pied, undoubtedly, the most influential positions in the community of the Brethren. But, as in the Church at Corinth, so here there were some who looked upon the one, and some upon the other, as their chosen leader and teacher.
This was of little moment, so long as they were (if they ever were really) in substantial accord. It was, however, soon discovered that they held widely op posed views, especially upon the prophetic Scriptures. Mr. Darby, with his followers, held and proclaimed the secret coming of the Lord and the rapture of the saints before the manifestation of Antichrist: Mr. Newton, with his followers, held and proclaimed the manifest coming of Christ for His people after the development of Antichrist. With these widely divergent views—and their still more widely divergent consequences—entertained and spoken of, there could not be much real harmony between the two sections. Still, with the avowed principles on which the Brethren met, there could be no justification for division, neither could any charge of heresy be fastened upon what was after all only a difference in interpretation. There can be no doubt, however, that this difference of opinion was “the little rift within the lute” that very soon “made the music mute.” The opportunity seemingly sought and waited for came, or was made, at last. In April, 1845, Mr. Newton, alarmed at the progress of error, as he deemed it, amongst the Brethren, published a number of “Propositions” in which he sought to embody the cardinal truths of Redemption, and at the same time to oppose the heresies then being propagated.
This occasioned mortal offence. As early as 1835 Mr. Newton had published a paper in the Christian Witness on the subject of “Our Lord’s Humanity,” with the special design of counteracting and refuting the errors of Irvingism. This paper met with so
