may see from whence they have fallen, and get a true view of the Assembly of God in contrast with the most attractive of the systems of men.”—P.31.
Judging these confessions by the usual laws, the conclusion is inevitable that the theory of divine presidency has no foundation in fact, just as it is seen to have no foundation in Scripture.
I cannot forbear to add to this a statement of a lady, who has just retired from “the Brethren,” in connection with the same points. She says:—
“In common with most of you, I have thought that in the many-men ministry the rule of the Holy Ghost was acknowledged—that in the one-man ministry it was set aside. This, I say, was the theory, though with it our experience accorded not at all; and I shall have the sympathy of many hearts when I say that calls for the patient endurance of unprofitable ministry are more frequent than for the thankful acknowledgment of blessing received. Exceptions there are, of course, as to this: and in our own little company I have often listened with pleasure to short and simple addresses from gracious and godly brethren, who, generally from the Gospel of John, drew refreshing remembrances of Christ for our souls. But is it not true that we have assumed too much?—that with us there has been a counterfeit of spiritual power—a pretension to what was not real—and are we not conscious of disastrous results both to speakers and hearers from many a vain talker, exhibiting rather the forwardness of the flesh than the unction of the Holy One? But not only had I the strength of long cherished feelings to overcome, and warm personal affection to many dear and true hearted saints from whom the very thought of severance was most painful, but the still stronger fear of grieving the Spirit of God. Thus I went through a conflict which has only ended now, and delayed taking the step which no less than three times I meditated.”
—Letter to the Saints Meeting at Moscow Hall, etc., from M. A. Hull, second edition, pp. 4-5.
