Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/88

 himself from us under such plea, to us not true, in the place where we are. We know not of any consciences so troubled, nor is there any thing in the writings referred to which has affected our own consciences.

“G.V.W.C. Mc A.”

Those who had been waiting anxiously for some acknowledgment of error—some modification of statements that had been made, now saw but too clearly that nothing was to be expected. The evil had been wrapped up, and stereotyped on the party. Of this Mr. Dorman writes:—

“Instead of any modification of the doctrine or its withdrawal, as I had hoped, or any correction of the faulty statements, which had been solemnly promised, I found that now all was to be maintained. In addition to this I learned that nine of the leaders in London, had, in effect, countersigned the whole doctrine, and had thus sent it on accredited, as far as their names could accredit it, for currency among those who acknowledge Mr. D.’s rule.”

It was, indeed, scarcely to be supposed, that one who had been submitted to so implicitly by his followers hitherto, and been helped by them in carrying out what Mr. Dorman calls “his unrighteous decree,” would, when it came to the point, yield himself either to their entreaties or their dictation. Others had again and again been obliged to confess errors in doctrine, but they were not those of whom it would be written, “that it would be impossible he should hold any thing that was wrong,” they were not infallible. To retract, for the first time, to Mr. Darby would be at once to come down from the high pinnacle of infallibility, on which he had stood so long, the key stone of the arch of the system he had reared. This position was necessary to himself, and needful to his party. He had become a necessity to his followers, and they could not lose Him; and the threat of leaving them not only led them to leave the matter uninvestigated, but to endorse the doctrines advocated, for “they had not found any thing in the writings referred to which had affected their own consciences.” Thus have the London gatherings of the party given their sanction to that, for which these eighteen years they have been pursuing their brethren wifhwith [sic] “fire and sword.” The question evidently is not, what is the doctrine, but who teaches it.

We commend the following extract from Mr. Dorman’s Pamphlet (p. 36) to the consideration of our readers.