Dr. Wm. Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled, 79‐143, attributes to the sect the following Church‐principles: (1) the church did not exist before Pentecost; (2) the visible and the invisible church identical; (3) the one assembly of God; (4) the presidency of the Holy Spirit; (5) rejection of a one‐man and man‐made ministry; (6) the church is without government. Also the following heresies: (1) Christ’s heavenly humanity; (2) denial of Christ’s righteousness, as being obedience to law; (3) denial that Christ’s righteousness is imputed; (4) justification in the risen Christ; (5) Christ’s non‐atoning sufferings; (6) denial of moral law as rule of life; (7) the Lord’s day is not the Sabbath; (8) perfectionism; (9) secret rapture of the saints,—caught up to be with Christ. To these we may add; (10) premillennial advent of Christ. On the Plymouth Brethren and their doctrine, see British Quar., Oct. 1873:202; Princeton Rev., 1872:48‐77; H. M. King, in Baptist Review, 1881:438‐465; Fish, Ecclesiology, 314‐316; Dagg, Church Order, 80‐83; R. H. Carson, The Brethren, 8‐14; J. C. L. Carson, The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren; Croskery, Plymouth Brethrenism; Teulon, Hist. and Teachings of Plymouth Brethren. B. The theory that the form of church organization is not definitely prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, each body of believers being permitted to adopt that method of organization which best suits its circumstances and condition. The view under consideration seems in some respects to be favored by Neander, and is often regarded as incidental to his larger conception of church history as a progressive development. But a proper theory of development does not exclude the idea of a church organization already complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of binding authority upon all subsequent ages. The view mentioned exaggerates the differences of practice among the N. T. churches; underestimates the need of divine direction as to methods of church union; and admits a principle of ’church powers,’ which may be historically shown to be subversive of the very existence of the church as a spiritual body.