leaders they shared the responsibility of this most high-handed proceeding.
The action took the form of “a last appeal,” professing to emanate from the “saints … at Rawstorne Street”—the document not mentioning that there were some who dissented. This “appeal” was signed by Gough and Dorman. Newton and his colleagues replied in a courteous and dignified note, giving “the most firm and decided negative”. This bore date December 9, 1846.
Four days later Dorman and Gough signed a note on behalf of “the saints at Rawstorne Street,” refusing Newton “fellowship at the table of the Lord” until he should recede from his contumacious attitude. Newton’s colleagues thereupon issued, on Christmas Day, a Remonstrance and Protest respecting the act of exclusion, which they treated as a sentence of excommunication.
One of the many extraordinary features of this affair is that the second citation (according to Tregelles, who appeals to Gough as being thoroughly aware of the fact) and the final judgment (by Darby’s own showing) were not unanimous. Yet Darby could express earty disapprobation of Dissent for settling things by majorities. This he constantly condemned as a most carnal proceeding; and even in his Account of the Proceedings at Rawstorne Street, issued after the conclusion of the whole matter, he is not ashamed to write as follows: “Among the dissenters they vote … and a majority determines the matter. … It is a mere human principle, such as the world is obliged to act on, because it has no other way of getting out of its difficulties. But the church of God has. It has the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost.” It is instructive to see that this boasted prin-
