were right or wrong in accepting such “restrictions,” their attitude was profoundly unsatisfactory to those who were beginning to think that the testimony par excellence for their time was the unity of all true Christians, and that everything that tended even to qualify the expression of that unity was to be spurned as the work of the Enemy.
It will be observed that I lay no stress on liberty of ministry or on the abjuration of all formally recognised church government I abstain advisedly. These customs, though rightly regarded now as constituting the essence of Brethrenism, had no place in the original scheme. Darby would seem to have persuaded himself that it had been otherwise, but this is only another instance of the abnormal force of prejudice in that remarkable mind. The testimony of his most devoted adherents is explicit and circumstantial. When the meeting that afterwards removed to Aungier Street began in Hutchinson’s house in November, 1829, Hutchinson (as Bellett distinctly states) “prescribed a certain line of things, as the service of prayer, singing and teaching, that should be found amongst us on each day”.
The same writer records that at the Aungier Street room “the settled order of worship which we had in Fitzwilliam Square, gave place gradually. Teaching and exhorting were first made common duties and services, while prayer was restricted under the care of two or three, who were regarded as elders. But gradually all this yielded. In a little time, no appointed or recognised eldership was understood to be in the midst of us, and all service was of a free character, the presence of God through the Spirit being more simply believed and used.” (The italics in this and the next quotation are my own.)
