for this hasty manner of withdrawal, and it was asked whether any intimation had been given to those concerned, before so solemn an act as separation took place. This had not been done, though subsequently, on the remonstrance of others, Mr. D. did write a letter from Exeter to Mr. Müller, intimating his decision in the matter.”[1]
Darby’s action doubtless quickened the zeal of his three adherents at Bethesda, who ceaselessly urged the duty of holding a church investigation of Newton’s views. The other elders maintained a steady opposition to this proposal.
A great deal of energy was afterwards expended by Darby’s party in an attempt to prove that persons holding Newton’s errors were about this time admitted to communion at Bethesda. But this was not the case; the principle of personal examination was thoroughly carried out. Both sides were agreed that such admission would have been indefensible. Perhaps from the very first, the Brethren had held themselves bound to exclude for a variety of errors, that leave untouched all the doctrines of the three great Creeds. This view of Christian fellowship is therefore not peculiar to Darbyism. It was the boast of Bethesda and of all Bethesda’s sympathisers.
In the month of June Alexander seceded without in any way previously intimating his intention, and circulated amongst the congregation a letter assigning his reasons. In this letter he makes no charge against the Church with respect to any actual occurrence. His reasons for leaving are purely hypothetical; such and
- ↑ The quotation is from Henry Groves’ Darbyism. Groves read the first draft of his work both to Craik and to Müller. He held it over for a time at their request, “lest it should appear indirectly like an act of self vindication,” ultimately publishing it on his own responsibility. Its statements therefore carry great authority as to things that happened at Bethesda itself.
