to exercise a pastoral oversight; but that such men cannot properly receive formal recognition.
With every desire to enter sympathetically into the point of view of the Brethren, it can scarcely be denied that in this respect they are hopelessly inconsistent. If it be presumption to recognise elders without apostolic ratification (direct or indirect), why should it not be presumption to hold an open meeting without miraculous gifts? Indeed it would seem to most people that miraculous gifts have a much closer connexion with liberty of ministry than apostolic ratification with the office of the eldership. Apostolic discernment would not seem to have been at any time essential to the appointment of officers, Timothy and Titus being referred, not to an inner illumination supplied to them for the purpose, but to the plain fact of the possession by the candidate of the requisite qualifications. The Brethren seem never to have suspected that the words they slipped so lightly into their formula—“or apostolic delegates”—might well be regarded as fatal to their whole contention. Yet it is extraordinary that the Brethren, whose views are so high and peculiar with regard to the Holy Spirit’s present energy within the special sphere of the Church, should think that the Church lacks the means of distinguishing men accredited of God as elders or pastors; or that, distinguishing them, the Church is incompetent to give them such recognition as would ensure to them authority over all loyal members.[1]
- ↑ One of the most curious arguments on the subject I ever heard was that St. Paul, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, contemplating the perilous state of the Church’s declension, made no reference to the safeguard of a recognised presbytery, but committed everything to individual fidelity. This was rather a reckless cutting of the ground from under one’s own feet, since it is equally clear that he made no reference to the safeguard of
