Page:Darby - A narratives of the facts.djvu/75

 that the Old Testament saints had received the Spirit as much as we, only that it was a spirit of bondage in them. He had taught of old, that the difference was, that it did not then abide in the saints. On the fourth I shall say little. The Holy Ghost present and acting in the assembly is here avoided to be admitted. This is again the whole question. Any such action was denounced as impulse. It was stated that those at Ebrington Street, went to meet God, and not the Holy Ghost, and we the Holy Ghost, and not God. But, since even this letter, the effect of the teaching on souls, has been, to make them believe that the Holy Ghost dwelt in individuals, but not in the body. When Mr. Hall taught both, they were warned that they were likely to fall into Mr. Prince’s snare. It was taught most positively that the Holy Spirit dwelt in individuals, and that the aggregate of these increased the blessing, but that was all. It was not taught that “the Holy Ghost resides only in the teachers,” but it was that the Holy Ghost worked by members, and that these members were the teachers, and that though it was not a gift to pray or give out a hymn, none but gifted members would do it. It was stated, though here I believe the contrary was afterwards also stated, that the Holy Ghost was not in the assembly, but God over it to bless it. No intelligent brother can mistake the meaning of all this. It was most distinctly taught, that it was wrong for the saints to meet, unless they had a responsible teacher to direct them; so much so, that a brother of known uprightness, who was never in communion, but had long known the brethren, said to his sister who was there, all the brethren’s system is gone; because he had heard this statement from Mr. N. Nor were the most glaring facts wanting to demonstrate it. Now turn reader to paragraph five. You would suppose that all these extracts were from “Darby’s remarks on the tracts on signs.” You will be surprized, I trust at least, to learn, that in the postscript to those “Remarks,” which postscript is the statement alluded to, I have stated that the question had nothing to do with tradition.” Mr. Dyer in that tract, had appealed to