tion to Christian doctrine; and finally, having on these points (presumably through many perils and hairbreadth escapes) reached a conclusion favourable to Darbyism, he must determine the rightness of excluding from Christian fellowship persons whose perspicacity has not been sufficient to bring them safely to the same conclusion. Kellyism of course is partly in the same condemnation. Fancy a reclaimed thief or drunkard being required to investigate some of the most unintelligible and unedifying episodes of modern Church history as an indispensable condition of intelligently taking the only position in which he can have the approval of the Divine Head of the Church! Would to God the case were merely an imaginary one!
The quarrel soon diffused itself over the face of Christendom. On the Continent Darby’s name was a more potent spell than even in England, and the difficulties of a Continental campaign might have daunted the stoutest heart. The requisite courage, however, was not wanting. Mr. Kelly’s character had been so recklessly aspersed at the beginning of the troubles in England that he had wisely refrained thereafter from taking a prominent part in the controversy. In his absence, a very large share in the resistance to Darby’s violent measures had fallen to a younger man, well known both in London and in Switzerland, Dr. Thomas Neatby. Dr. Neatby now, with the help of M. Compain of Paris, determined to prosecute the cause of Kellyism abroad. Several publications were issued, discussing the curious history with great minuteness. The chief burden of the defence of Darbyism in its Continental stronghold fell upon Mr. W. J. Lowe, a Brother who had been associated with Darby in the translation of the New Testament into French.
The success of the assailants was not great, though
