A history of the Plymouth Brethren/Chapter 11
The Theological Position of Brethrenism
Now that we have reached the full development of Brethrenism as an ecclesiastical system, a brief account may conveniently be given of its theological position. The teaching of the Brethren with regard to unfulfilled prophecy and to various topics connected with the humanity of Christ has been already explained in connexion with the Plymouth controversies. In each case one remark is still called for. In the first place, it is an error to regard vague speculations of a Docetic tendency as constituting an integral part of the ordinary teaching of the Brethren. The non-theological portion of the community would always remain practically unaffected by them. Even in the minds of the leaders such tendencies had probably scarcely any bearing on their spiritual life. To think of the Brethren at large as nourished up upon these miserable questions is to misconceive the whole character of the sect.
With regard, in the second place, to the dispensational and prophetic views of the Brethren, an exactly opposite remark must be made. With very few exceptions (and the exceptions were probably confined to the Open Brethren) they all held the doctrine of the Secret Rapture of the Church; and it would scarcely be possible to exaggerate the extent to which all their ministry and worship, and not less their ordinary life and conversation, have been moulded and coloured by this belief. Even their evangelistic preaching, strange as this may seem, partook largely of it; indeed, great results were expected from its use; nor does it seem to have occurred to them that, as long as the Church was in no sort of agreement on the subject, it was not likely that the doctrine would be widely influential on the world without. In utilising it as a basis of evangelistic appeals, they relied on the affirmation that, from the moment of the Rapture, the day of grace for Christendom will be over. This view is indeed separable from their main doctrine on the subject, but none of the Brethren separated it; and they found themselves in consequence committed to the very precarious inference that the period of gospel probation is to close long before the coming of Christ to judgment.
With a strange want of all theological perspective this was taught, even to the children of the community, as a truth no less certain than the most momentous facts of revelation; and grievous was the havoc that it often made of infantine peace of mind.
Everybody that has a practical acquaintance with the Brethren must have noticed how strong a tendency there is amongst them to substitute for St. James’s formula—“If the Lord will,”—a formula of their own—“If the Lord tarry”. And more and more the persuasion gained ground that the “tarrying” would not last long, and a suggestion that several years might yet intervene would be disapproved, not indeed as theoretically inadmissible, but as indicating an unworthy attitude of mind towards the great Hope.
But, speaking generally, the doctrines to be discussed in this chapter are those that illustrate the attitude of Brethrenism towards the larger world of evangelical thought. And here it is necessary to begin with a caution. The writers that have made this subject their special province are generally extremely untrustworthy. They are commonly passionately prejudiced against the Brethren. For the most part they make the writings of altogether unrepresentative men the basis of their attack, and even these men they have misrepresented.[1] For example, in the principal book of this class, Reid’s Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted, many quotations are taken from Mackintosh, Charles Stanley, and a Dr. Davis, of Aberdeen, for every one taken from Darby or Mr. Kelly. This is not the way to “refute” Plymouth Brethrenism. The real leaders of the Brethren would have called Mackintosh “a popular man,” with a strong touch of depreciation; and their verdict would have been just. Charles Stanley was, if possible, still farther from being a responsible theologian, and owes his reputation to his gifts as a mission preacher, which were very considerable.
Mackintosh wrote vaguely about the humanity of our Lord being a “heavenly humanity,” and exaggerated some of the dangerous tendencies to which reference has been made. Now Mackintosh was the last man to deal in precise meanings, and if his critics had known him they would not have taken him so seriously. As it was, a cry of heresy was raised. Darby interposed characteristically, pronounced Mackintosh wrong, and his critics worse. Mackintosh withdrew the objectionable expressions—in whole or in part, according to the critic’s point of view. All this is quite illustrative of Mackintosh’s status. On the other hand, what Darby or Mr. Kelly wrote may be accepted as the theology of Brethrenism, but with two reservations. In the first place, any peculiarity merely generated by a horror of New- tonianism filtered through scantily, if at all, to the level of the laity; and secondly, Darby’s views on the sufferings of Christ (of which the next chapter will present some account) always remained to a great extent esoteric.
Briefly stated, the theology of the Brethren is the ordinary theology of Evangelicals of a firmly but moderately Calvinistic type; but there are fairly important variations, of which some of the most significant relate to the doctrine of Justification. Darby taught that the Righteousness of God, as spoken of in Romans, is to be understood as God’s personal righteousness, and not as His provision and bestowment of righteousness. This would have been no novelty if it had appeared in connexion with a Rationalistic scheme of justification; but in its evangelical setting it was startling. Possibly Darby was driven back upon it by the force of the reaction against everything Newtonian. However this may be, an impression has arisen in some quarters that his general system was far less evangelical than was really the case. It has actually been suggested that the Brethren sympathised with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that justification is partially granted in virtue of an “inherent” or “infused” righteousness in the believer. But even Dr. Reid rejects this preposterous suggestion. Justification by faith only has had no more strenuous upholders than the Brethren; indeed, their tendency was rather towards antinomianism than in the opposite direction.
It is true that the Brethren did not allow that a sinner is justified as being deemed to have kept the law that Christ kept for him, but maintained, on the contrary, that he is justified wholly as being associated by faith with Christ in the expiation of the breach of the law. They insisted that in Romans iv. 6-8 St. Paul identifies the imputation of righteousness with the non-imputation of sin; and they adhered to the literal rendering of Romans vi. 7,—“He that is dead is justified from sin”. To the objection that such a righteousness is merely “negative,” and that a “positive” righteousness must be sought in the imputation of Christ’s law-keeping to the believer, the most moderate of them would have replied that such a view of justification is not contemplated in Scripture, and that the believer in Christ is accepted before God “in all Christ’s acceptance”. Perhaps it would be right to say that they sought, not a merely legal, but rather a transcendental justification.
The common sense of evangelical people in general, while perhaps not interesting itself particularly in the dispute, has accepted the position of the Brethren as being solidly evangelical; and certainly any argument leading to a different conclusion would seem to involve a reductio ad absurdum. On the other hand, a good many theologians, of whom B. W. Newton was the most eminent, have laboured to fix on the Brethren the stigma of heresy in respect of these views. The Brethren indeed maintained their position, as usual, with something of a disdainful confidence that possibly gave needless advantage to their adversaries. Moreover, instead of understanding “justification of life,” spoken of in Romans v. 18, as signifying justification that brings life (which would certainly seem most consonant with St. Paul’s argument), they interpreted it as a justification based on the possession of spiritual life. This they regarded as a sort of extra, or supererogatory justification, accompanying rather than supplementing the already perfect forensic justification. Nevertheless, this interpretation lent colour to the accusations of their adversaries; though indeed it had no real organic association with their general scheme, for they stood with the first in upholding the great Protestant principle that justification is no more granted in consideration of works following regeneration than of works preceding it.
It is almost universally charged against the Brethren by their opponents, that they refuse to pray for the forgiveness of sins. A truly liberal divine of the Established Church, the late J. B. Marsden, has given a charitable explanation of their conduct. He says that “the Brethren, regarding themselves as, in theological language, in a state of grace, do not ask for blessings that they have already received, but rather for an increase of gifts of which they have already partaken”.[2] But this explanation does not cover the facts. The Brethren recognised from 1 John i. that even persons “in a state of grace” require forgiveness of the specific sins of their Christian course; but they escaped the apparent force of this passage by saying that, though our sins require to be forgiven, we are not told to pray that they may be, but merely to confess them to Him who will forgive upon confession. There is certainly here the power of drawing fine distinctions. It seems that we are bound to confess with a view to forgiveness, and are bound not to ask for forgiveness. In face of this, Marsden’s plea is irrelevant. Still, the Brethren admitted the propriety of both public and private confession of sin; though at the same time it was not prominent in their ordinary meetings.
He would perhaps be rather a churlish Evangelical that would quarrel with the Brethren merely for confessing with a view to forgiveness instead of praying for forgiveness; but their actual tendency to neglect both is a more serious matter. Their hymn-books witness against them on this head. For instance, in Hymns for the Little Flock, which (edited by Wigram in 1856, and re-edited by Darby in 1881)[3] has been universally used by Exclusive Brethren since its first appearance, I cannot recall any confession of sin whatever. Even hymns of their own writers had to be remodelled to avoid it. Deck, for example, closed a striking hymn beginning, “O Lord, when we the path retrace which Thou on earth hast trod,” with the following stanzas:—
“O Lord, with sorrow and with shame
We meekly would confess
How little we who bear Thy Name Thy mind,
Thy ways express.
“Give us Thy meek, Thy lowly mind,
We would obedient be;
And all our rest and pleasure find
In fellowship with Thee.”
This was altered to the following single stanza:
“We wonder at Thy lowly mind,
And fain would like Thee be;
And all our rest and pleasure find
In learning, Lord, of Thee.”
Surely nothing could be more significant; and this instance does not stand alone. At the same time such circumstances must be traced to unhealthy habits or instincts, for the theological position of Darbyism did not require them.
Closely related to this subject is the alleged antinomianism of the Brethren. This charge has been based on the tenet that Christians are not under the moral law; but those who have brought the charge have not sufficiently attended to the ambiguity of the incriminated expression. They have inferred that the Brethren did not consider it a binding duty to observe the moral precepts of the law. Now if there were foundation for this charge at all, it lay only in random and irresponsible utterances which Darby and other accredited teachers would have repudiated. They would indeed have affirmed that when St. Paul says that Christians are not under the law but under grace, he cannot exclusively refer to the ceremonial law; and that the same holds good with regard to his statement that through the law we are dead to the law. They rejected as an unwarranted gloss the explanation that we are dead to the law only as to a covenant of works, and interpreted the verse in the light of the principle that we serve now “in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter”. They were far from denying that the duties of the moral law are duties now and for ever, but they maintained the insufficiency of the law as a guide to a life lived in the energy and illumination of the indwelling Spirit of God.
On the other hand, there was a certain tendency to lapse into an antinomian habit of mind. It was so to speak the “mission” of the Brethren to emphasise the contrast between law and gospel, to insist on the freedom of Christian service, and to disparage the conception of duty in favour of the conception of privilege. The danger was that duty might slip into a somewhat obscure background of thought, and that people might forget that if a sense of privilege proved an insufficient motive to a right act the obligation to it remained unimpaired. I once heard a local teacher observe in one of their assemblies that it was “better to do wrong than to do right merely from a sense of duty”; but this sentiment elicited on the spot the most determined opposition from his own flock, and would have done the same, I have no doubt, in almost any of the meetings of the Brethren. Yet I would hesitate to say that even so extreme a view may not have been the index of a real peril arising from the general tone of the teaching of the sect. The first three chapters of the Ephesians were far more prominent in their ministry than the last three, and as time went on practical exhortations of a homely and pointed kind were liable to be almost resented in their meetings. Nevertheless it is not fair to call their theology antinomian.
Marsden refers to yet another charge against the Brethren, that they did not pray for “the presence and influence of the Holy Ghost”. The truth of the matter is very simple. They did not pray that they might receive the Holy Ghost, because they had no misgiving that they had already received Him. On the other hand, that they ever questioned the propriety of praying for more of the influence of the Holy Ghost is a statement quite without foundation.
There was only one question of any consequence on which a variety of opinion was practically tolerated. Ostensibly, indeed, all opinions that did not touch the fundamental principles of Christianity (according to the Brethren’s views of what was fundamental) might be held within their ranks; but practically an almost unprecedented uniformity of doctrine obtained. Baptism constituted the solitary exception,—the explanation being that Darby was a pedobaptist. His pedobaptism was rather out of keeping with his general theological standpoint, as Herzog observes, though of course he considers it a happy inconsistency. In respect of this tenet Darby stood for a long time almost alone. In 1838 he obtained a powerful ally in Dorman. The number of his disciples gradually increased until, within the Exclusive party, they formed a considerable majority. On the other hand, the Open Brethren are, almost without exception, very pronounced Baptists.
Darby professed to require a distinct New Testament precedent for everything. To act without it, even in the details of church government, was the part of semi-rationalism in his eyes. As his followers fully accepted the same starting point, it is not wonderful that they had to take his view of baptism on trust. Indeed the extraordinary diversities existing among them would suffice to show that they yielded their great chief an obedience more devoted than intelligent. One prominent man among them, as I am informed on unimpeachable testimony, said that he would be willing to stand at the street corner and baptise any one that would let him,—a confession of faith being, in this view, uncalled for. Others are reported to have baptised by force children old enough to offer a lively resistance; and others, to have affirmed the propriety of baptising their furniture—a course for which they might no doubt have found a New Testament precedent, though of rather an equivocal kind.[4] I do not of course suggest that Darby had any further responsibility for such vagaries than that which must attach to a teacher who plentifully exercises dominion over his disciples’ faith, and is content to impose doctrines of which he gives no clear and precise account.
Brethrenism professed to offer a platform on which the two schools into which the baptismal controversy has divided the church might meet on a footing of perfect equality. The experiment was an interesting one; unfortunately, it cannot be said that it met with any very encouraging success; for, if respect for Darby kept his opponents quiet, his followers were apt to be a little touchy if the question were raised. Frequent services for the administration of adult baptism were a source of irritation; and a meeting-room in London that had formerly belonged to the Scotch Baptists, and at which baptism continued to be zealously observed along the old lines, was disparaged (to speak from the point of view of both parties alike) as “a mere Baptist Chapel”. And finally, at the rupture between Kellyites and Darbyites in 1881, though there were exceptions on both sides, the Baptists went nearly solid for Mr. Kelly, and the pedobaptists for Mr. Darby. Considering that the question of baptism had no connexion of any kind with the subjects then in dispute, this is certainly a very interesting circumstance.
Exclusive Brethrenism, apart from Darby, has no meaning. When Darby’s fiat ceased to be law, the party was broken; when Darby was dead, it was scattered like dust. On this the baptismal controversy has a significant bearing. In the existing disagreement on an important question, a manly independence and freedom of speech would have afforded the only happy augury. Instead of this, Darby’s opponents, with hardly an exception, submitted to be almost silenced; or, if they expressed their views, expressed them in a semi-apologetic manner; and this though they could claim the high authority of Mr. Kelly. The story goes that a theological lady once asked Darby what Mr. Wigram held as to baptism. Darby, though probably annoyed, had the wit to answer, “Madam, he holds his tongue”. The incident illustrates the whole attitude of the Baptist party among his followers. The consequence was that after holding an immense majority they dwindled away to such an extent that the opposite party was ultimately able to cast them forth beyond the pale of Darbyism altogether.
- ↑ I feel bound to express a strong disapprobation of Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted. The title would lead us to expect an untrustworthy book, and the book certainly does not disappoint the expectation. I believe Dr. Reid’s intentions were honourable, but his animus made it impossible for him to distinguish between conclusive evidence and evidence nearly worthless. Perhaps the best gauge of his state of mind is to be found in the fact that he refers with commendatory epithets to Dr. James Carson’s book, which is much worse than his own, and which I forbear to characterise.
A book of a far higher type is Prebendary Teuton’s. Idonot think the author always fully apprehends the character of Brethrenism; but he is most honourably distinguished by his candid and conciliatory spirit. - ↑ Dictionary of Christian Churches and Sects, p. 95.
- ↑ The edition of 1856 is sometimes erroneously assigned to Darby. Wigram’s editorship was perfectly well known.
- ↑ St. Mark, chap. vii.