to them that if all Christians had been of their mind the great bulk of the most terrible wrongs would have remained unredressed, the great bulk of temporal misery unalleviated, they replied that with consequences they had nothing to do; it was merely theirs to obey. Of the real existence of a mandate requiring their peculiar line of conduct they simply had not the shadow of a doubt.
The Brethren nevertheless inferred from the example of St. Paul that a Christian has the right to insist on the privileges allowed him by the political order under which he lives. They appear to have held that the apostolic example entitled them to claim their political privileges and to shirk their political duties; or, to put it otherwise, that the possession of a citizenship in heaven precludes the possession of a citizenship on earth, in respect only of the responsibilities of the earthly citizenship, and not of its advantages.
The same spirit of seclusion determined the views of the Brethren as to the callings that a Christian might lawfully practise. The various trades, except under peculiar circumstances, were admissible; but of the professions, those of doctor and dentist stood almost alone as perfectly lawful. The bar and the services were absolutely banned, and barristers and military and naval officers generally abandoned their careers if they joined the Brethren. Brethren might be solicitors if they confined themselves to conveyancing; some ventured to plead in courts, but they were considered “unspiritual”. The Brethren were not without a professional ministry, but it was exercised under conditions that were liable to be insupportable to a self-respecting man, unless he were buoyed up by no common vigour of faith. Consequently the position of the cultivated youth of Darbyism was not altogether an enviable one. Unless their bent was scien-
