkably helpful book Help to

Zion’s Travelers, the admiring but indepen-dent son issued a caveat.

If there be any impression, in thefollowing treatise, which impliesthat the questions at issue betwixtthe Calvinists and Arminians are ofthe nature of fundamentals, (of which,however, I am not aware,) I begleave, as far as they are concerned,to express my explicit dissent; beingfully satisfied that upon either sys-tem the foundations of human hoperemain unshaken, and that there isnothing in the contrariety of viewsentertained on these subjects, whichought to obstruct the most cordialaffection and harmony amongChristians.6

The abridgment of importance in thesehistoric confessional distinctions uncoversa tendency in Hall that enlarged in Baptistlife throughout the nineteenth century. Anordination sermon in which Hall givesadoring commendation to the beauty andpower of the central Christian doctrines aswell as the minister’s unmitigated obliga-tion to focus on truth includes an implicitsweeping away of any value in confes-sional fidelity. To a strong admonition tomake personal acquaintance with theentire corpus of Scripture the foundationof a powerful and refreshing ministry, Halladds the following personal injunction.

You, I am persuaded, will not satisfyyourself with the study of Christian-ity in narrow jejune abridgmentsand systems, but contemplate it, inits utmost extent, as it subsists in thesacred oracles; and, in investigatingthese, you will permit your reasonand conscience an operation, as freeand unfettered, as if none had exam-ined them before. The neglect of thisproduces, too often, an artificialscarcity, where some of the choicestprovisions of the household are

60

exploded or overlooked.7

While admirable as a commendation ofthe whole Scripture and as an admonitionfor personal responsibility in making dis-coveries of the comprehensiveness of itstruth, the implicit isolationism and deni-gration of the insights of other centuries aswell as the imputation of aridity and dull-ness to the systematic approach of confes-sions bore poisonous fruit. Personal studyof Scripture need not be opposite to thegifts of others nor need it see confessionsas the enemy of personal knowledge andgrowth.

Hall’s views became more prominentthrough the century. Graham Hughes notesthe powerful influence of Hall in hisacknowledgment that “the ultimate adop-tion of the principle of Open Communionby such a large number of the Baptistchurches was due to Hall’s advocacy of thepractice.” His mediating stance towardCalvinism also settled into the Baptistfellowship, so that as it receded fromhyper-Calvinism, “Many of them, unfor-tunately, continued to recede until they hadno theology at all.”8

As stated in his preface to “On Terms ofCommunion,” Hall did not expect a sud-den revolution in the “sentiments and prac-tice” of Baptists, but would be satisfied ifhis work, along with other factors, would“ultimately contribute to so desirable anissue.”9 At least one individual, JohnClifford, seemed overjoyed to put Hall’sinclusive policy to the test. Though herelativized, or rejected, doctrinal issues thatHall probably would have deemed funda-mental, Clifford’s generation found hisexuberance and enthusiasm irresistible sothat he incarnated the opportunity covetedby Hall to “cultivate a cordial union withour fellow Christians,”10 even though the

definition of a Christian became muchmore loosely defined.

The Life of CliffordIn the year that Carey and Ivimey died,

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was born. Twoyears and four months after the birth ofSpurgeon, John Clifford was born the firstof seven children to Samuel Clifford andMary Stenson Clifford in the village ofSawley about ten miles from Nottingham.His birthdate, October 16, 1836, came abouttwenty years after the end of the Napole-onic Wars. Clifford heard from his parentsthe terrible conditions through which theMidlands passed in those post-wardecades. “I was a factory child,” herecalled, “and know something of the ter-rible conditions of old England at thattime.” “Work was slavery for the toilerswho crowded into the factory towns of theNorth and of the Midlands.” Wages wereat a point “fathoms below the demands ofmere subsistence,” crime was rampant,riots devastated necessary implements forlife, the government was not merely dis-trusted but loathed, poverty was unbear-able, workers had no freedom and had littlesay about their own lives. “George III wasmad and George IV was immoral.” Work-ers’ meetings were illegal and cause for im-prisonment, journalists were prosecuted,the press was not free, hanging was pun-ishment for petty offenses, nonconformistswere persecuted and ridiculed and couldlegally gather for no other purpose thanfor worship. Such was the description oflife deeply imbedded in the consciousnessof Clifford as he learned from his parentsthe repressive conditions of the years justprior to his birth.11

His early education lacked the inspira-tion, energy, and enthusiasm later so mark-edly characteristic of Clifford’s intellectual

61

aspirations. Stern and unsympatheticschoolmasters turned much pain into littlelearning. Clifford’s innate drive, however,seized the few sparks of encouragementavailable in such situations and found hopeand desire to go as far as he could in learn-ing. He felt particularly indebted to Mr.Godler of Beeston.

His school experience gave way quicklyto the tyranny of child labor. Before hiseleventh birthday Clifford went to work ina lace factory where he said, “I have neverforgotten the cruel impressions I receivedthere of men and work.”12 He arose at fourin the morning and worked fourteen-hourdays often doing work that was so repeti-tive that he found space and place to readwhile carrying out his duties.

Though his father was a Calvinist andhis mother the heir of Puritan stock, theCliffords attended a General Baptist churchin Sawley and upon removal to Beestonjoined the General Baptist cause thereunder the pastorate of Richard Pike. TheGeneral Baptist Magazine, for which he waslater to serve as editor, was part of thestaple literary diet of the Cliffords. Hispaternal grandmother was a Methodistand taught the young Clifford about “theuniversality of the love of God, the univer-sality of the sacrifice of the Lord JesusChrist, and the universality of the work ofthe Holy Spirit.”13

Clifford’s conversion came at fourteenyears of age. After “five or six months ofmisery and wretchedness,” and continuedattempts on his part to get rid of “consciousguilt,” he experienced, in a moment, “spiri-tual emancipation.” His fetters of guiltshattered with one stroke and “into the lib-erty of the children of God I leaped as inan instant.” With an enlightened grasp ofthe “simplicity of God’s marvellous planof salvation,” Clifford “grasped the hand

of the Father led thither by Jesus Christ.”14

His baptism on June 16, 1851, became amoment of enlivening of conscience forClifford. He had lifted the flag for Jesus andeveryone knew it. Any wrong attitude oraction now would reflect on the church thathad accepted his testimony and allowedhim to share its public testimony. He waswell known in the factory and felt respon-sible for the reputation of the church andthe gospel among his fellow workers.

If I were untrue, false or dishonestin anything, I damaged my church;if I lost my temper, I injured thatChurch; if I was not genial andkindly and considerate, I injuredthat Church; and this consciousnessdrove me to God, so that I might bekept through the day from doinganything that would discreditChrist, whose name I had professed,and the Church into which He hadbrought me. I say for myself, thatwas distinctly the fact.15

Soon Clifford felt moved towardembracing the greatly circumscribedopportunities of a Baptist, non-conformist,pastor. Mother, grandmother, and threeuncles all predisposed him to this calling.His own intellectual curiosity, moral cour-age, deep sense of social righteousness, andfiery spirit seemed perfect for the task ashe envisioned it. His pastor greatly encour-aged him, tutored him in sermon prepara-tion and delivery, and saw to it that he hadample opportunity to test his gifts. Even-tually, Richard Pike led his church to rec-ommend Clifford as a suitable candidatefor the ministry to the Baptist Academy inLeicester.

Preparatory to the intellectual and spiri-tual challenge of school, Clifford made aninteresting journey of soul into an unex-pected religious eddy. Clifford consideredRalph Waldo Emerson “one of the friendsof my youth.”16 He discovered him in 1854,

62

the year before he entered college, and car-ried him with him “about the streets andalong the little lanes of the village in whichI was brought up.” He speaks of Emersonin overtones of veneration. He visitedEmerson’s home as a “reverential pilgrim.”Emerson is a “seer” who glows with the“fire of the Divine indwelling” and speaksof “the deep things of God, of the infinite,eternal Over-Soul” and the “incalculableand enormous claims of the human spirit.”His voice is “oracular” like the prophetIsaiah who had a vision of the Holy, andlike Elijah “whose foot stands firm uponthe solid earth, but whose head is in thepresence of the Eternal.” Emerson is aprophet of revolt, the ultimate Protestantwho stirs a person to fight against tyrannywherever it exists, whether in the massesor the despot. He is a prophet of self-reli-ance. He proclaims the “integrity, theindependence, and the sufficient resourcesof the human soul.” Every thought ofhumanity, every achievement, the writingsof Shakespeare, the philosophy of Plato, thesoaring delights of spiritual pleasure of themystic all belong to each human soul forthe “Over-Soul [is] penetrating us; sur-rounding us as an atmosphere; goingthrough all the doors of our being, and tak-ing possession of our entire life.” The doorof infinity is open to us. “Trust in ourselvesis trust in God who is in us; and trust inthat God who is in us is trust in ourselves,and with this whole-souled reliance uponthe Eternal we may thus come into posses-sion of resources that are adequate for allwe try to attempt, for all we ought to do,and ought to be.” Emerson gives us cheerin our soul and true optimism and is pre-eminently “a preacher of the supremacy ofthe spiritual.” It is true that he does notadequately understand sin and our racialparticipation in it, but only because he

came from six generations of Puritans wholived holy, saintly lives and bequeathed tohim a disposition freighted with serenity,calm, and beautiful peacefulness. Hepreaches what Jesus Christ preaches andwhat Paul preaches. Finding his Unitarianupbringing too narrow, exclusive and doc-trinaire, he left it behind. In spite of phraseshe uses, however, we must see him as a“believer in God and in Jesus Christ” andmust learn to see his life as one “supremelyChristian.” Should Emerson go to hell,according to a Father Tayler quoted byClifford, “there would be a change in theclimate speedily.” Emerson “belonged notto the lower but to the higher” as indicatedby his “superlative goodness and Christ-likeness.”

The man had been steering Christ-ward all his life, and although hecould not take up phrases that werecurrent in the churches concerningChrist, but he was breathing Hisspirit, repeating His acts, and influ-encing the life of the world in aChristlike way. Do not judge him byphrases, but judge him by the gen-eral drift and tendency of his utter-ances, of his life, and you will findthat he belonged to the great com-pany who are moved and stirred bythe Spirit of God.17

Through the touch of such a manClifford received “healing and emancipa-tion” from the wounds of errors that were“Playing the despot” and wrecking his life.Emerson’s work went into his conscienceand consciousness as the “utterance of thedivine,” full of authority, “full of the breathof God, quickening as with the inspirationof the Almighty.” A balm flowed fromEmerson; Clifford was “quickened by histeaching.” “I saw not his form,” Cliffordtestified, “but I have felt his power.” Heread and re-read Emerson in the same wayhe read his Bible and as a result he found

63

that his Bible was a “more helpful bookfrom what I had discovered in Emerson.”

Bolstered by his Emersonian matrix ofreligious feeling and the liberating idea ofacademic life in Leicester as opposed tofactory life in Beeston, off to college wentClifford. He struggled through a series ofdoubts concerning the content and author-ity of the Christian faith and made a reso-lution to love the right and true and eschewthe wrong and false wherever that mightlead him. Even if there were no God, rightand truth surpass wrong and error in themeasure of a man’s life. God purified himin that six-month intellectual trial, soClifford believed.18 It appears that part ofthat purification involved an adoption ofhistorical criticism, an openness to theveracity of empirical science as correctiveof biblical cosmology and history, and aresistance to systematized categories oftheological truth. To the end of his days hecontended that the spirit of creeds stoodin antagonism to the spirit of Christ.

Clifford excelled in his studies, preachedhundreds of times, and took advantage ofopportunities to hear others preach. Incompany with others he heard the youngLondon sensation, Charles H. Spurgeon,preach and was completely absorbed bothin the manner and content of his delivery.At the close of his second year, MarketHarborough church, in which he served asa supply preacher, asked for his full-timeservices. On the advice of Joseph Hoadby,Clifford declined, but six months later hedid respond enthusiastically to a call to thePraed Street-Westbourne Park congrega-tion in London. He continued his educa-tion for eight years at the University ofLondon. Marchant summarizes:

He graduated B. A. in 1861, follow-ing it in 1862 with his B. Sc. withhonours in Logic, Moral Philosophy,

Geology, and Paleontology. In 1864he graduated M. A., coming out firstin his year, and in 1866 he took theLaws Degree with honours in theprinciples of Legislation. The Geo-logical Society made him a Fellowin 1879, and in 1883 he was awardedthe honorary D. D. of Bates College,United States.19

Clifford remained at this church for hisentire ministry. Its growth and expansionof activities made necessary enlargementof space. In 1872 Charles H. Spurgeonpreached at the dedication of enlarged andrenovated facilities at Praed Street; fiveyears later, Spurgeon preached to an over-flow congregation at the dedication of anew facility at Westbourne Park inPaddington. For fifty-seven years this con-gregation grew and gave witness toClifford’s vision of Christian discipleshipand evangelism until the conclusion of hisministry on August 29, 1915. He continuedas Pastor Emeritus for the remaining eightyears of his life. He died at a Baptist UnionCouncil meeting on November 20, 1923.After speaking to a resolution of encour-agement to Dr. J. H. Shakespeare and whilelistening raptly to reports on his own pro-posal of a Personal Evangelism crusade, hedied in his chair at the Council Table.

The Thought of CliffordSome remarkable aspects of his minis-

try must be summarized. First, someaspects of his cultural and political savvyand forcefulness must come under review.Then, his shaping influence on Baptistthinking about doctrine must be examined,if not in detail, at least carefully andthoughtfully.

Clifford the Social ProphetClifford maintained an amazingly active

involvement in the political issues con-fronting England. Friend and antagonist

64

alike knew that he spoke from an uncom-promisingly clear conscience informed byhis Baptist free-church mentality and hisfierce loyalty to the common working classin England. He had nothing commenda-tory to say about the liquor traffic. It builtits fortune on the health and souls of “hun-gry mother and starving little children.”20

In 1910, Clifford noted that a slump in theScotch whiskey trade accompanied a“most gratifying improvement in the moralhabits of the people.”21 Even in World WarI he insisted, “I do not believe that we shallconquer our lesser enemy on the continentof Europe until we have dealt a destruc-tive blow at the confessedly greater enemyof alcohol.”22 In the interests of social vir-tue Clifford hammered away at the need“to prohibit the drink trade because thattrade is the foe at once of the home and ofthe State.”23

He led in the fight against the Educa-tion Bill that required, at the cost of bothtaxation and repression of dissenters,Anglican religious education in the schools.After it first passed in 1902 Clifford madean instant analysis that he stuck to untilhis death. He called it “a conspiracy againstthe liberties of Englishmen, a successfuleffort to hand over the children of thiscountry to be trained in the ‘principles ofthe Established Church’ and of Romanismat the expense of the whole people.” TheParliamentary procedures manipulated byA. J. Balfour were worthy of Charles I and“a ghastly travesty of legislation.” Thisaction will not help but hurt the Church ofEngland as it will emerge as an object of“general suspicion,” in the opinions of itsadherents “defamed and degraded,” andby reflective men outside its pale “scornedand condemned” for its “duplicity andcunning.”24

His encouragement of and leadership in

the Passive Resistance Movement, a con-troversial stance even in the eyes of manyadmiring Dissenters, to these unfair edu-cation measures led to his being sum-moned before the magistrates fifty-seventimes by 1922. He lived consistently by apublic vow that those who sought to makehim conform to government compulsionof taxation “to pay for the propagation of. . . church doctrines” would never tastesuccess. “Against that I have battled,” hereminded his people, “and if you try tomake me [conform] you will discover thatyou have for once undertaken an impossi-bility.”25 His actions on this front gainedhis inclusion in a book entitled Modern Bap-

tist Heroes and Martyrs in an article writtenby A. T. Robertson. Robertson judged thatClifford was “one of the greatest livingstatesmen in his grasp of the fundamentalquestions of religious liberty.”26

He led in a vigorous, and unpopular,opposition to the Boer War, believing itenshrined the worst of greed, imperialism,prejudice, superiority, and stupidity aselements of national virtue. While it ragedhe remonstrated against it in the whole andin its parts. Particularly onerous were theconcentration camps, effects of a destruc-tive and arrogant policy that made him boilover with “indignation against the iniq-uity” of the camps. In his New Year’saddress for 1904, he scorned the “tricks andtrifling that led us into it” as well as the“follies and stupidities that marked thepreparation for it.” He lamented the “enor-mous financial burdens placed upon themasses of the people by this governmentof ‘muddle and mess and make-believe.’”He inserted an urgent admonition that “Itrests with you to build up on the ruins ofSouth Africa a contented, tranquil, self-gov-erning, and prosperous country.”27

Later, however, he supported the par-

65

ticipation of England in World War I, call-ing it a “war to make peace eternal” whileconsidering Kaiser William “the mostcorrupt and corrupting, deceptive and dia-bolical force the world has yet known.”28

The young men who left his church forcombat went “from strong compulsion ofduty to God and men” to oppose “armeddespotism and fiendish diabolism and allunrighteousness.” Clifford exhibited nonaivete concerning the horror, sacrifice,slaughter, barbarity, and cruelty of war. Wemust work for its abolition; wars mustcease. The present cause transcended allthat, however.

We are sure that we are not sacri-ficing millions of young, strong andheroic fellow-citizens for anythingless than to secure justice for everyman in every land so that we maybreathe it as common air. We are notenduring the agonies of this longstrife for perishable wealth and fleet-ing fame, or for this modern mate-rial civilization which has been builtup with pride and vain show, and isnow being judged and condemnedby God, but for the rightful libertyof the spirits of men and of nations,for that self-government of politicalgroups without which they cannotbe strong, progressive and fruitful,and for the deliverance of men in alllands from the menace of a debas-ing political servitude, which isfatal to the greatness and purity, thepeace and usefulness of the lifewhich God has given us.29

When the war ceased and the Treaty ofVersailles took its place in the history ofinternational relations, Clifford showed hisuncanny insight by lamenting the overly-severe repression, even the vengeful spiritmanifest toward Germany, in the peacesettlement. In addition, the severe suffer-ing of Austria, Serbia, Armenia, Hungary,Russia and virtually all other nations gaveClifford, most often an optimist due to

mental predisposition and theological out-look, cause for deep despair.

The events of the last year embracethe whole round earth. Nothing thatconcerns humanity was left out. Thewar was omnipresent, like the air.Britain was merely a drop in thebucket, and our isles a little thing.All peoples felt the shattering, tor-turing, diabolical pressure; feel itnow, and will feel it this year and thenext; your children, aye, and theirchildren, will be drawn within itswidening circles. It is absolutelywithout parallel in the enormity ofthe wrongdoing that started it, in theintensity and range of the sufferingit caused, and in the calamitouseffects it has produced and will pro-duce throughout this century.30

Clifford went on to quote with reluctantagreement the observation of a Dr. Dillon,“Every Government is making its policysubservient to the needs of that future warwhich is universally looked upon as anunavoidable outcome of the VersaillesPeace.” Little wonder that many held Dr.Clifford’s observations as oracular.

He argued for women’s suffrage andequality before the Law in all ways. Whenthe “suffragettes” finally used aggressiveand disruptive means to gain a hearing in1908, Clifford refused to condemn themoutright but stated that “the grounds oftheir plea cannot in my judgment be suc-cessfully assailed.” He even recognizedthat sometime governments will listen onlywhen violence occurs. Their actions had setthe cause of women back, however, andClifford was “so anxious that womenshould soon take their full responsibilityfor the government of the people,” that headvised the suffragettes to return to “po-litical sanity and a just consideration of theinterest and claims of large public meet-ings.”31 When the Sex Disqualifications Actpassed in 1919, Clifford remarked that

66

“woman is on the march, as I have beensaying with a glad heart for many years.”The magistrates’ bench, parliament, andthe legal profession were now open and“before long the barrier of sex will beentirely abolished.”32

Clifford literally despised the House ofLords. He referred to it as “that supremeanachronism, that ridiculous relic of feu-dalism.” Their place in the government,particularly the right of veto, he called “thistragedy of aristocratic rule.” He called onprogressive thinkers to “fight like grimdeath to bring this Goliath to the ground.”Again he asserted, “We must get rid, onceand for all of the hereditary principle andof the power of veto.”33 This Free-Church-man looked with gall and disdain on thereality that “the House of Lords is the finalcourt of the Anglican Church.” As such,naturally but regrettably, “it is its businessto defend the property, the monopolies andprivileges of that State institution.” Indeed,the Lords not only protect but rule theChurch and even worse, “it rules us; wecannot legislate for ourselves; the way isblocked.” The people of England, the mostcapable and cultured nation on the earth,“must submit to their dictation, and yetthey are not the chosen representatives ofthe people.”34 When the power of veto wasremoved in 1910, Clifford thought it wasprogress but not enough. “Every title isretained in all its brilliance, and no lord islowered by the tenth of an inch in thesocial scale. The successors of the fisher-men of Galilee are still ‘my lords,’ and theArchbishop of Canterbury still takes pre-cedence of the officers of State.”35

Clifford was deeply concerned aboutinternational relations. Though he recog-nized its weaknesses, Clifford gaveimmense energy to the support of theLeague of Nations. It is necessary, he

believed, “to secure and to maintain as faras possible to our fractious human naturethe permanent peace of the politicallyorganized peoples of the earth.” Every yearhe analyzed steps toward freedom in num-bers of nations. Russia, India, Armenia,South Africa, Turkey, Ireland, Italy, and anyplace where issues of human freedom andthe rights of self-government were in thebalance made Clifford’s agendum for dis-cussion. “The place of right as againstmight,” stirred his soul as he cheered onthose who would “ask for the rightful shareof grown men in the government of theircountry.”36

He had great admiration for the freeinstitutions of the United States, andbelieved that its potential for good wasvirtually infinite. As early as 1903, Cliffordseverely criticized the British government’stendency toward “alliances with Continen-tal despotisms.” He distrusted militaryempires” which rested upon their “pha-lanxes of drilled and enforced fighters.” Nomatter what one might think of the Kaiserpersonally, Clifford insisted that “the truefaith is this, the union and the communionof England with the men and women ofthe United States.” They speak the tongueof Shakespeare and Milton, breath the samefree spirit and “incarnate it in free institu-tions.” English ideas of freedom have beendeveloped and applied in ways in theUnited States “not yet possible to us.” “Notthen, linked gunboat to gunboat withimperial autocrats like Kaiser Wilhelmmust we march into the future, but joinedsoul with soul with our alert, keen-witted,self-governing, freedom-loving cousins ofthe great United States.”37

This admiration only strengthened overthe next decade and a half. Clifford hailedWoodrow Wilson as one of the greatest fig-ures of modern history. The entry of the

67

United States into World War I, Cliffordannounced as “the transcendent event of1917.” As marvelously gifted at hyperboleas he was at righteously poignant invec-tive, Clifford asserted, “There is nothing tocompare with it in all the annals of thepast.” After having tried brilliantly andappropriately to avoid war, Wilson and hisaids saw the true despotism and tyranni-cal ambitions of Kaiser Wilhelm and setaside the Monroe Doctrine for the sake oftruth and freedom.

The descendants of the PilgrimFathers, whilst loving peace with alltheir hearts, loved liberty more, andtherefore they came to do battle onbehalf of a world menaced with uni-versal servitude, and to uphold theirfaith in the principle asserted bytheir President that “no right existsto hand peoples about from poten-tate to potentate as if they wereproperty.”

With all our hearts and with onevoice we welcome the modern Pil-grims, and give thanks to the Godof the Pilgrims for sending them toEurope in this hour of the world’sneed.38

Clifford as a Theological ShaperDoctrinal Minimalism

The confidence Baptists had in Cliffordas an energetic spokesman and represen-tative of issues of freedom and conscienceunfolded in his election to several con-spicuous offices. The General Baptistsappointed him as editor of The General Bap-

tist Magazine in 1870, a responsibility inwhich he continued for fourteen years. Inspite of the general knowledge of his highlypersonalized doctrinal positions and hisgrowing reputation as a controversialpolitical figure, he served as vice-presidentof the Baptist Union in England in 1887when the Downgrade controversy brokeand as president in the next year duringan attempt to resolve it amicably. He was

prime mover also in the eventual mergingof General Baptists and Particular Baptistsin the Baptist Union of 1891. Clifford wasthe first, and unanimous, choice for presi-dent of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905when it met in London. The EvangelicalFree Church Council in England electedhim as president in 1898.

His election as editor of the General

Baptist Magazine in 1870 at 34 years of agetestifies to the esteem Clifford enjoyed inthe eyes of his contemporaries. His intel-lectual energy and religious zeal endearedhim to those who saw him as defendingtheir cause. This winsomeness and zeal,however, combined with doctrinal roman-ticism and minimalism to provide theavenue for the encroachment of liberalisminto the Baptist Union.

The characteristic showed up early inClifford’s preaching and constituted hisview of qualifications for ministry. In 1873he wrote six short articles called “Paperson Preaching” for the General Baptist Maga-

zine. Does a man have faith? I do not mean,Clifford insists, “has he a bundle of beliefs,all appropriately labelled according tosomebody’s theological system and readyto be spread out before an ExaminingCommittee like so many hard geologicalspecimens.” But does he walk by a firm andliving trust in the Savior? Does he have abroad sympathetic nature? The man ofwarmth and sincerity who can “glow intoa real ardour of enthusiasm over moral andspiritual ideas and facts” differs entirelyfrom the “cold, narrow, hard spirit, readyto…cherish petty resentments” whobecomes a “dissector of creeds, a classifierof the opinions of others, a systematizer oftheology.” Such a miscreant will neverbecome a “living, heart-moving, character-elevating preacher.”39 Vital Christianministry, deep Christian conviction, and

68

transforming Christian spirituality couldeasily bypass historic confessional Chris-tianity by Clifford’s measurements.

Clifford had little positive to say aboutconfessions and creeds. He looked forwardeagerly to the day of creedless religion. In1909 Clifford saw as a very encouragingsign the call of James Denney for the “abo-lition of creed subscription as a conditionof ministry in the Presbyterian Church.” Sobe it, agrees Clifford. Subscription is“useless,…unwise,…[and]harmful.” Then,playing the part of historical pundit,Clifford asserts, “Our Baptist fathers havealways said so; and it is a proof of the swayof a truer conception, both of the Churchand of the ministry, that this principleshould receive such acknowledgment.”40

His New Year’s Day sermon for 1920summoned sympathy for the vision ofMohammedan and Christian standinghand in hand in defiance of the divisiveelements of caste, color, and creed. A creed,said the Mohammedan is the “idea that aman must adopt my religious formula orhe never by any possibility can enter myheaven.” Clifford desired to “open thedoors of the Church to men who do notaccept the dogmas and beliefs of WesternChurches, but are eager to learn for them-selves what is the mind of Christ.” Cliffordbelieved that churches need to “escapetheir past,” their formalism, their ortho-doxy and return to the truth of Jesus wholeads each generation willing to hear himfrom its shriveled theology and barrenethic.41

In the heat of the Downgrade contro-versy in 1887, Spurgeon called for a defi-nite declaration of beliefs on the part of theBaptist Union. In Spurgeon’s opinion, thefundamental principle of the Union “thatevery separate church has the liberty tointerpret and administer the laws of Christ,

and that the immersion of believers is theonly Christian baptism,” stood as an opendoor to error and “involves a strain on thefrail fabric which it is ill adapted to bear.”He wrote Dr. Culross expressing clearly thedanger to which the Baptist Union sub-jected itself in absence of a creed.

So long as an Association withouta creed has no aliens in it, nobodycan wish for a creed formally, for thespirit is there; but at a time when“strange children” have entered,what is to be done? Whatever maytheoretically be in your power, youpractically have no power whatever.You will go on as you are; and,unless God’s grace calls back thewanderers, their numbers willincrease, and their courage willcause them to speak out moreplainly, to the sorrow of the faithfulones who shielded them in patienthope of better things.42

Clifford answered in the pages of thePall Mall Gazette. Such a declaration mighthelp general knowledge, witness-bearing,and common service, but “Baptists neverforget that they are the lineal descendantsof the first assertors of the capital andemancipating doctrine of liberty of con-science.” Because of this “they fight againstcreeds … as weapons of clerical absolut-ism, tools of theological tyranny, padlockson the Bible, and foes of Christian brother-hood.”43

In spite of such a view, or perhapsbecause, Clifford worked actively with theBaptist Union Council in addressing theconcerns of Charles Spurgeon and hisbrother James concerning the necessity ofthe Union’s declaring itself on vital doctri-nal issues. According to Marchant, “themain body of the theological statementfinally proposed to the Assembly in April,1888, as a statement of its common faith,was really Dr. Clifford’s Declaration” that

69

had been adopted by the Baptist UnionCouncil in February. Spurgeon’s opinionthat the Council was “too largely commit-ted to a latitudinarian policy beforehand”to be of any substantial help in the confron-tation proved true.44 The ad hoc confessionaddressed specific issues about whichSpurgeon had raised questions, particu-larly in the Sword and Trowel. When theBaptist Union assembled in April of 1888,it adopted this six point confession of Faithby a vote of 2000 to 7.

The vote largely is due to Clifford’sexpertise in public address. He preachedin the morning of the meeting on the sub-ject “The Great Forty Years; or, The Primi-tive Christian Faith: its Real Substance andBest Defence.” He spoke of the Masterhoodof Jesus as that one authority which couldnot be divided. In his inimitable way ofweaving together evangelical words andpertinent Scriptures to give an impressionof historic evangelicalism as a façade to thesubstance of modernism, Clifford won theday; enormous applause and an over-whelming vote along with shining reviewsfollowed the performance. According toMarchant, James Spurgeon spoke of the“delight and inspiration with which he hadlistened in the morning.”45

The statement, written by Clifford,proposed to the Union by the Council,and adopted in April, 1888, in vocabularyand phrase bears all the marks of thelatitudinarianism Spurgeon feared andobserved. Its assertions could, and doubt-less did, bear two essentially differentinterpretations. The controversial contextof its provenance informs every nuance.

Whilst expressly disavowing anddisallowing any powers to controlbelief, or to restrict enquiry, yet, inview of the uneasiness produced inthe churches by recent discussions,and to show our agreement with one

another, and with our fellow-Chris-tians on the great truths of theGospel, the Council deem it right tosay that:A. Baptized into the name of theFather, and the Son, and the HolyGhost, we have avowed repentancetowards God and faith in the LordJesus Christ—the very elements ofa new life; as in the Supper we avowour union with one another, whilepartaking of the symbol of the bodyof our Lord, broken for us, and ofthe blood shed for the remission ofsins. The Union, therefore, is anassociation of Churches and Minis-ters professing not only to believethe facts and doctrines of the Gos-pel, but to have undergone the spiri-tual change expressed or implied inthem. This change is the fundamen-tal principle of our church life.B. The following facts and doctrinesare commonly believed by thechurches of the Union:(1), The Divine Inspiration andAuthority of the Holy Scripture asthe supreme and sufficient rule ofour faith and practice; and the rightand duty of individual judgment inthe interpretation of it.(2), The fallen and sinful state ofman.(3), The Deity, the incarnation, theResurrection of the Lord JesusChrist, and His Sacrificial andMediatorial work.(4), Justification by faith—a faith thatworks by love and produces holi-ness.(5), The work of the Holy Spirit inthe conversion of sinners and in thesanctification of all who believe.(6), The Resurrection; the Judgmentat the last day, according to thewords of our Lord in Matt. 25.46.46

Spurgeon, well aware of the slipperinessof unexplained assertions in a latitudinar-ian atmosphere, found no consolation butmuch distress in the confession and par-ticularly the enthusiasm with which it wasadopted. Clifford had demonstrated hismastery of a crowd; his success demon-strated also that piety, fervor, and couragewere valued with equal, if not greater,

70

affection than soundness and clarity of doc-trine.

Charles Bateman’s biography of Cliffordcontains Bateman’s personal testimonythat Spurgeon did not “rank Dr. Cliffordamong the heretics.”47 Spurgeon, accord-ing to Bateman, believed Dr. Clifford wasmisunderstood. Exactly what confidencesuch an anecdote deserves might remain amystery, for one cannot rank Spurgeonamong the theological dimwits nor con-clude that Spurgeon was ignorant ofClifford’s flair for embracing the new andenfolding modernism into his Arminianpietism. Spurgeon’s reticence to nameClifford, or indeed any one, among thesuspected can only come from whatBateman called Spurgeon’s “warm admi-ration of Dr. Clifford’s fine character.”

It is just as clear, however, that Spurgeondid not include Clifford among those withwhom he had “no sort of disagreement.”In November of 1887 he wrote Dr. Culross,then President of the Baptist Union, of hisessential spiritual union with MacLaren,Aldis, and Angus. Because they were “allChristians and Baptists” they would find“many ways of co-operation” though theystayed “in the Union” while he was “outof it.”48 Spurgeon’s misgivings and sub-stantial fears concerning the doctrinalstability of the Union soon proved to beconcrete and belied the popular notionthat they simply constituted the wildimaginings of a sick, tired, overworked,doctrinally-fastidious preacher/war-horse.Robert Hall, should he return, would standwith mouth agape as he stared into the piti-ful little core of beliefs far more diminu-tive than he ever anticipated they shouldbe. The Baptist Union constituency wouldlook cold in the face of an aggressive anddestructive liberalism in the wiry andenergetic body of its much-beloved pietist

of the New Connection, John Clifford.Gwilym O. Griffith in reviewing

Marchant’s book, Dr. John Clifford, insertedhis personal judgment on the “Down-grade.” He agreed with the Council’s viewthat since Spurgeon made public accusa-tions, he should have provided names. Justas clearly he saw no way the controversycould have been avoided. Slick diplomacymight have pushed the problem under-ground but would have spread an infec-tion of mistrust and rancor through thewhole body. Spurgeon, he believes did theonly thing consistent with his views inleaving the Union. Though it cost him thefellowship of brethren he loved dearly, theUnion could never have acquiesced to “Mr.Spurgeon’s authoritarian and doctrinalposition.” Neither Clifford nor the Unionwas prepared for such restrictions. Withadmirable candor Griffith also recognizesthat Spurgeon was not at fault “on the mainissue . . . as the history of the last thirty yearshas clearly shown.”

The movement away from the oldstandards of thought and faith hadalready set in, and it was not simplythat here and there a dogma wasbeing recast; the entire authoritarianbasis of belief, the very foundationof orthodox standards, were beingundermined. The tell-tale yawningcracks and fissures in the flooring oforthodoxy might for a time besmeared over with irenic formula-tions of “things most surelybelieved,” but to patch the crackswas not to save the foundations. Tochange the figure, the ship was cast-ing off from the old moorings, andit was small comfort to Mr. Spurgeonto be assured that the drift washardly perceptible and that the mostseaward-looking among the crewwere nearer the shore than hethought.49

The controversy engaged the convic-tions of one who desired the tried and true

71

stability of terra firma and one who was forlaunching out into unknown and oftenuncharted waters. “It was in the orderingof Providence,” a merciful Providence inGriffith’s opinion, “that the year which sawthe outbreak of the dispute was the year ofClifford’s presidency of the Baptist Union.”“Two nobler spirits never opposed eachother,” he continued; “Spurgeon was forterra firma, Clifford for the open sea.”

Biblical InspirationClifford, president of the Baptist Union

in 1888, published a book after Spurgeon’sdeath entitled The Inspiration and Authority

of the Bible. In commenting on the useful-ness of this book, G. W. Byrt says thatClifford “frankly faced the many seriousquestions which the new ways of thinkingand recent scientific discoveries had raisedconcerning Scripture.” Byrt believed thatthe book proved to be “effective help” to“thoughtful people” who needed “guid-ance towards an intellectually secure rea-son for the faith that was within them.”50

Clifford’s forthrightness certainly vindi-cated Spurgeon, for Clifford affirmed inunambiguous terms that he definitelyrejected the inerrancy and infallibility ofScripture. In fact, Clifford believed that “weseriously imperil the authority and limitthe service of Scripture every time weadvocate its absolute inerrancy.”51 In achapter entitled “Three Defences of anInerrant Bible,” Clifford makes a deter-mined effort to dismantle some of themajor arguments for inerrancy. First, theautograph theory is indefensible since itcan be neither proved nor disproved in theabsence of the autographs and assumesGod was careless in not preserving them.It is “as unwarranted as it is useless, andas mischievous as it is unwarranted.” Sec-ond, Clifford denies that the Bible claims

infallibility for itself. Neither Jesus nor theApostles should be quoted in favor ofinerrancy; in fact, it is more consistent withall we know to believe that men moved bythe Holy Ghost should not be error-free.Third, to use inerrancy as a doctrinalsafeguard was useless and unnecessaryaccording to Clifford. Most people aresaved simply upon hearing a simple testi-mony from a preacher of the cross and haveno concept of inerrancy one way or theother. Furthermore, the dogmatismdemanded by the inerrancy doctrine is outof harmony with the actual facts of Scrip-ture. True doctrine can only be harmed bysuch close identification with this untimelydoctrine. Given the spirit of the modernworld, the teaching of inerrancy is one ofthe surest ways of frustrating the redeem-ing purpose for which the Revelation of theChrist is given.52

Preaching at Westbourne Chapel onSunday evening, September 15, Cliffordpresented a defense of the credibility ofChristianity entitled “The Supreme Test ofEvery Religion.” He argued that “groundof our appeal . . . rests upon experience,but not upon the experience of an indi-vidual.” Nor does the appeal rest on achurch, or a group of churches or a sup-posed infallible head of a group ofchurches. In addition, it is “not on a book,though that book be the Bible, but on theaccumulated experiences of Christian menthroughout nineteen centuries. . . . We donot say with our fathers of fifty years ago,‘Here is the Bible; you must accept it, mustbelieve it word for word’.” Through muchcritical reflection on the New Testamentmodern Christians could have a substan-tial body of facts favorable to Christianity.That helps some but does not carry us allthe way, for “the appeal is really to themassed experience of Christian men

72

throughout the centuries.”53

Christology and ScriptureEven this “massed experience,” how-

ever, could be somewhat misleading, par-ticularly if the believer pays more attentionto the words about Christ than to theinspiration received from or the feelingabout Christ. The authority of Scripture forClifford lay in the believer’s encounter withthe living Christ. Under the guidance of theHoly Spirit, who will guide us into all truth,the simple Christian can discern the trueChrist from the false or embellished Christin Scripture. One can discern the Christ offaith from the Christ of history simply byreading the text and bearing in mind thetendencies of admirers to exaggerate andembellish by manufacturing deeds andwords Jesus never did or said. Given sucha principle of interpretation, one could onlyconclude that the most exalted and extremeclaims of Jesus were those produced by thecommunity. “The disciple . . . surroundshis master with a spectacular magnificenceof external and meretricious glory, a flimsyand gaudy covering that the originalwould despise.”54 Therefore, thoseelements of his life that appeared to besupernatural and the radical claims hemade to deity must certainly be the workof the community. Clifford was confident,moreover, that the pious will have notrouble discerning where he hears the trueChrist and where he hears the echo of thecommunity.55

Clifford’s criticisms and reconstructions,however, are both inadequate and point-less. His rejection of the autograph theorybecause it is hypothetical shows that henever grasped the principle that a streamis never purer than its source and at allpoints where it remains uncorrupted it isjust as pure as its source. Also, his arguing

against the autograph theory was irrel-evant since Clifford rejected the authorityof many passages whose text is undis-puted. Parts of the Old Testament teacha mechanical deism, a low morality isjustified by attributing actions to God’scommand, and the imprecatory psalmsadvocate unrestrained hate towards one’senemies, according to Clifford. The find-ing of the autographs would neitherchange those passages nor Clifford’srejection of them. Clifford well recognizedthat fact.

His treatment of Christ’s view of Scrip-ture is shallow and reveals his epistemo-logical inconsistency and subjectivity. Heclaims that Jesus “distinctly and withrepeated emphasis, sets his authorityagainst, and over, that of the legislativerecords of the Old Testament.”56 He alsodenies that Jesus ever had any intention ofdefending the verbal truth of Scripture, butwas here in person to “bring the Divineideal into the actual experiences of the hourof men.”57

His exegesis of the Scriptures withwhich he dealt is faulty, and reflects prioradherence to the results of the burgeoninghistorical-critical method. He also omittedthe preponderance of Scriptures relevantto that subject and dismissed the Apostolicwitness to the inspiration of Scripture withincredibly insufficient investigation. Hismishandling of 2 Timothy 3:16 reveals theimpressionistic and non-contextual way inwhich Clifford uses biblical language:

Is there no “breath of God” inEccesiasticus? Are not the books ofthe Maccabees profitable for instruc-tions in righteousness? . . . Was theNew Testament in existence as awhole before the middle of the Sec-ond Century? Surely these and simi-lar considerations ought to make uspause before we take the sayings ofPaul about his own Inspiration, and

73

of Peter about the Inspiration of theProphets and use them as if they hadin their minds at the time everychapter and verse of either the Prot-estant or the Roman Catholic Bible.58

Paul, as indicated above, was not theonly apostle to suffer at the hands ofClifford. Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:16concerning Paul’s writing is not mentionedand his affirmation concerning the Spirit’sactivity in inspiration is managed in anequally irresponsible manner.

Inspiration is not always Revelation.It is a movement of God within thesoul. It is essentially subjective; it ishuman and it is perfectly consistentwith all we know of God’s action. . . that men moved by the HolyGhost . . . should not be error-proof.The Bible . . . is a collection of frag-ments, of quotations, of commentsupon quotations, . . . of genealogiesand laws, written by men, and inparts edited and re-edited by men,and it is not fair to contend thatPeter’s statement includes everyline within the Testaments, and isapplicable to each part in the samesense.59

Clifford’s method of interpretationleaves many questions unanswered andprovides no criteria by which to judge theclaim to credibility of any doctrine. Dis-agreement over which words and actionsare really those of Jesus can be resolved byno court of appeals, outside of the “spirit-led consciousness” of a third party. Cliffordwas quite confident that Jesus’ promise ofthe Spirit to “guide you into all truth” wasgiven to all the generations of Christiansas well as the Apostles. Through muchpainstaking, proper application of reason,and scientific interpretation of Scripture,the Spirit guides us into the truth. “It is notthat truth itself is given us, as you may givea book to a reader, . . . but we ourselves aretaken where the truth is.” In the final analy-

sis, one can only be sure of the voice of God,when his consciousness assures him thathe has properly read the universal Chris-tian consciousness and he speaks the mindof the Spirit.

Clifford breathed such fire in assertingthe direct authority of the Spirit or of Christin the human conscience that even a con-servative inerrantist like A. T. Robertsoncould be taken away in admiration.In Modern Baptist Heroes and Martyrs

published after the 1911 meeting of theBaptist World Alliance (at which Cliffordpreached), Robertson included a chapteron the still living and energetic Clifford, aman “born of the stuff of which martyrsare made.” Robertson recalled Clifford’spresence at the 1905 formation of the Bap-tist World Alliance and Clifford’s electionas its first president. Robertson said that“it was the delight of that great body toelect Dr. Clifford;” he recalled also that“his every appearance was the signal forunbounded enthusiasm.” He also men-tioned that it was “one of the proudestoccasions” of his life to stand on the plat-form of Westbourne Park Chapel fromwhich Clifford has sent forth “his clarioncalls to battle.” Clifford “has caught withall his might the Baptist message and hesounds it out before all the world.”Robertson lauded Clifford as one whose“spirit is unconquerable” and whose“optimism is grounded in God.”60

To Robertson the sermon was a “won-derful apologetic.” The three paragraphshe quotes concern the pre-eminent author-ity of Christ. “The deepest impulse of Bap-tist life,” according to Clifford, “has beenthe upholding of the sole and exclusiveauthority of Christ Jesus against all possibleencroachment.” Encroachment on Christ’sauthority could come even from Scriptureaccording to the sermon. His words are

74

characteristic of the attractive packaging ofa siren’s call to destruction.

He is Lord of All, and He only isLord of all. Our conception ofChrist’s authority is exclusive. Werefuse to everybody and everythingthe slightest share in it. It is absolute,unlimited, indefeasible, admits of noquestion, and allows no rival. Theright to rule in the religious life is inHim and in no other, be he as saintlyas St. Francis, as devout as St. Ber-nard, as loving as John, or as practi-cal as Paul; not in any offices, papal,episcopal or ministerial, not in tra-dition, though it may interpret thegoings of the Spirit of God andillustrate the effects of obedience anddisobedience; not in the Old Testa-ment not [nor?] yet in the New,though their working values aregreat, since they enable us to knowHis mind, understand His laws ofconduct and partake more freely ofHis Spirit; . . . Jesus Christ holds withus the first place and the last. Hisword is final. His rule is supreme.61

Neither Paul nor John, the Old Testa-ment nor the New may usurp the place ofChrist, according to the impassioned rheto-ric of John Clifford. Ontologically, no Chris-tian will disagree. Jesus alone is Lord; Hehas no equal for He is God the Son in theflesh of our human nature. One of the iro-nies of this point is that Clifford did nothave a view of the Lordship of Christ thatwould make it right for a mortal to followhim with such ardor. Clifford would seekto convince us all to be idolators. But he isnot really speaking in the realm of ontol-ogy when he begins to set the authority ofJesus in comparison to the authority ofJohn, Paul, and the Bible. He is dealing withan issue of epistemology as it relates toauthority, not ontology as it relates toauthority. While an infinite ontologicalsuperiority defies contradiction, even thecontradiction of Clifford, epistemologicallythe distinction between Jesus and His

apostles is impossible to maintain. Follow-ing Jesus endears the authority of the Bibleto a person and establishes its revelatorycapacity and authority for all thought andaction. Such misleading rhetoric, andClifford was a master of it, frequently flowsfrom his pen, as it must have from hismouth and enmeshed his hearers in a netof confusion from which they rarely couldescape. If James Spurgeon and A. T.Robertson found Clifford’s passionatepresentation irresistible, though given indefense of a liberal theology destructive oftrue Christianity, some of the astonishment,even mystery, as to how he carried thecrowd on that poignant day in the BaptistUnion in 1888 is explained.

In rejecting the necessity of inerrancy asa doctrinal safeguard, Clifford severelybegs the question. He begins by assumingthat any doctrine affected by his “experi-ential” method of interpretation is certainlynot essential to the Christian faith. If a doc-trine falls it is not essential, ergo, the loss ofinerrancy affects no essential doctrine. Athorough reading of Clifford’s works,however, shows that he had in fact com-promised some basic evangelical truthsthat Spurgeon considered essentially andbroadly Christian.

UniversalismFor example, Clifford’s highly rhetori-

cal messages on evangelism fail to escapean implicit if not an explicit universalism.In 1920, Clifford delivered the first seriesof “The John Clifford Lectureship” estab-lished by the National Council of BritishBrotherhood. The lectures were publishedas a book under the title The Gospel of World

Brotherhood According to Jesus. Chapter 3, “Isman as man a son of God?,” reveals thesetendencies quite clearly:

75

Jesus never treats the fact of sin asbreaking off or hiding the filial rela-tion of the offender to God . . . Assin does not destroy God’s relationto us as Father, so it cannot preventor end our relation to Him as sons. . . As the holiness of the newredeemed and regenerated soul doesnot create the relation, so sin doesnot extinguish it. It is eternal. It isfundamental. The prodigal son isstill a son, and it is not likely thefatherly heart will forget him, or thathe will find rest till he sees himseated at the family table . . . Accord-ing to Jesus, then, man’s sonship toGod is an indefeasible fact, a glori-ous gospel, Sin does not destroy it,. . . Thus the truth that we are thechildren of God, and that he is ourFather, embraces, completes andharmonizes all other truths we pos-sess regarding Him, ourselves andour world.62

Consistent with his universalism, Clif-ford rejected eternal punishment andinterpreted those biblical passages thatseem to indicate such as judgments uponworld civilizations. Empires that failed inincorporating adequately the concept ofthe brotherhood of man into their culturewould perish never to rise again. However,these judgments, according to Clifford,were not brought against individualpeople. As reported in the Christian World

Pulpit, when he preached his presidentialaddress at the International BrotherhoodCongress, Clifford warned, “It is demon-strated once more that the moral order ofthe world is fixed and determined for thepunishment, yea, the eternal punishment,of arrogant, self-seeking, hard-hearted, andgrasping nations.”63

Clifford’s universalism rescued himfrom the dilemma proposed by the possi-bility that one’s reason might fail to assurehim of truth. Even in those cases where thesearcher is beset by confusion, Cliffordassures him that since he is God’s work-manship, God can never leave him or

forsake him. “He will not leave man toperish.”64 If he could see Emerson as aChristian, and could represent the Moham-medan as a man of true faith, we are notsurprised when we find Clifford through-out his public ministry rejoicing in those“saints of social reform outside theChurches, full of faith and of venture andstrong in the conviction of the final triumphof righteousness.”65 This final triumph ofrighteousness would be greatly aided bythe League of Nations. If given the oppor-tunity and resources it deserves, theLeague will point to paths “we have to takeif we are to reach the condition where menmay realize that they are brothers predes-tined to live together as sons of God.”66

Furthermore, if the community in writingthe gospels tended to embellish or exag-gerate on Christ’s person, as Clifford wasquite willing to admit, they certainly couldfall prey to exaggerated and “gaudy” viewsof punishment.

Atonement and ImputationClifford denied a penal substitutionary

view of the atonement. He sought to main-tain the word “vicarious” but so inter-preted it as to render it senseless as far asany historic understanding of the word isconcerned. Clifford has no patience with“the ‘appeasing’ content of the symbol ofpropitiation” and claims that the “payinga debt” metaphor is “so seriously chargedwith error as to make it more mischievousthan useful.” He reduces the rich store-house of New Testament allusions tosacrifice and death to an ambiguous affir-mation that these simply refer to, in thewords of Livingstone, “the inherent andeverlasting mercy of God made apparentto human eyes and ears. . . . It [the death ofChrist] showed that God forgives becausehe loves to forgive.” He rejects the ransom

76

and satisfaction theories and denominatesthe theories of imputation connected withthe traditional doctrines of substitutionaryatonement and justification by faith asunethical. His caricature, common to theliberalism of his day, objectifies one pointof Spurgeon’s Downgrade summary: Theatonement is scouted.

Add to this the non-ethical doctrineof the external transfer of guilt, andmerit; the acceptance of the processesof courts of law with all their glaringfaults and inevitable imperfections asadequate representations of God,though always obscuring and oftenomitting the very heart of God; andit becomes clear that the whole foren-sic theory bases the redemption ofman not on the fact of the DivineFatherhood revealed in it, but on thearbitrary and cruel despotisms of theImperial Court of Rome.67

The rejection of imputation in atone-ment immediately poses the problem of theorthodox doctrine of original sin. As a Gen-eral Baptist, Clifford already had a predis-position toward minimizing the effects oforiginal sin. His temperament, education,and chosen sources of intellectual growthand development fed his doctrinal bias. Asearly as 1867, Clifford wrote as if spiritual-ity and godliness rested in embryonic formin the child alongside latent lusts and self-ishness. Proper training would cause theone to grow and diminish the impact ofthe other. In Christian Nurture Clifford com-pares a child to a seed awaiting the properconditions for growth and to a musicalinstrument awaiting the hand of a mastermusician. Every child has “certain powerswhich must be distinctly recognized.”These powers include godward compul-sions as well as “warfare with lusts.” Thewhole nature “waits in responsive attitudethe touch of the parent’s hand.” “The factof sinful bias,” Clifford writes is “never to

be blinked, as it is not to be exaggerated.”68

The child considered as a musical instru-ment will respond accordingly so that ifone touches the “keys of faith, affection,conscience, . . . out come melodious songsfor God and man.”69 If we appreciate “tothe fullest extent the divine dignity of thechild that is in our trust” and put into playthe nurturing principles most adapted tofoster the positive application of intrinsicpowers, right religion results. “Religion isthe growth of the whole man in allegianceto God,” so we are to believe, “and in theservice of his fellow by a wise forth-putting of faith and conscience, love andhope, humbleness and obedience.” In pur-suit of the thesis that “God’s chief work,so far as we know it, is the education ofmen,” Clifford sets forth his ideal of theforming of Christ in the heart.

We have to nurture children for Godthat have much that is relativelygood in them, with also much thatis decidedly evilward, and we mustadjust our training accordingly, notleaving them to sin in hope that theymay one day experience a conver-sion, but striving with all our mightto educate them so that if possiblethey may grow up in the love ofChrist, and likeness to Christ, andnever be called to know a sudden,dateable, and describable transfor-mation.70

In the middle of much that is commend-able and wise, scriptural and heavenly,Clifford poises his tentative doctrine of sin.He wants to develop youths with “strong,stable, and healthy affinities for goodness,who love it with all their hearts.” He wantsto see Josephs and Daniels in whom “theleaven of frivolity will not give decay totheir solid thoughtfulness, nor corrupt theirmanful piety.” He envisions a Christiannurture that promotes a “full and deter-mined hate of all evil, a pure and quick eye

77

for the lurking places and subterfuges ofsin, and an absorbing affection for the per-son of Christ.”71 He encourages the devel-opment of these through a love that winsover the “rebellious and headstrongnature” and is unafraid to strike itself bydisciplining another. The eye of disciplin-ing love fixates on the production of a“godly, strong, and holy man.”72 But hewants it grown from the intrinsic energyof goodness, faith, and love that proper carewill develop; he wants it without a felt con-version, and he wants a righteousness thatsprings from within, born of their prin-cipled realization of the “fatherly relationof God to them as revealed in JesusChrist.”73

Evil is present, yes, and powerful, andfinds occasion in each person for its dis-torting and destructive manifestation. Butan original sin that both condemns andcorrupts so thoroughly that mankind with-out exception is its slave Clifford found nospace for in his theology. Spurgeon claimedthe doctrine as a non-negotiable. Cliffordrejected it by minimizing the importanceof the historic space-time fall of man. Themicrocosmic impact of Christian nurturein the individual replicated the macro-cosmic amelioration of the entire racethrough the developmental powers ofspiritual evolution. Clifford accepted thejudgment of biological evolution concern-ing the ascent of man and transferred thatinto the spiritual sphere. Just as evolutionexperienced many deviations and degra-dations along the way, so has man’s spiri-tual progress seen intermittent periods ofdecline, though, in both cases the predomi-nant trend is upwards. “In short, not one‘fall of man,’ but a succession of falls.”74

Baptist IdentityIn view of these positions assumed by

Clifford, vice-president and president ofthe Baptist Union in the initial years of theDowngrade, it is no wonder that Spurgeonconsidered the case hopeless and provedhesitant to reveal the names of those heopposed. Several observations close thisbrief profile of John Clifford.

Clifford’s ministry spanned the years inwhich a disturbing shift occurred. Build-ing on the influence of Robert Hall, Jr., Bap-tists of the Baptist Union showed strongresistance to singular attempts to set forthprecise doctrinal definition. They weresatisfied to envision Christianity as anamorphous evangelical “experience” or“spirit” rather than evangelical doctrine.Sir James Marchant in speaking ofClifford’s strategic address before thespring assembly of 1888 said, “It remindedthe Assembly of those primitive days whenthe one Authority that all could accept wasnot yet divided, exploited, or timeworn.”“The Masterhood of Jesus Christ,” that is,the powerful impression of his person inthe minds and hearts of his original follow-ers before they began to write their impres-sions in the words of a book, was “all inall.” The address “gave the central positionto the cross—and that is the gist of‘evangelicalism.’ It drew the saving infer-ences for society, for progress, for men inall their groupings and for mankind in allits totality, for which the evangelical faithwould be the best basis and guarantee—if it would only unfold its own implica-tions.”75 However, merely a central posi-tion to the cross does not mean that onehas a historically evangelical interpretationof the cross. Clifford obviously did not.The word evangelical became so debasedthat A. C. Underwood could apply it toT. R. Glover (as well as call Glover“Christocentric”), who expended greatamounts of intellectual energy seeking to

78

undercut the supports of historic Christian-ity. Underwood also calls Clifford “anardent evangelical” and betrays the presentstance of the Baptist Union by commend-ing Clifford for not confusing “the per—manent element in Christianity with itstheological expression”76

The alarm created in 1971 by MichaelTaylor, principal of Northern Baptist Col-lege, when he denied the deity of Christ inan address at the Baptist Union Assembly,made conservatives in the Baptist Unionpush for a stronger statement of doctrine.Any reprimand of Taylor, however, failedto materialize as the Council thwartedthose attempts. Spurgeon-like manychurches withdrew over this theologicalfailure in the Union.

But Taylor was not through. He pub-lished in 1977 A Plain Man’s Guide to the

Incarnation explaining how the doctrine ofthe incarnation has taken its place amongother items of non-sensical rubbish suchas a literal creation of heaven and earth asdescribed in Genesis 1 and 2 and the theoryof a verbally-inspired Bible. Now, however,“we don’t believe in miracles and we don’tbelieve in the intervention to crown all in-terventions, namely the Incarnation.” Thisfrees us also from the “rather rude and veryunfair” implication of exclusivity in Chris-tianity and makes it inconceivable “that theGod who acted in Jesus has failed to act inother equally important ways for the goodof mankind.” We may now be free to sayquite frankly that “the Godlike qualityabout Jesus did not arise from the fact(sorry) that he was God anymore than weare God.” Now we can quit “toeing the lineover the incarnation.”77 Clifford had beatTaylor to the punch a century earlier. Hewas simply more refined, earnest, andpious than Taylor.

Clifford’s tenure among English Baptists

revealed not only a decline of confessionalidentity, but a reinterpretation of somepeculiarly baptistic ideas. For a denomina-tions whose view of the ordinances soprecisely depended on the regulative prin-ciple of biblical authority, the surrender ofany recognizable view of Scripture as theinfallible rule of faith and practice posed amajor problem. In addition, the definingordinance of believers’ baptism by immer-sion, at one time the sole doctrinal affirma-tion of the Baptist Union, fell into thecategory of personal conscience rather thanchurch requirement. Clifford’s church leftthe whole question of baptism to theindividual conscience. The church’s Con-stitution, composed by Clifford, stated,“Every applicant for membership is urgedto consider the Lord’s will on this subject,but the rule followed is ‘Let every man befully persuaded in his own mind,’ and actaccording to his judgment of the Master’steaching. The whole question is left to theindividual conscience.”78

The matter of conscience itself under-went alteration as many interpreted theBaptist principle in terms of a humanisticview of liberty of conscience rather than aview centered on Scripture and the natureof the Gospel. Cornelius Woelfkin wit-nesses to Clifford’s impact in this area in aletter to Sir James Marchant. Woelfkin, anAmerican Baptist liberal who forestalledthe Northern Baptist Convention’s attemptto adopt a confession of faith in 1922, wrote,“We regard him not only as the outstand-ing champion of Baptist principles in theEnglish-speaking world, but as a gift to allthe Churches in his great advocacy of thefreedom of the spirit in things pertainingto God and religious duty.”79

Clifford’s management of The Down-grade Controversy showed that manyministers were either unwilling to come to

79

a full understanding of issues at stake orwere willing to compromise truth for thesake of unity. Even the six-point statementof 1888 was worded in such a way that menof opposite opinions could agree with it.The Union had been formed for the practi-cal benefits a closer association of indi-vidual churches would give, and fewsafeguards were taken to protect theirdoctrinal integrity. Probably they neverfathomed that such safeguard would beneeded. When trouble came, the vastmajority preferred unity at any cost ratherthan obedience to Scripture.

ConclusionThe mid-nineteenth century brought a

noticeable shift in the thinking of manyBaptists. Clifford’s success and popularity,whether a cause or simply an indicator,marked a revolutionary shift in the Baptistself-concept. The Baptist Union optedrather for ill-defined doctrine so thatexternal unity might be maintained andchose the path of Clifford rather than thatof Spurgeon. Whereas, biblical infallibilitywas the mainspring of authority and spe-cific doctrinal content mattered in the B. C.(Before Clifford) period, now humanconsciousness and freedom became themainspring of authority. Specific doctrinefell into disfavor as cold, calcified, and atyranny to human liberty. Baptists beganto work within a Cartesian rather than aPauline framework. No matter thatSpurgeon couldn’t bring himself to namethe offenders. It probably would havemade little difference.

ENDNOTES11Robert Hall, The Works of the Rev. Robert

Hall, A. M. 2 vols. (New York: G. & C. &H Carvill, 1830) 2:211.

22Hall, “Essay on Antinomianism,” Works,

2:32533Hall, Works, 1:94.44Hall, “Reply to Kinghorn on Terms of

Communion,” Works, 1:27155Hall, “On Terms of Communion,” Works,

1:99.66Hall, “Introductory Preface to ‘Help to

Zion’s Travellers’,” in Works, 2:333.77Hall, Works, 2:145.88Graham Hughes, Robert Hall (London:

The Carey Press, 1943) 144-145.99Hall, Works, 1:21.10Hall, Works, 1:105.11This paraphrased description of the

times was taken from John Clifford.“The International Mind in 1919” in theChristian World Pulpit, vol. 97 (January7, 1920) 1.

12G. W. Byrt. John Clifford: A Fighting Free

Churchman (London: The KingsgatePress, 1947) 18

13Ibid., 11.14Sir James Marchant. Dr. John Clifford, C.

H. Life Letters and Reminiscences (London:Cassell and Company, 1924) 13-14.

15Ibid., 15.16This discussion of Clifford’s view

of Emerson is based on his sermon“Emerson: His Ideas and Influence” inThe Christian World Pulpit, vol. 63 (June17, 1903) 380-382.

17 Ibid., 382.18Marchant, 24. Marchant’s account ofClifford’s college days (of which he says,“Few records remain”) relies on reminis-cences by Clifford in his last days.Bateman records the college experiencein the same pattern with Marchant but,as Bateman wrote about twenty yearsearlier some of his statements are of the“he told the writer” variety. (Charles T.Bateman, John Clifford: Free Church Leader

and Preacher [London: National Councilof the Evangelical Free Churches, 1904]

80

30). Byrt relies heavily on Batemanand Marchant, many times para-phrasing the lengthy primaryquotes found in Marchant.

19Marchant, 44. Bates College, orga-nized in 1863, was a Free Will Bap-tist College located in Maine.

20John Clifford, “Saving the Soul ofthe World in 1917,” in The Christian

World Pulpit, vol. 93 (January 2,1918) 2.

21John Clifford, “The Growth of Manin 1910,” in The Christian World Pul-

pit, vol. 79 (January 4, 1911) 5.22Clifford, “Saving the Soul of the

World,” 3.23John Clifford, “International Broth-

erhood,” in The Christian World Pul-

pit, vol. 96 (September 24, 1919) 150.The next year in the same periodi-cal in an article entitled “The Inter-national Mind,” Clifford continuedhis attack on the liquor trade andliquor consumption. In Americapeople know that “alcohol drinkingis a national evil, is bad business,and leads to bad morals,” Britishersmust see that the “drinking habit isa fatal handicap to national effi-ciency and industrial progress,…and unfits the nation for the fierc-est commercial competition theworld has ever seen.” “If we wantincreased output we must get rid ofthe thoughtless, senseless, wasteful,undisciplined drinking habit whichmakes bad work and bad time.”

24John Clifford, “The Revolution of1902,” in The Christian World Pulpit,vol. 63 (January 7, 1903) 13.

25Cited by Gwilym O. Griffith in “Dr.Clifford” in Watchman Examiner, 7August 1924, 1020.

26A.T. Robertson, “John Clifford: Hero

of Religious Liberty,” in Modern Bap-

tist Heroes and Martyrs, ed. J. N.Prestridge (Louisville, KY: TheWorld Press, 1911) 262.

27Quoted in Byrt, 141.28Clifford, “Saving the Soul of the

World in 1917,” 5.29Ibid., 1.30John Clifford, ”The International

Mind in 1919,” in The Christian

World Pulpit, vol. 97 (January 7,1920) 2.

31John Clifford, “The Surprises of1908,” in The Christian World Pulpit,vol. 75 (January 6, 1909) 13.

32Clifford, ”The International Mind in1919,” 5.

33Clifford, “The Surprises of 1908,” 13,14.

34Ibid., 10.35John Clifford, “The Growth of Man

in 1910,” in The Christian World Pul-

pit, vol. 79 (January 4, 1911) 2-3.36Clifford, “Saving the Soul of the

World in 1917,” 6.37Clifford, “The Revolution of 1902,”

12.38Clifford, “Saving the Soul of the

World in 1917,” 5.39John Clifford, “Will He Make a

Preacher?” in The General Baptist

Magazine, vol. 75 (January 1873)27. In the second article Clifforditemizes important aspects of apreacher’s equipment. First is hispiety. Next, “stands the truth, theword of God, the means by whichthe hearts of men are to be reached,and swayed.” The last four articlesall dealt with issues of health of thebody and care for the voice. Muchgood advice cleverly and forcefullycrafted is in the articles, but doctrinescarcely appears, and then largely

in negative overtones.40Clifford, “The Surprises of 1908,” 15.41Clifford, “The International Mind in

1919,” 5-6.42C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon

Autobiography, 2 vols originally pub-lished as four (Edinburgh: The Ban-ner of Truth Trust, 1976) 2:478-479.For the Baptist Union statementquoted as a response by John Aldis,Joseph Angus, and AlexanderMaclaren to Mr. Spurgeon’s with-drawal, see G. Holden Pike, The Life

and Work of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,6 vols. (London, Paris & Melbourne:Cassell and Company Limited, n.d.)289. In these six volumes, distrib-uted by subscription only, the pagi-nation is consecutive for volumes 1and 2. It begins again in volume 3and continues through volume 4.The same pattern is repeated in vol-umes 5 and 6.

43Clifford as cited in Byrt, 106-107.44Spurgeon, 2:479.45Marchant, 165.46William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confes-

sions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson,1969) 345-346.

47Bateman, xv.48Spurgeon, 2:478-479.49Griffith, 1919.50Byrt, 102.51John Clifford, Inspiration and Author-

ity of the Bible, 3d ed. (London: JamesClark, 1899) 63.

52Ibid., 78.53John Clifford, “The Supreme Test of

Every Religion,” in The Christian

World Pulpit, vol. 72 (October 2,1907) 211-212.

54John Clifford, Ultimate Problems of

Christianity (London: The KingsgatePress and James Clark, 1906) 58.

81

55Ibid.56Ibid., 65.57Ibid., 67.58Ibid., 73-74.59Ibid., 72-73.60Robertson, 261, 263, 265.61John Clifford, as cited in ibid., 264-

265.62John Clifford, The Gospel of World

Brotherhood According to Jesus (Lon-don: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920)28, 29, 46.

63Clifford, “International Brother-hood,” 151.

64John Clifford, The Christian Certain-

ties (London: Ibister, 1894) 80-85.65Clifford, “International Brother-

hood,” 153.66Ibid., 151.67John Clifford, The Secret of Jesus

(Manchester: James Robinson, 1908)105.

68John Clifford, “Christian Nurture”in the General Baptist Magazine

(October 1867) 290, 291, 293.69Ibid., 291.70Ibid., 293.71Ibid., 294.72Ibid., 295.73Ibid., 294.74Clifford, Ultimate Problems of Chris-

tianity, 269.75Marchant, 164-165.76A. C. Underwood, A History of the

English Baptists (London: CareyKingsgate, 1947) 232.

77Citations are taken from MichaelTaylor, A Plain Man’s Guide to the In-

carnation (Loughborough, Leisc.:ONE Publications, 1977), 1-10 inLeon McBeth, Ed. A Sourcebook for

Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broad-man, 1990) 386-389.

78Marchant, 45.

79Ibid., 46.