of Newton, Groves was grieved to find the narrower views already in the ascendant.[1] When the evil spirit of sectarianism is gone out of a man he is very apt to find himself a wanderer through dry places, seeking rest and finding none; and he is fortunate indeed if he does not fulfil his course according to the parable, until his last state is worse (and perhaps incomparably worse) than his first. So at least it certainly was with the great mass of the Brethren. Groves, on the other hand, with his singularly pure, lofty and tender spirit, had no more interest in a sect than he had capacity to form one. He was essentially catholic; and he had to endure the grief—which to a man less pure from the taint of self-seeking would have been the bitter mortification—of seeing another man enter into his labours and convert them to purposes that he abhorred.[2]
- ↑ Memoir, 356.
- ↑ I allow this closing sentence to stand as it originally appeared in the British Weekly, because I consider that Groves’ priority as compared with Darby, and his actually predominant influence at the first, make the expressions substantially accurate. But I would wish it to be understood that I do not think that any man can, with strict propriety, be spoken of as the founder of Plymouthism; though it seems fair to say of Groves that he had a larger share in its foundation than any one else, if we confine our attention to the very earliest period. It is necessary to add a word of warning against the first chapter of The Brethren, Their Origin, Progress and Testimony. Its author derived his information largely from Darby, but it may be charitably hoped that he extensively misunderstood his authority. As the chapter stands, it is putting it mildly to say that it teems with errors. Refutation in detail would have been equally tedious and superfluous, and I have been content in my own narrative to let my authorities constantly appear. I make these strictures on the book in question with the profoundest veneration for its author, and simply as deeming them imperatively called for in the interests of historical truth. I am also certain that Mr. Miller would never have felt that he had an interest that could be severed from the interests of truth.
