the first place, in churches where errors of a more or less abstruse character are taught, the bulk of the congregation will generally be found to know nothing about them. In the second place, there are many people who might regard the doctrines with abhorrence, without feeling justified in resorting to a suspension of ecclesiastical relations. In the case now in question, Episcopalians would take such a view almost universally, since the Creeds were not denied, but on the contrary very strenuously upheld. Now Brethrenism had started with scarcely any other definable principle than that all such ecclesiastical differences must be ignored. In the confusion that the immense variety of views as to the basis of church fellowship had produced in Christendom, the Brethren had sought to find a platform where all could meet, leaving behind them (were it only for the passing hour) the principles that divided them. The Bethesda congregation, unhappily, seemed now to sanction, up to a certain point, the separatist principle of their adversaries.
Bethesda afterwards fell back on its earlier decision, admitting every person that reached its particular standard of orthodoxy, without regard to his views of what he might (or should) tolerate in his ecclesiastical relations elsewhere. This principle was clearly enunciated by Müller’s assistant, Mr. James Wright, in answer to enquiries addressed to him in 1883; and the principle was then accepted by the Exclusive party as evidence of the incurably corrupt condition of his church.
The conclusion of the investigation did nothing to better the case of Bethesda in the eyes of its persecutors. The “independent” principle was still admitted; and (we may surely add) Darby’s decree was still refused. Yet Darby himself wavered. In July, 1849, he called on Müller at “the New Orphan House, No. 1 , ten
