committee should afford some ground of confidence to most of the missionaries, who nevertheless are presumed to go forth “wholly trusting in the Lord”. Now, it can be no breach of charity to say that such “trust in the Lord” as is nominally expected has not been a qualification of one missionary in a hundred anywhere. How many men could leave their native land without acquainting any one in the world with their destination, without a single friend in the country for which they were bound, without a penny towards their first expenses on landing, and yet feel no fear? The danger is great that under this half system people will suppose they are “trusting the Lord” in some peculiar sense, and will value themselves on their superiority to others who advance no such claim,—while at bottom their confidence is essentially the same as that of their brethren who go out avowedly under the authority of a society.
On the other hand, whatever amount of faith missionaries are bound to exercise, the Church at home is certainly bound to see that they are duly maintained. Now this it cannot do, on any considerable scale, without a thoroughly organised system. If the Brethren disbelieve this, dare they say that their own missions disprove it? The assumption of Brethrenism is that God will work a standing miracle to accomplish that which He has in reality entrusted to the operation of those principles of organisation, subordination, and mutual responsibility with which the very existence of human society is bound up. The refusal to recognise this can only result in needless friction, heartburning, and dissipation of energy.
Account must be taken of two palpable facts. God has not seen fit to qualify every useful missionary to prosecute his work in direct responsibility to Christ,
