Page:Neatby - A history of the Plymouth Brethren.djvu/177

 place, the penalty for neglecting this decree was significantly indicated at the outset,—“it involves to my mind the whole question of association with brethren”. In the second place, at the close of the circular the whole of the subsequent discipline of Exclusivism was expressed in principle. The only question that stood over for settlement was whether, in the practical enforcement of the decree, there might be some flinching from carrying it out to its full extent. The early sequel will furnish an answer.

By making this exorbitant requirement Darby put a severe strain even upon his own wonderful influence. In the middle of September some men who were afterwards numbered with his followers were still in a contumacious frame. The Brethren of Bath requested that a meeting might be held at Bristol to enquire into the separation of Alexander, Stancombe and others from Bethesda. This was duly held, Bethesda being represented by Müller, Craik, Norris Groves (who happened to be in England at the time) and several others; the seceders by Alexander, Stancombe and two others; and the Bath meeting by Captain Wellesley (a nephew of the Iron Duke, and a man who had suffered severely for his principles as a Plymouth Brother), by J. G. Bellett, who had come to Bath for a time for the benefit of an invalid son, by Code, and by several more. The result was that the Bath Brethren determined, in palpable disregard of the circular, to receive “for the present” from “both parties in Bristol”.

It will be observed in the circular that Darby felt unable to go the length of stating that Craik was personally “unsound”. In the following October Wigram made a gallant attempt to fill up this unfortunate gap. He lets us know that he acted under a strong sense of