of persecuted saints of evangelical faith, who, in defence of what the Brethren wholly believe to have been the truth of the Gospel, have worshipped in prison-cells, or in “dens and caves of the earth”. They refuse to recognise this as a reductio ad absurdum, and maintain that between the first and the nineteenth centuries no Christian assemblies had any status “before God”.
This was only to be expected. The mass of the Open Brethren, though they rejected Darby’s preposterous decree, were in their general point of view the followers of Darby, not only as against Newton, but even as against Müller.
At a conference at Freemason’s Hall (evidently in 1869), the late A. A. Rees of Sunderland—who, though not associated with Brethren, often attended their meetings—publicly asked the question “whether those Christians who met without open ministry, met in the name of Jesus”. “After a little silence,” Rees tells us, “one brother stepped to the front, and replied, ‘No; let us never give up our principle on that point’; nor was there any public protest against this answer, though after the meeting several Brethren expressed to me their dissent.” At the present time, as I am informed by one who knows the Open Brethren well, those who hold a less illiberal view constitute the majority. I sincerely hope this is so, though I cannot help thinking that in that case the majority sometimes allows itself to be “talked down”. At the same time, I am fully aware that there are many amongst them who maintain an unwavering and aggressive witness to more Catholic principles. It would be an interesting experiment if one of these excellent men would try how many subscriptions could be obtained amongst the communicants at “Open” meetings to Captain Hall’s explicit declara-
