Page:Neatby - A history of the Plymouth Brethren.djvu/130

118 it expressed. Campbell “said before a hundred and eighty persons, that within three days of the suppression, he felt he could not sign it, and that his judgment is now opposed to its contents”. This statement is Wigram’s, and it was all he could urge; but even this makes it plain that Campbell could still have signed it when it was suppressed; and it does not affirm (indeed it seems designed to avoid affirming) that Campbell denied its allegation. And on the 1st of January following, Campbell sent a letter to the church at Ebrington Street, calling on them to make an investigation corporately; and, referring to a refusal already made to permit such investigation, he says, “I renounce all participation in such proceedings, not because I judge Mr. Darby’s accusations correct [italics my own], but, because the only door, by which he could return among you, has been shut”. The language is ambiguous, but it seems designed to convey a disagreement with Darby’s views.

On the other hand, even Darby and Wigram are not able to say that any member of the ten, at the time of the investigation, accepted Darby’s charges as made out. The five signatories, indeed, all resolved to work from within the congregation at Ebrington Street, in the hope of curing the disorders that they conceived (rightly, from the point of view of Darbyism) to exist there,—all of them considering Darby’s secession “a great mistake”.

The real reason for the suppression of the “verdict” was that the person on whose behalf it was drawn up declined it, doubtless thinking it did not go far enough in his favour. Newton’s conduct in this particular was greatly regretted by Congleton; and certainly, whether it was right or wrong, it was unfortunate in the extreme. It is likely that Newton felt that if it was an acquittal of