style of this writer; but when all deductions are made there is probably a considerable residuum of truth in his statement. Indeed the undoubted power of Darbyism was often a trial to the rival section of the Brethren. John Howard suggested that the “power” might come from a most sinister source; but we are not reduced to this expedient. The strength of Darby’s party lay in its homogeneity. The universal pressure of one iron will ensured a common action. The universal inspiration of one imperial spirit produced a common aim and a common enthusiasm. Discipline was all-pervading and resistless. A party thus equipped for action, and exactly knowing what it wanted, might well be strong; while the Open section was languishing under conditions in almost every respect the exact opposite. But with all this appearance of vigour, Darbyism was decaying within. It could not long outlast its chief, and was very likely to perish before him. In the end, no blow from without struck it down; no insidious foe undermined it. It went to pieces in virtue of its own inherent and self-acting forces of decay; and when this is the case with any community, its fall may claim sympathy, but not regret.
The principal precursor of ruin was the formation of a party holding tenets that passed under the cant name of New-lumpism. This party professed to bewail the increasing worldliness of the Darbyites. It regarded the separation of the self-styled “spiritual” from the unspiritual mass, and the formation of a communion restricted to persons who gave evidence of sufficient attainments in spirituality, as the only hope for the “testimony” originally entrusted to the Brethren. The new evangelism that had remarkably repleted the ranks of Brethrenism was regarded with profound disfavour by
