wiser sort are awaking to a perception that the action of their principles has now made Darbyism a spectacle to Christendom, others are so infatuated that every fresh disruption is hailed as another step in the path of sanctity; and by the time that the number of their sects is literally according to the number of their cities, it is likely that some will see in the perfection of dissolution only the summit of their “path of testimony”.
“Let us,” says Mr. John James, a Montreal Brother, “look at ourselves:—
“Some say I am of J. N. D., others I am of W. K.
“Some say I am of J. B. S., others I am of C. E. S.
“Some say I am of A. P. C., others I am of F. W. G.
“Some say I am of F. E. R., others I am of W. J. L.”[1]
Mr. James is to be mentioned with honour as one to whom this state of things appeared an unmitigated scandal. He quotes from Mr. Grant: “Our shame is public. It requires no spirituality to see that exactly in that which we have professedly sought we have failed most signally. ‘The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ is just most surely what we have not kept.” Mr. Grant’s own efforts to apply some remedy to these scandals—even if we judge the efforts directed from an imperfect standpoint—surely deserve the recognition of all who have the welfare of the Church of Christ at heart.
During all these convulsions Mr. Kelly’s followers enjoyed a comparative tranquillity. There were indeed some important defections to the Open Brethren, and elsewhere; but for nearly twenty years there was no disruption, nor any new doctrinal vagaries of consequence.
- ↑ I append a list of the surnames in the order of the above table: Darby, Kelly, Stoney, Stuart, Cecil, Grant, Raven, Lowe.
