of ‘the Bethesda question’ and ‘the neutral party’—hateful phrases as they have become. At first, of course, all this was pursued as necessary to the maintenance of purity of doctrine and of ‘a true Christ’ … and I honestly thought it so myself. But this guise is now utterly and rudely stripped away.”
The following description of Exclusivism is as true as it is forcible.
“What possible correspondence is there between a company of Christians, or ever so many companies, meeting simply in the name of Christ, pretending to nothing, but counting on His presence as the spring and security of their blessing, when so met, and that of an immense ecclesiastical ramification, which is everywhere subject, and in all things, as to its order, doctrine, and discipline, to Mr. D.’s decrees? enforced by a ubiquitous, unseen, spiritual supervision, from which, as there is no escape, so is there no appeal? The one is as wide and as free as the gracious heart of Christ can make it. … The other is as narrow and sectarian, and as hard also, as the domination of man can desire it.”
Dorman retired in silence from his “ordinary fellowship with the meeting at Orchard Street, Bristol; contenting” himself “by saying, in an informal way, that the doctrines of Mr. D. had compelled the step” . Whether he acted wisely or unwisely, it is impossible not to sympathise with his motives. “I had then made up my mind,” he says, “to encounter any obloquy on account of my course rather than incur the responsibility of bringing on indiscriminate discussions, which I am satisfied would have resulted only in blighting the best and holiest feelings of the heart toward Christ and His suffering and cross.”
The two leaders were not alone. Among a good many other seceders, the names of Joseph Stancombe and Julius von Poseck may be mentioned. Stancombe had left the peaceful communion of Bethesda to follow Darby’s standard. Like Dorman he had for the second time to sacrifice his cherished associations to the claims
