A doctrinal divergence was the root of the quarrel, though ecclesiastical differences followed, and seriously aggravated it. Newton had published (in 1842, it is said) a book on the Apocalypse. Darby criticised it, and a war of pamphlets ensued. Both men wrote with warmth, and each by his own showing was justified in feeling warmly. Newton had “identified the Church and the Kingdom,” (up to a certain point, apparently), and Darby declared that this identification was “of the very worst moral effect to the saint”. Newton not unnaturally considered this a “very strong expression”; but he was quite able to rival it, for he gave out that the foundations of Christianity were gone, if the views of his antagonist prevailed. “Much,” he said, “as I value the light of prophecy, I would rather that the Church should go back into ignorance about it all, than that such a system should take the place of its former deficiency in knowledge.” But Newton, if severe, was decent in tone throughout. Darby’s first rejoinder is perhaps entitled to the same praise, but his second was rather rude; and as usual his too evident anxiety to score points tends to repel the confidence of the reader.
The chief question in dispute was the relation of the Christian Church to the Great Tribulation. Both parties were futurists, that is, they held that the fulfilment of the bulk of the Apocalypse is still future, and belongs to
but to do His will, as one may discover it’.” This is a rather bold assumption of spiritual superiority, though quite in keeping with a great deal of Darby’s writings. Whether Darby was entitled to make such a claim, the reader must judge from the sequel. It does not seem to me to affect the statement I have made in the text, for it is not likely that Darby should have come with a definitely shaped plan. He came apparently to raise a fresh “barrier” against the tide of clericalism, and also (beyond a question) of Newtonian doctrine. No doubt it was left to circumstances to determine the rest.
