more of the influence of the Holy Ghost is a statement quite without foundation.
There was only one question of any consequence on which a variety of opinion was practically tolerated. Ostensibly, indeed, all opinions that did not touch the fundamental principles of Christianity (according to the Brethren’s views of what was fundamental) might be held within their ranks; but practically an almost unprecedented uniformity of doctrine obtained. Baptism constituted the solitary exception,—the explanation being that Darby was a pedobaptist. His pedobaptism was rather out of keeping with his general theological standpoint, as Herzog observes, though of course he considers it a happy inconsistency. In respect of this tenet Darby stood for a long time almost alone. In 1838 he obtained a powerful ally in Dorman. The number of his disciples gradually increased until, within the Exclusive party, they formed a considerable majority. On the other hand, the Open Brethren are, almost without exception, very pronounced Baptists.
Darby professed to require a distinct New Testament precedent for everything. To act without it, even in the details of church government, was the part of semi-rationalism in his eyes. As his followers fully accepted the same starting point, it is not wonderful that they had to take his view of baptism on trust. Indeed the extraordinary diversities existing among them would suffice to show that they yielded their great chief an obedience more devoted than intelligent. One prominent man among them, as I am informed on unimpeachable testimony, said that he would be willing to stand at the street corner and baptise any one that would let him,—a confession of faith being, in this view, uncalled for. Others are reported to have baptised by force children
