“grieved by carnal liberties … instead of being, as in other places, quenched by carnal restraints”. Up to this point then, as between his own community and the other denominations, he seems to suspend judgment; but when he passes to the question of Church government, he assigns a distinct advantage to the older methods. He told the Brethren very plainly that they had arbitrarily chosen certain primitive forms and neglected others; and that they had, moreover, chosen those primitive forms that more than any others depended for their efficacy on primitive enduements. Many another since Captain Hall has stumbled at the same stumbling-block; and no wonder, for the Brethren, who consider it treason to refuse to copy the Corinthian exercise of gifts, utterly refuse to follow the primitive system of government by recognised elders.
They believed that it was the rule in primitive times for a local church to be governed by a plurality of elders. They believed also that the qualifications for the eldership were exhaustively defined in the Pastoral Epistles; and their writings on this subject, as on most others, display a good deal of exegetical shrewdness. Nevertheless they held that it would be presumption in this case to attempt to resuscitate primitive forms, although in the case of the open meeting it would be rebellion to neglect them.
To do the Brethren justice, they have not been insensible to the need for explanation. They have accordingly taught that all elders were appointed by apostles or apostolic delegates; that apart from such direct or indirect apostolic intervention there could be no valid appointment to the office of government; that there are doubtless still men that possess the requisite qualifications, in which case they will be Divinely guided
