The Plymouth Brethren/Their Practices
The next thing, then, that falls for consideration is their Practice. — Under this term we are compelled to include the grounds on which they meet, as well as their modes of worship, and the manner in which they propagate what they consider the truth.
(1.) They claim to be “the assembly of God;” that they alone represent on earth the Church of God. This may seem to many a monstrous assertion; and certainly it is one which needs undoubted proof; and the more because they have not always advanced this claim. At the outset they professed to be witnesses of the low estate of the Church, and they loved to express their view of this low estate by the phrase, “The Church is in ruins.” They then met simply as Christians. But as time advanced, and their numbers increased, they were possessed with another spirit, until they brought themselves to believe that their “gatherings” alone represented the Church of God on earth. This belief has found most distinct expression in a book written by Mr. Macintosh, of Bristol, and circulated by the Brethren in thousands throughout the land, entitled, The Assembly of God. The grounds on which Mr. Macintosh advances the claim are, as far as I understand him, that the Brethren alone meet in the name of Jesus, and in the power of the Holy Ghost. I beg pardon for using the word “meet:” he expressly disclaims it. Let him speak for himself: “As Jesus is the only centre, so the Holy Ghost is the only gathering power. The one is as independent as the other. It is ‘where two or three are gathered.’ It does not say ‘where two or three are met.’ Persons may meet together round any centre, on any ground, by any influence, and merely form a club, a society, an association, a community.”—P. 35. This argument is either true, or not true. If true, it is exceedingly important; and I am not ashamed to confess that I felt its power when I first read it. Judge, then, my surprise on taking my Greek Testament to examine it for myself, when I found that the very same word is used for the assembling of the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, to take counsel against our Lord (See Matt. xxvi. 3, compared with Matt. xviii. 20.) Must we not then conclude that it is not true? Another question presents itself—if the Brethren do not meet, but are gathered (i.e., by the power of the Spirit) how is it that, like other Christian people, they are always “gathered” together at exactly the same time—eleven o’clock on the Lord’s-day morning? A moment’s candid examination of the question shows that for the assumption there is not the shadow of a shade of foundation in the Word of God, or in the facts of experience and observation. The only matter of astonishment is that any one should have ventured to publish such a statement as that we have just read. The point, however, is of so much importance that I venture to quote what another has written respecting it. He says:—
“One would hardly have conceived that so much moral truth depended on this nice distinction between two phrases near akin, as being ‘gathered together’ and ‘met together,’ as that the one should make a company of Christians (for he is talking about Christians and church position) nothing but ‘a club’ or ‘a society,’ and that the other should constitute them ‘the assembly [Church] of God !’“As to the criticism, I may say that the verb employed is the commonest in the New Testament for assembling, or being assembled together; and is used in every variety of latitude as to motive, and object, and gathering power. It is alike employed in reference to the Scribes and Pharisees coming together to plot against Christ; and the eagles being gathered together to the carcase; and gathering together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
“In strictness, it may be conceded that it is ‘gathered,’ and not ‘met.’ But when he says, in regard to this distinction, The Holy Ghost gathers souls to Jesus on the ground of salvation; and this, wherever convened, is the assembly of God,’ he is guilty of importing into the midst of our Lord’s words an element which is foreign to them, and which utterly subverts their character and force. He mistakes the whole power and grace of the passage. There is nothing either expressed or implied in it about ‘the Holy Ghost’s gathering.’ This is a mere creation of the imagination. Neither is there any reference to something being ‘convened’—he does not say what—in order to make it the Church. All the gathering and all the convening found in the passage is, ‘If two of you shall agree,’ etc.
“In truth, his observations, as in so many other instances, are simply an abuse of the popular mind. He may be unconscious of it,—but ‘if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’
“The whole force of the text on which he comments, as uttered by the Lord, is concentrated in the words εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα. He does not in any sense point his disciples to the gathering by the Holy Ghost, but only to their recognition of the value—the authority—the prevalency with the Father—of His own most precious name.”[1]
We cannot say that Mr. Dorman’s language—and for twenty-eight years he was with “the Brethren”—is a whit too forcible. For it is not often that one meets with an argument so untenable and so speciously put; nor outside of the so-called Church of Rome are we accustomed to meet with such pretentious claims.
(2.) The second point in their practice to which we advert is their worship and ministry.—And we shall most satisfactorily deal with this, if we touch upon their component parts. (1.) Every Lord’s-day they break bread—according, as they allege, to apostolic practice. Now we do not deny that it is probable that this was the practice of the early Church. Indeed, we go further than this, and contend that it was the daily practice of the Church at Jerusalem. For we read that “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness,” etc. (Acts ii. 46). And from other sources we gather that in the first century the remembrance of the Lord in the breaking of bread was a daily custom. Seeing then that “the Brethren” claim to be “the assembly of God,” and that they alone have the authority of Scripture for their arrangements and procedure, I should like to ask them two things. First, Why they only break bread on the Lord’s-day ? and, secondly, Why they break bread in the morning ? for, strange to say, the only mention we have of it, otherwise than in the Pentecostal Church, describes it as held in the evening, and after preaching. (See Acts xx. 11.) The language of Paul, also, to the Corinthian Church implies that the Lord’s Supper (which I may observe in passing is a Scripture expression), was held in the evening.
If, then, yielding to the solicitations of “the Brethren,” I meet with them for the sake of following Scripture more closely, I find that in this simple matter I am as far away from it as I was before.
(2.) Worship and ministry is held to be under the presidency of the Holy Ghost.—Each one gives out a hymn, reads a chapter, or teaches as he is led by the Spirit at the time. This is a cardinal point. Thus Mr. Macintosh says, “We have often been asked to adduce Scripture in proof of the idea of Divine presidency in the assembly. We at once reply, ‘There am I;’ and ‘God is the author.’ On these two pillars, even had we no more, we can triumphantly build the glorious truth of Divine presidency—a truth which must deliver all, who receive and hold it from God, from every system of man, call it by what name you please.”
Let us, then, examine these pillars, for if these are strong and well-grounded, then the superstructure raised upon them is safe; otherwise it must fall to the ground. The first, then, is hewn out of the passage we have already commented on—“Where two or three are gathered together in My name there am I in the midst of them.” Is this to take the presidency of their proceedings? After the resurrection this promise was fulfilled, and Jesus did come into the midst of His disciples, and manifested Himself to them; but there is no word about the presidency of the Holy Ghost.
There is not a trace of it in any of the assemblies recorded, nor is the idea so much as hinted at in any part of God’s Word. Let us examine the second: “God is the author.” We turn to the passage (1 Cor. xiv. 33), and—would you believe it? the word “author” is only found in italics, the indication of insertion by the translators. It reads exactly as follows:—“God is not of confusion, but of peace;” and the Apostle makes that statement to urge the prophets to keep their spirits in subjection—not to Christ, but to themselves. For he says, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” As far, therefore, as these pillars are concerned, instead of being granite they are clay, and crumble beneath the touch, and thus the whole superstructure is destroyed. We may concede, however, that a man’s cause may be better than his argument. Let us, then, suppose that there is a Divine presidency. If there is such a thing, I want to ask a few questions.
First, if there is this Divine presidency—and, therefore, there should be no human presidents—how is it we find Paul carefully directing Titus to appoint elders in every city? That he tells the elders of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (bishops) of the flock? That he urges the Hebrews to remember them that had the rule over them? That he salutes the Church at Philippi, with its bishops and deacons? And that he was instructed to leave on record in the pastoral epistles the qualifications of bishops and deacons for the future guidance of the Church?
Again, if there be this Divine presidency, and this is sufficient for the needs of the assembly, why does the Apostle rebuke the proceedings of the Church at Corinth, and add, “The rest will I set in order when I come”? Had the Christians there not the Divine presidency, if “the brethren” have? Wherefore the need then of the apostolic rectification? Of his telling them how many should speak at a time, and what special gifts they should cultivate?
Once more, if there be this Divine presidency, we ought, surely, to expect order. We are told again and again that Jesus is Lord over His own house, and that He exerts His authority in the Assembly. If he does we shall surely see its effects. Or, to put it in another way, He either does or does not rule in the Assembly. If he does, it will be an effective rule; but if there be no signs of this, then it is certain that He does not rule through the presidency of the Holy Spirit. Is there order, then, in “the Assembly of God ?” To answer this question we will cite from two quarters. First, from Mr. Macintosh himself, who is a stronger pillar of Brethrenism than either the passages adduced by him is of the Divine presidency. He says, first of all—and I wish the observation to be noted—“Let us only confide in Him (Jesus), and the order of our Assembly (I thought it was wrong to say our Church) will be as perfectly provided for as the salvation of our souls” (p. 25). The comparison is strong; for since the salvation of our souls is a complete work, the slightest confusion in the Assembly would render the order imperfect. But we will not take advantage of a word. Let us, then, now hear from his lips as to what is often seen when “the Brethren” are gathered together. He says, “Alas! alas! we often see men on their feet, in the midst of our assemblies (that word our will creep in), whom common sense, to say nothing of spirituality, would keep in their seats. We have often sat and gazed in astonishment at some whom we have heard attempting to minister in the Assembly. We have often thought that the Assembly has been looked upon by a certain class of ignorant men, fond of hearing themselves talk, as a sphere in which they might easily figure without the pains of school and college work” (p. 29). But if the Holy Spirit speak by whom He will, who is Mr. Macintosh to condemn? Hath not God chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise? And does the absence of grammar (for that, I suppose, is meant by the allusion to school and college) indicate the absence of the Spirit? But he speaks again:―
“If an Assembly” (he tells us on page 10 that we ought not not to say member of a Church) “be troubled by the intrusion of ignorant and foolish men—men who have never yet measured themselves in the presence of God—men who boldly overleap the wide domain over which common sense, good taste” (are not these carnal expressions?) “and moral propriety preside, and then vainly talk of being led by the Holy Ghost—restless men who will be at something, and who keep the assembly in a continual state of nervous apprehension, not knowing what’s to come next.” [Sic in original.] “Should any assembly be thus grievously afflicted, what should they do ? Abandon the ground in impatience, etc.? Alas! this is what some have done, thus proving that they never understood what they were doing, or, if they understood it, that they had not faith to pursue it. May the Lord have mercy on such, and open their eyes, that they 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.
Testimonials of a similar import might be multiplied indefinitely, if necessary, and none stronger than from Mr. Darby’s Narrative of Facts. But there are few who will not accept the evidence already adduced as sufficient to show that the idea of a Divine presidency in the Assembly is, as we have said, unwarranted both by facts and Scripture.
But we have other questions. The next I have to ask is this—Exalting Christ, as they profess, beyond other Christians, and receiving their gifts of ministry through the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, the teaching in the Assembly—notwithstanding the failures they lament—must bear some marks of its Divine character? In other words, since, meeting as they do, the Holy Spirit ministers by whom He will, they must have some very remarkable ministries.
No doubt the answer will be in the affirmative. Still, I cannot help quoting the testimony of one who was long honoured among “the Brethren” as one of their teachers. He says:—
“That there are Divinely-gifted men amongst them I do not doubt, as there are also elsewhere; but then they were Divinely-gifted as clergymen and ministers of other denominations, before they were connected with this exclusive Church; and almost all besides are persons who have had at least the advantage of a collegiate training, apart from the body in which they have subsequently ministered. Of those that have been formed by the system, I would rather not say anything, although godliness and earnestness will always be in their measure owned by the Lord.
“As to anything like Divinely-authenticated ministry, with all their boastful claims, the Brethren have no superiority over other Christians; and in regard to rule and order, it will appear to every one competent to form a judgment that they are inferior to most, because they have rejected human order, and have not substituted in its place that which is Divine. That which obtains amongst them in this character is at best the expressed judgment of one or other of their leaders, which is carried out by others in the spirit of blind subjection, without so much as an appeal to Scripture as the ground of authority, though their action is professed to be the rule of the Spirit.”[2]
Other questions crowd upon me, but must be put in fewer words. They appeal to 1 Cor. xii., xiv., as the warrant for their proceedings. Do they, then, claim the gifts of the Spirit as there described? If they do, why do they limit the Holy Spirit by a man-made hymn-book, and a hymn-book in which the hymns have been largely altered by themselves? In the Church at Corinth, I find that they sang as well as taught by inspiration. “When ye come together,” says he, “every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation” (1 Cor. xiv. 26). To be consistent, therefore, demands the laying aside of the hymn-book as well as the “man-made minister.” But if I am told that these gifts are not now claimed―and Mr. Darby, in Brethren and their Reviewers, expressly admits that some are not continued at the present time—then, I ask, is it not to throw dust in simple people’s eyes when these chapters are adduced in justification of their position? The fact is “Brethren” know as well as we, that the gifts of the Spirit were the especial accompaniment of the laying on of the Apostles’ hands (See Acts viii. 17; xix. 6, etc.), and in their exercise filled up the void which the lack of the New Testament—at least, the Epistles—occasioned. They also know that “liberty of ministry,” as it is named, is an empty sound; that if there are Brethren whose ministrations are unacceptable—such as those deplored by Mr. Macintosh—private representations are made to induce them to cease,[3] that if Mr. Darby, Mr. Kelly, or Mr. Macintosh should be present in any of the “assemblies,” it is very seldom, indeed, that any other brother is moved by the Spirit to teach or exhort―that, in fact, they have regular, we might say stated, ministers (excepting in those places where there is an utter absence of teaching power) as much as any other denomination of Christians. Liberty of ministry is, to speak the truth, nothing but a high sounding phrase, which conceals an order of ministers who put forth claims to authority, and even infallibility, which would not be tolerated in any Christian community outside the Church of Rome.[4]
(3.) Terms of Communion.―These are very rigid―so much so that the common title assigned to the Darbyite section is that of “Exclusive Brethren.”
At the outset, as we have stated, all who were believed to be Christians were received, on the ground that they could not reject those whom the Lord had received. But now—though the rule is relaxed in places where “the leaders” have retained the original spirit—the condition is annexed of “separation from evil;” which means, practically, separation from all other denominations of Christians and union with “the Brethren.” Before, therefore, you can be permitted “to break bread,” you must have formally separated from other systems and thereby “judged” the error they contain. It thus happened to myself on one occasion that I desired, in the exercise of Christian fellowship, to break bread with “the Brethren.” I spoke to one who was prominent among them, and said, “I might be with them on Lord’s-day; could I break bread?” His reply was “I fear not; personally, I should have no objection―but there are others who would object strongly.” “On what ground?” “Not,” he replied, “that you are not a Christian, but because you are connected with evil.” “But,” said I, you would be allowed to commune with us.” “I could not do that,” he answered. “For what reason?” “Because you are an ordained minister.” “No,” I hastened to say, “I never have been in any way ordained―you, therefore, might come.” “No,” he replied, “I could not, for we do not see eye to eye.” Two ladies, also, whom I know, were refused on the same grounds: grounds, indeed, which are boldly avowed by the Leaders of the Darbyite section. So that, forgetting the apostolic exhortation, “Whereunto we have attained let us walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing,” they demand our seeing eye to eye with them; not, indeed, on all the articles of their creed, but upon all the things they reject and refuse to believe, as a condition of fellowship. The consequence is that they are the strictest, closest, and narrowest of all the sects comprised in the Christian Church. They are the “Exclusive Brethren.”
(4.) Their mode of advancing what they deem the truth demands our consideration.―As to preaching the Gospel, this is left to individuals as they may feel themselves called in the work. As a community, they make no provision for evangelisation, and, as far as I can gather, never dreamt of sending a missionary to the heathen. “Brethren” finding themselves in a foreign land might engage in preaching the Gospel in their individual capacity; but, as a body of Christians, they own no responsibility in this matter. Thus, Mr. Macintosh says, “There is a very material difference between those occasions on which the Assembly is gathered for worship and the special services of Brethren. In these latter the Evangelist or the teacher, the preacher or the lecturer, serves in his individual capacity, in responsibility to his Lord. Nor does it make any difference whether such services are conducted in the rooms usually occupied by the Assembly or elsewhere. The members of the Assembly (I cannot but note that we are condemned for saying members of the Church) may be present or not, as they feel disposed” (p. 49). On the other hand, they feel very differently in regard to the advancement of the views which characterise them as Brethren. The same author says: business is with the saints in those systems, to seek, by every spiritual and Scriptural agency, to get them out into their true position in the Assembly of God” (p. 27)―which means, when translated, by any and all possible means make them “Brethren.” And, unless you are acquainted with them and their literature, you can have little idea how zealously and persistently they keep this object in view. They have numbers of tracts written for this special end, and, after having read a large number of them, I am compelled to acknowledge that they are most ingeniously and cleverly written. But, somehow or other―from ignorance I do not doubt―the principles, views, and proceedings of other Christians are most systematically misrepresented. In support of these statements, I may cite the fact that very recently a lady―a “Sister”―hearing I was to lecture on this subject, sent me a pamphlet, that I might be the more correctly informed as to their views. For her courtesy I was exceedingly obliged, but on the second page I found a passage to this effect―that no Christian would be received by the so called Dissenting Churches unless he adopted all their peculiar views, and I have met with this assertion again and again. But, as you know, there is not a word of truth in it. Again, it is often their practice to class “the Church” of Rome, “the Church” of England, and “the other systems” together in a sentence; and then, speaking of the gross corruptions of the first, the simple reader is beguiled into the belief that these corruptions are found in all. Again, they are very apt in the quotation of Scripture—but if you will take the trouble to examine the passage with its context, you will often find that it has no reference to the subject in hand. Mr. Dorman has given a striking instance of this. He says—
“I take as an illustration of what I have said of this writer’s use—or misuse—of Scripture, the very first passage which is quoted by him. His question (p. 4) is a practical one. It is about ‘church position.’ He first tells us how diversified and conflicting are people’s thoughts upon this subject. From this he concludes that all cannot be right; and yet that there must be something right. And then he adds, ‘There is a path (quoting from Job xxviii. 7), blessed be God, though no fowl knoweth it, and the vulture’s eye hath not seen it.’ And having asked, ‘Where is this safe and blessed path?’ he says, ‘Hear the Divine reply,—“Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”’ But was the Spirit of God in Job speaking of church position? Let any one read the twenty-eighth of Job, and he will see that the subject of enquiry is, ‘Where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?’ The Divine answer to which, as regards man—i.e. if man seeks for the wisdom that is above him—is this: ‘Unto man He said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom [not the path to it], and to depart from evil is understanding.’ And if anything more definite be looked for in the passage, than the abstract perfect wisdom of God, its reference is to Christ as the wisdom of God, and to the mystery of His death and cross, which is ‘to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God: because the foolishness of God is wiser than men.’ Hence the expression, ‘Destruction and death say, we have heard the fame thereof with our ears. God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.’ But as regards man, this is wisdom — divine wisdom — ‘the fear of the Lord;’ and divine understanding in man is ‘to depart from evil.’ But let me ask you, what clue is there here to guide to a solution of his difficulty about church position? About which, after all, there is no difficulty, if people will take the plain guidance of New Testament Scripture. But when people have some dogma to propound which they are conscious that plain Scripture knows nothing about, the invariable resort is to some mystical principle which lies beyond the vulgar ken.”[5]
This is, by no means, an unfair example of their method of quotation on most of the subjects on which they write. The consequence is, that since there are very many who do not trouble themselves to verify the references, simple minds are often seduced into doubts concerning their own position, because they have been told that it is condemned by Scripture. Again, they are very careful in their modes of attack to conceal their own distinctive beliefs. They single out the weak points in other systems for attack―and they ask, Can these be justified? Thus, on one occasion, “brethren” stationed themselves at the entrance of all the places of worship in a certain town, and gave a tract to all, entitled, Twenty Questions for Plain Christians. Some of these were difficult to answer; but, if I had drawn up twenty questions for “the Brethren,” I must have repeated some of these, and they could not have answered more easily than ourselves. But it is their business by every spiritual as well as Scriptural agency, to get us into our true position in the assembly of “the brethren.” Ah! that word spiritual covers a great deal, and is made to serve, in this case, some very unspiritual uses. I ask you to note the contrast between their activity towards sinners and saints. We are admitted to be saints; and yet all their resources are to be brought to bear upon us, to bring us into their fold. But we are warned that towards sinners, lost souls, they have no corporate responsibility—that whoever seeks to save them, does it in his individual capacity. I am content to add one word, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
(5). Their government.—This is a most strange puzzle. They meet “in the name of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost,” and hence they say, “Jesus is sufficient to keep order in His own house.” But they also maintain that all their “gatherings” form together, for example, “the one assembly of God in London.” There were churches in Galatia, as Paul teaches; but since London is not a province, only a town or city, there can only be one assembly in it. Here comes the difficulty. As they meet in different places there cannot be uniform discipline, government. But this difficulty has been met. A Saturday evening meeting has been established, which is attended by “the leaders” of the respective “gatherings,” and this meeting is their practical supreme power. They issue simultaneous notices to the different parts of London―announcing admissions to fellowship, the exercise of discipline, etc. You will not fail to observe that this meeting is a sad confession of the utter insufficiency of their doctrine, and a plain contradiction to all their professions. But it is a necessity, and hence it is yielded to, though not without disapprobation, I am informed, on the part of many of their number, who maintain that the freedom of the assembly is completely overridden by the Saturday evening conclave. The following extract will support this statement:―
“It is, Brethren, at this Conference, assembled in ‘private,’ that the functions of the Church are usurped. Here it is that candidates for membership are proposed and received. Here it is that members are put away and received back. Here it is that accusations are made and tried. … The mischief that results to the Church from this Conference it is impossible, as I feel, to calculate. … It is evident that this Conference is, in fact, an ‘Inquisition.’ … On a recent occasion its doors were guarded and locked, and a cruel assault was committed upon a Brother on his entering. … It is, I find, the subject of general enmity and condemnation by the saints, who, I believe, long for deliverance from its power.”[6]
- ↑ High Church Claims, etc., by W. H. Dorman, Letter iv., pp. 6-7.
- ↑ High Church Claims, etc., by W. H. Dorman, letter vi., pp. 22-23.
- ↑ See Narrative of Facts, by Mr. Darby, in which he constantly alludes to this practice.
- ↑ It is not forgotten that the favourite reply of the Brethren is, The failure of a principle, or failure to carry out a principle, does not affect the principle itself. The answer is, The Presidency of the Spirit is not a “principle.” It is a fact, or it is not a fact. Show that it is not a fact, and you demolish at once every argument that can be adduced in its support. They also love to say, the sins of a Christian do not contradict the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Conceding this, the reply is, We know, on the authority of Scripture, that the Holy Ghost dwells in the believer; but Scripture says nothing of His Presidency of the Assembly, which makes all the difference.
- ↑ Letter iii., pp. 12 and 13.
- ↑ Culverhouse’s Observations on the Discipline amongst “the Brethren,” pp. 5-7.