liable to find itself saddled with the support of a preacher whose call not a single member of it believed in. A case in point came under my own notice. A young mechanic, of no great gifts as a preacher, called upon a friend of mine, widely known for his liberal support of ministering brothers, to tell him that he (the mechanic) was convinced that he ought to give up his trade and addict himself to the ministry of the Gospel. My friend intimated that he was himself far from sharing his visitor’s conviction. But, as might be expected, the inward prompting was acted upon, and my friend, notwithstanding his disapproval of the whole proceeding, was accustomed to send money to the self-appointed minister, on the plea, “We can’t let the poor man starve”. Yet I presume that the young man flattered himself that he lived “in simple dependence on the Lord for daily support”.
Another great evil attending the institution was that the coarser-minded members of the community could not see, even in the case of men of approved qualifications, that “faith-brethren” lived by anything but charity. They therefore felt free to criticise every item of expenditure within the preacher’s family, as if he had not as truly earned his pittance as they their own probably far ampler livelihood. It may be imagined in how degrading a position men who had made large social sacrifices to unite themselves with the Brethren might occasionally find themselves placed.
It is surely uncandid to deny that every scheme ever yet devised for ministerial support is encumbered with more or less serious disadvantages; but it is necessary to record the verdict of experience that deliverance from them is not to be sought along the lines of the well-meant, but eminently ill-conceived, procedure of the Plymouth Brethren.
