with the Brethren, but what I have found that he understood Open Brethren to be so called because they admit Christians who are not ‘Brethren’ to the communion table, and Exclusive Brethren to have earned their title by the exclusion of all who did not belong to their own sect.”
It will be seen that I have been very sparing of references to my authorities. This has been partly due to a belief that my readers will in most cases share my dislike to a text encumbered with notes; but partly also to the peculiarities of the special case. The great majority of the authorities are now inaccessible to most readers. I have consulted scores of tracts that very few people could possibly procure. Besides those in my own possession, or in possession of my relatives, very many have come under my inspection through the courtesy of friends with whom my articles had brought me into correspondence. To one correspondent, whose connexion with the Brethren dates back to 1845, I am under obligations that I find it quite impossible to adequately acknowledge. Not only has he placed at my disposal a set of tracts that is, I should suppose, almost unrivalled for the period 1845-70, but he has taken the greatest pains to clear up, by the help of private correspondence, various obscurities that I have submitted to him. For the later period, my own resources have been very ample.
