case of a hymn or the reading of Scripture He more or less determined the form of each exercise, whether it were worship, supplication, exposition, or exhortation. To what precise extent, however, the ultimate form proceeded from His guidance was left indefinite. The Brethren never expressed an intelligible opinion on that subject; they certainly stopped short of claiming inspiration, and yet they tenaciously held that each speaker ought to receive the word from the Spirit, who would communicate by him.
It is again difficult to discover the via media that the Brethren flattered themselves they had found. Darby’s language, if it were the only evidence before us, would justify the conclusion that the Brethren claimed inspiration. “This is the real question, … whether I am to look to God or to man—to God’s presence in the assembly, or to man’s competency by acquired attainments. Can I be satisfied with the latter without some very clear proof that the former is not to be sought—that God has abandoned the assembly of His saints? For if there, is He not to make His presence known? If He do, it is a manifestation of the Spirit in the individual who acts; it is a gift, and if you please, an impulse. It is God acting: that is the great point.”[1]
Nor were such speculations uninfluential in practice. The notion of a quasi-inspiration took firm hold of the minds of the Brethren generally. If two Brothers began ministering simultaneously, (which necessarily happened tolerably frequently, though not often to any distressing extent), it was always assumed that one at least was to
- ↑ Coll. Writ., Doctrinal, vol. i., p. 519. The comment of the late R. Govett is just. “So then, if a brother rightly gives out a hymn, it is a manifestation of the Spirit. It is God’s manifested acting.” Quoted by Rees, Four Letters, p. 13.
