being outside (in either case) what represents it in London; I am bound by Scripture to count them [sic] so. I come to Sheffield; there he breaks bread, and is—in what? Not in the Church of God on earth, for he is out of it in London, and there are not two churches on earth, cannot be, so as to be in one and out of another. How can I refuse to eat with him in London and [yet] break bread with him in Sheffield? have one conscience for London, and another conscience for Sheffield? It is confusion and disorder. I do not apprehend I am mistaken in saying you received Goodall without having the reasons or motives of the Priory or other brethren in London. If you have had their reasons, the case is only the stronger, because you have deliberately condemned the gathering in London and rejected its communion; for he who is outside in London is inside with you.”
It is stated by several contemporary critics of this Exclusive discipline that its London perpetrators repeatedly style their little fraternity “the one assembly of God in London”. If so, they attempted a usurpation from which, even by the very terms of the above letter, Darby aimed at recalling them. In his view, that which “represents” the Church wields the Church’s disciplinary authority, though it is not the Church. It is, however, doubtful if there is much value in the distinction after all.
