spiritual tone that were suitable to the various stages of the worship. The control of this liturgy over the conduct of the worship necessarily varied with the intelligence of the local leaders, and to a less extent with the aptitude of their followers; and it might often break down altogether. Still, the general influence of a tradition was unmistakeable. No doubt the standard was over narrow and rigid; no doubt too it might become as formal and mechanical as any other liturgy, for no form has life in itself; yet on the whole the action of the tradition was salutary, and the want of it among Open Brethren has painfully affected many who have passed over from the ranks of the Exclusives.
The institution of any kind of semi-recognised eldership is a plain step in the right direction. Still, a self-appointed presbytery with undefined functions could scarcely, one would suppose, impart much stability to a church at a serious crisis. A few of the Open meetings, it is true, go further, but I believe they are very few.
Ministerial maintenance is on much the same lines as in Darbyism, and the principle is encumbered by similar drawbacks. But at Bethesda from the first it has been deemed lawful to place boxes at the chapel doors to receive contributions for the support of the ministry; and some other meetings (I scarcely think many) have followed this example. Open Brethren would probably share, almost to the full, the dislike of the Exclusives to a specified ministerial salary, or even to an income derived from specified sources. Indeed, the dislike is a manifest feature of the original Brethrenism.
Whatever their weaknesses, the Open Brethren have their great and characteristic virtues. Theological learning, it is true, is now at a very low ebb among them. On the other hand, they are emphatically a Bible-reading
