Division at Bath? A. N. Groves, The Tottenham Case. “Vindex,” Shibboleth, or, the New Test of Communion amongst certain “Brethren”. D. W., Divers Weights Brought out and Broken. J. G. Deck, Letter on Receiving or Rejecting Brethren; A Second Letter on Receiving and Rejecting Brethren. (The second was written to correct the first; Deck’s attitude towards the controversy was always extraordinarily vacillating.)
“Philadelphos,” An Appeal to “The Brethren,” so called; The Basis of Peace. (These were printed—not published—by a Brother named Bewley, in 1871, and constitute the most important attempt that has been made to reconcile the parties.)
R. Nelson, Protest against the Proceedings of Mr. John N. Darby; W. Yapp, “What was I that I could withstand God?” T. Newberry, The Loose Ground of Gathering. (Mr. Newberry afterwards left the Exclusive communion.)
As for Chapter VIII. and the following: H. Young, A Plea for the Honour of Christ. Christian Fellowship (printed statements of their basis of communion from the Open meetings at Torquay, Scarborough, Tottenham, Taunton and Bath). Two anonymous pamphlets on Darbyism, attributed to Boardman, give some striking instances of intolerance. Dorman’s tracts cited below for Chapter XII. are still the most powerful attack on “Exclusive” principles.
The writings of J. N. Darby and W. Kelly are the most reliable testimony as to the ecclesiastical principles of Darbyism. For a comparatively short and thoroughly authoritative account, Kelly’s Six Lectures is best. From an adverse point of view, Dorman’s tracts (see below under Chapter XII.) are best. My chapter has been principally written from personal knowledge, except as to the facts of the Walworth-Sheffield discipline. For these consult J. E. Howard, A Caution against
