The Plymouth Brethren/The Doctrines
The Doctrines of the Brethren must, in the next place, occupy our attention. Some of these have necessarily been touched upon in reviewing their practice; but we proceed now to explain what may be termed their theological dogmas.
(1.) The secret advent of the Lord. The holders of the pre-millennial coming of Christ have, for the most part, been divided into two classes. The one have maintained that the Saviour will return for the destruction of Antichrist and for the salvation of His people, at the same time, in manifested glory; the other, that there is a secret coming of Christ for His people before even Antichrist has appeared on the earth, and that He comes manifestly with His people when He destroys the Man of Sin with the breath of His lips. The Brethren maintain this latter view, although no direct passages of Scripture can be adduced in its support. On the other hand, there are many that seem to render it utterly untenable. For we read of some who, during the reign of Antichrist, “were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and the Word of God.” These, however, we are told, are not Christians, not members of the body of Christ, but Jews converted after the rapture of the saints.
(2.) This will be better understood―for the two things are connected―if we proceed to their doctrine of the Church. According to the Brethren, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Joshua, Samuel and David, and all the Jewish saints, have no part in the Church of Christ. The Church “was formed by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.”[1] What the precise standing of the Jewish saints might be is not declared; but they do not share in the peculiar blessings of the Church,―are not members of the body of, and, therefore, are not one with, Christ. The Church commences its existence on the day of Pentecost,―or, according to some, not till the death of Stephen (being “Jewish” before that time),―and concludes her earthly career when she is caught up to meet her Lord in the air. Those that lived before, and those that live after―(for, according to the Brethren, the especial time of the tribulation comes after the Church is rapt silently and secretly away,) may be believers; but since the Holy Ghost was not given before Pentecost, and departs with the Church, they cannot be regenerated in the same sense and way as Christians of the present dispensation. It is true that the Saviour says, “that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. viii. 11); also “that there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,” &c. (Luke xiii. 28); that Paul is directed to say that “they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal. iii. 9); but, on the authority of Messrs. Darby and Kelly, you must not believe that the patriarchs are of the Church, for the kingdom of heaven means one thing, and the kingdom of God means another, and the Church means another. Still, I confess that, to me, no language could more plainly show than that cited the identity of the blessings of the patriarchs with those we enjoy; that they, with ourselves, are members of the mystical body of Christ.
(3.) Their doctrine concerning the Scriptures is again connected with that of the Church.―A large portion of the Gospels is Jewish,―was never intended for the Church. Thus, if Matthew xxiv. is cited to show that God’s people will be on the earth during the last troubles, you are at once told that this chapter be longs to the Jewish Remnant. The phrase, “Jewish Remnant,” indeed, is the key to their hermeneutics.
The Psalms all treat of this, though, of course, it is conceded that there are moral applications to ourselves. According to the Brethren, indeed, the sacred literature of the Church is scarcely more than the epistles, or, rather, some of the epistles, of Paul. Hence, too, the apostolate of Paul is deemed to be of a higher kind than that of the other Apostles. A specimen of the manner in which certain Scriptures are depreciated I take from Present Testimony: “This epistle (the Hebrews) is rather a discourse, a treatise, than a letter addressed, in the exercise of apostolic functions, to saints with whom the writer was personally in connection. The author takes rather the place of a teacher than of an apostle.”[2] There is great advantage (to “the Brethren”) in this mode of treatment. Press home upon them some argument from the Scriptures, and you are told that you are ignorant of its application. Like Marcion of old―and, indeed, the Sadducees of other date―rejecting, or assigning to a lower place, what does not suit them, they find it easy to fortify their position from their own revised Bibles. But the danger of such a course cannot be concealed. For if, on their authority, certain Scriptures are not applicable to us—though there is nothing in the context to indicate it, and though, in many cases, they contain words spoken by the Saviour to His Disciples—then, on the authority of the rationalist, I must also omit certain others, and I have launched on a sea of uncertainty and confusion. Perversion of Scripture is as dangerous as rejection.
(4.) On the human nature of Christ.—Their opinions and teaching on this important subject differ from the views of other Christians. That the Saviour was a man they, of course, admit, but they frequently term Him a “heavenly” man.[3]
It is very difficult, as Dr. Carson’s controversy with Mr. Macintosh has shown, to obtain from them an exact definition of the meaning of this expression. Still, they would concede that they do not hold that the Saviour’s humanity was in all respects like ours, sin excepted. That Mr. Darby holds the same views is clear. Referring to the expression, “Bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh,” he says, “We, the Church, are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh, now that He is glorified and the saints united to Him who is on high. The thought is a totally different one, and does not refer to His incarnation, but to our union with Him when glorified. As incarnate, He abode alone.”[4] They do not believe, therefore, that the Saviour’s human body was mortal. They have thus altered many of their hymns which contained the word “mortal” as applied to Christ. This new doctrine is the key-stone of a large superstructure, and, of necessity, alters their whole conception, as we shall see, of the work of Christ. As an example, Mr. Darby says, “Christ was tempted in every way apart from sin.”[5] This surely, is not the equivalent of the Scripture statement that “He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Mr. Darby implies that sin played no part in the temptations to which the Saviour was subjected; the Scriptures teach that Jesus endured every possible human temptation, and overcame them all, and thus was without sin―two very different statements.
(5.) The Third-class Sufferings of Christ.―To these we have alluded, and now do not feel disposed to enter into them at any length; for, as we have before said, it is not a subject for analysis and dispute. The points of this doctrine have been summed up by W. H. D. as follows:―“First, Atonement is not by the Cross of Christ alone. Second, Atonement is not by Christ’s enduring the curse of the law. Third, Atonement is not in Christ’s being smitten by God on the Cross. Fourth, Atonement is not simply by Christ’s death.”[6] Passages are adduced from J. N. D.’s writings in support of these statements. It may be added that this doctrine has been developed from J. N. D.’s peculiar views of the Jewish Remnant and the Saviour’s identification with them in His sufferings, so as to be their Redeemer and Messiah in the future.
The 26th verse of the 69th Psalm is the foundation more or less of these views.[7] If correct we never ought to sing again―
“Gethsemane can I forget,
Or there Thy conflict see,
Thine agony and bloody sweat,
And not remember Thee?”
For we have no part in His sufferings there; the cup from which He shrank was not what we have supposed―the cup of wrath for sin. Still, spite of Mr. Darby and his followers, Gethsemane will be enshrined in our hearts and be our loved resort, especially in times of sorrow and grief.
But a darker consequence of these woeful teachings is their declarations concerning the death of Christ. That in itself was nothing. They say, “He entered into all the darkness and all the wrath of God; but before He went out of the world He had passed through it all, and went out in perfect quiet. The work is so completely done that death is nothing.” Again, “Now that which was properly expiation or atonement was not the pure, however precious, act of Christ’s death.” Once more, “Many besides Jesus have been crucified; but atonement was in no way wrought there.”[8] We had thought that the essence of the atonement lay in the fact that His body was broken for us and His blood poured out on our behalf, and that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” But it seems that we have been mistaken―and that for the future we must have less regard for the death of our Suffering Surety. Comment is useless; for I am sure that there are but few of us who do not at once recoil from teachings like these, teachings which in our estimation, are as unholy as they are unscriptural.
(6.) Justification by Faith.―The value of the work of Luther lay mainly in recovering for the Church the doctrine of Justification by faith only. And the sense in which he held that truth, and in which it was held by the Reformers, and in which it is held by Evangelical men at the present time, is that on the exercise of faith in Jesus Christ the sinner is completely justified, i.e. made righteous before God. And he is made righteous before God―first, in that the death of Christ procures for him the remission of sin, and the obedience of Christ a perfect righteousness. In other words, on the exercise of faith the blood of Christ cleanses him from sin, and the obedience, the merits of Christ imputed to him, constitute him as a righteous person before God. Our hymns are full of this doctrine, as for example:―
“Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness,
My beauty are, my glorious dress.”
But according to “the Brethren” we have all been mistaken, and they utterly deny the imputation of the obedience of the Saviour’s life―His righteousness to the believer. His life on earth was, they say, in no sense vicarious. This doctrine of theirs, as stated in the writings of Mr. Darby and Mr. Macintosh, has been popularised in a tract by C. S. (Mr. Stanley) entitled, “Justification in a Risen Christ.”
They maintain that through the Cross is the forgiveness of sins―nothing more; and that it is by passing into a new state, a state of oneness with the risen Christ, that we are completely righteous.
First, I cite from Mr. Darby, “He that is dead is freed from sin. But Christ died: He then is freed from sin. But whose? Ours, ‘who believe in Him.’ It is all gone, gone with the life to which it was attached, in which he bore it. … Our place, our standing before God, is no longer in flesh. It is in Christ. Christ, as man, has taken quite a new place that neither Adam innocent, or Adam sinner, had anything to say to. … Christ has taken this place consequent on putting away our sin , on having glorified God as to them, and finishing the work. He has taken it in righteousness, and man in Him has got a new place in righteousness with God.”[9] This necessitates a distinction between the life of Christ here and the life of Christ above. He therefore says:―“The life which He had in this world as such He laid down, and never took it again as such. … He took life again, but not the life He lived here in the flesh, to which I still rightly say sin attached, not as if He had any in Himself, but as made sin and bearing it, and that is what is said” (p. 118, note). Now, one word of Christ destroys all this reasoning:―“Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again” (John x. 17). We now turn to C.S. He says:―
“I must confess, I do not see how God would be righteous in reckoning the breaker of the law righteous because another kept it; nor do I see this taught in Scripture, far from it. But through the precious atoning death and justifying resurrection of Jesus, I do see how God is perfectly righteous in justifying the believer. The law could not be made more honourable than by the death of Jesus Christ the Lord. God did not justify sin, but punished it in His Son. The sentence was executed to the utmost. The old creation thus came for ever to an end in the grave of Christ: but in the resurrection of Christ, God gives me a new life in perfect everlasting righteousness. Now, though He could not be righteous in any way in justifying my old man, yet He is everlastingly gloriously righteous in justifying me as a new creature in Christ risen from the dead. And being thus justified in the risen Christ, He gives me His Holy Spirit for positive righteousness of life and walk. (See Rom. viii.) So that whilst on the human plan, as put under law, I should only break it; yet, on this Divine plan, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
—Justification in a Risen Christ, by C. Stanley, p. 11.
It is no part of our purpose—for the time allotted to a lecture will not permit it—to enter upon a refutation of all these unscriptural teachings.
Dr. Tregelles has done this in his Five Letters on recent denials ofour Lord’s Vicarious Life , and we must refer you to him; but we cannot but lament the pernicious consequences of such doctrines. Already they sing―
“There is death for a look at the Crucified One.”
And the Cross, concerning which Paul prayed that he might never glory in anything else, is spoken of, if not contemptuously, yet as occupying a very low place in comparison with the Resurrection. But some of you may say, “ Do not the Scriptures teach that Jesus was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification?” Undoubtedly; but the meaning of the word “for” is the same in both clauses, and exactly is, “on account of.” To read “in order to,” as you must with “the Brethren’s” view, makes nonsense: He was delivered “in order to” our offences, and was raised again “in order to” our justification. On the other hand, read “on account,” or “because of,” and you have the clear Scriptural statement of the nature of the death and the resurrection of Christ. You will naturally ask one more question,―If it is so clear, how could there be any difference of opinion about it? That I cannot tell; but I know this, that the merest tyro in Greek would tell you that “on account of” is the proper translation; hence, I fear, it is but another example of “the Brethren’s” method of using Scripture.
(7). The law not a rule of life.―This is one of their distinctive teachings. In this case there are, no doubt, many passages of Scripture which seem to favour their view. As, for example, “Ye are not under law, but under grace;” but a candid examination of the context shows that what the Apostle means is, that Christians are not under the condemnation of the law, that in Christ they are pardoned and accepted, and hence under grace. For, if we are under no obligation to keep the moral law, why is the Apostle so careful to show, in Romans xiii., that all the commandments are comprehended in the duty of loving one another? Or why does James so care fully point out that whosoever “Shall keep the whole law, and offend in one point, is guilty of all”? Or say “If ye fulfil the royal law according to Scripture ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ ye do well”?
I know that it is said, James was writing for the Jews, and not for the Church; but we cannot be expected to admit such a plea, especially when we remember that, though Jews, they were believers, and that in the Church the Saviour has broken down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made of the twain one new man, so making peace. After all, however, it is only a dispute about words. Christ is the law of our life, they would say, as well as we; but Christ is our law of life because He is perfectly righteous—is, therefore, in one sense, the embodiment of the law. If this were pointed out we could hardly take exception to the teaching; but proclaimed, as it is, in a dogmatic and negative form, it leads to gross Antinomianism. And there are many of the godly among the Brethren who lament this practical effect of the doctrine.
(8.) We might proceed in our enumeration, but we have neither space nor time. On the question of Baptism “the Brethren” are divided. Mr. Darby practises infant baptism. Mr. Groves alludes to this in the letter we read at the commencement. Mr. Darby has not written on the subject, but the principle on which he justifies it is clearly laid down in a paper in Present Testimony. Its title is, “The House of God―the Body of Christ;” and he maintains that these two things are essentially distinct. He thus says, “If the Body and the House are the same thing, then all that are in the House, be they adults or infants, have part in the privileges which belong to the Body.”[10] According to this view, infants may be in the House, which, be it remembered, is the Church of God, and not members of the Body of Christ. To plain people this will not be very intelligent. Again, infallibility in interpretation seems contended for. This, indeed, is a consequence of their doctrine of the Divine presidency in the Assembly. For, as Dr. Carson has noted, if the Holy Ghost speaks by those who minister in the Assembly, the utterance must be infallible; and the Doctor gives a quotation from Present Testimony, on the authority of Mr. Govett, from a paper by Mr. Darby, in support of this view. “It is not sobriety, says Mr. Darby,as a Christian, to overlook or deny the present direct guidance by the Lord, through His Spirit, of His Disciples as being something over and above the written word.” Argument, therefore, is impossible, for “the Brethren” have this guidance and you have it not, and so they tell you, in answer to your citation from the Scriptures (this has happened to me again and again), “You are in darkness―this is to be received.” But where the difference between this “guidance” of “the Brethren” and the inner light of Fox, and the verifying faculty of Colenso and the Rationalists, and the infallibility of Rome? In any case the Bible ceases to be a light to our feet and a lamp to our path; and if I want to know the truth I must go, not to the feet of my Lord and Saviour, but to the feet of “the Brethren,” who have that special guidance which is wanting to other denominations of Christians.
We have not specified all the doctrines of “the Brethren.” There are a few they hold in common with others, and in some particulars they have done valuable service. But, as Dr. Carson says, “The great danger to be feared from the Plymouth Brethren is, that they have ingeniously mixed up some very important truths with the most pernicious and fatal errors. This is often done in such a guarded manner that ordinary readers are not very likely to discover the combination till they have actually imbibed the poison.”
This witness is true, for when they are seeking to convince other Christians of their error, their own peculiarities are kept in the background until their converts are introduced to their fellowship, and then, as several have confessed, their hearts have died within them as they discovered that they have connected themselves with worse evils than those they had abandoned. The effect has been diverse. Some, for very consistency’s sake, have kept their ground, but have sunk back into formality and lifelessness; some, content to take their views from others, and gratified with the authority and influence they enjoy as assumed teachers—those “restless men who will be at something,” whom Mr. Macintosh so pathetically describes—have been filled with ardent zeal to propagate a system from which all their importance is derived; some, losing faith in all forms of Christianity, have abandoned even the Christian profession, and are seen in all parts of England, swelling the number of that saddest of all classes of men—backsliders; while a few have gone back to the churches whence they were seduced, and rejoice to-day at their escape from the bondage of a system which was fast destroying the peace of their souls.
A minister thus wrote to Dr. Carson on the appearance of his tractate:—
“Allow me to express to you the great pleasure I have had in the perusal of your pamphlet, aid my deep conviction that you have laid the Church under great obligation by its timely appearance. … Allured by the appearance of their deep piety, I went among ‘the Brethren;’ and though I remained among them little more than six months, I saw quite enough. Among all the Christians I ever met, I never saw such intolerance and bigotry, such denial of the right of private judgment, and such miserable oppression as among this sect. From personal contact with many of them, I know that the Plymouths do hold the errors you have so well exposed.”[11]
That there are sincere and good men among the Brethren no one will attempt to deny. But when we see good and devout men―men whose practical walk reflects so much of the image of Christ―our sorrow is the deeper that they should be associated with errors in practice and doctrine which have tended so much to destroy the unity of the Church, and thereby to dishonour their Lord.
But our task is done. We have spoken to wise men, judge ye what we say; and judge it by that only true and infallible standard―the Word of God. If we have spoken in accordance with it, then you have the responsibility of accepting what we have said. If we have not, then it is your instant duty to reject it and to show, in order to destroy, our error. The times are dark and threatening, and the darker they become the more important it is to take heed to God’s Word. “To the law and the testimony.” Let this be the Ithuriel spear wherewith we detect the subtle presence of the Evil One―nay, rather let it be the sword of the Spirit, wherewith, trusting in Divine strength, we may overcome the tempter and win the battle for the Lord. The times are dark, but we look for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before whose presence the darkness shall flee away, because, as “the morning without clouds,” He will usher in an everlasting day.
- ↑ See The Rapture of the Saints, etc. , by J.N. Darby; also “The House of God,” etc. , in Present Testimony, Vol. xi., p. 40.
- ↑ Vol. xi., p. 348. J. N. Darby is, I believe, the author of the paper. I may also refer generally to Kelly on the Gospels, etc.
- ↑ See Notes on Genesis and Leviticus, by C. N. Macintosh.
- ↑ The Sufferings of Christ, p. 75.
- ↑ Present Testimony, Vol. ii., p. 376.
- ↑ A Solemn Appeal, etc., by W. H. Darby, p. 9.
- ↑ See The Sufferings of Christ, etc. , by J. N. Darby, p. 71, et seq.
- ↑ Cited from The Present Testimony and The Bible Treasury, by Mr. Dorman, Letter v. p. 12, and Letter vi, p. 6.
- ↑ Sufferings of Christ, etc., pp. 117–119.
- ↑ Vol. xi., pp. 40, 41.
- ↑ Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren, by Dr. Carson , pp. 81, 82.