O PRINCETON, N. J.

1

^?,?800 .C7 1879"
Croskery, Thomas, 1830-
Plymouth-Brethrenism

-1886.

Shelf

1

^'1

PLYMOUTH-BRETHRENISM.

Digitized by tlie Internet Arcliive
in 2014

littps://arcliive.org/details/plymoutlibrethrenOOcros

PLYMOUTH -BRETHRENISM:

S iffittalioii

OF ITS

PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES.

BY

REV. THOMAS 'CROSKERY.

LONDO^^DERRV.

WILLIAM MULLAN &

LONDON AND BELFAST.
1879

SON

Hazell, Watson, and Viney, Printeri, London and Aylesburj".

PREFACE.

'PHIS small work is intended as a refutation of the
doctrines of the Plymouth Brethren.
The year eighteen hundred and thirty was the distinct
starting-point of three influential developments of religious
opinion in these kingdoms. It was then that Newman,
Pusey, and Keble were preparing that great Anglo-Catholic
reaction in the heart of English Protestantism of which we
now feel the disturbing effects in the modern Ritualistic
movement and in the revived energy of English Romanism.
About the same period the Broad Church movement was
slowly though obscurely taking shape. But, almost unnoticed
by the world, there sprang up by their side, simultaneously
in England and Ireland, a pre-eminently spiritual move-
ment, based on the rejection of all ecclesiastical forms and
denominational distinctions, which has become known to
history by the name of Plymouth Brethrenism. It is curious
to mark, at the end of fifty years, a certain similarity of
debasement in the historical development of the three sys-
tems. The one movement rapidly culminated in wide-spread
secessions to Romanism ; the other ripened more slowly into
the Rationalism of "Essays and Reviews"; and the third,
which offered itself as a refuge to Christians amidst the
formalism and decay of the churches, has developed in our
day into a system of the sternest ecclesiasticism, known by
the name of Darbyism.

vi

Preface.

The founder of Plymouth Brethrenism was an English
gentleman, named Mr. A. N. Groves, who found himself
in 1829 pursuing his studies in Trinity College, DubUn,
with a view to the Christian ministry. It was while he
was associated there with devout members of the Estab-
lished Church, in a meeting for religious fellowship, that
the idea struck him that " believers, meeting together as
disciples of Christ, were free to break bread together, as
; their Lord had admonished them ; and that, in so far as
the apostles served as a guide, every Lord's day should
be set apart for thus remembering the Lord's death and
obeying His parting command." This memorable sugges-
tion seems to have laid the foundations of Brethrenism.
A society was at once established in Dublin, including in
its membership such men of mark as Groves, Bellett,
Cronin, and Darby — the last up till that time serving as
a curate in the Established Church of Ireland. In 1831
a society was formed at Plymouth, including ]\Ir. Benjamin
W. Newton, Mr. Tregelles, Mr. Soltau, and others ; while
in the following year Mr. George Miiller and Mr. Craik
established a similar society in Bristol. Ttie .principle of
communion in all these societies was the possession of the
common life — " the blood of the Lamb the union of saints"
— with a sort of corollary that " disciples should bear as
Christ does with many errors of their brethren." There
was no idea then of a mission to protest against ecclesi-
astical evil by separation from the churches ; for many of
the original members were clergymen and laymen still con-
/ nected with the Church of England. It was far from the
intention of any of the leaders at that time to form a new
sect. The early meetings were, in fact, not so much estab-
lished in rivalry of the churches as for the ends of supple-
mentary edification. Six years, however, had not elapsed
before the catholic basis of the system was changed. Mr.
Darby was the first to broach the theory that the saints

Preface.

vii

were bound to come out of all the existing churches, on
accoiinlr~of't!Terr false constitution and the practical evils
associated therewith, and to stand upon what he called
"the divine ground of the one body." Itjs easy to attack
existing systems, and objections are proverbially far more
operative than answers. The new principle had an almost
immediate success, and Darbyism became henceforth the
strongest development of Brethrenism. But from that hour
Brethrenism as such went to pieces. The system which
was to be a standing protest against tlie'"^sunion of
beTTevers^ scattered tlirough all the sects,' was itself rent
in^t\\'arn in 1845, when Mr. Darby withdrew from the
P'lymbuth society and excommunicated all who declined to
folTow hnti' in his divisive' courses. Plymouth Brethrenism
iks'ever since been in crisis. The ""^^ar" 1866 saw the
stVcThchest followers of Mr. Darby — Mr. W. H. Dorman
and Captain Percy Hall and others — seceding from his
ranks on account of his heresies on the subject of our
Lord's sufferings on the cross and His unatoning death.
Thus, a system which began with universal fellowship has
ended with universal excommunication.

The attitude of the Brethren towards every branch of
the Church of Christ — and especially their fixed policy of
" gathering churches out of churches " — has long worn an
aspect too aggressive to admit of any further connivance
or encouragement on the part of Christian people.

It is a curious illustration of the periodicity of religious
opinions — marking, at the same time, the necessary limita-
tions of error — that so many of the peculiar doctrines of
the Brethren should have already had a place in ecclesias-
tical history. Plymouthism is, indeed, theologically, the
least original of sysfems. Consciously or unconsciously,
the Brethren have been borrowing from all sides. We find
their doctrine of the Church in the views of the Donatists ;
their idea of " the assembly of God meeting round the

viii

Preface.

Person of Christ on the basis of Matthew xviii. 20," in the
writings of John Walker, the founder of the Walkerites ;
their ideas of ministry, moral law, repentance, and sanctifi-
cation, in the writings of the Commonwealth sectaries ; their
idea of faith in Sandeman ; their idea of justification in the
risen Christ in Edward Irving and John Henry Newman ;
tlieir idea of Christ's obedience as vicarious in the wTitings
of Piscator, Wendelinus, and John Goodwin ; their idea of
Christ being Sin-bearer only on the cross in the writings of
John Forbes, a divine of the seventeenth centurj' ; their
idea of the non-atoning character of a portion of Christ's
sufferings on the cross in an obscure writer referred to by
Witzius in his Economy of the Covenants ; their idea of the
heavenly humanity of Christ in the views of the Monophy-
sites ; and their idea of the secret rapture of the saints in
Pierre Lambert, a Jesuit Father. But we are not to suppose
that because it has borrowed so largely, Plymouthism is
therefore without system or coherence. In point of fact,
there is a certain dependence of its false assumptions upon
one another which we should hardly have expected from
its eclectic origin, while its dispensational theories have had
the effect of colouring the whole system.

I think it necessary to state that the two sects of Bre-
threnism — the Darbyites or Exclusives, and the "Open "
or "Loose Brethren" — think almost alike on tieafly all
the doctrines I have discussed in this small work. Yet the
" Open Brethren " are strongly opposed to Mr. Darby's later
heresies on the third-class sufferings and the unatoning death
of Christ, as well as to his doctrine of the infallibility of
the assembly when meeting under the presidency of the
Holy Ghost. Yet they hold Darbyite ideas of gifts and
ministry. It is not possible to speak so definitely concern-
ing their opinions as concerning those of the Darbyites,
for they have no leader and no organization, simply con-
sisting of so many independent " gatherings."

Preface.

ix

It is a mistake to represent Mr. Benjamin W. Newton as
the leader of any section of the Brethren. In point of fact,
he left them so far back as 1845, and has ever since laboured
as the minister of a congregation at Bayswater ; while
he is known as the author of a number of exceedingly
learned and able treatises against the Brethren, as well
as against Ritualism and Rationalism. It is the consistent
and fearless attitude he has maintained toward error of
all kinds which has exposed him for thirty years to cease,
less persecution from the Darbyites. He is one of the
ablest representatives in our day of the sound theology of
the Reformation.

In conclusion, I deem it right to state that I attribute to
the Brethren no doctrines they do not hold, that I give
ample quotations from their works, fairly representing all
their opinions, and that I confine myself strictly to the
business of refuting their arguments from Scripture.

I have followed Hodge, the American divine, closelv,
almost verbally, in my treatment of the true doctrine of the
Church and its unity.

I trust I have not transgressed the rules of candour or
right feeling in the conduct of this discussion.

I have no object in view but the establishment of truth,
the salvation of souls, and the glory of God.

March 20th, 1878.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I.

THE CHURCH IN EXISTENCE BEFORE PENTECOST.

Page

Statement of Brethren's positions. I. The Church "asserted to
be the mystery hid for generations." The "mystery" not
the Church, but the admission of Gentiles to share the bless-
ings of salvation on equal terms with the Jews (Eph. iii,
5 — 9). II. Argument of Brethren that Old Testament saints
are not members of the Church, because they had not received
the baptism of the Spirit. I Cor. xii. 12, 13, examined. What
is the baptism of the Spirit ? Romans v. teaches union with
Adam and union with Christ. Abraham and David justified
as we are. If we are the seed of Abraham, we must have union
with Christ. Heb. xi. 40, Rev. xxi. 2, examined. III.
Brethren affirm that Christ was not Head till after resur-
rection ; therefore He could not be Head to Old Testament
saints. Five arguments in reply. IV. Brethren say the
saints are not called the Church in the Old Testament.
Passages of Scripture considered. Usage of kahal and
€KK\rjCLa. V. The force of Christ's saying, " I w/// build
niy church." Exposition of this passage I

CHAPTER n.

THE CHURCH CONSISTS OF BELIEVERS, LIVING AND DEAD.

Brethren hold that the Church consists only of the saints on
earth. If dead saints are of the body, as Brethren admit,

Table of Contents.

xi

how can they be out of its unity ? If they are not in the body,
they are not in the Church which Christ purchased. The
objections of Brethren considered 17

CHAPTER III.

THE TRUE NATURE OF THE CHURCH.

I. The Church consists of believers, who are addressed according
to their profession. 2. The Church viewed under its "Kingdom
of Heaven" aspect. 3. The Church visible and invisible. 4.
Brethren practically admit this distinction ... ... ... 19

CHAPTER IV.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

The doctrine of the Brethren stated. I. True doctrine of Scrip-
ture on the unity of the Church. 2. The true idea of the
Church not narrower than the true idea of the Christian. 3.
Not a unity of external organization. 4. Application of these
principles to the state of modem churches. 5. The indepen-
dent existence of Christian denominations not a denial of the
unity of the body. 6. Where is the Church of God now, as
distinct from the denominations of Christendom ? ... ... 24

CHAPTER V.

THE CHURCH IN RUINS.

I. The apostacy of the dispensation, (i) We deny the apostacy
in the Darbyite sense. (2) State of things now only the de-
velopment of the state of things in apostolic days. II. The
duty of separation from all existing churches, (i) No hint of
separation in Ephesians iv. 2. (2) The Darbyite principle,
" separation from evil God's principle of unity," not unifying.
(3) Darbyite objection to the constitution and membership
of our churches (2 Cor. vi. 17; Rev. xviii. 4 ; 2Tim. ii. 19 — 21)
considered. Our churches compared with those of New
Testament times. The Brethren separate from believers on
grounds inconsistent with their own principles. III. The
resource of the faithful in the evil day (Matt, xviii. 20).
The Brethren's arguments from this text criticised 35

xii

Table of Contents.

CHAPTER VL

INCONSISTENCIES.

Inconsistency of the earlier with the later doctrines of the
Brethren. The basis of Brethrenism changed. " The
Gatherings" of 1830 are now "a body," with corporate
action. Brethren self-convicted of schism. They assign,
like Romanists, an undue place to the doctrine of the
Church ...

BOOK II.

CHAPTER I.

PRESIDENCY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

The Brethren's doctrine stated. Examination of six texts
adduced to support it (Matt, xviii. 20 ; I Cor. xiv. 33 ; Eph.
ii. 20 — 22; I Cor. xiv. ; Heb. ii. 12 ; I Cor. iii. 16)

CHAPTER II.

THE EXISTENCE AND EXERCISE OF GIFTS.

The Brethren and their claim to extraordinary gifts. Inconsis-
tent attitude. Sinfulness of preparation for the exercise of
gift. Scripture evidence. Paul's censure of the Corinthians
inconsistent with the Spirit's presidency. Testimony of
Brethren and others as to the unedifying character of
Plymouthite assemblies

CHAPTER III.

WHO HAVE THE CALL TO PREACH ?

The Brethren's doctrine stated. Scripture evidence against
it (Eph. iv. 11). Why should Timothy or Titus test the
fitness of Christians to preach, when, on Brethren's principles.

Table of Contents.

xiii

there is no such testing now ? Examination of texts adduced
by the Brethren (i Cor. xiv. 31 ; Rom. xii. 6 — 8 ; I Peter iv.
10, II ; Acts viii. I, 4; i Cor. xvi. 15) 64

CHAPTER IV.

THE MINISTRY OF BISHOPS OR ELDERS.

The elders not a temporary order. I. All the "pastors and
teachers" were elders. Scripture proofs. 2. Elders were
ordained in all the churches. Scripture proofs. 3. The
appointment of elders. Is there proof of election of elders
by congregations ? Scripture texts. Ordination, — what it im-
plied. Brethren say elders were always ordained by apostles,
(i) It is denied that apostles only ordained elders. (2) If
they did ordain, they did it, not as apostles, but as elders ... 71

CHAPTER V.

PAYMENT OF PASTORS.

Brethren's views stated. " Pastors not entitled to support."
I. Evidence for the support of elders who were pastors
(i Tim. V. 17, and other texts). 2. No Scripture ground for
the very peculiar distinction made by the Brethren between
the pastoral and evangelistic offices. 3. The mode of pay-
ment. The system of the churches more scriptural than that
of the Brethren. 4. Inconsistent practice of the Brethren ... 80

BOOK III.

CHAPTER I.
Christ's heavenly humanity.

The Brethren's doctrine stated. The "heavenly humanity"
of Christ. Proofs of the catholic doctrine (Gal. iv. 4 ; Heb.
ii. 14). Brethren's objections based on i Cor. xv. 47 ... 84

xiv

Table of Contents.

CHAPTER 11.

JUSTIFICATION.

Page

Statement of Brethren's doctrines: I. ^'Justification in the
Risen Christ" unscriptural (Rom. iv. 25). The cross brings
more than pardon. False view of Christ's life before resur-
rection and after it. False view of the condition of the
justified. II. Christ's obedience to the law for us. Proofs
(Rom. V. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Rom. x. 3, 4 ; Gal. iv. 4).
Brethren's objections considered. III. 7he rii^hteoiisness of
Christ becomes the possession of believers through imputation.
Scripture proofs. Brethren's objections. Tine meaning of
imputation. IV. Christ our Sin-bearer through all His life.
Brethren's view that He was Sin-bearer only on the cross.
Scripture proofs. Brethren's objections answered. V. Third-
class siifferiiigs of Christ on the cross. The latest heresy of
Darbyism. Ps. Ixix. No foundation for it in Scripture.
VI. The death of Christ unatoning. Darbyite theory sepa-
rates Christ's sufferings from His death. Proofs that the death
is atoning. VII. Justificatioti in relatioti to our future sins.
Brethren's doctrine that future sins are forgiven at conver-
sion, and that it is therefore wrong for Christians to pray for
the pardon of sin. Scripture proofs against this theory.
Brethren's misrepresentation of Hebrews x. 1,2 87

CHAPTER in.

FAITH.

The Brethren's doctrine stated. Sandemanism. i. Faith not
mere belief of the truth, but includes also trust in Christ.
Five arguments. 2. Faith does not consist in believing that
"Christ died for me." Six arguments. I. Faith and Re-
pentance. The Brethren's doctrine stated and considered.
II. Faith ami Prayer. Brethren's doctrine that unconverted
persons ouglit not to pray for salvation but to take it without
prayer. Five arguments 108

CHAPTER IV.

SANCTIFI CATION.

The Brethren's doctrine of perfect sanctification through Christ
stated, I. Two significations of the word in Scripture.
I Cor. vi. II, I Peter i. 2, John xvii. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 13
examined. II. The Brethren's theory of the new nature
unscriptural. Five arguments. III. Sanctification progres-
sive. Scripture evidence n8

Table of Contents.

XV

CHAPTER V.

THE LAW AS A RULE OF LIFE.

Page

The Brethren's views inconsistent. I. They maintain that man
was not under law till Moses' time. Four arguments in reply.
II. They teach that believei-s are not under law in any sense.
Eight argimients of the Brethren considered. III. Positive
testimony to the law as a continuing rule of life to believers.
Sbc proofs from Scripture. IV. Immoral tendency of Breth-
renite views 123

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECRET RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS.

Brethren's theory stated. It necessitates a third coming of
Christ. No distinction in Scripture between " the day of
Christ" and "the appearing of Christ.'" Proofs that the
idea of the secret rapture is unscriptural. No ground for the
supposition that there are no intervening events now to be
expected before the coming of Christ. The use of signs ... 1 38

CHAPTER VII.

THE S.\INrS AND THE JUDGMENT-DAY.

The Brethren hold that the saints will not be judged at all.
What is involved in the Judgment? Not the question of
acceptance or non-acceptance. Three things involved —
manifestation, giving account to God, and receiving the
things done in the body. I. John v. 24, 29 examined. 2.
Saints expressly said to be judged. 3. Pass.ages in which the
judgment of saints and sinners is referred to (2 Cor. v. 10 ;
Heb. ix. 27 ; Matt. xxv. 31 — 46 ; Rev. xx, 12 — 15). Breth-
ren's objections answered 144

CHAPTER VIII.

THE WORLD.

The Brethren hold peculiar views on the relation of the Christian
to the world and worldly employments, to philanthropy, and
to the religious and missionary societies of the day. i.
Worldly employnwnis. Brethren use "world" in two
senses. They say the Christians of this dispensation ought

xvi

Tabic of Contents.

to be "pilgrims and strangers, " and keep apart from worldly
professions, (i) Old Testament saints were the first who
were called " pilgrims and strangers," yet some took political
service under heathen sovereigns. (2) The New Testament
does not forbid Christians to be magistrates, or military or
naval officers. Cornelius, Erastus, "the saints in Csesar's
household." (3) " My kingdom is not of this world " inter-
preted. (4) Do Brethren act consistently on their own
principles? 2. Philanthropy. Brethren decry it, and
leave the ' ' doomed world " to its fate. Misrepresentations
exposed. 3. Keligiotts and missionary societies. Brethren
object to co-operate with the people of other sects in carrying
out religious projects. Their inconsistencies. Effects of the
Brethren's doctrine concerning the world. Moral and social
mischiefs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 151

CHAPTER IX.

CONCLUSION.

Future prospects of Brethrenism. Five causes of its success at
the first. Five reasons for believing that it will not last.
Duty of the Church of Christ 161

PLY.MOUTH BRETHRENISM.

BOOK I.— THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER I.

THE CHURCH IN EXISTENXE BEFORE PEXTECOST.

THE Brethren teach that the Church did not exist before
Pentecost ; that there never was a Jewish Church ;
that the Old Testament saints, though saved by the blood
of Christ, were not members of His bodj-, and therefore
were not in the Church ; and that the Church consists only
of those saints who exist between Pentecost and the Millen-
nium. They hold likewise that the Church has a peculiar
glory in heaven which does not belong either to the saints
of the Old Testament dispensation or of the Millennium
itself. They thus deny the unity of the redeemed in glor}-.

* "The Church, then, being Christ's body, could not exist before the
Head was in heaven, as Ephesians i. teaches clearly, nor the habitation
of God through the Spirit, when the Spirit was not sent. But the
doctrine of the Church's being now only set up or revealed, is positively
taught in Scripture." — ^J. N. Darby, Is the Comforter conte ? p. 17.

"It may be necessary to notice, for some, that the Church had no
actual existence before the day of Pentecost. When Jesus told Peter
about the Church, He did not say, On this rock I am building, but 'On
this rock 1 unll btiild my Church.' Now that Peter afterwards under-
stood this to refer to resurrection is very clear. (Actsiv. 10 — 12 ; I Peter
i. 34, ii. 4 — 9.) Surely, as living stones, we are not built on a dead
Christ, but built up in Him who is alive from the dead." — C. Stanley,
What was the Sabbath ? p. 22.

"I hope you have seen, then, that the Church is a perfectly new
thing — in fact, so new that the Epistle to the Ephesians tells us that
before union with the Head — and therefore with the members — could
be effected, Christ had to die and be raised from the dead, and witk
Him we are raised up and made to sit together in heavenly places in
Him. Before there could be a body the Head must be raised up to sit

I

2

Plymouth Brethrenism

Let us carefully examine the evidence adduced in support
of these views.

I. The Brethren assert that the Church had no existence
before Pentecost, because it is expressly called " the mystery
hid for generations,^'' which the apostle Paul was specially
commissioned to reveal. They wholly misunderstand the
nature of this mystery. The mystery referred to in Ephe-
sians iii. 9 — " which from the beginning of the world hath
been hid in God" — is not the Church, for the passage
itself says otherwise: "to the intent that now unto the prin-
cipalities and powers in heavenly places might be known
by the Church the manifold wisdom of God." It is thus the
Church itself which fully reveals that mystery, "which in
other ages was not made known to the sons of men as it is
now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit" (Eph. iii. 5) — that mystery which was, not that the
Old Testament saints were to be shut out of the one body,
or that the Gentiles were to enjoy the Messiah's blessings
by becoming Jews, but that we, of this dispensation, were
to be incorporated into the "one commonwealth" (ii. 12),
from which we were alienated, into the " one body" (ver. 16),
the " one household," the " one building fitly framed to-
gether." The mystery was the admission of Gentiles to
share on equal terms with the Jews all the blessings purchased
by dhrist. This was the " mystery " for which the apostle
says he was in bonds (Col. iv. 3). The Jews were angry
because God had favoured the Gentiles, and accordingly
persecuted the great apostle. It was not for " the Church"
he was in bonds, but for this "mystery." The Gentiles were
to be made " fellow-citizens " of the saints — that is, of the
heavenly city, which Abraham looked for, a city with foun-
dations, called the Bride of the Lamb (Rev. xxi. 9, 10).
Mr. Darby says the bringing-in of the Gentiles was not an
unrevealed mystery, for it is referred to in many Old Testa-

at God's right hand." — Davis, A Scriptural Inquiry as to what is the
Church, p. 12.

The Church "is the actual living unity with Christ and with each
other of those who, since Christ's resurrection, are formed into this
unity by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. Was there anytliing
like this in Old Testament times ? " — Flai)t Papers, p. 83.

The Chuy'ch before Penteeosf. 3

ment scriptures; and he maintains that the mystery spoken
of by Paul in Romans xvi. 25 — " which was kept secret since
the world began " — was an entirely new and different thing.
Eut this very passage shows that it was a mystery which the
prophets had already dealt with : "But is now made manifest,
and by the scriptures of the prophets made known." * But
though the prophets foretold that the Gentiles were to be
blessed in Abraham, it was not made known to them in
what manner the blessing was to be realized. This was
the special revelation to which the apostle alludes when
he speaks of the dispensation committed to himself as the
apostle of the Gentiles.

II. The Brethren urge that while the Old Testament saints
were saved by the blood of Christ, they could not be members 0/
Christ's body, because they had not received that baptism of the
Spirit which alone unites to Christ: "for in one Spirit were
we all, whether Jews or Gentiles, baptized into one body "
(i Cor. xii. 12, 13). The Old Testament saints had life;
but Ufe, they say, is not union, though it is necessary to it.
Life comes by faith ; union comes only by the baptism of
the Spirit, for it is said, " He that is joined to the Lord is
one spirit." The Old Testament saints had life, but they
had not union with Christ, and therefore were not members
of the body of Christ, the Church.t

* The Brethren translate it, "prophetic writings'' — the writings in
question being those not of the Old Testament, but of the New Testa-
ment, according to Ephesians iii. 5, "As it is now revealed unto His holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit." The Brethren say the Old Testa-
ment prophets revealed nothing concerning the Cliurch. We ask,
where are the -writings of the New Testament prophets ? They must
have been written before the Epistle to the Ephesians if they are referred
to in it. Paul's writings are expository rather than prophetic, according
to his usual mode of preaching — "saying none other things than those
which Moses and the prophets did say should come " (Acts xxvi. 22).
It was by means of Old Testament prophecies expounded by himself
that the apostle fulfilled his mission to the Gentiles. The expression
yparpuv ■7rpo<peTiKuiv is like €v ypa<pais d7(ois (Rom. i. 2), not "holy
scriptures," ljut "the holy scriptures." The Brethren say the doctrine
of the Church was peculiar to Paul as distinct from the other apostles.
It was their doctrine, certainly, as well as his, for the mystery was
"revealed unto //is holy apostles" (Eph. iii. 5).

t "The giving of life is no proof of union at all. Possession of life
is not union. My children receive life from me : they are not my bride.

4 Plymouth Brethrenhni.

The question, then, is, were the Old Testament saints
united to Christ or not ? We hold that it is faith that unites
to Christ, and that as they had faith, they were members of
His body, the Church.

1. The text adduced by the Brethren proves nothing to
the purpose — " He that is joined to the Lord is one
Spirit" (i Cor. vi. i6, 17). It says nothing about the
means of this junction ; it only speaks of its effects. It does
not say that the Spirit joins us at all. The context shows
that it refers to the vital union between the soul and the
Saviour, and it is by faith we live — " The life I now live in
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God " (Gal. ii. 20).
Faith unites to the object of faith. If we are born of the
Spirit, we are yet said to be " children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus." We are in the last Adam as a "quickening
spirit," and faith is the first effect of His quickening.
We were " buried with Him in baptism, in which also we
were raised together by faith " (Col. ii. 12). Here is union
with Christ by faith. Mr. Patterson says that " the Spirit is
the unity of the one body." We answer : The body being
one is its own unity, and the essence of that unity is " in
Christ." The Spirit dwells in the body, but He is not its unity.

2. The Brethren say we are not in the Body till " we are
baptized into it by one Spirit" (i Cor. xii. 13). But the
Old Testament saints had not this baptism ; therefore they
are not in the Body.

{a) We must remember, however, that the Church is what
it is by virtue of Christ's work, not the Spirit's ; for He
"purchased it with His own blood." It is Christ, not the
Spirit, who '■'■hath made both one" (Eph. ii. 14). The unity
of the body is in Himself, not in the Spirit — " So we, being
many, are one body in Christ " (Rom. xii. 5). Our title in
the Church, therefore, is not the Spirit's baptism, but Christ's
blood, of which that baptism was only an effect.* Christ

I repeat, the communication of life by, or the possession of life from
Christ, is never union. It may be necessary fo it. Both may come in
an instant, but life and faith must be there, for us to be sealed with the
Holy Ghost, by which we are united," — Mr. Darby, Is tJu Comforter
eome? And is He gone i

* Mr. B. W. Newton well says : " Our title to say ' we are fellow-

The Church before Pentecost. 5

gives the title : the Spirit gives the ability to act in the power
of it. The gift of the Spirit does not effect redemption,
but is itself a purchased result of it. He is " the unction
from the Holy One" to apply Christ's blessings. Again, it is
Christ, not the Spirit, who builds the Church: "On this rock
will / build my Church."' He is the tried stone. Mr. Pat-
terson speaks of " the body as constituted by the presence
of the Holy Ghost." This is hardly a scriptural mode of
expression. The New Testament speaks of His "indwelling,"
not of His "presence." The word "constitute" applies
strictly to Christ's work, not the Spirit's. The Church is
Christ's "purchased possession" and "God's workmanship,"
and the Spirit cannot be said properly to " constitute " that
of which He is only seal and witness.

{b\ \\'hat, then, does the baptism of the Spirit mean?
Whate\ er it means, it must not be forgotten that the Old
Testament saints received the Holy Ghost as well as we
("we having the same spirit of faith" even as the Old
Testament saints — 2 Cor. iv. 13), though He was given to
them in a different manner, as "a Spirit of servantship"
(SovXetas), and to us as a " Spirit of sonship " (yiodtaiai).
" But He did not dwell in the Old Testament saints." Did
He not? "Where is He that put His Holy Spirit within
him?" (Isa. Ixiii. 11 ; also Ps. li. 10, ti, 12.)

What, then, is the Spirit's baptism in which the Old
Testament saints had no share ? The Brethren represent it
as distinct from faith, because the question is asked, Have
ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? " (Acts xix. 2).
It was, therefore, distinct from regeneration, else no Old
Testament saint was regenerated. The passage is not,

citizens of the saints and of the household of God ' rests, according to
this system, not on Christ the Saviour, but on the Spirit as given at
Pentecost. Experiences wrought in us through the Spirit, not faith in
Jesus, become the link that unites us to the hope of appointed glor)'.
If this be so, we need to alter those blessed words which say, ' The
Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood ; ' we
should be obliged to say, ' The Church of God, which He hath made
His Church because of that which it learns and knows through the
Spirit.' " He also truly says, " Heaven is not made a transcript of the
dispensational differences of earth." — Old Testanimt Saints not cxdudid
from the Chunk of Cod.

6

Plymouth Breihrenism.

they say, " By one Spirit were we all regeueraied into one
body."

AVe observe, in reply, that the New Testament speaks of
baptism under two aspects — one having relation to salvation,
the other, to gifts. The first is presented in Romans vi. 3
— " Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into
Christ were baptized into His death?" Spiritual birth is
implied in this baptism. The second is baptism mainly for
supernatural gifts, sometimes going before water-baptism
(Acts X. 46), oftener following it (Acts viii. t2 — 17), and
was always conferred either by the laying-on of apostles'
hands or by illapse of the Spirit* This baptism is re-
ferred to in Matthew iii. 11, "He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire;" and Jesus Himself says (Acts
i. 4, 5), " wait for the promise of the Father which ye heard
of me, for John truly bajitized with water, but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence," — in
allusion to Pentecost, when the Spirit descended in tongues
and prophecy on those already regenerate. Again, Peter
preaches to Cornelius and his friends, and "the Holy Ghost
fell on all them who heard the word. . . . They heard them
speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts x. 44 — 46).
" But Scripture does not call this the baptism of the Spirit."
It expressly does; for Peter, referring to this very scene,
says, "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as
on us at the beginning: then remembered I the word of the
Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost'" (Acts xi. 15, 16).
Again, the Samaritans believed and were baptized by Philip.
Peter and John afterwards prayed that they might receive
the Holy Ghost,t and then " laid they their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts viii. 17).

" A correct translation of Hebrews vi. 2 specifies these two baptisms
— "baptisms of instruction" (hence catechumens), "and of the laying-
on of hand-;."

■f- The Brethren say it is wrong to pray for the Holy Ghost, yet here
is an example of it. (Another ex'imple is in Ephesians i. 17.) Why,
too, should apostles pray that Christians might have "grace" (Rom. i. 7),
when they had it already? This \i apropos o{ the ol>jcclioii that it is
wrong to pray for the Spirit because He had already come.

The CJmrch before Peniecosi. 7

Now, both of the aspects of baptism already referred to
seem to be presented in i Corinthians xii. 13 — a chapter
which speaks much of supernatural gifts, such as tongues, pro-
phecies and miracles. The baptism here is quite consistent
with the baptism of Romans vi. 3 ; for those who are " bap-
tized into Christ " are, ipso facto, baptized into the one body,
of which He is Head, for gifts as well as salvation, for
it is Christ emphatically who gave gifts to men (Eph. iv. 8).
The baptism for supernatural gifts does not now exist.
Mr. Darby virtually says it does. We reply (i) that it was
always conferred by apostles' hands or by illapse of the
Spirit. (2) It always left behind it supernatural gifts.

(3) It was as outward as water-baptism itself, for people had
visible proofs of its power. The passage, then, refers to
regeneration, and also to the Spirit's baptism for super-
natural gifts : " For by (or in) one Spirit were we all,
whether Jews or Gentiles, baptized into one body." They
carried the gifts into the body through the baptism of the
Spirit. They had their place there already for spiritual life,
because of their union with Christ, but now they carried
into the body gifts for its edification.

The Brethren, however, insist that the Spirit's baptism
was neither regeneration nor the conferring of supernatural
gifts, but sealing, and that this sealing was peculiar to New
Testament believers. We reply (i) that it is nowhere called
sealing in Scripture, though sealing is often referred to.
The passage is not — By one Spirit were we sealed into one
body. Sealing was not for gifts, but for security, and is
one of the eftects of our being in one body. (Eph. i. 13,
iv. 30 ; 2 Cor. i. 22.) Besides, it is the Father who seals ;
it is Christ who baptizes, ifi the Spirit. (2) If this sealing
makes believers now members of the body of Christ, may
we ask whether the Ephesian disciples of John and the
Samaritans were not members of the body even before the
apostles laid their hands upon them at all? (3) If the
Father's sealing implies the security of believers and their
assurance of salvation, the Old Testament saints possessed
it as well as ourselves (Psalms, passim). Any other sealing
is now impossible, from the want of apostles to confer it.

(4) If the Spirit's baptism had anything to do with sal-

8

Ptymoulh Bn/hreuism.

vation as distinct from gifts, I maintain that, though the
Old Testament saints had not the formal baptism of the
New Testament saints, they must have had its saving and
sanctifying effects. They had not water-baptism, but they
had all that it signified, else they could not have been
saved. They had not the Lord's Supper, but they enjoyed
the blessings and benefits of Christ's death. It is very
true that the gift of the Holy Ghost was one of the fruits of
Christ's death and intercession; yet the Holy Ghost had
been operating ages before, both in His miraculous and in
His saving power. It could never have been given except
as the fruit of Christ's death. Brethren say — " The Holy
Ghost was not yet given, because Christ was not yet glorified"
(John vii. 39). We admit this. Had He never been glorified,
the Holy Ghost had never been given ; yet He had been
given ages before in miracle-working and saving power on
the ground of this very glorification. But before Pentecost,
men did not know that it was the peculiar office of the
Spirit to confer these gifts and graces* It is quite a mistake
of the Brethren to represent the Spirit's work as different
before and after Christ. The difference was quantitative,
not qualitative.

3. The doctrine of the fifth of Romans is union with
Adam and union with Christ. Sin and death by the one :
life and righteousness by the other. The same doctrine is in
I Corinthians xv. 20, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
all be quickened." The word in marks union with Christ
as federal Head. "We have borne the image of the earthy :
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." What
blessing is there higher than being raised in the likeness of
Christ ? Shall not all saints bear this likeness ? There is
no redemption apart from union with the Person of the
Redeemer. This redemption belonged to Old Testament
saints. Now, in Ephesians i. 21 — 23, where the Church is
called "the fulness of Christ," the reference is to Him as
the last Adam, as we see by verse 22 being a quotation
from Psalm viii. Old Testament saints, therefore, being
in the last Adam, belong to the TrX^ptofia of Christ, the
Church.

4. Abraham and David are, in Romans iv., said to be

The C/iurch before Pentecost.

9

justified exactly as we are. Therefore they had union with
Christ, because, if justified, they " died with Him." If they
did not die with Him, they are lost.* If they died with Him,
they rose with Him, and He is expressly called " the first-
fruits of them " — the Old Testament saints — " that have
fallen asleep" (i Cor. xv. 20). And if they rose in Him, it
was as their Head and Representative. The privileges of
the justified are declared to be " expectation of the glory of
God " reigning in Ufe by one, Jesus Christ " — as the
result of being in Him, as the second Man, the last Adam
— "being conformed to the image of God's Son." Does
not Paul say that these privileges all belong to Abraham and
David ? He says, if we have Christ, we have all things
(i Cor. iii. 21 — 23). How, then, shall not the Old Testa-
ment saints, who had Christ, have " all things " likewise —
all the glory that belongs to the Church, " the Jerusalem
which is above," the " mother of us all " ?

5. If we are Abraham's seed, we must have union with
Christ : " They that are of faith are blessed unth [not
apart from] faithful Abraham." (Gal. iii.) The apostle shows
here that Abraham has the heirship, the kingdom, the
sonship, the glory, on the ground of the promise, and that
we thus enter into his privileges—" If sons, then heirs; heirs
of God and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. viii. 17). AVhat
glory of the Church is not comprehended in the blessings of
this joint-heirship ? Are they heirs without an inheritance ?
Did Abraham receive the promises only for his children ?
Mr. B. W. Newton says, after quoting Galatians iii. 14,
" That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of
the Spirit through faith," — "Here we are expressly taught
that we receive ' the promise of the Spirit ' as now given,

* It is said in Colossians ii. 11, "In whom also ye are circumcised with
the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ " — that is, by a circumcision
received by means of Christ. Circumcision, therefore, as God's pledge
to Abraham, involves union with Christ in His death. Unless we say
that Abraham was not circumcised anti-typically — that is, in heart — we
must admit he was in Christ as the Head of the Church. All the anti-
typically circumcised are by this passage declared to be in Him who is
called the " Head of the body, the Church,"

lO

Plymouth Brethnnism

because we share Abraham's blessing. Take the promise of
the Spirit from Abraham, and we take it from ourselves.
The promise of the Spirit is not a temporary dispensational
promise merely. The Spirit will be the power of our new
life in glory." {Thoughts on Isaiah, vol. i., p. 164.) Is he
himself, the father of the family, to be excluded, especially
when we know that " many shall come from the East and
from the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob in the kingdom of heaven " ? Not a hint here of a
different and inferior glory for Old Testament saints !

6. But there is the clearest evidence that the saints of
all dispensations will share in the same glory : " These all
having obtained a good report through faith, received not
the promise, God having provided some better thing for us,
that they, without us, should not be made perfect " (Heb.
xi. 40). Mark, it is not " that we, mthout them, should not
be made perfect." The Brethren actually quote this text on
their side. But it does not teach that God has provided
something better for us than for them hereafter — for that
would contradict x'^p'^S apart from — but it teaches that
He had provided a better thing for us than to allow that they
should be perfected apart from us. If the saints of the two
dispensations have a different calling and glory, then they
are perfected apart from each other. God has provided
some better thing : better, that is, than they had known on
earth : we have a better portion than our fathers now, but
not in the final glory,

7. The Brethren admit that the city (Rev. xxi. 2) is the
Bride, the Lamb's \vife ; yet Paul represents the Old Testa-
ment saints as inheritors of the glory of this very city (Heb.
xi. 16). If they are not in the city they are lost: "God
will take his part out of the holy city." If Abraham belongs
to the city, the Bride, how can he be without the blessings
that pertain to the city ? The city is "a symbol of corporate
condition representing the glory of the Church as a whole."
Remember that the gates of the city bear the names of the
twelve tribes of Israel.

III. The Bretliren affirm that Christ mild not be the Head
of the Old Testametit saints, because He was not Head till He
had risen from the dead. We reply : —

The CJiurcJi before Pentecost. 1 1

1. Christ was not, and could not be, a Saviour without
dying, yet He was the Saviour of Old Testament saints ages
before His death. Now, He was Head just as He was
Saviour, for " He is the Head of the Church and He is the
Saviour of the body" (Eph. v. 23). He was the federal
Head of all believers, because as the last Adam all believers
are in Him. He was Head as He was Surety. The argu-
ment of Romans v. 12 — 18 here exactly applies. Christ is
said to be "the Head of every man," as "the head of woman
is the man " (i Cor. xi. 3). If He is only the Head of every
Christian man, then man was not the head of woman in the
Jewish dispensation.

2. If Christ only became Head when He rose from the
dead, and if the body, the Church, only came into being at
Pentecost, then for forty days there was a Head without a
body ! Is this credible ?

3. There are just seven passages which speak of Christ
as Head (Eph. i. 22, iv. 15, v. 23; Col. i. 18, ii. 10, 19;
I Cor. xi. 3). But not one of them asserts that He became
Head through resurrection. The resurrection declared the
headship as it declared His sonship, for He was Head as He
was Son of God before He came into the world at all.
Ephesians i. 22, on which the Brethren rely, does not refer to
His headship of the Church at all, but to His mediatorial
headship over all things : " He gave Him as Head over all
things to the Church."

4. If Christ was not Head, how could He be Mediator
for Old Testament saints? Was He Mediator for them at
all, exercising His offices of Prophet, Priest, and King?
If He was not, they are lost. But from Abel downward
they were pardoned, enlightened, sanctified— which they
could not be unless by the Mediator in the exercise of all
His offices. He was Priest from the beginning, for He
forgave sin. His death was essentially necessary to the dis-
charge of His functions as a King, for Philippians ii. 10 says,
" Wherefore [because of His death] God hath highly exalted
Him, and given Him a name which is above every name ;
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." The
possession of this dominion was necessary to His mediator-
ship. Was it as necessaiy before His coming as after it?

12

Plymcuth Brethrenisin.

If He saved men from the beginning, He was King from
the beginning. This seems opposed to the statement that
the dominion conferred upon Him was the reward of His
obedience unto death, but there is no contradiction in the
case. There never was a Saviour but Christ, and He never
saved but by atonement. Yet the Old Testament saints
were washed from their sins in His blood ages before His
blood was shed. If they were saved without His mediation,
then His mediation was then and is now unnecessary. So
the dominion of the Mediator was conferred upon Him in
consequence of His obedience unto death, and was yet
enjoyed and exercised by Him long before His death. The
exaltation He received after death was not an accession of
new glory or power, but the manifestation of a glory He had
from the beginning.

In point of fact, the Brethren have adopted an altogether
carnalized view of the relation between Christ and His
members, as if this relation were corporeal and not spiritual.
They do so on the strength of a false reading in Ephesians
V. 30 : " For ye are members of His body, of His flcsJi, and
of His bones." The italicized words are not in the three
oldest MSS., and are condemned as spurious by all the best
critical editors.

IV. The Brethren say that the saints are not called the
Church in the Old Testament.

I. It would not follow that because they are not called
so, they are not the Church. We might as well say that
there was no "new man" in Old Testament times because
there is no hint of it in the Old Testament. The Brethren
argue as if the Church could not be the Church till the
Gentiles were included in it. But they forget that there was
not a Gentile in the Church till CorneUus was called ; and
yet, while it was still composed only of Jews, it is called
the Church. (Acts ii. 47, v. 11.) But what right have the
Brethren to say that the Old Testament saints are not
expressly included in that "Church of the Lord" (true
reading) which He hath purchased with His own blood"
(Acts XX. 28*) — in that Church which "Christ loved and

* The iKK\7i(rla Kvplov of this passage curiously con-esponds with
the iKK\ri<7ia Kvplov of Deuteronomy xxiii. I, 2, 3, 8,

The Church before Pentecost. 13

gave Himself for " ? Did He only love and give Himself
for New Testament saints ?

2. The word eKKXrjo-La was borrowed from the Old Testa-
ment. Stephen refers to "the Church in the wilderness"
(Acts vii. 38). The Brethren are indignant at the perverse-
ness of interpreters applying this term to the Church in its
New Testament sense. They say it means "the congre-
gation in the wilderness." Why do they not say at once, as
they usually translate the phrase, " the assembly in the wilder-
ness " ? It means, however, the whole body of the Jewish
people religiously regarded; just as Mr. Kelly admits that
" the Church in Judea " means the whole body of professing
Christians in Judea — i.e., more than one eKKXrja-ia. (i) We
remark that when Stephen used the word iKKXrjcria, he was
familiar with its New Testament signification, for, according
to Brethren, the Church was in being before his martyrdom.
(2) The Hebrew word kahal, translated (KKX-qaia in the Sep-
tuagint, means, say the Brethren, the congregation of Israel
met for worship, and not one body, the Church. We main-
tain, however, that, like iKKXyjcria in the New Testament, it
had several significations, (a) It meant all the male adults
of Israel (Josh. viii. 35). (d) It meant the people assembled
for worship: Joel ii. 16, "Gather the people, sanctify the con-
gregation" ; Psalm cxlix. i, "Sing His praise in the Church of
saints"; Psalm IxxxLx. 5, "Thy faithfulness also in the Church
of saints." These words correspond to the Corinthian
Church met for worship, (c) It meant all the generations
of Israel through ages regarded as one body: Deut. v. 22,
" These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the
mount. . . . And it came to pass when ye heard the voice
. . . that ye came near, even all the heads of your tribes
and your elders." These words refer not to the Israel of one
generation, but of many ages. It does not mean the people
assembled for worship, for they were the congregation
{kahal) when they were not worshipping at all, just as
iKKk-qa-ia in the New Testarient signifies the Church of a
place, whether met for worship or not. (3) " But the con-
gregation included saints and sinners, and could not,
therefore, be the Church." It is true the congregation is
called Israel, and that Paul says expressly, the external

14

Plymouth Brethrenisin.

Israel is not the true Israel. He makes a clear distinction
between " Israel after the spirit " and " Israel after the
flesh " — between " a Jew inwardly and a Jew outwardly "
(i Cor. X. i8; Rom. ii. 28, 29; ix. 6 — "They are not all
Israel who are of Israel" — that is, "Israel does not consist of
unbelievers"). Likewise, the Old Testament distinguishes
the saints from the mass of the people: "Truly God is good
to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart;" "Thy saints
shall bless Thee " (Psalms Ixxiii. i, cxlv. 10). The terms
"congregation of the righteous," "congregation or Church
of the saints," and " the assembly of the upright," do not
describe the mass of the people (Psalms 1. 5, Ixxxix. 5, cxi. i).
They were "a remnant according to the election of grace."
" But," say the Brethren, " if that be the case, the Israelites
could not be one body." We say, Israel, after Paul's inter-
pretation, was one body, as the Corinthian Church was one
body, though it included in its external communion heretics,
errorists, and transgressors. Besides, the body of Christ
does not consist of churches, but of individual saints. " But
the Church which Christ purchased with His own blood
consists only of saints." We admit it : the saints of both
dispensations. The Church at Corinth was the body of
Christ there : not that all whom Paul so addressed were true
believers, but were addressed according to their profession.
The Church in the wilderness was the Church in the same
sense : it consisted of believers and unbelievers as to exter-
nal communion; but all are spoken of under the same name,
because all included in the same external communion.
Yet the true and proper idea of the Church is the body of
saints, as the true and proper idea of Israel is " Israel after
the spirit," not " Israel after the flesh."

3. " But," say the Brethren, " Israel was typical of the
Church, and therefore could not be the Church itself." I
admit there was a typical character attached to the Israelites,
but that did not abolish their real character. Paul says
their very sins and punishments were types to us (i Cor.
X. 11), but they were, notwithstanding, real sins and real
punishments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are symboli-
cal, but they are real as well. The Old Testament Church
was a real visible Church, not a mere figure or shadow of

The Church before Pentecost. 15

the New Testament Church, as we know by its privileges.
Its members are called His people and His inheritance : a
relation founded not in the Sinaitic, but in the Abrahamic
covenant, which is that under which we of the New Testa-
ment dispensation stand (Gal. iii. 14), just as we are called
"God's heritage" (i Peter v. 3). Is the Church the Bride,
the Lamb's wife ? The Old Testament Church is married
to the Lord, and called the mother of children. (Isa. liv. ;
Ezek. xvi. ; Hos. ii.) Are New Testament believers the
Church of saints ? The Israelites are the "Church of saints"
(Ps. Ixxxix. 3). "They were so only typically." The typical
does not abolish their real character. They were saints in
Christ Jesus, just as they were at Corinth ; and if some
Israelites belied their professions of saintship, it was no more
than happened at Corinth, where the apostle who addresses
the members as " saints in Christ Jesus " has to charge some
of them with ignorance and heresy, and has to institute a
comparison between them and Israel in the ^\^lderness as
regards murmuring, lusting, fornication, idolatry (i Cor. x.).
Yet they were in the membership of the Corinthian Church,
regarded and treated according to their profession, just as
the Israelites were.

V. "■Bat the Church only came into existence at Pentecost;
for Christ said to Peter, ' On this rock /will build tny Church,'
implying that it was yet to be built." But He does not say,
"On this rock I will found my Church," but "I will build it."
It is oiKohonrjCTO), not ^f/icAtujo-to. It was founded ages before.
Our Lord asserts nothing but the continuance of a work in
progress for ages, only under impliedly new conditions, as
it was to include Gentiles as well as Jews within its new
constitution. In fact, our Lord takes for granted, in the very
expression " my Church," its present existence. Winer
shows how the future tense in the Greek Scriptures often
denotes a course of action already in progress, — " I will
go on building." "The future," says Winer, " in expressing
general truths, sometimes very nearly assumes the import
of the present;" and he gives examples of the usage. " But
the foundation was never actually laid till Pentecost, for
Paul says, 'Ye are built upon the foundation of apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-

1 6 Plymouth Breihrcirsin.

stone.' " (i) This does not prove that Christ was not always
the foundation. The apostles and prophets were not
founders, but builders, who, in their ministry, laid Christ as
the foundation : " other foundation can no man lay." No
matter where they preached, they always laid this foundation
anew (i Cor. iii.). Each individual Church had Christ for
its foundation. We are told that God hath laid in Zion " a
chief corner-stone, elect, precious." And then it is added,
"To you that believe" — not to you only of the New Testa-
ment dispensation — "that preciousness belongs" (i Peter
ii. 6) ; so that God laid that stone in Zion for every Old
Testament saint, else every Old Testament saint is lost.
Christ was always the foundation, else there could have been
no salvation before the coming of Christ.

We believe, then, that no new Church was set up at
Pentecost. The child grows to be a man, and is emanci-
pated from tutors and governors, but he is still the same
being, though promoted to higher dignity. The new dis-
pensation was, as Isaiah shows, to be but a continuation
or development of the economy in being. Zion was to be
enlarged, so as to admit all the nations of the earth (Isa.
xlix. 14 — 20, liv. I — 3), and ultimately to realize the glory
of the " one family in heaven and in earth," to which the
saints of all dispensations belong, rejoicing in the same
Saviour, and destined to share in the same eternal glory.

17

CHAPTER II.

THE CHURCH CONSISTS OF BELIEVERS, LIVING AND DEAD

THE Brethren hold that the Church consists only of the
saints li\ang upon earth at any one time, and not of
the saints in glorj', who are said to be out of its unity. Mr.
Patterson says, " Now this body is in the world, as is the
Holy Ghost, whose presence constitutes it. It is not in
heaven. The Head is in heaven, and the members have a
heavenly position by faith, while, in fact, they are in the
world." Again: "Now, it is quite true that all the saints
between those two great events are of the body of Christ—
of'w. in the mind and counsel of God. But those who have
died have lost their present actual connection with the body,
having passed away from the sphere where, as to personal
place, the Holy Ghost is. They have ceased to be in its
unity." — Otie Body and One Spirit, pp. 15, 17.

There is great confusion and absurdity in this statement.

1. If the saints are of the body, how can they be out of
its unity, since the body is one ? It is a contradiction in
terms to say so. The saints all hold their place in, the body
on earth by a certain kind of life — life in Christ. Does this
life cease with their mortal breath ? Does God set members
in the body that they may die out of it again ? He is not
the God of the dead, but of the living. Is not the body
God's Church ? But, again, if the body be on earth, and if
it be a true body — that is, with a head — then the Head is on
earth and not in heaven. If the saints above are not in the
bociy, then Christ, its Head, cannot be in it for the same
reason.

2. If they are not in the body they are not in that Church
which Christ " purchased with His own blood," for that
Church is the body, and nothing but the body. If they are
not in the body, they are without a head, for Jesus is the

2

1 8 Plymouth Breihrenism.

Head only of the body. As the members are only " one
body in Christ," they are out of Christ if they are out of the
body. " The whole body " consists of all saints, living and
dead; and because a part represents a whole, Christ's
members are, as at Corinth, called " His body," just as a
believer's body is called a temple of the Holy Ghost. Can
the " whole body " grow to the measure of the stature of a
perfect man without including the growth of the entire
Church of God ? Do not the Brethren themselves admit
that the Bride, the Lamb's wife, which is to come down out
of heaven, is the one body ?

3. How groundless and puerile is the conceit that the
Holy Ghost is not in heaven, because He is said to have
come down at Pentecost ! The argument is that the saints
in glory are not in " the body," because the Holy Ghost,
which dwells in " the body," is not in heaven, but on earth.
Surely a Divine Person cannot be limited to place. Jesus
was the " Son of Man " in heaven at the moment He said
to Nicodemus, on earth, " No man hath ascended up to
heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the
Son of Man which is in heaven" (John iii. 13). The Holy
Ghost is come into the world, but He is " the seven spirits "
which are before the throne of God (Rev. i. 3).

4. But the Brethren insist that the Church consists only of
saints on earth, because we read, " If one member suffer, all
the members suffer with it." The dead, they say, do not
suffer. We reply (i) This argument will prove too much,
for it will prove that Christ is not of the body, yet He is its
Head. The saints above do not suffer, because they are in
heaven. Jesus, the Head, does not suffer, because He is in
heaven. (2) It does not follow that saints in glory are not
members, unless it will be maintained that in order to mem-
bership the position of the two branches of the family must
be exactly the same in all respects. We speak familiarly of
the Church militant and the Church triumphant : they are
the same Church ; but you cannot predicate of the one
everything you can predicate of the other.

The Church, then, consists of " the whole family (ttSo-o
rrarpia) in heaven and in earth," of which Paul speaks in the
Ephesian Epistle, which is so full of the glory of the Church.

19

CHAPTER III.

THE TRUE NATURE OF THE CHURCH.

THE Brethren hold that the Church consists of believers,
and that therefore there is no ground for the distinc-
tion, usually made, between the Church invisible and the
Church visible. The Church, they say, was always visible.
An invisible Church has no existence : " what would be the
use of an invisible light ? " As the Church consists only of
believers, it follows that the so-called churches or denomi-
nations of our day are not entitled to the name, because
unbelievers are included in their membership.*

I admit that the Church consists only of believers. It is
the body of Christ. Unbelievers cannot be members of
the body. But yet I maintain that Scripture makes a dis-
tinction between two classes of professors in the Church — •
the true and the false, the sincere and the insincere.

I. How are the churches addressed ? " To the church of
God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints." This proves that the
Church consists only of believers ; but it does not prove
that in the Corinthian kKKkrja-Ca all were saints, for the
Apostle addresses them according to their profession. But

* " In I Corinthians it is spoken of as constituted by the Holy Ghost,
present and operating in it ; there also it is called the body of Christ, as
we see from the Scripture just referred to — ' By one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body.' Obviously this is extremely important, be-
cause what people think and talk about as the ' invisible Church ' —
though Scripture never uses the expression — was substantially in exist-
ence before ' the Church ' ; and, in fact, this invisible state of things is
what the Lord was putting an end to when He formed the Church."
— W. Kelly's Lectures on the Church, pp. 8l, 82.

"As to any distinction sought to be established between what you
term the Church ' visible' and 'invisible,' I have only to say that no
such thought occurs in Scripture, which invariably gives us the Head
exalted in heaven and ' the body ' on earth." — Inquiry as lo Scriptural
Position, etc., p. 6.

20

Ply mo u th Breth ren is m .

the fact that they are so addressed does not make the
Church consist of unbelievers as well as believers. They
professed to be believers — otherwise they would not have
been received into the Church at all ; and this very fact
implies that the Church consists of believers. If you hold
that men are always what they are addressed as being —
say, that all at Corinth were true saints — then your position
goes to prove that all the members of the external church
(for it is to the external worshipping community at Corinth
the apostle \\Tites) are saints and believers — which is con-
trary to fact. The fact is indisputable that the Church is
addressed as the sanctified in Christ Jesus, and yet the
Church is commanded to cast out its unholy or impure mem-
bers. This does not prove that the Church consists of holy
persons and of unholy persons, but that those who are
ca//ed saints and are wicked ought to be disowned as saints.

2. The parables of our Lord show the state of the
Church in this world under the figure of the kingdom of
heaven or the kingdom of God, but there is nothing in
these parables to prove that the Church consists of both
believers and unbelievers. '•' Oh ! " say the Brethren, " the
Church is not the kingdom of heaven at all, for the
Church consists only of saints, and the kingdom of heaven
of saints and sinners. The wheat and the tares are in the
kingdom : the wheat only belongs to the Church." We
reply (i) The Church and the kingdom have exactly the
same condition of membership. If faith in Christ places
us in the Church, it is regeneration that places us in the
kingdom : " Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."* The way

* The Brethren are greatly puzzled at this text. One of them says,
after quoting it, — " How is this, if a mere profession brings a person
into the kingdom? zs believed that such passages refer to only God's
view of the kingdom. He sowed good seed only, and here he seems to
be taking no notice of what the enemy has done." (^Tlie Kiugdoyii of
Heaven: what is it? p. 13.) Yet, will it be believed, a leading
Brother speaks of this kingdom, with regeneration for its gate of admis-
sion, in the following terms: "The former [the kingdom] may be
compared to a wide morass ; the latter [the Church] to a running stream
passing through it, and in constant danger of losing its distinctive
character, as well as its proper direction, by intermingling with the sur-
rounding waters." That kingdom, which is righteousness, peace and

Nature of iJie Church.

21

into the kingdom is therefore as strait as the \vay into
the Church. The Brethren sometimes make the kingdom
synonymous with the professing Church or Christendom,
and sometimes with God's providential kingdom, which
includes the Church udthin its dispensations ; but they
always maintain that nothing but profession is needed for
entering the kingdom. Now, it is a curious fact that Scrip-
ture does not contain a passage to prove that outward pro-
fession or baptism secures admission to the kingdom. The
expression " kingdom of God " occurs many times in the
Gospels and the Epistles ; and always refere to believers, and
to believers only. The distinction made by the Brethren
between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven
is quite gratuitous. They are one and the same : " The
kingdom of /icaren is like unto leaven " (Matt. xiii. 33) ;
"Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like
leaven " (Luke xiii. 21). Our Lord expressly identifies the
two in Matthew xix. 23, 24. It was of no mere professing
Church that Jesus spoke when He said, " My kingdom is
not of this world." It was of the Church of saints.
(2) We do not say that the Church and the kingdom are in
every sense the same, for some things can be said of the
kingdom that cannot be said of the Church, and vice versa,
but merely that the kingdom sets forth the state of the
Church in this world ;* but it does not therefore follow
that the wicked are in the kinodom any more thaji they
are in the Church A How could they get there? The
gate of regeneration bars them out. The parables of

joy in the Holy Ghost is, forsooth, " a wide morass"!' Yet it is the
very inheritance of the " poor in spirit " (Matt. v. 3).

* Daille, who holds the Church to consist only of believers, says :
" He does not say that the Chiuxh is represented to us in these parables,
but only its condition in this world, where we admit that it is very often
mixed with hypocrites, dwelling in the same place, on the same floor,
in the same temple, making the same profession, but who are not for
all that of the Church. The tares are on the same floor with the good

grain, but the tares are not for all that the good grain We say,

therefore, that the floor which is spoken of in the Gospel signifies this
present world {sikle), where hypocrites and the profane mix them-
selves with the believers and the Church so closely that none but God
can separate them. "

t The Brethren will say the tares are in the kingdom of heaven, but
not in the Church, for, according to our Lord's interpretation, " the field

22

Plymouth Brethrenism.

the kingdom do not teach us what are the conditions of
membership in the kingdom. We must refer to other scrip-
tures for information on that point. The parables are to be
interpreted just as we interpret the passages concerning the
Church. The Church at Corinth consists of the sanctified
in Christ Jesus, yet is commanded to cast out its unholy
members. So those who profess to be His kingdom are
His kingdom.

3. The distinction of visible and invisible as applied to
the Church arises, then, out of the fact that all who profess
to be believers are not really such, and that the human
mind is not omniscient. The invisible Church is the
Church as seen by God ; the visible Church the Church
as seen by man. They are not two churches, any more
than the same castle or palace viewed from different stand-
points by two spectators becomes, therefore, two castles or
two palaces. When we say the Church is invisible, we do
not say that believers are invisible, but that an inward and
therefore invisible state of mind is a condition of member-
ship. In its true nature the Church is not a visible society,
but the communion of saints. The Church is visible, not
as an ecclesiastical organization, but as the living body of
Christ. In other words, the Church is visible just as
believers are visible. If all who professed to be saints were
really so, the distinction of visible and invisible could not
arise. But this distinction is manifest in Scripture, (i) It
was recognised in Old Testament times between the man
who was a Jew outwardly and not a Jew inwardly ; between
Israel after the flesh and Israel after the Spirit. (2) It is
manifest in 2 Timothy ii. 19, "The Lord knoweth them that
are His" — implying that man does not. (3) i John ii. 19, 20,
" They went out from us, but they were not of us." While

is the world" — not the Church. I. But the kingdom of heaven is not
likened to a field, neither is it a part of the field ; but it is set down
upon a part of the field which is "the world." It did not cover the
whole field. 2. " The good seed are the children of the kingdom," but
our Lord does not say that the tares — " the children of the wicked one "
— belong to the kingdom at all. They have, no doubt, occupied a
portion of the "field" side by side with "the children of the king-
dom ;" but they do not belong to it at all. Litton says : " The tares
describe the condition, not of the body of Christ, but of every local church."

Nature of the Church.

23

they were with the Church, John, like Paul, would have ad-
dressed them as saints, according to their profession.*

4. But the Brethren themselves admit the very distinc-
tion for which we are contending. Mr. Darby says :
" There are two points to be considered which comprehend
all that with which I am at present occupied. The first is "
one which I have heretofore noticed, and on which the con- \
fusion and discord that agitates believing Protestantism rests ^
— namely, the identifying the house with the body, or the
outward thing here on earth (including all who profess
Christianity and are baptized) with the inward thing, or that
which is united to Christ by the Holy Ghost. The other is
taking the figure of a building (as Scripture does) and then
confounding what Christ Himself builds with what is the
fruit of the work of building externally — here on earth —
entrusted to the responsibility of man." ( The Church, the
House, and the Body, p. i.) Here is the distinction freely
admitted. But we must demur to Mr. Darby's interpreta-
tion of the "house." All Brethren are careful to say that
while the body consists only of saints, the house — the build-
ing of God entrusted to man's responsibility — consists of
saints and sinners. Now, Scripture says that the Church,
which is the very body of Christ, is " the house of God —
the pillar and ground of the truth" (i Tim. iii. 15) ; that
believers are this house — "whose house are we " (Heb. iii. 6),
with Christ " a son over his own house," and that they are
built up "a spiritual house." The house, then, is no more
the professing Church than the Church itself. It is the
Church. It is true that the body of Christ becomes such by
Divine power, but the house is not built by man any more
than the Church ; for Christ says, " I will build my Church,"
even though he employs Paul and other apostles in carrying
out the work.

The application of the principles established in this
chapter will be presently seen.

* I agree with Mr. Litton in his " Doctrine of the Church" that the
distinction made by the Reformers was not a very happy one. Yet it is
difficult to find a better. When Protestants speak of the invisible
Church, he says they mean the mystical body of Christ as distinct from
local churches. The members of Christ's body are not to be sought for
except in the visible churches of Christ.

24

PlyuioiUh Brdhreni&m.

CHAPTER I\r

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

WE now approach by far the most important' and critical
part of this controversy — the nature of the unity which
Scripture ascribes to the one body.

The Brethren hold that they — and they only — are
" gathered " simply as members of the one body, without
respect to the distinctions which prevail among the sects.
Their opinion respecting our churches has no ambiguity
about it. They say the churches have no divine unity. The
unity of the Anglican Establishment is the unity of creed ;
the unity of Dissent is a unity of difference, the members of
each sect of Dissenters being visibly united, not as possess-
ing the Spirit, but as differing from otli^r sects — not as being
saints or disciples or brethren, but on self-devised principles
of worldliness, exclusive sectarianism, isolated portions of
truth, or in the name of some man. The want of unity is
seen in the existence of several churches in one city or
town. If God were now to send an epistle to the Church of
God in such a place, there would not be one to receive it :
it would have to be sent to the dead-letter office. Persons
cannot hold membership with two different denominations
at the same time, for if they are members with the Inde-
pendents they cannot be members with the Baptists ; and
it is therefore clear that to own membership in any of the
sects is to own schism in the body. Every existing Church
is therefore founded on principles essentially erroneous ; and
thus it becomes the duty of all Christians to withdraw from
all the systems called "Churches," and to join themselves
to those who are not gathered as a sect, but gathered simply
as the members of one body, without respect to distinctions
which prevail among the sects. Union with the sects is
therefore evil," is an " unscriptural independency," and is

Unity of the Church.

25

to be " self-excluded from the unity of the Spirit ; " and " a
faithful disciple who finds himself connected with any of
these parties ought to separate himself from so carnal
a course." The " gatherings " of the Brethren are the
" good land," while all without the sacred enclosures are in
" the wide dominions of the apostacy." *

It will thus be seen that the claim of the Brethren is an
immense one ; for though they speak of the Church as in
ruins and reprobate the presumption of attempting to
restore it, they nevertheless arrogate to themselves, as we
shall presently see, the name, titles and functions which
belong to the whole Church. We shall endeavour, then, in
the first place, to ascertain from Scripture what is the true
nature of the Church's unity, and then we shall be the
better able to dispose of the somewhat arrogant claims of
the Brethren.

I. We read in Scripture of " one body," " one Spirit,"
" the unity of the Spirit," " the unity of faith," " one faith."
We must examine these expressions with care. Wherever the
Spirit is, there is union with Christ, and wherever there is
union \nth Christ, there is membership in His body, the
Church. The in-dwelling of the Spirit is the bond of unity
in the Church. It follows, therefore, that believers must
be one in faith, in love, and obedience. But this inner
union must have outward expression in the recognition
of all Christians as such, and in mutual helpfulness and
harmony. But the Church is too widely diffused in a
geographical sense to admit of these conditions of mutual

* "The spirit of a sect exists when we see disciples outside this
unity, and when it is around an opinion that those who profess it are
gathered, in order that they may be united by means of this opinion.
This unity is not founded on the principle of the unity of the body, or
of the union of brethren. When such persons are united in a corpora-
tion, and mutually recognize each other as members of this corporation,
then they constitute formally a sect, because the principle of the
gathering is not the unity of the body." — Wliat is a Sect? p. 5.
J. N. D.

" The apostle could say, ' To the Church of God which is at Corinth.'
It represented the whole unity of the body in that place. ' Ye are the
body of Christ, and members in particular. ' Two bodies of Christ,
even in one place, representatively, there could not be." — ^J. N. D.,
Churches and the Church, p. 7.

26

Plymouth Brethrenisin.

care and subjection being realised, and therefore there
is a necessity for more restricted organizations. Besides,
Christians speaking different languages, even in the same
city or town, must worship apart. It is clear, then, that
there is nothing in independent organization as such incon-
sistent with the unity of the body, so long as the one
faith, the one love and the one obedience are main-
tained, and all the more as the unity of the body exists
independently of our recognition of each other's standing
in the body. Now, if the unity of the Church arises from
union with Christ and the in-dwelling of the Spirit, those
who are united to Him are members of His Church —
no matter what their ecclesiastical connexions may be, or
whether they have any ecclesiastical connexions at all. If
they can exist outside all ecclesiastical relations — and it
would be impossible to dispute the fact — then these relations
cannot be essential to the one body. Any reason not
destructive of the principle of unity may be made the ground
of separate organizations — not merely difference of language
or geographical distance, but diversity of opinion. The
Brethren themselves concede that differences of opinion are
possible in the one body within certain limits. When the
apostle speaks of " one faith " in Ephesians (Eph. iv. 5, 13),
and of " the unity of faith," we are not to suppose that no
differences of opinion existed or were allowable within this
unity, or that the unity of the body would be violated by
differences of opinion on what we would call unessential
points. There was " one faith " at Corinth, because there
was a church there ; yet all its members did not believe
alike. There were more differences at Corinth than now
divide many evangelical bodies from each other; and if
these differences did not destroy "the one faith," neither
can ours. They are all perfectly consistent with the unity
of the body. It is true that such differences are evidence
of imperfection, and therefore separations on the ground of
them are evil, but they are a less evil than strife or hypo-
crisy. All admit that the Church ought to be one, not only
in faith and love, but in fellowship and organization ; and
if the inward unity of believers were perfect, their external
union would be complete ; but as believers have always been

Unity of the Church.

27

— even in the days of the apostles — and probably will ever
continue to be, imperfect in other respects, the ideal state of
union cannot be perfectly realised any more than the ideal
state of holiness or knowledge. We hold, then, that organiza-
tion is not essential to the idea of the Church. When we
pray for the Church we pray for no organized body, but
for believers united to Christ and to each other by the in-
dwelling of the Spirit.

2. After all, the great question is — What do the Scriptures
say in answer to the two questions. What is the Church ?
What is the Christian ? For you cannot make your idea of
the Church, as Dr. Hodge well puts it, narrower than your
idea of the Christian. Now, it is admitted by the Brethren
themselves that the belief of the fundamental doctrines of the
Gospel is all that is necessary to salvation. Therefore it is
the profession of these doctrines — which are necessarily
included in the " one faith " of Ephesians — that will be
necessary to establish the claim of any society to be re-
garded as a portion of the true Church. True religion
cannot be meant to include all the doctrines of true
religion, nothing more and nothing less; for then there
could be no perfect Church unless all its members were
perfect in faith and in knowledge. Nothing can be essential
to a Church, so far as truth or knowledge is concerned,
that is not essential to union with Christ ; and it is absurd
to make more truth essential to the visible Church than the
Lord has made essential to the invisible Church — that is, to
salvation itself. The Brethren may say that the Church is
a society in which the pure Word of God is preached, the
ordinances of Christ duly administered, and discipline
spiritually enforced. If this be a definition of the Church,
there can be on their principles only one Church on earth
■ — that is, their own — because all sects are more or less
defective, according to Plymouthists, in doctrine, worship,
and government ; but this statement cannot be admitted for
a moment as an enumeration of the essential attributes of
such a body. A thing may be clearly taught in Scripture,
and intended to be of universal obligation ; but this is not
intended to mean that it is essential to the being of a
Church, for nothing can be essential to that which is not

28

Plyviouth Brethreytism.

essential to salvation. The Brethren make no distinction
between a pure church and what is essential to the idea Oi
the Church.

3. The Brethren will be likely to reply to these irresistible
arguments — "But is not the Church to be one? Was it
not originally one in external organization as well as in
inward fellowship? Are Christians not bound to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? " The assumption
is, of course, that the Church split up into sects and parties
cannot now keep the unity of the Spirit, and therefore
cannot be recognised as true churches at all. Indeed, it is
asserted as an almost axiomatic truth that this unity is lost,
and that its absence is the proof of apostacy. Now, it is
exceedingly necessary to understand the exact significance
of the apostle's expression, "keeping the unity of the Spirit,"
preceding as it does the reference to the sevenfold unity
— one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, and one God and Father of all— which God alone
keeps.* (i) Let us remember, then, that we are not com-
manded to keep the unity of the body, as the Brethren seem
to think, but the unity of the Spirit. The unity of the body
is immutable, and God alone keeps it. Neither are we com-
manded to make, but to keep this unity, which, in proportion
as it is kept in the bond of peace, will lead toward visible
oneness. (2) Then, again, it must be observed that the unity
here enjoined was not external unity — for that already existed
at Ephesus — but was a unity in view of internal differences.
These we can well understand when we remember that the
Ephesian church, like most others, was a mixed community
of Jews and Gentiles whom Jesus Christ had made one by
His Cross (Eph. ii. 14), bringing into the Jewish fold those
•'other sheep" to form together "one flock" under "one
shepherd." Now, this oneness existed in the midst of great
differences of ecclesiastical usage and order; because we
know there were Judaizing churches that followed the rule
of Moses, observing days — the apostles themselves, with all
the Jews that believed, holding by the ceremonial law till
the end of their lives (Acts xxi. 20 — 26). The Gentile

* Ephesians iv. 3—6.

Unity of the Church.

29

churches, on the other hand, did not observe days nor follow
the usage of the Jews, but took a course authorised by
apostolic command itself Indeed, many of the apostolic
regulations for the government of the primitive churches
were never committed to \mting at all ; and we may
therefore justly infer that such regulations were in no way
essential to the being of the Church (i Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17,
xi. 2, 23, 34; 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6).* How preposterous,
then, to speak of one uniform system of Church-order as
existing in primitive times ! If the differences that did
undoubtedly exist in apostolic days did not destroy the
unity of the body, it is difficult to see how similar differences
in order, worship and discipline can affect it now. (3) But
the use of the word " endeavouring " evidently implies the
existence of differences at Ephesus, and that the unity of
the Spirit may be kept with a greater or less degree of
faithfulness. It is not the existence of such differences, but
the determination not to tolerate them, that would break or
impair the manifestation of this unity. The history of the
Church shows that the enforcement of uniformity has always
hindered this very unity. Let us therefore understand the

• Mr. Darby is resolved that every society connected with his name
shall maintain the most absolute uniformity, and he is specially jealous
respecting matters of discipline. He says, if different assemblies take
different views of a ihatter of discipline, it is to break the unity of the
body : as if this unity, which rests in the indwelling of the Spirit, were
at ail dependent on, or conditioned by, an exact agreement in matters
of doctrine and practice. Surely it is not the bond of discipline, ad-
ministered by the hands of fallible men, that keeps the body together,
whose members are not churches at all, but individuals ; and absolute
unanimity of judgment in matters of discipline is no more essential to the
unity of the body than it is to its salvation. To say that a "gathering"
of Christians cannot err is worse than Popery. May not two assemblies
differ in judgment ? Can we follow both ? If they differ, then human
assemblies are fallible ; it is impossible to act in harmony with them
all ; and each case must be tried on its own merits. '• But was not the
decision of the church at Corinth ' to put away from among them that
wicked person' binding on all [other churches ? " We ask, Was their
previous decision to retain him in fellowship equally so ? Clearly not.
If so, the Brethren are clearly wrong in their assumptions. In fact, the
unity of the Spirit binds not bodies at aU, but individuals. It binds
them not to external uniformity, but to living oneness. It does not bind
the Brethren merely, but all believers, and binds the Brethren to all they
separate from and excommunicate I

30

Plymouth Brethrenism.

exact force of the apostle's injunction. We are called in
one body to God's peace, but the unity of the Spirit is dis-
regarded, not when separation takes place, but when secta-
rianism springs up. Indeed, it is easy to conceive that there
might be less unity of spirit manifested in the communion
of a church externally one but inwardly distracted by
differences, as at Corinth, than in the existence of two or
three or ten bodies externally apart, yet recognising each
other's essential relation to Christ and co-operating in Chris-
tian work, (4) The Brethren maintain that the prayer of
our Lord in John xvii. points to external visible unity,
because it was intended as a demonstration to the world.*
The passage must be quoted at length to be properly under-
stood : " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word ; that they all
may be one ; as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us ; that the world may belie\-e that
thou hast sent me." Of course, this language cannot mean
that believers, (mark, it is not the believers of one age, but
of all ages, whose association with each other is externally
impossible,) can be one as nearly, but as truly, as the Father
and the Son are one. But this oneness has relation to
mediatorship, for it is impossible for believers to be in the
Father and the Son as the Father is in the Son, as to Divine
essence. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the
Father by the hypostatical union of the manhood to the
Godhead in the person of the Saviour, as well as " by dear
affection and inexpressible agreement and consent." Our
Lord, therefore, prays that the disciples may be in both of
them by the mystical union — not one merely, but " one in
lis " — in the fellowship of the Father and the Son, accord-
ing to the doctrine of John, (i John i. 3.) It is evident,
in the nature of the case, that the bonds were not carnal but
spiritual. They were to be one, as they were to be filled
with one Spirit, as possessing " one faith and one baptism,"

* Mr. F. G. Patterson says in reference to this prayer : " His prayer
was answered for a little moment— ' that they all maybe one.' But
soon indeed did it fail, and then we find Saul of Tarsus, afterwards Paul
the apostle, called out to reveal to us something that could never fail —
the unity of the Spirit in the one body." (p. 16.) The Lord's prayer
fail ! Can it be possible ?

Unity of the Church.

31

and as of one heart, for they were to be " knit together in
love," and as built up into one " spiritual house," which
cannot mean the Church visible. If the oneness was to be
external, then the prayer of our Saviour has never been
answered except during the first days of the Gospel. The
oneness that was to convince the world was not a oneness of
organized government, but of faith and love, which is a far
more impressive demonstration, because moral in its nature,
than the spectacle of a rigid uniformity, repressing diversi-
ties of opinion and likely to lead to controversies and
disruptions.

4. Let us now consider how this account of Scripture
principles affects the position of the various Christian
churches which now exist apart from each other, while
acknowledging, with more or less fulness and cordiality,
each other's Christian standing. We must first clear away
the misrepresentations of the Brethren upon this subject.
The conditions of membership in our churches are repre-
sented by the Brethren as restricted by creeds and by ideas
of government and discipline, while nothing is required
by the Brethren but the mere possession of Christian life.
Nothing can be more false. The conditions of membership
in our churches involve no absolute identity of religious
opinion — merely the possession of religious life ; so that a
pious Arminian would not be excluded from the Lord's
Table in a Presbyterian church, neither would a pious
Calvinist from the Lord's Table in a Wesleyan church.
Of course efforts would be made, in either case, to instruct
the new member in what was believed to be a sounder
theology, but his position in the church would be perfectly
secure from the first. The Darbyites, on the contrary, de-
parting from their own original principles — principles which
they still, notwithstanding, disseminate in tracts to lure the
unwary — will not break bread with a member of the Miillerite
party, because "Bethesda" represents "unspeakable abomi-
nation." They make creed and discipline tests of fellow-
ship; they reject those whom the Lord has received, and
thus turn the Lord's Table into the Table of the Darbyites.*

* " Persons would be (or at least would formerly have been) received
at the Lord's Table for occasional communion, who attended the Estab

3?

Plymouth Brethrenism,

Yet, with consummate audacity, a leading Darbyite, Mr.
William Kelly, can say of his sect, " Is it not large enough
to admit every saint who walks as such, without imposing a
single condition which he does not own ? " As if, in his
Guernsey chapel, he had not excluded all the followers of
Mr. Miiller and Mr. Newton on purely doctrinal or discipli-
nary grounds !* The sects, as the Brethren call them, are
far more catholic than the Darbyites. They work together,
and recognize each other's Church-standing. Mr. Patterson
says the Brethren " are gathered on the ground of the one
body." No more, we say, than other churches who assert
with equal clearness the unity of the body. But it is not
scriptural to say that believers are gathered on the ground
of any body, for that is to say that they are gathered on the
ground of what they corporately are, rather than on the ground
of what He is who is both Head and Saviour. Their true
ground is the grace wherein they stand, and they keep their
footing in it by their faith. They are not gathered on the
ground of being one flock, but they become one flock by
obeying the Shepherd's voice. Yet the cant of Plymouthism
for ever is — " Divine ground," " true Church ground," the
true ground of the assembly." Mr. Macintosh says, " The
ground on which God's assembly is gathered is salvation or
eternal life." If so, all the saved are on the grounds of
God's assembly, though they should not be Darbyites.

5. The Brethren point to the independent existence of
Christian denominations as in itself a practical denial of the
unity of the body, and then produce their stock-argument
about " the dead-letter office," which must be the natural

lishment, and even had they thought fit to attend habitually the ministry
of one who maintained false doctrine, or who was himself a child of the
devil. No question would have arisen about the reception of a Christian,
who was himself a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. What, then,
but the denominational idea — the idea of those meeting as we do consti-
tuting the Church, or at least the Church ruin, according to present
favourite phraseology — could lead to such an interference with personal
liberty as we now hear of?" {Bnihnn Bnvitched, p. 2.) The Brethren
now meet in the name of certain doctrines, and are therefore, on their
own showing, a mere sect.

* Rev. F. Whitfield on " Plymouth Brethren." (London : Shaw
and Co.)

Unity of iJic Church.

33

destination of any epistle now despatched by the Lord to
the Church of God in any one city or town, with its four
or five denominations. What is this argument worth ? We
have already shown that nothing more is essential to the
Church than is essential to salvation, and that organization
is not essential to the unity of the Church. Therefore each
one of these four or five denominations, if they all hold the
" one faith," is a true Church of Christ — or, in other words,
they are together the Church of Christ in that place. The
Brethren, however, have no right to assume that there was
only one worshipping society in each city or place ; for there
were at least two at Rome, which are separately mentioned —
one represented by " all that be at Rome, beloved of God,
called to be saints" (Rom. i. 7), and another by "the
church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila" (Rom. xvi. 5);
while one society could not possibly contain the full member-
ship of the church at Jerusalem, especially when it contained
many ten thousands (fj-vpidSes — Acts xxi. 20). The letter,
then, must have been sent from church to church, variously
constituted as they are proved to have been in point of order,
as well as separated by difference of language, just as it
would be sent from church to church among ourselves at
the present day. If such a letter should be sent now, it
would come to exactly the same parties as in apostolic times,
because it would be addressed to the saints in such a place,
no matter how separated they were externally ; and we have
yet to learn that the Sender of the letter, who is the Lord
Himself, would have any difficulty in reaching His own
people. It seems all along to be taken for granted by the
Brethren that societies as such are members of Christ's body.
It is of the Corinthian saints individually that the apostle
says, "Ye are the members of Christ."

6. A leading Darbyite says the Church of God is not the
Greek Church, nor the Roman Catholic Church, nor the
Church of England, nor the Dissenters [nor, let us say, the
Darbyites]. He brings up all these in succession, and
disallows the claims of all. But can he tell us what Church
of God is there on earth as distinguished from these various
bodies? There are no other Christian organizations in the
world except the Plymouth Brethren ; but i/iej cannot be the

34 Plymouth Brethrenistn.

Church of God in each particular place unless they contain
all the saints in that place, for the Church consists of all
the saints. In his earlier days Mr. Darby said, " I have no
objection to the flock being called ' Church,' save the fear
that, in imitation of ancient dissent, the idea might be
allowed that it is the Church of the place. The Word
recognises all the Christians of one place as forming the
Church of that place" {Works, vol. iv., p. 345). Yet the
time came when he could speak of " the one assembly of
God in London" — not as including all the saints in London,
but the little handful of his own followers ! The Brethren
claim to represent the unity of the one body ; but if the
unity be external, they do not represent it, for all the
members of the body are not in the Plymouth societies. If
they had succeeded in gathering all the saints out of all
"the systems," so as not to leave a single saint in the
apostacy, their claims might be admitted. Mr. Kelly says,
with an air of apparent humility and self-denial, which is
perfectly consistent with the loftiest assumption : " Our
business is not to originate a Church of the present or the
future, but to cleave to the Church which God has made."
We never read in Scripture of cleaving to the Church : that
is Romish phraseology; but of "cleaving to the Lord." But
when did God make the Church, seeing it is not the Greek,
or the Latin, or the Anglican, or that of the Dissenters?
If He did not make it in 1830, when Darbyism arose, it
must have existed previously ; and if so, it must have been
the Church of the sects. Then he says, " And consequently
to confess the sin of all rivals, to repudiate them, and come
out of them." This is impossible, for if he is to cleave to
the Church God has made — a Church which must have
existed among the sects before 1830 — he cannot leave the
sects without leaving the Church.

The Church, then, is the aggregate body of those whom
Christ is not ashamed to call brethren, though the Darbyites
deny us the tide. Organization is not essential to its exist-
ence; and the unity of the Spirit can be as fairly maintained
among ourselves as in the days of the apostles themselves, if
we recognize each other as members of the body, apart from
external government, and dwell together in love and peace.

35

CHAPTER V.

THE CHURCH IN RUINS.

TlfE now cuine to consider the dispensational theory of
** the Brethren, which accounts for their pecuHar atti-
tude toward the churches, and especially for their loud
demand that the Christians of all other chusches shall at
once withdraw from them and join the communion of the
Brethren. They say the Church is in ruins ; the rent state
of Christendom is the proof ; apostacy has fallen on the
dispensation ; the so-called churches are mere " forms of
vvorldliness " ; there is neither power anywhere to repair the
ruins, nor is there direction given by the Lord to rebuild
what has been cast down. The churches are, therefore,
guilty of great presumption in trying to restore the lost unity
of Christendom by ordaining pastors, receiving members,
and setting up discipline. The true course is for saints to
withdraw from all " the systems," and gather together simply
as believers, on the ground of the promise of Christ — " For
where two or three are gathered together in my name, there
am I in the midst of them" (Matt, xviii. 20). The Brethren
do not attempt to rebuild the Church : they meet simply as
believers.*

We shall consider three points in this chapter — viz., the

* "Brethren do not confound the outward professing Church and
that which Christ will present to Himself : the former will be judged
and cut off, the latter be with Christ in heaven. But they see in
Scripture one recognized body on earth. They see all to be in ruins ;
that on the principles of existing professing bodies they must continue
in the Establishment, \vhich is false in all its principles, or join one sect
and not be of another — be a member of it, wliich is not in Scripture :
that the state of things is a state of ruin, but tliat God has provided for
it in His Word, and that they can meet on the ground of the unity of
the body of Christ, if only two or three, and find Christ in their midst,
according to His promise." — ll^/iai the Christian has amid the Ruin of
the Church, p. 23.

36

Plymouth Brethrenism.

alleged apostacy of this dispensation, the duty of separation
from all existing churches, and the resource of the faithful
in the midst of the apostacy.

I. The Apostacy of the Dispensation.

The Brethren declare that the Gentile Church is in the
apostacy ; that this condition agrees with New Testament
prophecies, which announce that it shall apostatize and be
cut off ; that the state of the professing Church — " the great
House of Christendom," as the Brethren call it — will become
worse and worse, as well as the state of the world. They
interpret the chapters of Matthew's Gospel which refer to
the final judgment in a way to support this peculiar theory.
They say that the twenty-fourth chapter foretells the judg-
ment of the Jews; that the twenty-fifth chapter, with its
parables of the ten virgins and the talents, foretells the judg-
ment of the professing Church ; and that the sublime scene
of judgment at the end of the chapter, in which the sheep
and the goats appear to the right and left of the Judge,
refers, not to the final judgment at all, but to the judgment
of the Gentile nations in this world. The Brethrenite
movement is the " midnight cry " heard in feebleness, which
shall at last awake the whole Church from its guilty sleep.

I. In the first place, we deny altogether the doctrine of
Gentile apostacy in the Darbyite sense. There is not the
least loundation for it in Scripture. There was to be an
apostacy, but it was to be neither total nor final. The
question is, What is the apostacy ? The Brethren see it in
the loss of unity, in the rent state of Christendom. We
hold, however, that as Jewish apostacy involved, not the loss
of unity — for till the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews were
one religious commonwealth, however iuAvardly divided by
sects — but the rejection of the authority, doctrines, and
work of Christ, so the apostacy in Christendom involves
a rejection of the authority, doctrines, and ordinances of
Christ, but this rejection not by any means absolute or
complete. There is nothing in the predicted apostacy of
the New Testament that can apply to the Churches of
the Reformation, however exactly it may apply to the
Church of Rome. Of course, if the Brethren regard this
Church as Catholic, according to its own assumption —

TJie Chunk in Ruins.

37

that is, as representing the whole Church on earth — the
Gentile apostacy has been complete. But the Church of
Rome is no more Catholic than it is infallible. What proof
can the Brethren offer that the aTroo-Tacria which developed
into the Papacy of the Vatican decrees has destroyed the
character of the dispensation? How can the Church,
indeed, be in ruins if Christ is still continuing to build it?
For when He said, " Upon this rock will I build my Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," He cannot
have meant that the building should stop within a few years
after His ascension — for the apostacy began in apostolic
times — else we must concede that the gates of hell have
prevailed against it. We deny that there is a word in the
New Testament to sanction the idea that the Gentile
Church is to be cut off on account of apostacy. A warning
is certainly given in the eleventh of Romans that a certain
course would expose to excision : not the loss of unity, but
the loss of faith : for the apostle declares that the Gentiles
stand, not in formal unity or in perfect purity, but simply by
their faith. (Rom. xi. 20.) According to this passage, the
loss of the Jews was to be their gain, and the restoration
of the Jews, in a spiritual sense, their richer gain ; but
there is not a hint of total failure or apostacy. Yet Mr.
Darby actually refers to this passage to prove that the
Gentile Church shall be cut off. The apostle simply says,
" Be not high-minded, but fear."

2. We must remember, however, that the state of things
now is only the development of the state of things in apos-
tolic days. Mr. F. Patterson admits that the apostacy (by
which he means the loss of unity) began in apostolic days :
" In fact, its manifested unity was gone soon after. (Acts
ii. — vii.) The earthly order at Jerusalem was broken up at
the martyrdom of Stephen. (Acts vii., viii.) The Church
was the body of Christ, and acting as such, before it knew
it was so, and before the conversion of Saul (Acts ix.), the
instrument through whom it was revealed. Even then its
manifested unity was well nigh gone" (p. 25). If so, why
did not Christians fall back at once on the resource of the
Brethren (Matt, xviii. 20) ? — of which more hereafter. Now,
if the apostacy had already begun in those days, as the

38 Plymouth Bi'ethrenism.

Brethren themselves admit, and if the dispensation was not
thereby destroyed, how can it destroy the dispensation now?
The Brethren hold that the leaven in the parable is the
apostacy which is to leaven the whole lump ; and that the '
tares and the grain of mustard-seed are likewise the apostacy
which is to corrupt the whole Church. Now, though lea\'en
in Scripture is usually applied to evil, it does not follow that
it is so here, because such an interpretation is quite incon-
gruous with the signification of the Kingdom in the other
parables of the group.* Leaven represents indefinitely
progress of any kind, and is here used by our Lord to signify
the influence of the Kingdom in gradually assimilating and
absorbing the world into itself As Trench remarks, the
figurative language of Scripture is not so stereotyped that
one figure must always stand for one and the same thing.
The devil is a lion; Christ is the Lion of the tribe of Judah :
the dove is in one place remarked for its silliness, in another
for its simplicity : so leaven may represent evil, but it
operates for good likewise, as its effects on bread are to make
it more tasteful, lighter, and more nourishing. The tares
did not cover the whole field, so as to destroy the wheat —
the parable is silent regarding the proportions of each at the
harvest — but if the presence of tares caused the dispensation
to fail, there never was a dispensation at all, for such tares
as Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the very first days of
the Church. There never was a period when there were no
tares. It is quite absurd to suppose that the grain of mustard-
seed growing into a great tree represents the apostacy, for if
so, there was no mixture of good at all in the dispensation.
There is only evil, though in the other parable there is both
evil and good. It is asserted that Paul predicts the apostacy
in the third chapter of his second Epistle to Timothy, where '
he speaks of perilous times when "evil men and seducers
shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
So they always do ; even in the apostle's days it was so : but
what has tliis to do with the apostacy? The apostle does
not say that these "evil men and seducers," though they
may destroy themselves and others, will destroy the dispen-

* It is impossible to discuss this question here. It will be found
discussed at length in treatises on the Millenarian controversy.

The Church in Rritns.

39

sation: he rather points to a check in their career — "But
they shall proceed no farther, for their folly shall be manifest
to all men." They were but a section of the Church visible,
for they are here contrasted with " all men." It is useless
to refer us to Jude and the Thessalonian Epistle for further
evidence of the apostacy, unless it can bs shown that the
apostacy is to be complete and final, and has already
destroyed the character of the dispensation.

II. The Duty of Separation from all existing Churches.

The Brethren hold that in the existing circumstances of a
ruined dispensation the true method of keeping the unity of
the Spirit is by separation from all evil. Their great dogma,
indeed, is — " Separation from evil is God's principle of
unity." They therefore announce that the true course for
believers now is to withdraw from all religious societies
called churches, and " to meet, a few sinners saved by grace,
in separation from all ecclesiastical evil, owning no other
gathering power than the Holy Ghost, and no other centre
to which to be gathered but the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and no other creed but the Word of God." The cry
to believers in all the " systems " is, therefore, " Come out
from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the
unclean thing ;" while Plymouthism is declared to be the
only possible foundation for uniting the disciples of
Christ.*

* " Now, the Church of God is one body. Nevertheless we find to-
day 1300 sects and parties. AVhich am I to join ? But surely it must be
roil to be a fellow-worker in supporting parties. Then I will join
NONE ; for God says there is one body. And if I was in one of the
sects, I must straightway 'go out,' 'go forth,' 'separate,' 'depart.'
And do what ? ' Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit.' He gathers
to the name of the Lord Jesus, and to none other. He gathers
beliners, and none other. He ministers truth, and not error. I walk
in His unity, then, if I am thus gathered." — Davis, What is the
Church or Assembly of Cod? p. 25. "How, then, is the unity of the
Spirit to be observed ? what is ' endeavouring ' to do so ? what is faith-
fulness to the nature of the Church, Christ's body, in an evil day? It is
'separation from evil' My first duty must be to ' depart from iniquity.'
It may be moral or doctrinal evil, evil assuming many shapes ; I
separate myself from it to Christ. Thus separated, I find myself in the
fellowship of the Spirit of God— associated with the Holy Ghost here
on earth." — Patterson, Unity of the Spirit, p. 7.

40

Ply '1)10 u th Bt -eih ren ism .

1. If the unity of the Spirit is only to be kept by a course
of separation, it is a curious fact that the apostle, in show-
ing the Ephesians Aoia it is to be kept, never hints at
separation at all, but speaks only of such graces as "lowli-
ness and meekness, with long-suffering forbearing one
another in love" (Eph. iv. 2)— graces seldom exemplified
in the separations brought about by the Brethren.

2. This principle, so far from promoting the unity of the
Church, is the most divisive that can be conceived. I may
be allowed to quote an illustration from myself : — " The
rejection of common error can never become a centre of
union, for Protestants and Romanists may alike reject
Arianism, and be still widely separated. There is uniting
power in a common belief or in a common affection, but
none in mere separation from evil. Judged by its results,
it has everywhere been followed by the most mischievous
consequences : it multiplies separations and divides the
saints of God ; wherever one saint sees evil and another
sees none, it condemns the evil and passes by the good ; it
excludes those whom the Lord receives, and departs where
He abides ; and it separates not merely in public assemblies,
but in the private relationships of life, two in one house
being divided, not because one is a believer and another an
unbeliever, but because they differ upon points of doctrine,
discipline, and worship."* Baxter says to the Anabaptist
sectaries of his day, — "Can you prove that Christ doth
separate from all the Christians of the world which you
separate from ? or that they have no visible communion
with Him ? or that He taketh them for no churches, and
disowneth the administration of all ministers whom you
disown?"

3. The Brethren maintain that, as the bodies now called
churches are not only false in their constitution but consist of
believers and unbelievers, they are bound to separate from
them. (We do not, by the way, deny the right of separation
from a church in certain circumstances, but we object t'n toto
to the grounds of Brethrenite separation.)

(i) They say the duty of separation is peremptory on the

* British Quarterly Review, Oct. 1873, p. 390.

The Church in Ruins.

41

grounds here stated, for the apostle said, " Come out from
among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and toucli
not the unclean thing" (2 Cor. vi. 17). I shall again quote
from myself: "This passage, however, does not command
believers to withdraw from the visible society at Corinth,
which must have contained unbelievers — for it contained
false apostles — but to separate from heathen sacrifices and
customs : in a word, ' not to touch the unclean thing ' in an
idol's temple. The Scriptures do not certainly sanction a
believer holding religious communion with an unbeliever as
such ; but it is quite a different thing if persons professing
faith in the same Saviour are to separate upon a suggestion
that one portion of them are unbelievers contrary to their
own express avowal."* The passage is a quotation from
the Old Testament: " Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from
thence ; touch no unclean thing ; go ye out of the midst of
her" (Isa. lii. 11). It was a call to the Jews to come out of
Babylon, and not a call for holy Jews to separate from
unholy brethren. The text in Revelation xviii. 4, " Come
out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,"
is a command to withdraw from the Romish Babylon, which
we have already done ; but the Brethren have yet to prove
that the Church of God in our day is Babylon.

They also quote 2 Timothy ii. 19—21 : "But in a great
house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also
of wood and earth ; and some to honour and some to dis-
honour. If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he
shall be a vessel unto honour." The Brethren's comment
on the passage is as follows : " The whole of that which calls
itself Christian is here looked at as 'a great house.' The
Christian is of it outwardly, for he calls himself a Christian,
and ' the great house ' is all that calls itself Christian. But
he cleanses himself personally from every vessel which is
not to the Lord's honour." [The passage speaks rather of
* vessels of dishonour ' !] " This is the rule of Christian
faithfulness ; and thus personally cleansed from fellowship
with evil, we shall be a vessel to honour, fit for the Master's
use." The Brethren say the great house is not the Church,

* Ibid. p. 391.

42

Plymouth Brethrcnism.

but Christendom, as if the great house of 2 Timothy did not
correspond to the " house of God the pillar and ground of
the truth" of i Timothy. Two classes of vessels are no
doubt there — the righteous and the wicked : but it is only
the vessels to honour that belong to the Church. The
others are in it, not of it. But the passage proves nothing
for the Brethren, (a) It does not warrant separation from
oiher vessels of honour, {b) It refers to such heretics
a.s Hymenasus and Philetus, who denied the resurrection,
(ver. 17.) We will not condemn the Brethren for separa-
ting from heretics of this class, (c) The passage does
not say a Avord about separation. What is the " purging "?
Brethren answer, " Withdrawing from the table where
those not to the Lord's honour are found." " If I
continue with such I shall become unclean." But the
apostle does not say here what he says in i Timothy
vi. 5, "From such withdraw thyself," or, as in Titus iii. 10,
" A man that is a heretic avoid " ; but " If any man purge
himself (iKKaOdpyj) from these." He does not teach the
believer how to keep himself clean, but how to get himself
cleansed, for the man is supposed to be already defiled.
He is " to cleanse himself" If your hands have become
soiled by touching a dirty vessel, it will not clean your
hands to put the vessel outside the house. Separation
of oneself is not cleansing oneself. The passage is a word
of counsel to those who already needed cleansing within.
But even suppose separation were implied in the counsel in
question, that may, according to Scripture, be effected in
various ways. The Church may separate the heretic by
"casting him out"; believers may " avoid " him ; or they
may, in a last resort, withdraw from a society which fails to
cast him out, though there is no counsel to this effect con-
tained in the passage.

(2) The practical question is, however, In what respects
do our churches now differ from the churches of New
Testament times ? The Brethren say. The churches then
consisted only of believers; ours, of believers and un-
believers. We reply, The Church still consists only of
behevers ; but our churches, like the Corinthian and Philip-
pian churches, have members in their external communion

Tlie CJinrch in Ruins.

43

who are not in the Church at all. There were such mem-
bers in the Primitive Church, but because they professed to
be believers they were addressed as such, as we have already
shown.* Mr. Borlase, a Brother, says: "There is all
the difference imaginable between a body as in the
primitive churches, proceeding upon the principle of re-
cognizing as its members Christians only, gathering the
Church out of the world, and a state of things which
systematically and designedly includes, without the slightest
attempt at discrimination, all sorts and degrees, godly and
ungodly— in short, which is framed throughout, theoreti-
cally and practically, to include the world." It is implied
that the Brethren act upon the true principle. But there
is not a church in our day — Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Baptist or Methodist — that does not proceed theoretically
upon the principle that the Church consists only of saints,
and that none but saints ought to enter its Communion.
All their creeds, confessions and catechisms are con-
structed upon this principle. It is false to say that they
are intended to include the world. The world may find
its way into them, just as it did into the primitive churches,
and into the churches of the Brethren, but they are,
nevertheless, churches still. It is argued that our churches,
with their mixed membership, make the idea of the "one
body " impossible. We have already proved that the
unity of the body is in no sense external ; but, conceding
the point for a moment, let us ask, how could the seven
churches of Asia, with their mixed membership, make
the idea of the "one body" possible any more than our

* We find there were fornicators, sectaries and heretics in the church
at Corinth: "some had not the knowledge of God." Ananias and
Sapphira were in the church at Jerusalem ; the woman Jezebel was in
the church at Thyatira ; the Nicolaitans were at Pergamos; the worst
of heretics joined in the love-feasts, " feeding without fear" ; some were
" filthy dreamers, who defile the flesh;" some were " grievous wolves
entering in, not sparing the flock ;" there were "many antichrists ;" there
were Hymenoeus and Philetus and other errorists : "false apostles, de-
ceitful workers and certain who " subverted the souls of the disciples."
Well may Mr. Baxter say, "Before you judge any church to be no
church, be able to prove it hath worse crimes to nullify it than any of
these had. For none of these were for these faults pronounced no
cliurches of Christ."

44 Plymouth BretJirenisvi.

churches? The case of these seven churches is the crux
of the Brethren. They do not know what to do with it,
because there is no command to the saints to withdraw from
them.* Mr. Darby says the principle was right, and there
was no ground for separation. Another Brother says :
"The seven assembhes of Asia, spite of the evil found in
nearly all, were really churches ; they were gatherings of
saints, or of those beliaied to be such " [mark the qualification],
"separate from the world, into some of which Satan had
succeeded in introducing more or less grave evils." But
Mr. Darby has told us we are to go, not on the ground of
the theoretical correctness of the system, but of the practical
evils that accompany it. He says : " Christians will often
find themselves in strange situations who disregard actual
evil on the assumption that the system which produces it is
theoretically correct ; for in this manner there may be no
limit to the measure of practical wickedness that may be
■tolerated, while conscience satisfies itself on the plea of an
abstract excellence which may turn out to be a mere shadow
or worse. Such, however, is not the path of sound Chris-
tian principle, which at once pronounces that the actual
evil IS the ground to go upon : God acts upon it, even though
the system be His own." {Christian Witness, 1834, vol. i.,
p. 253.) An important concession !. Quite as important as
another made by him : " Without being able to recall to
my mind all such cases, there is not a single one that I
know of in which the corruption of an institution is a reason
for abandoning it." {Works, vol. iv., p. 436.) What con-
sistency !

4. But the Brethren separate from believers as well as
unbelievers — even from believers holding no fundamental
error ; and this in opposition to all their old principles.
The Brethren used to speak of " strict Baptists " as a sect,

* Mr. Patterson talks foolishly about it : " Many say, 'Look at all the
evil that is in the seven churches and the like — and the Lord does not
direct His people to leave them ! ' Shall I tell you why ? For this
reason : you never have in them a single direction as to what you are to
do but one. That is, you are to hear — the Church ?— No, it is cornipt :
but what the Spirit says to her ; then you find the blessing promised to
him that overcometh." What trifling with Scripture ! The epistles are
full of directions. I count sixteen of them.

TJie Church hi Ruins. 45

because they received not " believers " as such, but only
"baptized believers." The Brethren now do not receive
believers as such, but only believers holding certain views
and practising certain order and discipline. If the Brethren
unite on principles which exclude other brethren in Christ,
their union is sectarian. It is no longer true for them to
say, " We receive all believei-s." It is really — " all believers
who hold our views." They sever believer from believer,
some members of Christ from other members of Christ ;
and to sever where God unites is as evdl in principle as to
unite where He would divide. The true canon of reception
is, " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations." More cannot be required for fellow-
ship with the disciples than God requires for fellowship with
Himself. But you say, "'A little leaven lea\-eneth the whole
lump.'" Yet Paul did not excommunicate the whole Church
at Corinth, nor leave its fellowship, though the leaven was
there. You say, " Does not John tell the elect lady not to
receive certain into her house who brought not the true
doctrine of Christ ? " This does not refer to Church-action
at all, nor to the Lord's Table, but to hospitality in a private
house ; and the visitor in question was no believer, but " an
antichrist " — a rejecter of Christianity — and, moreover, not
a private person but a teacher. The passage proves that
Christians may commit sin by association with sinners ; but
the expression " he that biddeth him God-speed " implies
sympathy with his error or his errand. It cannot condemn
all association with sinners, for it would condemn our Lord
for eating with sinners.

III. The Resource of the Faithful in the Evil Day.

We must now hasten on to notice the resource of the
Brethren in the midst of surrounding apostacy. They
must separate from all the " systems " called " churches " ;
but what must they do for themselves, or what provision
has the Lord made for them in the "cloudy and dark day"?
// is a single text of Scripture (Matt, xviii. 20) — "Where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I
in the midst of them." This is their resource in the apos-
tacy. It is quoted, again and again, in every tract, pamphlet
or volume they have published for forty years, as if they had

46

Plyvioiith Brethrenisin.

first discovered it in the Bible — though, strange to say, it
appears in that very Gospel which they undervalue as Jewish,
and therefore as inferior to the Epistles of Paul.* This
passage, it appears, justifies the Brethren in withdrawing from
all churches whatsoever, to meet simply as disciples in the
name of Jesus. t

I. We may well ask, Where is it said that believers are,
during the ruin of this dispensation, to "gather "J on the

* The late Dr. Tregelles said : " Whatever has been felt as a difficulty
has been set aside by saying it is ' Jewish ' ; and that one word has been
deemed to be quite enough to show that it has nothing to do with the
Church. On this principle the application of very much of the New
Testament has been avoided." "I have heard it maintained that
the Lord's Supper, as instituted, and as recorded in the Gospels, is so
simply 'Jewish,' that the command 'This do in remembrance of me'
could be no warrant to us for observing it, if the apostle Paul had not
received of the Lord that which also he delivered to the Corinthians."
"In this manner the first three Gospels have been called 'Jewish'
whenever any portion of their teaching was felt as a difficulty."

+ "It will not do to-day to seek to reform things ; we cannot do it.
The Holy Ghost tells us they will get worse and worse. In all simplicity,
then, owning our weakness, let us take what God gives us. We have
a blessed resource in Matthew xviii. 20. That is a wonderful resource.
It is not reformation we are to try ; nor to set up a new sect. We must
not do that ; we must go back to what is the oldest of everything — God's
principle of gathering His saints. The ground the disciples took is the
ground for believers to take in all ages."- — Davis, p. 30.

X We beg pardon — "to be gathered" ; for the Brethren assure us
that, according to the passage, believers are not said to meet or to gather
— (that would be a human arrangement) — but "to be gathered by the
Holy Ghost " to the name of Jesus. But Scripture never speaks of the
Holy Ghost gathering believers at all ; and believers are never said to
be gathered to Jesus, except in Thessalonians, where the expression
"by our gathering together unto Him " refers to the time and circum-
stances of His second coming. (2 Thess, ii. I.) The word <Tvvriyp.(voi is
the commonest word used in the New Testament for assembling. It
expresses the gathering of the Pharisees to Christ (Matt. xxii. 41) — the
gathering of eagles to their prey (Matt. xxiv. 28) — the gathering of
the crowd that demanded Jesus' death (Matt, xxvii. 17) — and the simple
gathering to Christ's ministry (Matt. xiii. 2). How absurd, then, is the
distinction based upon it by Brethren ! Yet if they are simply gathered
— that is, by no act of their own, but by the Spirit's prompting — they can
have no fortn of worship, no agreed rules of practice, no hymnbook.
Some will be gathered at ten o'clock ; others at twelve ; others at two.
The worship will be as diverse as possible. Yet they meet, like other
people, at a uniform hour, and their forms of worship, government and
discipline are exactly alike.

The Chunk in Ruins.

47

authority of this passage? Did Jesus say it was for the
period of ruin ? Did He say that all other Scripture but
this was to be in abeyance in Gentile times ? Where did
He tell His disciples that this passage was to remain dormant
during the entire ministry of the apostles, and only to take
effect after all the rule and discipline of the apostolic Church
had passed away ? He said, " On this rock will I build my
Church." Is the one passage more repealed than tlie other?
If Matthew xviii. 20 was " all-sufticient," as Mr. Macintosh
says, " for the guidance of saints in the day of ruin,'' why
should He have built His Church on the rock at all?

2. And if Matthew xviii. 20 be all-sufficient, why do
Brethren refer to i Corinthians xiv. for their doctrine of
ministry ? If the chapter in Corinthians has survived the
failure of the dispensation, why have not the Epistles to
Timothy and Titus, giving the qualifications of bishops and
deacons, similarly survived ? Was not the Church in Corinth
in possession of Christ's promise in Matthew, in all the pleni-
tude of primitive gifts and powers ? How, then, can the
promise be peculiar, as the Brethren allege, to a period of
apostacy ? The Brethren admit that the apostacy began in
apostolic times ; but where is the proof that believers began
then, discarding all other Scripture, to meet on the ground of
this promise ? And if they did not, why did they not ? Do the
Brethren understand this promise better than the primitive
Christians ? Was it t/uir resource in the apostacy, to the
exclusion of other Scripture? If it had been added to
Scripture by special revelation in 1830, when Darbyism
arose, we could feel the force of the argument.

If we are to believe, however, that there is no Church
except under this passage, then the Church ceases to exist
in the intervals of worship — that is, when the twos and
threes are not gathered. The gathering makes the Church.
No gathering, no Church. Mr. Macintosh says, — " But the
Holy Ghost gathers souls to Jesus on the ground of salva-
tion ; and this, wherever convened, is the assembly of God."
Surely it is the assembly of God, whether con\-encd or not.
Is it only the assembly of God when convened?

3. The Brethren admit that "the name of Christ" in
the promise signifies authority : why, then, do they not

48

Plymouth Brethrenhm .

rebuild the Church? If His name is sufficient, as Mr.
Macintosh says, " not only for personal salvation, but for
all the exigencies of the assembly — for worship, communion,
ministry, discipline, government, everything " — then, how
can the Church be in ruins? And why should there be
any difficulty in rebuilding it, when you have the name of
Christ with you ? Why, too, should Paul have thought it
necessary to write his Epistles to Timothy and Titus ? Mr.
Macintosh says, " We can trust Christ to keep order in His
own house." If so, why should Paul say to Timothy —
" that * thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God"? Why should he have given
Timothy so many directions ?

4. And, after all, what reason is there for believing that
the Brethren are the only people who are meeting on the
ground of this blessed promise? Mr. W. Kelly cuts all
the churches out of their inheritance by this oracular an-
nouncement— that " it is not the fact of being Christians
that constitutes God's assembly (Church), but their being
gathered to the name of Jesus." If the sects have no share
in the promise, it is remarkable that they have been more
blessed than the Brethren with the presence of Jesus ; for,
according to Mr. James Grant's calculation, there are only
fifteen thousand Darbyites in the United Kingdom, while
the saints in the " systems " cannot be even approximately
reckoned. The Brethren themselves admit that they usually
get their converts ready-made in the sects : that is, the
majority of the fifteen thousand Darbyites have been con-
verted in what they call " the wide dominions of the
apostacy." But if the churches have no share in the
promise, then it remained a promise unfulfilled for eighteen
hundred years— or, in other words, till the Darbyites arose
in 1830. Is there no pity in Darbyism? Can it be possible

* Mr. Macintosh says : "We may be asked, Where are we to find
this thing that you call the 'assembly of God ' from the days of the
apostles up till the nineteenth century ? Our answer is simply this :
Both then and now, we find the assembly of God in the pai^^es of the
New Testament." (p. 45.) A most astonishing statement! Surely
the assembly of God in Paul's days existed outside the pages of the
New Testament — even before a age of the New Testament was
written !

The Church in Ruins. 49

that Jesus never met with the twos and threes for eighteen
centuries ? After all, if salvation be possible in the " apos-
tacy," the Brethren can offer us nothing greater than that,
for, dispensationally, they can hold no higher place in
heaven than their neighbours. We prefer, then, for ob\ious
reasons, to remain in " the apostacy," where there is at
least less heresy and high-mindedness, more spirituality,
and less bitterness than among Brethren ; and we shall
continue, in spite of all warnings against our presump-
tion, to build up, with God's help, " the ruins of the
Church," in the happy conviction that we still have the
word of His grace left to build us up, as living stones,
into that spiritual house which is the Church, the body of
Christ.

4

50

PlymoiUh Brethrenhm,

CHAPTER VI.

INCONSISTENCIES.

'E shall now briefly notice the altogether false and in-

sincere position of the Darbyites as manifested in the
most cursory comparison of their earlier with their later
publications on the doctrine of the Church. They repro-
bate the idea of rebuilding the Church. All their earlier
tracts teach this doctrine. In 1846 Mr. Darby said, "I
have said, we are the witnesses of the weakness and low
estate of the Church." "Power the Church has none."
" If we think to set up the Church again, I say, God forbid."
" Hence, government of bodies, in an authorized way, I be-
lieve there is none : where this is assumed, I believe there
will be confusion." (Letter of Mr. Darby to Mr. Jukes,
February, 1846.) "Before I can accede to your preten-
sions, I must see that an union of two or three, or two
or three and twenty, are entitled to take the name of the
Church of God, when that Church was (originally) an
assemblage of all true believers." {Refleetions on the Ruined
Condition of t/ie Church, p. 9.) Yet now Mr. Darby can speak
of " the one assembly of God in London " ! * Not a word
of the gathering of twos and threes 1 " The one assembly "
was first used in 1861, to designate those gatherings acting
in unison with Mr. Darby, and it only recalls the arrogant
and exclusive pretensions of Romanism and Irvingisrn.
What a curious irony runs through Plymouth history ! Mr.
Darby charged Mr. Newton with clericalism in 1845, and
has now himself established a system of the sternest and
most despotic ecclesiasticism.

* The word " assembly " is substituted for Church in order to dis-
guise somewhat the change of front. The tracts speak of the sin of
attempting to rebuild the Church. But there is no harm in trying to
rebuild or restore the assembly !

Inconsistencies.

51

But let us now ask, what is the difference between the
Brethren and the churches in the year 1879? What are
they doing that we are not doing? What are we doing
that they are not trying to do? They are preaching the
Gospel ; they are edifying the saints ; they hold their meet-
ings, in which they sing hymns, expound Scripture, and
break bread as disciples of Christ ; and they exercise dis-
cipline and government, for they determine who shall and
who shall not belong to their communion. These things
we are doing. If this is rebuilding the Church, they are
working as hard at it as we are ; with this difference, how-
ever— that they are building up with stones ready made and
polished, in our grounds. Where is the difference, then,
between their position and ours? We cannot see it. Of
course, we do not discuss in this connexion what may be
called the denominational points that separate us from the
Darbyites — those points in which we and they may re-
spectively contest a nearer approach to the example of
apostolic times. But if their meetings are mere gather-
ings, according to their original principle, what right have
they, in the present ruin of the Church, to set up discipline
at all, and to say who shall or who shall not come to the
Lord's Table ? If the Holy Spirit gathers them to it, why
should Darbyite leaders try to keep them back? Why
should there be a superintendence of the flock, when the old
gathering simply acknowledged the individual responsibility
of saints to Christ ? Why this machinery of correspondence
with other gatherings, and the manifest organization of the
whole system, after something like the forms of Presby-
terianism ? These arrangements were all very well for
New Testament times, but they are wholly misplaced and
contradictory for a period of ruin. What were once mere
" gatherings are now " a body," with a corporate action
maintained, outside the limited sphere of the two or three.*
Originally, Brethren would not reject those whom the Lord

* There is a conclave in London, meeting, we believe, on Saturday
nights, which regulates all the Darlsyite "gatherings." It is virtually
a council of Presbyters, but with no representative character, assembling
to administer the affairs of the Church. Yet, where is there a trace of
this council in Matthew xviii, 20 ? There is not a word there of dis-

52

Plymouth Brethrenism.

had received, and therefore received all Christians into com-
munion, without demanding their separation from ecclesi-
astical evil ; and Mr. Darby himself once gloried that he
could welcome a Roman Catholic, if he was on the founda-
tion, and hold fellowship with him at the Lord's Table ;
yet in 1845 he ended with refusing fellowship with saints
from whom he differed in no vital points whatever. Yet
Mr. Darby is the author of this sentence, which seals his
own condemnation : " The moment anything is intro-
duced as a point of unity which the Lord has not com-
manded, there is room for the sin of schism." Can anything
be plainer than that the Darbyites have shifted their ground,
and are now engaged, as busily as others, in rebuilding the
Church? Their present position is most pointedly con-
demned in their own tracts ; yet, with an extraordinary
hardihood, they continue to fight their battles with the old
theories as if their ground had been clear and consistent all
along from the beginning.

It is characteristic of the Brethren that, in the develop-
ment of their theology, they have come to assign an alto-
gether undue place to their doctrine of the Church. They
speak of it as " the most important of all truths" — as " God's
highest truth " — as " this wondrous truth which has lain
dormant so long" — as " His leading truth in the interval or
period in which we live " (Patterson's One Body and One
Spirit), merely because Paul speaks of it as " a great mys-
tery " (Eph. V. 32). Surely the doctrine of Christ's Person
and work — " the great mystery of godliness " — is a tran-
scendently more important truth. " Christ is " a far higher
thing" than the Church. The apostle never gloried in
the " one body " as the Brethren do, but always in the cross
of Christ. Mr. Patterson says that " what he is before God,
a member of the body by one Spirit," is "a reality which
will keep his soul steady in the midst of every ruin : it is

cipline or government. The gatherings of the Brethren either constituted
a new sect, or they were the Church of Christ.

"Without rulers, without government, without pastoral authority,
tliey get on from time to time by the management of coteries, and by the
influence of certain individuals in different gatherings, who more or less
assume, as it were by accident, the direction of affairs." — Address to
Plymouth Brethren, 1862.

hiconsistencies.

53

the only thing that can do this." But the Scriptures always
represent the Christian's security as depending upon Christ
rather than upon himself, or upon his view of himself. This
writer offers the saints as " a divine resting-place for their
feet in the midst of the confusion of the great house of
Christendom," not the mediation of Christ, or Christ
Himself, but " the ground of the one body of Christ by the
Spirit " ; and this is offered as " their only acceptable
position in the sight of God," though clearly our acceptance
is in the Beloved. The Saviour is Himself a surer ground
of confidence than any result of His glorious work. Yet
IMr. Patterson speaks of the Church as " the city of refuge,"
just as Mr. W. Kelly speaks of it as " the only solid divine
rock," after the manner of Romanists. It is the special
offence of such writers that they degrade the cross of Christ
to a merely secondary place — in fact, they make it a grand
instrument to some higher end — " the one body ; " while
they love to expatiate upon what they are in Christ rather
than on what He is to them, with a tendency to be led away
from the blood of sprinkling to seek their rest in their own
Christian state. It is therefore quite characteristic of them
to see in the Lord's Supper, not an exhibition of Christ's
death and sufferings, but " the communion of the one body
of Christ which is here in the world." When the apostle
says, " The bread which we break, is it not the communion
of the body of Christ ? " the body referred to is not, accord-
ing to Mr. Patterson, the Lord's human body, but the mys-
tical body, the Church ! In that case we reply that, as the
bread was to be broken, the unity of the one body was,
after all, to be a broken unity ! It is a sad travesty of the
ordinance to represent God's children, when they come to
the Lord's Table, as doing so " on the ground of the one
body," or " of what we really are," instead of regarding rather
the Lord's gracious invitation and His self-sacrificing love.
The self-examination enjoined by the apostle had very little
indeed to do with anything like this proud recollection of
their own spiritual selves ! We object to the attempts of
such writers to magnify the importance of the Church as
the one body at the expense of Him who is its Head and
Saviour.

Plymouth Brethrenism.

BOOK THE CHURCH AND ITS
MINISTRY.

CHAPTER I.

PRESIDENCY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

THE Brethren believe that their meetings are held under
the presidency of the Holy Ghost, while those of the
churches are under the presidency of man.* They speak
of ours as " a one-man ministry."

It is a remarkable fact, in the case of Christians who
boast of adhering so strictly to the letter of Scripture, that
the expressions so common in all their writings — " the

* "The Holy Gliost is President of the Assembly ; in any meeting
belonging to the religious denominations of the present day, such presi-
dency is forgotten, and a man fills his place ; but in the assembly the
Holy Ghost, the true Vicar of Christ, is the sole President, Guide, and
Director, and in its ministry no man must take any part but that which
the Holy Ghost assigns him : the assembly meets on the principle that
God the Holy Ghost alone has a right to speak, and by whom He
will.

" We search in vain in the New Testament for any Church-govern-
ment except the sovereign guidance of the Holy Ghost." — Christ the
Centre, p. 7.

" If God is there, is He not to make His presence known? If He
do, it is a manifestation of the Spirit in the individual who acts ; it is
a gift, and, if you please, an impulse. It is God acting : that is the gi'eat
point." — Darby, Presence and Operation of the Spirit, p. 21.

'• We meet on the principle that God the Holy Ghost (who dwells
in believers individually, and in the body collectively) alone has a right
to speak in the meeting, and He has a right to speak by whom He will,
whether in occasional or more frequent ministrations." — Christian Fel-
lowship : Torquay statement. This is not very consistent with the
Brethren's original "principle": "God's broad foundation is clearly
set aside, when any portion of trath, beyond the knowledge of Jesus
imto eternal life, is made the condition of full communion." — Union of
Christians, p. 2.

Presidency of the Holy Ghost. 5 5

presidency of the Spirit," " the presence of the Spirit," " the
ministry of the Spirit " (as opposed to the so-called " one-
man ministry " of the churches), are never once found in
Scripture. We read of the presence of Christ frequently,
but never of the Spirit. The true word, as to the Spirit, is
his " abiding." (John xiv. 16.)

Let us now examine the Scripture evidence adduced for
the doctrine of the Spirit's presidency. There are just six
texts to support this fundamental tenet of the Brethren.

1. Matthew xviii. 20 : " For where two or three are
gathered unto (ets) my name, there am I in the midst of
them." (i) We reply, if this impHes presidency, it is that
of Jesus Christ, not of the Holy Ghost. The Brethren say,
however, " If Jesus is present with His chosen, it is by the
power and in the person of the Holy Ghost." Yes ; whether
they are gathered for worship, or at home in their dwellings,
and therefore not gathered. The Brethren quote John
xiv. 18 — " I will not leave you comfortless : I will come to
you " — and infer that Christ's coming is the coming of the
Spirit. But the coming here is Christ's second coming, not
the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost ; for it was a coming
at which He would take them to Himself The Spirit abides
in the Church universal and in the Church particular, but
He abides with the saints in the latter case in the same sense
when they are met for worship and when they are apart.
(2) There is not a word in this passage about gifts. It
embraces all assemblies of believers, and does not stipulate
for open communion or liberty of ministry. It is the least
ecclesiastical passage in Scripture. The Brethren say it
refers not to the object for which the two or three are
gathered, but rather to the ground or principle on which
they are gathered. It refers to both, for the meeting was
for prayer — we might say for prayer alone, judging by the
previous verse — " If two of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything ye shall ask " ; and the promise is that
there will be an answer to such petitions offered in the name
of Christ. Our Lord, then, does not refer to the Holy
Spirit at all, but to the disciples' recognition of the value
of His own name.

2. I Corinthians xiv. 33 : " For God is not the author

56

Plymouth Brethrenism.

of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the
saints." The Greek is, " He is not the God of confusion,
but of peace." What has this to do with the Spirit's presi-
dency in the assemblies ? The name of the Spirit is not
even mentioned. And if there be a Divine presidency,
such as secures peace and not confusion in the assemblies,
why does Paul presume to rebuke the proceedings of the
Corinth assembly ? And why should he tell the saints how
many should speak at a time, and what gifts they should
cultivate? And why, above all, should he attempt to
supersede the Spirit's presidency by saying, " The rest will
I set in order when I come " ?

3. Ephesians ii. 20 — 22 : "Ye are built upon the foun-
dation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fidy
framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord,
in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of
God through the Spirit." There is no reference here to the
assembling of the saints for worship. The reference is to
the Church as the body of Christ, in which the Holy Ghost
is the indwelling Spirit The Brethren must prove that the
assembly — that is, where the saints are met for worship — is
the special sphere of the Spirit. The statement of the passage
was just as true when the Ephesian saints were at home
pursuing their ordinary callings as when they were met for
worship. The tenses of the verbs confirm this view, for the
building is not said to be complete, but in process of erection
— " is increasing " — and " ye are being builded together."
Besides, " all the building," in verse 21, refers to the Church
universal, not to the church at Ephesus.

4. I Corinthians xiv. — This whole chapter is justly re-
garded as referring to the open meetings of the saints. Here,
if anywhere, shall we hear of the Spirit's presidency, (i)
But how comes it to pass that the name of the Holy Ghost
never occurs in it from beginning to end ? " God " is
mentioned seven times, the "Lord" twice, but the "Spirit"
never. Is this not strange? Yet in the twelfth chapter,
where His place in the Church universal is recognised. He is
named eleven times. (2) This chapter is full of rules for
the exercise of gifts. But the Spirit needs no rules. The

Presidency of the Holy Ghost. 57

saints at Corinth did certainly need them. Brethren say —
" Paul could regulate the Spirit's gifts by the faith and con-
science of each." But, singular to say, the rules enjoined
by Paul are described as " from the Lord " — that is, Christ,
not the Spirit. But, in any case, what becomes of the
Spirit's regulating the assembly ? What right has Paul to
say, " The rest will I set in order when I come " ? * The
Holy Spirit is not the regulator ! There is not a word in
the chapter about " waiting on the Spirit in the midst," or
"waiting for the Spirit's impulse." In fact, the apostle
asserts human responsibility in the exercise of gifts ; else he
would never have awarded praise or blame. The Brethren
say : " We meet on the principle that the Holy Ghost alone
has a right to speak in the meeting ; " but Paul regards men
as speaking at Corinth. It is not " the Spirit speaketh by
one man in a tongue," but " //e that speaketh in a tongue."
It is not "if the Spirit prophesy," but "if all prophesy." t
(3) But we object still further to the Brethren's doctrine,
because it makes the Holy Spirit Head of the Church
instead of Jesus Christ. Dr. Tregelles well says : " The
Spirit in none of His works or operations must be put in
the place of Christ, whom He hath come to glorify. The
Spirit is not the Head of the Church, but Christ." And,
again : " Pastors and teachers are the appointment of Christ
Himself, as the risen Head of the Church, and as the Lord
exercising His rightful dominion." It is a suggestive fact
that Paul says of Christ, not of the Spirit, " He Himself
(avTo?) gave some to be apostles," etc. (Eph. iv. 11).

5. Hebrews ii. 12. — "Both He that sanctifieth and they
who are sanctified are all of one ; for which cause He is not
ashamed to call them brethren." This refers not to the
Spirit, but to Christ, who is spoken of in the Psalm here

* Paul not only makes himself president at Corinth, but seems to
put himself in Christ's place : " We pray you in Christ's stead."

t The Brethren speak of the ministry of the Spirit as opposed to
man's ministry. What does Scripture say ? Jesus is called a minister
(Heb. viii. 6), but the Holy Ghost never. We read (2 Cor. iii. 8) of
"the ministration of the Spirit," in allusion to the bestowal of gifts by
apostles' hands. In Scripture the ministry is s.\\\'ays man's : "Make
full proof oithy ministry" ; "If any man minister."

58 Plymouth Brethrenism.

quoted (Ps. xxii. 22), not as president, but as worshipper in
the assembly.

6. I Corinthians iii. 16: "Know ye not that ye are the
temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? "
But the temple is not the Church met for worship. The
Holy Ghost dwells in believers (whose "bodies are His
temple "), when they are apart as well as when they are
assembled.

These are all the passages adduced by the Brethren to
prove the presidency of the Holy Ghost.

After all, if this Di\'ine presidency existed in New Testa-
ment times, why should Paul direct Timothy and Titus
about the ordaining of elders? Where was the Spirit's
presidency in the Philippian church, which had its bishops
and deacons, and in those Hebrew churches which were
exhorted to " remember those that had the rule over
them " ?

If the Brethren, indeed, have the Spirit's presidency in
their assemblies, why do they speak of their weakness ?

59

CHAPTER 11.

THE EXISTE^XE AND EXERCISE OF GIFTS.

THE Brethren argue as if all the gifts of apostolic times
remain, and they blame the churches for not allowing
these gifts free scope and development in their worshipping
arrangements. The time was when they scouted the dis-
tinction generally made between ordinar>' and extraordinary
gifts : " The continuousness of the promise, ' He shall
abide with you for ever,' made way for seeing that the
distinction between ordinary and extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit was not warranted by the Spirit." {Christian Wit-
ness, vol. i., p. 275.) But they have learned a little caution
by the exigencies of controversy, and they now admit that
the gifts of miracle and inspiration have ceased. But still —
very unfairly, we must say — they argue with the churches on
the principle that all the gifts remain, and that they possess
them, more or less fully developed. Some of them would
make the gifts objects of faith : " In answer to the objec-
tion, ' I do not see it ; I do not see gift in the Church now^
one might remark. That is scarcely the ground of faith. It
is better to question our own perception than the faithful-
ness of God ! " As if the gifts of apostolic times had not
been visible manifestations, and not mere objects of faith !
The Brethren inchne to this view because they base their
system of worship on i Corinthians xiv., where, beyond all
question, there was the display of extraordinary gifts. A
writer well says : " When arguing with Churchmen and
Dissenters you assume that you have the gifts of old, and
condemn them because they do not give liberty to these
gifts in their assemblies. You declare that this freedom
to the gifts is essential to the very existence of a Church
of Christ, and teach that all should leave any body where
this is not carried out. Yet, when arguing with those who

6o Plymouth Brethrenisvi.

desire and pray for the gifts of miracle and inspiration, you
say, ' They have ceased and cannot be restored.' Is this
honest?" Captain Hall says, in the same strain: "My
trouble is this— that you and others quote Scripture in its
highest descriptions of the Church's primitive ways, as
you say, taking the twelfth and fourteenth of i Corin-
thians, and apply it with great freedom in proving the
defects of others ; but when it is turned against yourselves,
you deny its just application to such days as ours. If
the Bible in its description of God's ways in the Church
may be used against others, we ought to judge ourselves
by it in the same way."

1. If the Brethren admit that they do not possess ex-
traordinary gifts,* we are at a loss to know what gifts they
possess that the churches do not equally enjoy.

2. They stoutly maintain, however, that they have gifts
of prophecy, (i) The question can be easily settled by
determining the character of prophecy in Scripture, where
it is never used but in an inspired sense. Prophecy meant
immediate revelation in the Old Testament : so does it
in the New Testament. (Eph. iii. 5.) The prophets of the
New Testament were not mere teachers ; for they are
distinguished from teachers in i Corinthians xii. 29 and
Ephesians iv. 11; neither were they preachers of the Gospel,
for they are likewise distinguished from evangelists (Eph.
iv. 11). Women might be prophetesses, but they could
neither preach nor teach. (2) Why, then, do the Brethren
apply the rules for using tongues and prophecy to those
who have neither the one nor the other ? They admit —
"We have not the miraculous gifts of i Corinthians, but

* The extraordinary gifts were not the result of regeneration or
holiness, but were imparted either directly by the Spirit, as at Pente-
cost, or by the laying on of apostles' hands. It was after the Samari-
tans believed (Acts viii. 12 — 21) that Peter and John laid their hands
on them, and " they received the Holy Ghost." So, likewise, with the
twelve disciples at Ephesus — " Paul laid his hands on them and the
Holy Ghost came on them." The Gentile believers with Cornelius
received miraculous gift by the Holy Ghost falling on them (Acts x.
45, 46). These gifts were always open manifestations of the Spirit,
and could not therefore be denied. It is quite clear, therefore, that the
Brethren have no extraordinary gifts, because there are no apostles now
to lay hands upon disciples.

The Exisfcnce and Exercise of Gifts. 6i

wt have the non-miraculous ones of Ephesians iv." Well
may an acute critic say — " Why, then, pretend to meet on
ground and on rules which were given of old solely to the
possessor of miraculous gifts ? How do regulations for pro-
phecy and tongues apply directly to those who have neither?
Why profess to meet on the ground of miraculous gifts,
especially when you carefully insist that gifts of miracle and
inspiration are not to be expected now ? " (Govett's Church
of God.)

We must now consider the Brethren's doctrine concerning
the exercise of gift.

They hold that all preparation for the exercise of gift,
before coming to the assembly, is sinful. To make pre\ious
preparation is to deny the immediate guidance of the Holy
Ghost*

1. We reply that, even when extraordinary gifts were in
existence, this was not the rule : " When ye come together,
each HATH (9(a) a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue,
hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." Paul does not
reprove them for preparing beforehand. The psalm was
the result of thought.

2. This doctrine involves inspiration, and infallibility ; for,
if the Spirit only speaks, the speaking must be infallible.
Yet a writer is not afraid to say, " It is not sobriety 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 wxitten word, slow as we
may be to understand it." {Present Testimony, p. 56.)

3. On this principle, how can the speaker be either
praised or blamed? Yet Paul censures the Corinthians,
(i Cor. xiv.)

4. The Corinthians might have replied to Paul's rebukes,
" We are the passive instruments of the power that uses us :
blame the power, not us." But Paul blamed them for the

* "He knew for the first no preparation save faith and a little prayer,
perhaps." — Testimony of a Sai?!t, p. 8.

When Mr. B. W. Newton admitted preparation for addressing the
saints, Brother Haffner said — "With what humiliation I now appear in
the presence of God for having so long retained in my bosom the know-
ledge that our poor brother did practically deny the present teachings
and guidance of the Holy Ghost ! "

62

Plymouth Brethrenism.

disorders that arose. He did not say, like the Brethren,
" Leave the order of the assembly to the Spirit."

5. Practically, how absurd is this idea ! Cannot the
Spirit edify as well by truth prepared out of the assembly
as in it ? What difference does it make whether the Spirit
suggested it in the disciple's home or in his place in the
assembly ? If nothing edifies but what the Spirit imparts
during the assembly, how is it that we are edified by the
mere reading of what was written at least eighteen centuries
ago ? Is there no edification in the Evangelical Churches,
where the preachers give themselves to "reading, exhorta-
tion, doctrine " ?

6. The Brethren say that the very choice of speakers rests
with the Holy Ghost. Why, then, does Paul blame the
Corinthians for a bad choice ? And why is human control
at all recognized — " The spirits of the prophets are subject
to the prophets " ?

7. If the Brethren are under the immediate guidance of
the Spirit, why do they employ a hymnbook constructed by
man ? And why should the Spirit be bound by their three
hundred hymns, when the Corinthian disciple had a "psalm "
directly given by th^ Spirit? What is the difference in
principle between a pre-arranged hymn and a pre-arranged
discourse ?

Let us now briefly inquire into the peculiar effects of the
Spirit's presidency as illustrated in the assemblies of the
Brethren. We should expect to see something far superior
to anything experienced by the churches.

Captain Percy Hall, who left the Darbyites some few
years ago, speaks with contempt of the idea of what he
calls " your little doings " being fathered on the Holy Ghost.
Another speaks of " a headless gathering, an any-man
ministry, and unarranged devotions." " C. H. M.," a Darby-
ite leader, asks — " What of our public meetings ? Where
is their power, unction, freshness, and elevated tone? It
is now well known and painfully felt by hundreds that,
with few exceptions, the meetings are dull, flat, heavy,
and unpopular." {Thou and Thy House, p. 22.) Another
says : " I remember well the severe punishment inflicted
on enlightened Christians by the ministry of those whose

The Existence and Exercise of Gifts, 03

manifest duty was to learn, and not to teach. This, in
some instances, used to be endured, till it became intole-
rable." {Address to the Ply?!iouih Brethren, p. 20: 1862.)
Mr. Dennett refers to the " Narrative of Facts " by Mr.
Darby to prove that, in the case of unacceptable speakers,
" private representations are made to induce them to cease."
Surely, this was an interference wath the presidency of the
Spirit ! Mr. R. Govett says : " I boldly testify that it
would be difficult to find greater deadness and heaviness
than I have found in the meetings of those who trumpet
forth this, as the only means to attain an edifying assembly
and a flourishing church." An ex-clergj-man who left the
Brethren says : " I thought the Brethren spoke by inspira-
tion, till I heard them misquote Scripture." A Brother,
who had a somewhat bitter experience of the Brethren,
says : " They pretend to be wholly led by the Holy Spirit,
whereas all things are arranged beforehand — who shall
lecture, who shall pray, who shall give out hymns." The
Rev. F. Whitfield, who had twelve years' experience of the
Brethren, refers to a well-known case of several Brethren
being put down by a conspiracy to silence them : " Every
time these several Brethren I have mentioned got up to
speak or pray, there was a general coughing and scraping
of feet, some leaving the room, the majority refusing to
kneel." »

These are but a few illustrations, out of many that I could
quote, as to the order maintained in assemblies that assume
to themselves the peculiar guidance of the Spirit.

64

Plymouth Brethren{s7n.

CHAPTER III.

WHO HAVE THE CALL TO PREACH?

THE question of gifts brings us naturally to the question,
Who have the call to preach ? The Brethren hold that
this call belongs to all gifted persons, if not to all saints.
They hold that our Lord originally gave apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers, and that, of these, only
evangelists, pastors and teachers now survive. Yet, prac-
tically, they make all Christians evangelists, pastors or
teachers, so that the same Christians are by turns teacher
and taught, unlike the order of apostolic times. They hold
that elders or bishops passed away with the age of the
apostles, and that it is presumptuous in the churches now
to ordain elders, inasmuch as elders could only be ap-
pointed by apostles or by the delegates of apostles. There
are now no apostles to appoint them : there can therefore be
no elders.*

The Brethren ridicule the idea of a Christian asking the
license or permission of a church to tell a sinner the way of
sah-ation. Let it be understood that there is no dispute
between us as to the right of Christians to teach and

* " These were the mmistrations : the first two [apostles and prophets]
being, in their primary sense, the foundations — extraordinary ; the last
three [evangelists, pastors and teachers] the ordinary abiding ministra-
tion of the churches, to build them up in Christ's known and thus
ministered fulness" (Mr. Darby, in Gifts of the Spirit, etc., p. ii). He
holds, too, that apostles and prophets, in an inferior sense, still exist.
As if a thing could be changed or different, and yet still be the same !

Mr. Macintosh says: "We believe that the great Head of the
Church received in resurrection gifts for His Church. He, and not the
Church, or any section of the Church, is the reservoir of gifts. They
are vested in Him, and not in the Church." [We admit all this.]
"We believe that when He imparts a gift, the man who receives
that gift is responsible to exercise the same, whether as an evangelist,
a pastor, or a teacher, quite independently of all human authority." —
Sabbath, Law and Ministry, p. 13.

TV/w have the Call to Preach ?

65

admonish one another, as the saints were commanded at
Thessalonica, — where, by the way, a regular ministry was
established (i Thess. v. 1 1 — 14), — nor as to the right of saints
in their own sphere to tell sinners of the way of salvation.
We simply deny that the call to ministry belongs to all saints.

1. We refer to Ephesians iv. ii: "And He gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the
saints." The Brethren quote the seventh verse to prove a
ministry of all the saints : " But unto every one of us is
given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."
(i) They seem to forget, however, that the eleventh verse
tells us exactly how these gifts of the Lord are distributed ;
and Paul's question to the Corinthians comes in here most
appropriately — " Are all apostles ? Are all prophets ? Are
all teachers?" (i Cor. xii. 29). (2) Now, if private persons
— that is, gifted saints — had been sufficient in apostolic
times for propagating Christianity and instructing the Church,
why did our Lord appoint ordinary officers at all, such as
pastors and teachers ? For the pastors and teachers, both
at Ephesus and in Corinth, were distinct from the pro-
phetically gifted persons in both churches.* Private per-
sons, no matter how gifted, were not allowed to take the
place of apostles and prophets at Corinth, and therefore not
of pastors and teachers. If they could not take the place of
the one, they could not take the place of the other. Now,
if ministry was to belong to all believers after the apostles'
days, why should they not have started with that principle
from the very first ? Why should the Lord appoint a
ministry of pastors and teachers for the first generation,
and make no similar provision for all future generations ?

2. If all Christians have a right to preach the gospel, why

* The Brethren claim to have pastors and teachers, but they are not
really distinct from the saints to whom they minister ; but the Corinthian
saints of I Corinthians xiv., on whose practice they base all that is
peculiar in their sissemblies, were not pastors and teachers: "Are all
teachers?" Pastors and teachers, as the particle re shows, represent
two aspects of one and the same office (Eph. iv. 11). In this passage
Paul distinguishes between prophets and teachers, and between evange-
lists and teachers. It is a signincant fact that there is not a passage in
Scripture where an ordinary pastor is said to prophesy.

5

66

Plyjnouth Brethrenism.

should there have been an order of evangelists whose special
duty was to do this very thing ? And why should Paul say
to Timothy, " Do the work of an evangelist," when it was
every Christian's duty to do the very same ? The Brethren
tell us that Christians now preach the gospel on their own
individual responsibility. Why, even apostles did not dare to
do this, for Saul and Barnabas were set apart to this very
work at Antioch. AVhy, forsooth, should Saul or Barnabas
ask for leave or authority or recognition from the Church,
to make known the gospel to sinners ?

3. Why, again, should a Christian desire the office of a
bishop (i Tim. iii. i), who was to be "apt to teach," when,
if he had gifts, he did not need the office at all ? He could
discharge all its duties without being a bishop or elder.

4. If all Christians have the right to preach, why should
Timothy or Titus interfere to test their fitness for the work,
when there is no such testing needed now? No Brother
would allow himself to be tested in this manner. Why,
again, if Timothy possessed the right that belongs to all
Christians, should he have allowed the presbytery to inter-
fere, or even an apostle to give him authority to do what he
had all along a sufficient right to do without the interference
of one or other ? If, again, all Christians have a right to
preach, why should Paul appoint elders at all, especially
when teaching was even a more prominent part of their work
than ruling ? Why did he instruct Timothy and Titus so
carefully about the appointment of elders ? The candidates
for eldership were either qualified or unqualified. In the
one case, ordination followed ; in the other, not. But if
they were qualified, why ordain ? If not, a test is applied
and acknowledged. Why should there have been this re-
striction upon the right of every Christian to preach — this
attempt, on the part of man, to test God's servant and his
fitness for serving Him ?

But we must now examine the Scripture evidence adduced
by the Brethren in favour of their views.

I. I Corinthians xiv. 31: "Ye may all prophesy one by one,
that all may learn and all may be comforted." " Here," say
the Brethren, " there is not a hint of a one-man ministry."
We reply — (i) This passage proves nothing unless the

Who have the Call to Preach ? 67

Brethren can show they possess supernatural gifts. Prophecy
in Scripture always means an inspired declaration of truth or
of future events. The Brethren themselves admit that the
prophets are passed away as well as the apostles. (2) The
passage refers, not to all the Corinthian saints — for Paul
asks elsewhere, " are all prophets ? " — but to t/ie p-rophets
among them : " Let the prophets," he says, " speak two or
three " (verse 29) — evidently implying the existence of a
distinct body of prophets in the Church. The Brethren
deny that the gift of prophecy was supernatural, on the
ground that the apostle exhorts the saints generally to desire
it. But this they might well do in an age of extraordinary
gifts, and pray to God for it, as the apostle exhorts him
" that speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may
interpret." " But was not prophespng for the edification of
the Church ? Was it not then mere ordinary preaching ? "
But all the extraordinary officers — apostles and prophets —
were alike " for the edification of the body of Christ "
(Eph. iv. 11). (3) It is a significant fact that the Corinthian
epistle was written teti years before the first epistle to
Timothy, which sets forth the duties of the eldership ; so
that the Brethren have no ground for their mere assumption
that the Corinthian epistle was to fix the normal character
of the ministry to the end of time. The epistle to Timothy
shows a one-man ministry in existence. The Brethren say
there was no one-man ministry in the days of the apostles,
because no elders are spoken of at Corinth, and because
the epistle was not addressed to elders, but simply to the
church, (i) We shall prove, by-and-by, that pastors or
teachers and elders are the same office, and as there were
"teachers" at Corinth (i Cor. xii. 29), there must have
been elders. (2) Paul addressed the elders or bishops at
Philippi; but he did not address the elders at Ephesus,
though there were elders there (Acts xx. 17, 28), or the
elders among the Hebrews, though they had elders (Heb.
xiii. 7, 17). But Peter specially addresses the elders in
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, including,
no doubt, hundreds of churches, (i Peter i. i.)*

* Of the thirteen or fourteen epistles of Paul, one is addressed to
Titus at Crete, two to Timothy at Ephesus, and one to the church of

68

Plymouth Brethrenisvi.

2. Romans xii. 6 — 8 : " Having then gifts differing accord-
ing to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us
prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or ministry,
let us wait on our ministering ; or he that teacheth, on teach-
ing ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he that giveth,
with simplicity ; he that ruleth, with diligence ; he that
sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." We may take, with this
passage, r Corinthians xii. 7 — 10, where Paul, after naming
the gifts of the Spirit, represents the variety of gifts in the
Church by the variety of members — eyes, ears, hands, feet —
in the human body. The Brethren draw the inference from
these two passages that all members of Christ's body have
the right of ministry — that is, of preaching the Gospel, (i)
We reply that the apostle imposes an express limitation :
"Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?"
•' God hath set some in the Church — (not aH) — first,
apostles." (2) The Brethren vitiate the whole analogy,
for they make the Church all eye, all ear, or rather all
tongue. They make it to be one member, not many ;
whereas the force of the analogy lies in the diversity of
gifts — some teaching, some ruling, some giving, some
comforting. But the apostle says expressly in Romans
xii. 4, " All members have not the same office " (-n-paiiv)
— that is, every member cannot discharge the office of
each particular member of the body. The eye cannot hear
for the ear, or walk for the legs, or smell for the nose.

3. I Peter iv. 10, 11 : "As each man hath received the
gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good
stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak,
let him speak as the oracles of God ; if any man minister,
let him do it as of the ability that God giveth." (i) This
cannot prove every man's right to " speak " any more than it
can prove every man's right to " minister " — that is, to take
the deacon's place and keep charge of the funds. (2) The
wording of the passage — " // any man " — shows that every

Philippi, with the bishops and deacons ; while seven other epistles are
addressed to the " angels," or ministers, of the seven churches of Asia,
■where there did undoubtedly exist that very one-man ministry which
Brethren call "a sinful usurpation," and "a daring encroachment on
the authority of the Holy Glio>i."

TV/io have the Call to Preach ?

69

man did not, as a matter of course, speak. (3) This
epistle was written to churches with elders, whose duty
was to " feed the flock of God " and " take the oversight
thereof" Therefore, full provision was already made for
the churches' instruction. (4) Even suppose the gifts
were universal, they were to be exercised by every believer
in his own sphere ; and as females are included in the
injunction, and are forbidden to preach publicly, there is
nothing to exclude all believers from labouring in the
gospel in a private way, like the Priscillas and Tryphosas of
New Testament times.

4. Acts viii. I, 4, II, 19.— Great stress is laid on the
account here given of private Christians at Jerusalem, who
had been scattered abroad, going everywhere to preach the
Word. The passage is : " And at that time " (///. on that
day) " there was a great persecution against the church
which was at Jerusalem ; and they were all scattered abroad
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the
apostles." Even if these were private Christians, there was
nothing to prevent the apostles from giving them a com-
mission on their sudden departure ; but even without such
a commission, their call might be regarded as extraordinary
from the remarkable effects of their ministry. If a similar
crisis should occur to-day, we should not- for a moment call
in question similar conduct. But let us look at the facts,
(i) The "all" who were scattered abroad were all the
teachers or all the Christians at Jerusalem, except the
apostles. Not all the Christians, for they are there still in
the third verse : " He made havoc of the church ; entering
into every house, and haling men and women, committed
them to prison." It is not said " f/ie Church was scattered
abroad." If it had been, the apostles would have had no
flocks. Where could they have been entertained, and where
could they hide where private Christians could not? (2) The
persecution may not have lasted beyond the day of Stephen's
death — " on that day there was a great persecution," — and
it was not of a character to cause the flight of private Chris-
tians, but of preachers, like Stephen. No blood was shed
in it but Stephen's. It was not, therefore, a persecution so
serious as to cause a general dispersion. (3) As there were

70

Plymouth Brethrenisin.

elders at Jerusalem, and none but apostles remained, it is
clear that elders were of those who were dispersed. It is
significant that the words ciayyeXito/xci/oi rhv \oyov are
never used in the New Testament but of preachers in office.
It is further significant that the only individual of this
scattered band at all mentioned is Philip, a deacon, and
afterwards an evangelist. If the dispersed were private
Christians, why did they not return home after the
persecution ? But we are told that they went on from
country to country, just like our missionaries. We hold,
then, that the dispersed were preachers, and the very ex-
ception, in the case of the apostles, is so stated as to suggest
the fact.

5. I Corinthians xvi. 15 : "Ye know the house of Stepha-
nas that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have
addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." (i) Were
they a whole household of preachers ? Very unlikely.
(2) Their ministry had nothing to do with preaching, but
with supplying temporal wants. Exactly the same Greek
words occur in 2 Corinthians viii. 4, where " the fellowship
of the ministering to the saints" refers to Gentile gifts sent
to Christian Jews at Jerusalem. Brethren also quote the
case of Archippus (Col. iv. 17) : "Say to Archippus, Take
heed to the ministry thou hast received in the Lord, that
thou fulfil it." This rather proves our case. He received
his ministry. Paul alludes to this reception as a reason for
Archippus fulfilling it. That was the age when the apostle
was instructing Timothy and Titus to " lay hands suddenly
on no man," and to commit the gospel " to faithful men."
Archippus was not, therefore, self-appointed.

It is evident, then, that all Christians, or all gifted per-
sons, have not the right to preach the gospel.

71

CHAPTER IV.

THE MINISTRY OF BISHOPS OR ELDERS.

THE question has been often asked, and never answereo
by the Brethren, Why should the apostle have given
to Timothy and Titus such minute instructions regarding
the qualifications and duties of bishops and deacons, two
classes of ofificers who were immediately to pass away, while
we have no instructions given to " pastors and teachers,"
who, say the Brethren, were to continue till the end of time ?
Was that matchless picture of the bishop (i Tim. iii.) to
have a mere antiquarian interest to all succeeding ages ?
Yet that epistle was wTitten in the last year of the apostle's
life — ten years, remember, after the first Corinthian epistle,
with its fourteenth chapter— and there is not a hint in the
whole epistle that the elders were a mere temporary order
destined to disappear within a single generation ! The
apostle tells a very different story, for he commands Timothy
to keep the whole series of apostolic commands till — " the
appearance of Christ." (i Tim. vi. 14.) But some Brethren,
while admitting that the apostle did set up an order of
ministr)' in the first epistle, say that he saw fit to abolish it
in the second epistle to Timothy, where, they say, there is
not a word about bishops and deacons, but of committing
the word to " faithful men " — that is, laymen— who were to
be "able to teach others also " (2 Tim. ii. 2). The ground
upon which they base this rationalistic idea is, that the
Church had become so corrupted through the ministry that
the apostle thought it better to have done with elders alto-
gether.* We reply — (i) there is the best possible evidence

* One Brother says : " Our Lord foresaw the divisions of the Church,
and wisely forbore perpetuating an appointment which would be .practi-

72

Plymouth Brdhrenhm.

that the two epistles to Timothy were written within seven
or eight months of each other, in the very last year of Paul's
life.* There was therefore no time for such a development
of corruption as the Brethren plead for. Besides, the cor-
ruption had set in, as Mr. F. Patterson says, soon after
Stephen's death. Why, then, should Paul and Barnabas
have ordained elders in every city ? Why should Timothy
and Titus have received orders to ordain elders at Ephesus
and Crete ? Would it not have been a wiser plan for Paul,
taking the advice of Brethren, to have dispensed with elders
altogether? Strange that there is not a reference to the
election of an elder till after the failure had set in ! f (2) It is
quite gratuitous to say that the "faithful men " in the second
epistle were laymen ; for, on the Brethren's principles, the
saints, as such, have the right to preach without authority
from apostle or evangelist. The phrase " able to teach " is
very suggestive of "apt to teach," in the first epistle, applied
to bishops. (3) Is it not an impeachment of Paul's inspira-
tion— nay, a profane arraignment of Divine Omniscience —

cally null and void through the wilfulness of man '^ (Davis, Helps and
Inquiries, p. 56). What profanity ! If our Lord foresaw the divisions,
why did He appoint a ministry at all? Were there no divisions at
Corinth, where, say the Brethren, the one-man ministry had no
existence? But the Brethren are not agreed upon this point. A
Brother says the Lord withdrew elders after they had served their
purpose in a somewhat exceptional age. He says : "I confess I
cannot but admire the perfection of Divine intelligence, first in giving
elders, and then, having served their purpose, withdrawing them "
{Enquiry as to the Scriptural Position of the Plymouth Brethren, p. 34,
Morrish). Dr. Davis says, on the contrary, the elders did not serve
their purpose, for they corrupted the Church and helped to develop
the apostacy of the dispensation !

* Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 829. As
the epistle to Titus, according to the best authorities, was written
between the two epistles to Timothy, the period is still farther
narrowed. We know that the apostle had no change of view as to
elders between his writing i Timothy and Titus, for the latter is full
of instructions about elders.

t The state of things was much the same in both epistles, (i Tim. i. 20,
iv. I — 3, V. 24, vi. 3 — 5, compared with 2 Tim. ii. 17 — 21, iii. I — 9.)
But why imply that there was no corruption at work in the time of
I Timothy? It began at Corinth ten years before I Timothy was
written.

The Ministry of Bishops or Elders. 73

that the apostle should be regarded as setting up in one
epistle what he was obliged to pull down in another ? The
Brethren are as bad as the Rationalists. It would be better,
indeed, with Baur, to deny the authenticity of the pastoral
epistles altogether.

We shall now discuss the claims of the elders, or bishops,
as a permanent order of ministers in the Church. The
Brethren affirm that pastors and teachers abide still as
Christ's gifts in the Church, but that the elders have passed
away; that they were a distinct class from pastors and
teachers, and were not even appointed in all the churches
in apostolic times ; and further, that the elders, unlike
pastors and teachers, were appointed by apostles or by
delegates sent by the apostles. It follows, therefore, as there
are no apostles now in existence, there can be no elders.

Now, it is evident, on their own principles, that all our
churches have pastors and teachers, as well as themselves ;
for they cannot deny that Christ's gifts are common to all
the churches. The only essential difference is that we
ordain or appoint, and they do not.

I. We shall first prove that all the '^pastors and teachers
cf apostolic times zvcre elders, (i) The Brethren say that
Ephesians iv. 11, which is the charter of the Church's
ministry, speaks of five classes of officers, including " pastors
and teachers," but says not a word about elders. The
reason is that the pastors and teachers were elders. Were
there not elders at Ephesus whom Paul met at Miletus?
(Acts XX. 17, 28.) There were elders, then, in the very
church to which this epistle was written. The Brethren quote
the words " Feed the flock over the which the Holy Ghost
hath made you bishops," as if to show the absence of human
appointment. But is it not the favourite argument of the
Brethren that elders were the only class of officers ordained
by the apostles ? (2) If elders and pastors are distinct, how
is it, though we read of elders in the Acts and in the
Epistles again and again, that we never read of "pastors
and teachers "?* The explanation is easy. The elders were
pastors and teachers. We read of apostles and elders at

* The only exception is Acts xiii. I, where we read of prophets and
teachers at Antioch.

74

Plymouth Brethre7iis7n.

Jerusalem : not a word of teachers. So it is everjnvhere.
We read of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and elders ; but
not a word of pastors and teachers. (3) The elders were
both teachers and rulers or pastors : i Timothy v. 17, " Let
the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honour, especially they who labour in the word and
doctrine " ; i Peter v. i, " The elders who are among you
I exhort, who am also an elder — feed (Trot/xatVeTc) the flock
of God " — the very words of Paul to the Ephesian elders,
"Act as TTot/xevcs, shepherds or pastors." i Timothyiii. 2. — The
bishop or elder was to be " apt to teach," because he was a
teacher, and was to rule well his own house, as a sign that
he could take care of the Church of God. (4) If elders are
not pastors, why do Brethren refer to i Timothy iii. as
setting forth the quahfications of pastors? Are they not
inconsistent in their practice ?

II. We maintain that elders were ordained in all the
churches. The Brethren say otherwise : " The command
to ordain elders only embraced the district of Asia Minor
and other places included in the evangelistic tour of Bar-
nabas and Saul, and in the island of Crete by Titus. These
were the only places, so far as recorded, to whom elders
were given. The ordination of elders was not so extensively
done as is generally supposed." * This is an extraordinary
statement, (i) The argument from silence proves nothing.
Brethren believe there were pastors and teachers every-
where ; yet are they not mentioned in every epistle. So
the argument cuts both ways. (2) If there were elders in
all Asia Minor, which contained the vast majority of the
churches, and also in Crete, which is in Europe, and also
in all the places of the " dispersion," where Jews were scat-
tered abroad — that is, in Europe and Africa, as well as
Asia, for James speaks of elders in the epistle addressed
to those in the dispersion (James v. 14), — then elders were,
practically, everywhere. (3) Brethren speak of elders as
unnecessary in some places. But if elders were needed at
Jerusalem, where apostles were present, surely they were

* An Enquiry as to the Scriptural Position of the Plymouth Brethren
so-called, p. 63.

The Mini dry of Bishops or Elders. 75

much more necessary where there were no apostles : and
were they not just as necessary in Europe as in Asia Minor?
(4) Why, above all, do Brethren try to undervalue a body
of officers appointed, as they seem to hint, by their own
favourite apostle, Paul ?

III. We consider next the appointment of elders. The
Brethren maintain that Scripture says nothing of the election
of elders by a congregation. We reply : —

I. The New Testament history shows the inferventioji
of the Church in all matters affecting the welfare of the
Church. The Church is never ignored in the matter of
appointments.

(1) Acts i. — We see here that even an apostle could not
be appointed, as successor to Judas Iscariot, without the
recognition of the Church. The people, in this case, appointed
two persons, antecedently to God's choice. One of the
two, Alatthias, was selected by lot; and then, as if to acknow-
ledge the right and liberty of the Church, he was " reckoned
by suffrage among the apostles." IvvKaTex^Ladr}, the Greek
word here used, is not the usual one to express the
word " numbered " in our authorised version. It refers to
the suffrage or votes already taken, as recorded, by the one
hundred and twenty disciples. Why, indeed, should the
Church have anything to do with the election, or even the
recognition, of an apostle ? Now, if the Church's right was
recognised in the case of an extraordinary officer, surely, d
fortiori, we may expect it to be equally recognised in the
case of ordinary ministers. But as all apostles were elders, as
we shall presently see, it was right that the Lord should
recognise the interference of the Church in their election.

(2) Acts \i. — The people chose seven persons to act as
deacons, but the apostles " when they had prayed laid their
hands on them." The Brethren say this was no spiritual
appointment, like that of elders, but a mere financial arrange-
ment, in which the choice of the men who were to dis-
tribute the funds was properly placed in the hands of those
who supplied them. We reply : {a) The previous precedent,
that of Matthias, was spiritual ; {b) If there was nothing
more here than the appointment of a committee of finance,
why was it necessary that the apostles should lay hands on

76 Piymoutk Brethrenism,

them — that is, do what they did afterwards in the case of
elders ? Why should the same ceremony be observed in
the two cases? Do the Brethren lay hands on those of
their number who manage the finances of their churches ?
And if not, why not ?

(3) It is a significant fact that Judas and Silas were
chosen with consent of the whole Church to an extraordi-
nary embassy. Acts xv. 22 : " Then pleased it the apostles
and elders, luith the whole Church, to send chosen men."
Were not the apostles able to select deputies themselves?
Why should "the whole Church" be recognized at all?
Remember, the embassy was wholly spiritual, not temporal.
Again, Paul's company was chosen by the Church (2 Cor.
viii. 19). Also, the commissioners of the church of
Corinth were approved by the Church (i Cor. xvi. 3).
The principle is always the same. The Church is ?iever
ignored.

(4) Let us now consider the case of the elders, in the
light of so many clear precedents. Acts xiv. 23 : " And
when they had ordained them elders in every church, and
had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord
in whom they believed." The Greek word here translated
" ordain " is not the word usually employed in Scripture to
express the act of ordination. If simple ordination had
been meant, Luke would have used the word KaOla-ravu) (as
Acts vi. 3, Titus i. 5), or E-TreOrjKav ras ^^V^? (as Acts vi. 6).
But he uses xf'po''o»"?o"avr£s, which means to choose by
votes or to appoint those thus chosen. Paul and Barnabas
ordained those whom the Church elected. What previous
knowledge could strangers like them have of the qualifica-
tions of the candidates for eldership ? The Greek word
means literally " stretching out the hand." Greek usage
is decisive. Chrysostom says that the Roman senate did
make gods by most voices (xnpoToveiv tovs ^eous). Ducaeus
says that heathen writers understand by the word ^er
siiffragia creare. As for the objection from Acts x. 41 —
"unto witnesses chosen before of God," — Trpoxn-poTovia is
not the same as xe'po'''o>"a) but "rather the preventing of
XeLpoTovia by a prior designation."

It is clear, then, that the Church has a right to elect its

The Ministry of Bislwps or Elders. 77

own pastors. The Brethren themselves acknowledge this
right, while they protest against human authority interfering
with the exercise of gifts. Mr. Macintosh says : " A man
may say he has a gift on the same principle as he may say
he has faith (Jas. ii. 14), and it may be after all only an
empty conceit of his own ill-adjusted mind, n'hich a spiritual
assembly could not recognize for a moment'' Here is the
Church's recognition fully admitted.

2. We have now to consider the ordination of elders.

The Brethren say that elders were always ordained by
apostles or by the delegates of apostles, and as apostles
have now ceased, there can be no elders. They say they
have pastors and teachers, but they receive their commission
directly from Christ.

Let it be clearly understood, then, that all our churches
regard the title to the office of ministry or eldership as from
Christ, and Christ alone. The ordination by the Church
conferred, and confers, no right to the office of the ministrj-.
Ordination is only the Church's recognition of the right so
conferred by Christ Himself

We object, however, to the whole doctrine of the Brethren
on this point.

(i) We deny that apostles ordained elders; and if
we can prove ordination by any but apostles, our case is
established. There is not a case in the Neii< Testament of an
apostle ordaining alone. Is this not strange? Paul and
Barnabas ordained elders in every city. (Actsxiv. 23.) Bar-
nabas was no apostle, nor did he receive from Paul any
authority to ordain. Whatever authority Barnabas had,
Paul had in virtue of what had occurred at Antioch. (Acts
xiii. I — 3.) Paul got nothing more there than Barnabas.
We find likewise Timothy and Titus ordaining elders, and
they were not apostles. " But they were delegated by the
apostles to do this work." Delegated to do what? To
ordain? Certainly not, on the Brethren's principles, if
apostles only can ordain. Tell us what was peculiar to an
apostle : prophetic power, miracle, inspired declaration of
truth. Not one of those had the elders. Apostles could
not delegate their office and power ; and if you say apostles
only could ordain, we say the delegation of ordaining power

78

Plymouth Brethrenism.

to Timothy and Titus is impossible.* Again, if apostles
alone could ordain, why should the presbytery or elders
have interfered in the ordination of Timothy? What was
the meaning of the "laying on of hands"? No doubt the
hands of apostles conferred spiritual gifts ; but, looking at
all the places where this is referred to, it is clear that the
laying on of hands was the mode of appointing to office.
At Antioch, the prophets and teachers laid hands on Barna-
bas and Saul. Mark the expression. The Holy Ghost did
not separate them Himself to His work, but says, " Sepa-
rate me Saul and Barnabas." The act of separation was
performed by the Church — that is, by the prophets and
teachers laying hands on the two. This is the separation
Paul refers to in Romans i. i : " Paul .... called to be
an apostle, separated to the gospel of God." (Greek the
same.) The call was from Christ ; the separation from the
Church, t Mr. W. Kelly says the laying on of hands meant
simply an act of fellowship. Absurd ! Were the deacons
not really appointed by the laying on of the apostles' hands ?
And why, if there was nothing but fellowship in the matter,
should the apostles only have laid hands on the deacons ?
Had the people no right or desire to show fellowship like-
wise ? And why should the apostle Paul have the elders
associated with him in the ordination of Timothy ? If the
laying on of hands does not mean ordination, then Timothy
was never ordained. He never received any appointment.
The practice had nothing to do with assent or approbation,
but involved the authoritative recognition of office or
power. Why do the Brethren not lay hands now on the
evangelists they send forth, if nothing more is signified than
an act of fellowship ? Why do they not maintain the old
sign of fellowship ?

* If Timothy did ordain, he could not give higher orders than he got,
for he was set apart by the hands of the presbytery or eldership. The
very elders whom he was to ordain were of the same class as the officers
who laid hands on himself, (i Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 5.) The very
ordination, too, that Paul received was that of elders. (Acts xiii. i — 3.)

t It is said this does not accord with Galatians i. I, where the apostle
says he was not an apostle of man nor by man, but by Jesus Christ. It
is one thing, however, to be called by man — another to be recognized by
man. The one lie denies, the other he asserts.

The Ministry of Bishops, or Elders. 79

(2) We maintain that if apostles ordained elders, they did
it, not as apostles, but as elders. Paul was an elder, just
as John and Peter were elders. (2 John i ; i Peter v. i.)
The apostle himself carefully distinguishes between his
authoritative character as an inspired apostle, and his
ordinary character as a weak and fallible minister of the
Word : " Whereunto I was ordained {iTiOrjv) a preacher
and an apostle" (i Tim. ii. 7). Is this verb ever used but
of the Church's appointment? The reference is to the
Antioch proceeding.* (Acts xiii. i — 3.) Even the apostleship
is spoken of as an episcopal office. (Acts i. 20, eVto-KOTn;, the
same word as in i Tim. iii. i.) A bishop was an elder, as
Paul clearly states in his epistles to Titus and Timothy.
Remember that apostles and elders met on equal terms in
the government of the Church. At Jerusalem they legislate
side by side on the greatest questions. (Acts xv.) The
apostles do not employ their authority as inspired men to
stop the controversy at Antioch. The final decree was
given in the name of apostles and elders : " We have
written and concluded" (Acts xxi. i). Peter has to give
an account of his ministry to the presbytery at Jerusalem.
(Acts xi.) Paul gives them an account of his labours, and
receives orders from them, and is ruled by them. (Acts xxi.)
The conclusion is evident : the apostles were nothing but
elders ; as such, they joined in the ordination of elders.
We need now no extraordinary officers, therefore, with
prophetic gifts or inspired authority, to ordain our elders.

• It is a remarkable fact that Paul is never called an apostle till after
the Antioch ordination, though he had been engaged for eight or nine
years previously in evangelistic work, as prophet and teacher.

8o Plymouth Bnthrenism.

CHAPTER V.

THE PAYMENT OF PASTORS.

'PHE Brethren hold that it is wrong to pay pastors for their
A services, however allowable or reasonable it may be
to pay evangelists. Dr. Davis says : " I do not know one
example in all the New Testament to support the practice
of a paid ministry ; but as regards itinerant pastors, evan-
gelists and teachers, the principle is plain enough, that they
who preach the gospel should live of the gospel."* Another
Brother maintains that as the passage in i Cor. ix. 14 "could
not in any way refer to any duty, except the preaching of
the gospel to unbelievers, it does not sustain the payment
of pastors. "t It is asserted that in Scripture the work of
pastors and evangelists is so distinct that the apostles never
used both these offices on the same occasion, and that
different words are invariably used — -n-pocfirp-evui to signify
preaching to believers, and euayyeAtXw and Krjpva-a-m preaching
to unbelievers — as applicable respectively to the two
occasions.

I. We reply — (i) The elder, who was admittedly a resi-
dent pastor, was entitled to support : " Let the elders that
rule well be counted worthy of double honour {riixri<;,
pay), especially they who labour in the word and doctrine "
(i Tim. v. 17). They are here also spoken of as "labourers
worthy of their hire." They were not to preach the gospel
merely — admitting the Brethren's distinction — but "to
labour in the word and doctrine," and " to feed the Church
of God" (Acts XX. 28). This is preaching to believers.
They were to be "apt to teach"; not to entangle them-
selves with the affairs of this life; their whole time to be
devoted to their pastorship, as completely as the soldier,

* Christian Ministry, p. 46. + Tracts for Believers, No. 6.

The Payment of Pastors.

8i'

the vine-keeper and the shepherd devoted themselves to
their respective callings, (i Cor. ix. 7.) (2) The apostle says
to the Galatian saints, " Let him that is taught in the word
{Ka.rr]yovi).evo%, the catechized) communicate with him that
teacheth (or catechizeth) in all good things" (Gal. vi. 6).
This refers to a stated ministry in a place. Those who .
were to get the benefit were to support the ministry. " If
we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing
if we shall reap your carnal things?" (i Cor. ix. 11).
(3) The three illustrations adduced by the apostle to
enforce his right to a support — namely, the cases of the
soldier, the vine-planter, the shepherd — are cases of persons
supported by those who employed them, (i Cor. ix. 7.) The
one is supported by his flock, the other by his grapes, the
third by his king. (4) The apostle refers likewise, in
proof, to the case of the priests in the Temple, who were
all resident, and not itinerant pastors, (ver. 13.) (5) The
apostle says : "I robbed other churches, taking wages of
them that I might minister (StaKoviav) to you " (2 Cor.
xi. 8) — that is, in the matter of pastoral care. He insists
elsewhere on his right to payment, though for important
reasons he declines to receive it. How strange, then, to
hear that " there is not an example in all the New Testa-
ment to support the practice of a paid ministry " ! In fact,
there are more texts to support it than to support that of
an itinerant ministiy.

II. There is no Scripture ground for such a distinction as
the Brethren allege between the prophetic or pastoral and
the evangelistic offices. The word evayyeAi^w does 7iot refer
exclusively to preaching the gospel to unbelievers. Paul
says — " I am ready to preach the gospel (euayyeAt^ao-^at) to
you that are at Rome also " (Rom. i. 15). These Romans
were believers already, (ver. 7.) He tells the Corinthian
saints he "had preached to them the gospel of God
freely" (1 Cor. ix. 18, and 2 Cor. xi. 7) — not in refer-
ence to his first evangelizing visit, but to his whole inter-
course with them, extending over many years. Peter says :
'' And this is the word which by the gospel is preached
(erayyfA.tcr6'eV) unto you " (i Peter i. 25). The " word " here
(p^/xa) means the whole Scripture, as we see by Ephesians

6

82

Plymouth Brethrenism.

vi. 17 and Romans x. 8, 17, and is therefore applicable to
believers as well as unbelievers. The Apocalypse speaks of
the glad tidings being declared («ir;yyeA.to-e) to " his servants
the prophets" (Rev. x. 7). How vain, then, to narrow the
signification of the word, as if it implied no message for saints
as well as sinners ! We must likewise object to the inter-
pretation which makes tt/doc^tjtcvu) synonymous with preaching
to believers. It never means this in the New Testament,
but always signifies an inspired revelation, either of something
future or secret. How could prophecy be "a sign to
believers" (i Cor. xiv. 22), if it meant only preaching?

It is said, "Prophets are expressly distinguished from
evangelists in Ephesians iv. 11." We answer. They are there
likewise distinguished from " teachers." Women might be
prophetesses, but they were neither to preach nor to teach.

We see, then, that when the apostle declares that " they
who preach the gospel shall live of the gospel," he does not
refer merely to evangelists, for he was himself pastor as well
to the Corinthians. He tells them plainly to accept or expect
aid from those to whom they are sent. The ministers of
our churches, therefore, as filling both offices— for they both
" preach the gospel" to sinners and they edify the saints —
are fully entitled to support even on Brethrenite principles.

The Brethren say, " It is more blessed to give than to
receive " (Acts xx. 35). (i) But our Lord said also, "The
labourer is worthy of his hire." (2) This saying was like-
wise as applicable to the priests in Old Testament times, yet
they had fixed incomes. (3) It is as true of all Christians as
of ministers, yet the laity expect payment for their work, and
sue for their wages. The Brethren quote our Lord's words,
"Freely ye have received, freely give" (Matt. x. 8). (i)
This refers not to preaching the gospel, but to charisms or
miraculous gifts, such as Simon Magus wanted to buy. (2)
In the very next verse He tells His disciples to seek their
support from those they blessed — "For the workman is
worthy of his meat " (ver. 10).

III. The Brethren likewise object to the mode in which
pastors are usually paid. They object to fixed salaries, but
not to gifts, such as their evangelists receive.

Singular to say, almost all the references in the New Tes-

The Payment of Pastors. 83

lament to the support of the ministry represent it as wages
or reward, and not as gilt. Our Lord says, " The labourer
is worthy of his hire (/xto-^ov) " (Luke x. 7). Paul took
"wages" (oi/'wj/tov — the very word applied to soldiers' pay in
Luke iii. 14, "Be content with your wages") — from other
churches (2 Cor. xi. 8), that he might minister to the Corin-
thians. The three analogical cases of the soldier, the vine-
keeper, and the shepherd, are likewise in point. " Who goeth
a warfare at any time at his own charges (oi/^wtots) ? " The
soldier has his fixed pay : not what the king chooses to give
him. You say, " A minister ought to live by faith, not on a
fixed income." The minister is not the only man who
ought to live by faith. Why does not the baker, or the
butcher, or the clothier accept whatever their customers
choose to offer them? "But ministers ought to cast them
selves on the Lord." So did the seventy ; so did the
apostle Paul; so did the elders. Yet the Lord provided
for them by means of the people's liberality. "But is it
right to demand payment for a seat in God's house, as you
call your chapels? Will men sell what is God's?" Do
the Brethren never sell Bibles ? Why do they demand
money for God's book ?

IV. What is the practice of the Brethren as to the pay-
ment of their preachers ? Inconsistently enough, they pay
those who preach for edification as well as the evangehsts.
Mr. C. Rust says : " Many Brethren live by faith and find
it answer very well, — they have hats, clothes, provisions,
luxuries, and ;^2oo a-year, while Paul hungered and fasted,
and the poor starving saints at Jerusalem did likewise."
The Brethren support their leading preachers, just as the
churches support their ministers ; yet they take up ground
in argument as inconsistent with their own practice as with
ours. They plead for the liberty of all believers to teach,
but as the payment of all might be inconvenient, they
adopt a theory that restricts payment to evangehsts. "It
is marvellous," says a writer, " with what facility our opinions
adapt themselves to circumstances, when we liave abandoned
the Word as our rule in faith and practice ! "

84

Plvmotcth Brdhrenisfu.

BOOK III.— CHURCH DOCTRINE.

CHAPTER I.
Christ's heavenly humanity.

THE Brethren hold that the humanity of Christ was
not that of man, fallen or unfallen, but " the glorified
resurrection-humanity of the redeemed." * Dr. Tregelles
says the following expressions have been used of Christ's
humanity ; — that He was man, but not the Son of man,
which was only a title ; that His humanity was something
Divine ; that " made of a woman " does not mean " born of
a woman " ; and that He was not man of the substance of
His mother, but of that of God his Father. Mr. Macintosh
speaks of " the Divine Man," and of " His heavenly hu-
manity," as though the Holy Ghost had introduced Divine
elements into His human nature.

I. We hold that Christ was as truly man as we are, for
He was "made of a woman" (Gal. iv. 4). Mr. Kelly says
it should be "come of a woman" (yevo/ievov). Certainly

* Mr. W. Kelly says: "It is all a blunder to suppose that the
reality of the incarnation involves the condition of either Adam fallen
or unfallen . . . There are thus three distinct phases of humanity here
below — innocent, fallen, holy. Christ's manhood was in the condition
of Adam neither before nor after the fall." — Christ Tempted, etc.,
pp. II, 14-

Mr. Darby says: "As incarnate He abode alone" {Sufferings of
Christ, p. 77). "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." {Ibid.)

Chrisi's Heavenly Humanity.

85

not, if the word is intended to exclude birth. But do
Brethren really deny, like the Valentinian heretics, that
Jesus had the substance of " His mother " ? Remember,
it is not said that the Holy Ghost conceived in the \vomb of
the Virgin Mary, but " Thou shalt conceive in thy womb."
If she conceived, the child was of her substance.

2. Christ is called the " Son of man," and is therefore
one of Adam's sons. He was of the " seed of David," for
He was of " those fathers of whom, as concerning the
flesh, Christ came." He had their humanity. Mary and
Joseph were both of the seed of David.

3. Hebrews ii. 14 — " Forasmuch, then, as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise
(■TrapairX-qaLU)?) took part of the same. " Bengel says " like-
wise " is equivalent to " in all things " (ver. 19). The Docetje
changed the Greek to o/i,oiws, because they felt the force of
a word which implied that Christ took flesh and blood the
same as man's, sin excepted. The Brethren affirm, how-
ever, that Christ is here said to take the flesh and blood
of the children — that is, the sanctified. Mr. Darby says,
" His relation was with the sanctified." Mr. Kelly says,
" There is the most careful exclusion of the thought that
Christ assumed humanity in the fallen and morally feeble
state that it is in us." But how does this distinction help
him ? Surely the children, sanctified though they be, are
still sinful, because they are still in the body. Christ was
" made in the likeness of sinful flesh " — not sinless flesh
(Rom. viii. 3), — and therefore in the likeness of Adam
fallen, in spite of Mr. Kelly. He was born not in Paradise,
but in unparadisaical circumstances, which are the conse-
quences of Adam's sin. He voluntarily brought himself
under one of them — " the sweat of the brow " — but was He
thereby unfitted for atonement ?

The Brethren base their doctrine on i Corinthians xv. 47 :
" The first Adam was of the earth, earthy ; the second man
was from heaven." (Greek.) But this refers to our Lord's
person, not to His humanity. Brethren confound the two.
It is not said that the Second Man, as to His humanity, was
from heaven. " If He assumed relation to fallen man, He
fould not stand before God in personal acceptance." This

86

Plymouth Brethrenisni.

is to say that Christ could not assume relation to fallen mr.n
without being Himself a sinner. "He could not be like His
brethren in all things, because they are mortal and He was
not mortal." Had not Jesus a mortal body? The Brethren
say not, because He died voluntarily. But did He not die ?
Had He an immortal body? If so, then He could not
have died, even voluntarily, except by a special miracle.
But Hebrews ii. 14, immediately after the reference to " flesh
and blood," brings expressly into view one point of re-
semblance— death : " that through death He might destroy
him that had the power of death." It is objected : " If He
bad in His nature a necessity of dying, He could not die
meritoriously for others." Who created or imposed this
necessity? Himself If He had been born, as we are,
under the imputation of Adam's sin, He could not have
become a sacrifice for us.

We reject, therefore, the doctrine of the heavenly
humanity. Christ was man as we are ; and His humanity
was subject to every infirmity which does not imply sin, and
every consequence of sin that was not in itself sinful.

87

CHAPTER II.

JUSTI FICATION.

THE Brethren teach that we are justified, not on the
ground of Christ's righteousness, but on the ground of
His death and resurrection. They deny that God imputes
to behevers the righteousness of Christ, but say that God
imputes righteousness when He accounts a beUever right-
eous on the ground of Christ's death and resurrection.
" Christ crucified and Christ risen was what the Holy Ghost
did set before lost sinners : His death for atonement, His
resurrection for righteousness or justification." (Stanley.)
They deny the vicarious obedience of Christ to the law.
They maintain that Christ's sufferings in life, previous to the
cross, were not vicarious : that He was not, in fact, a sin-
bearer in life : and even that all His sufferings on the cross
were not vicarious. They go so far as to hold that even
His death was unatoning.

1. ^'•Justification in the Risen Chiist."
We shall first consider the view that Christ's death brings
merely pardon or negative justification, but that His resur-
rection brings us " into a state of absolute righteousness in
Him risen." Justification is thus made to spring out of
Christ's life after resurrection (not from His life before it —
that is, His vicarious obedience), as well as His death.
Mr. Stanley says, "Nothing but His resurrection can jus-
tify," and refers to Romans iv. 25 — "Who was delivered for
our offences and raised again for our justification " — as
proving that " while His precious blood clears from all sin,
His resurrection brings me into a state of absolute right-
eousness in Him risen, and therefore complete justification."
{^Justification in the Risen Christ, p. 4.)

I. This whole theory is based on a mistranslation. The

88

Flymoiith Brethrmism.

correct translation is — " who was delivered in consequence
of (Sia with an accusative) our offences, and raised again
in consequence of our justification." That is, He would
not have died but for our sins : they were the cause ot
His death ; and He would not have been raised again it
His death had not secured our justification. Our justifica-
tion or our salvation was complete when He died, and His
resurrection only declared that it was so.

2. This theory involves the inconsistency that we are
righteous before we are justified. Mr. Stanley says : " God
cannot justify anything short of righteousness. God is only
righteous in justifying me as a new creature." This contra-
dicts Romans iv. 5 — " God justifieth the iingodly." How,
then, can He justify me as righteous? No doubt, we shall

be in a state of absolute righteousness as a result of
justification, but this state of absolute righteousness cannot
be the ground of our justification. This theory also contra-
dicts Romans iii. 24 — " All have sinned and come short
of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ" — where justification
meets us as sinners, and not as new creatures, and is based
not on His resurrection, but on the redemptive work of
Christ on the cross. It also contradicts Romans v. 19 — " So
by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Here it is by His obedience, not by His resurrection, we
are justified. It also contradicts Romans v. 9, where we
are said to be "justified by His blood." Not a word here
of His resurrection !

3. Tiae statement that the cross brings pardon, and
nothing more, is opposed to Hebrews x. 10, where it brings
sanctification; to Revelation v. 9, where it brings redemption ; '
to Colossians i. 21, 22, where it brings reconciliation and
presentation before God ; and to Romans v. 9, where justi-
fication itself is ascribed to His blood.

4. This theory involves a false idea both of the life of
Christ before His resurrection and of His life after it. A
Brother says : " In Him our dying Substitute the life once
forfeited by us has been given up." Our forfeited life !
Surely not, else He must have had a sinful life. Mr.
Macintosh says : " Hence, in giving up His life. He gave up

Jusiijication.

&9

also the sin attached thereto, so that it is effectually put
away, having been left in His gra\ e, from which He rose
triumphant in the power of a new life, to which righteous-
ness as distinctly attaches itself as did sin to that life which
He gave up on the cross " {Genesis, p. 64). We reply — (i)
That righteousness did just as truly attach to His life before
resurrection : else He could not have atoned for us. The
victim for sacrifice must be unblemished. (2) It is not true
that He took a new life after resurrection, for He says, " I
lay down my life that I may take IT again." (3) This theory
leaves Christ's life in the dust. Something is left in the
hands of the enemy. Something is left in the grave. Mr.
Darby says, like his friend, " The life is gone to which the
sin and its punishment attached." If Christ died in this
sense, He ceased from His humanity. Mr. Darby says,
" The very nature " in which He wrought the atoning work
is gone — "with the life also which He quits in dying."
Now, He received a nature from His mother which made
Him man and the Son of man ; but if Mr. Darby is right,
the Man who is now in heaven has neither human nature
nor human life. If " He has done with the old thing
altogether, and has got into a new one (that very nature
left behind in which He was responsible and suffered for
sin), and now He is the Heavenly Man in the presence of
God," how should it be said that " He that descended is
the same also that ascended far above all heavens " ?
(Eph. iv. 10.) Why should Mr. Darby say He is now
the Heavenly Man ? Was He not the second man from
heaven (i Cor xv. 47) in the very days of His flesh?
" No man hath ascended into heaven save He which came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven." "What and if ye shall see the Son of man
ascend up where He was before ? " Mr. Darby divides the
Person of Christ. Mr. Stanley says : " The atonement
required a life not liable to death, and this being delivered
up, His life as the Son of God asserts its place." What !
was He not the Son of God before He died? Surely it
was God's own Son that He did not spare ! The life Jesus
poured out was His soul (i/'i^'x'^), not ^tos. Mr. Darby goes
so far as to say that " In the true essential life of Christ He

QO Plymouth BreiJirtnisvi.

never laid down any life at all ;" )^et Acts viii. 33 declares
that his life (^cot;) was taken from the earth. What singular
boldness of assertion ! But this theory gives, likewise,
a false view of Christ's risen life : " He transfers, so to
speak, the Divine life which was in Him to a new and
heavenly sphere where flesh and sin could not come — the
resurrection-state." Jesus Himself says: "I am He that
liveth and was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore "
(Rev. i. 18). The living and the dead is here the same ;
and yet how can this be, if the first life is laid in the grave ?
Yet it is said "the life is left and gone"! Can it be
that our Lord is less by a life in heaven than He was on
earth ?

5. This theory leads to false views concerning the con-
dition of the justified. "And now, though He could not be
righteous in any way in justifying my old man, yet is He
everlastingly, gloriously righteous in justifying me as a new
creature in Christ risen from the dead." This is absurd.
The old man cannot be justified, for it is not a person.
Scripture never speaks of the justification either of the " old
man " or the " new man." Believers are justified, though
the old man is in them still. Mr. Stanley talks wildly when
he says of the believer, " As to sin, righteousness, and life,
he is in Christ exactly what he will be when the day of the
redemption of the body has actually taken place." He
speaks, too, of believers 7ioiv as " children of the resur-
rection,"— a description that Christ expressly limits to the
future condition of glory. (Luke xx. 35.) This is sore
exaggeration. True, we are representatively in heaven, in
Christ our Head ; but we are personally and actually here.
Sin is still here ; we are to watch and fight against it ; our
life is " hid with Christ," but hereafter it will be fully mani-
fested.

6. This theory, with the prominence that it gives to the
union between Christ and believers, gets rid of the doctrine
of imputed righteousness, and of substitution likewise.
" In this dispensation, when we believe in Him, we are
in Him, and the being in Him does not carry the idea
of substitution, but of oneness — of union" ("J. M. C."
Imputed Righteousness" p. 30). (i) If righteousness is by

jfusiijicatioji.

91

union with Christ, and not by imputation, then the Spirit's
work is more important than Christ's on the cross. But
Brethren hold that Old Testament saints have not this
union. How, then, were David and Abraham counted
righteous (Rom. iv.) ? If they were not in Christ, how
were they saved ? (2) We may get rid of imputed righteous-
ness by this theory ; but we may in the same way resolve
redemption by His blood into union with Christ. (3)
Brethren say Scripture represents believers as in Christ,
whereas the imputation of Christ's righteousness supposes
the believer as standing apart from Him. Then, on the
same ground, we must reject the remission of sins, for that
supposes the believer as standing apart from Christ.

II. Chrisfs obedience to the law for ics.

The righteousness of Christ consists in His obedience to
the law for us, as well as in His suffering its penalty in our
stead. Brethren deny altogether that Christ obeyed the
law for us. They say that the inheritance does not come
to us by law at all ; that if Christ's obedience is accepted in
place of our obedience, there is no need for Christ's death
at all, and that the Scriptures nowhere attribute our justifi-
cation to His obedience to the law, but always to His
death.

Let us first give the positive proofs of our doctrine.

It is clearly taught in Romans v. 19, " For as by one man's
disobedience many were made (rather, constituted) sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Here the apostle opposes obedience to disobedience ; and
as the one was a violation of law, the other must be a
keeping of the law. How are we made sinners by Adam's
disobedience ? By the guilt of that act of eating the for-
bidden fruit. How are guilty of it? By imputation, for
Adam represented all his seed. How, indeed, could we be
punished for it, unless the guilt of it were imputed to us ?
The conclusion is obvious that we are, in a similar way,
made righteous by the act of another — Jesus Christ. Paul
opposes the righteousness of Christ to the offence of Adam.
No^v, Christ s death in itself is never called His righteousness.
Mr. Stanley says on this passage, " It is not said that the
obedience is imputed to us, but it is in contrast, as Dr.

92

Plymouth Brethrenism.

Alexander truly says, with Adam's disobedience. The
effect of the one was to bring men in sinners, the effect of
the other was to bring in righteousness." But how was
this effected in the two cases ? How are we treated as sin-
ners on account of Adam's sin, unless the sin of Adam was
imputed to us ? Mr. Stanley never touches this question.
It is said, again, that our righteousness here consists in one
obedience of one man only once performed (that is, in His
death) — corresponding to the disobedience of Adam, which
was a single act. (i) We reply that one act of disobedience
is a violation of a law and makes one unrighteous, but one
act of obedience cannot make a man righteous. (2) Adam's
disobedience, though a single act, included the breach of
the whole moral law, for " he who offendeth in one point
is guilty of all." The Brethren say too that the " gift of
righteousness" (verse 17) is expressly called "a free gift of
many offences unto justification" (verse 16), implying that
there is nothing in righteousness but the pardon of sin.
But the passage does not say that our righteousness is only
free forgiveness, but that in reference to forgiveness there
is a gift bestowed with forgiveness for its consequent.

Our doctrine is also clearly taught in 2 Corinthians v. 21 :
" For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in
Him." We do not except the sufferings of Christ from the
righteousness here spoken of. Brethren say the righteous-
ness of God here must refer to Christ's death alone, because
Jesus was made a sin-offering only on the cross. Therefore
ihe obedience of Christ to law does not here come into
account at all. We reply that Christ " made sin " does not
mean " made a sin-offering," else the parallel clause will be,
"we are made a righteousness-offering." Jesus is made sin,
and therefore He is made a sin-offering. But these are not
the same thing. The passage lays the foundation for the
sacrifice in a prior transaction — " made sin." Justice finds
Christ in sin's room, and takes hold on Him. The passage
supplies the reason for His being a sacrifice, or for having
our sins imputed to Him. The question, after all, is, how
Christ could be made sin for us, unless our sins were
imputed to Him ? So, how could we be made the

jfustification.

93

righteousness of God, unless His righteousness were im-
puted to us ?

Another proof-text is Romans x. 3, 4 : " For they, being
ignorant of Christ's righteousness, and going about to estab-
hsh their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves
to the righteousness of God ; for Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness to ever}' one that believeth." They
did not, forsooth, submit themselves to God's righteousness,
for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness ; as if to
explain that Christ's righteousness was referred to. What
is "the end of the law"? Mr. Stanley says curse."
Surely not : it is obedience. It can only mean that fulfil-
ment which the law demanded till its end was reached, and
ets (" unto ") leaves no doubt that this fulfilment of the
law is to be found in Christ alone. Christ "established the
law," not merely or only by suffering its penalty, but by
obeying it.

Another proof is Galatians iv. 4 : " Made of a woman,
made under the law." " Yes : but this is no proof that He
was made under the law for us." Was He not made of a
woman for us? "To us a child is born, to us a son is
given " (Isa. ix. 6). He was made of a woman for us, not
for Himself. Why add " made under the law," since if He
were born of a woman he must have been made under it ?
But the passage tells us why He was made under the law, —
" to redeem them that were under the law." " But," say the
Brethren, " He was made under it that He might be a fit
mediator." We reply : His obedience was not necessarily
required to make His sacrifice holy, for His human nature,
being once united to the Divine, could not but be holy, and
so a sinless, holy sacrifice. The human nature was holy
antecedently to all acts of obedience to the law. He would
have been a fit sacrifice, even if He had been offered up in
infancy. Therefore obedience was not required to make
Him a fit mediator. He was made under the \Ziwfor us.

Other texts in proof of the doctrine are 2 Peter i. i,
where we read of " the righteousness of our God and Saviour
Jesus Christ " (Greek) ; i Corinthians i. 30, where He is
called "our righteousness"; Philippians iii. 8, 9, where we
read of "the righteousness which is of God by faith," as

94 Plymouth Brethrenism,

opposed to " mine own righteousness " ; Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6,
where we read of " the Lord our Righteousness " ; and
Daniel ix. 24, where the bringing in Jf " an everlasting
righteousness " is distinct from " finishing transgression and
making an end of sin." Christ was no sinner, yet He sub-
mitted to baptism for the remission of sins, that He might,
as He said, " fulfil all righteousness."

We shall now consider the arguments of the Brethren
against our doctrine.

I. They say that justification is declared in Scripture to
be pardon only, and as this comes through the death of
Christ, there is no need for His law-fulfilling.

(1) We reply that justification includes more than pardon ;
it pronounces and accepts a person as righteous. The
person so accepted must be righteous ; and seeing that he
is not so inherently, he must be so by imputation. Brethren
admit that to justify is the opposite of to condemn. But
condemnation is more than not pardoning : it is declaring
a person guilty. Therefore, justification must be more than
pardon.

(2) The Brethren themselves make justification to be
more than pardon, for they say it includes also resurrection-
life.

It is argued that there is nothing more than pardon in
justification, for the imputation of righteousness is said to
be equivalent to non-imputing of sin. Romans iv. 4 : " Now
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace,
but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but beheveth
on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessed-
ness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man
to whom the Lord will not impute sin." {a) The imputa-
tion of righteousness includes the non-imputation of sin,
but is more than it. Here the imputation of righteousness
is the cause ; the non-imputation of sin, the effect. The
remission of sins does not make a man righteous. Who
ever thought that a pardoned thief was a righteous man,
or that his pardon made him righteous or an observer of the

justification.

95

law? In Ephesians i. 7 the whole of redemption is given
in " the forgiveness of sins " — " In whom we have redemp-
tion, the forgiveness of sins." Yet there is more in re-
demption than this : the gift of the Spirit, glorification,
eternal life. So the non-imputation of sin represents the
leading element in the imputation of righteousness. If
God pronounce a man righteous because he is pardoned,
then he is pardoned before he is justified ; and if he is
pardoned before he is justified, pardon is not justification.

2. Brethren argue, again, that justification cannot come
to us, according to Scripture, in a way of law-fulfilling at all.
For Galatians ii. 2 1 says, " If righteousness conTe by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain ; " and Romans iii. 2 r says
that " the righteousness of God is without the law." We
reply — (i) It is our works the apostle speaks of here, not
Christ's. This is clear from Titus iii. 5 — " Not by works of
righteousness which we have done . . . hath He saved us."
!Mr. Darby says : " If the righteousness imputed to the be-
liever is Christ's fulfilment of the law, it is after all human,
legal righteousness, by whomsoever done." Does Mr. Darby
consider what he is saying? Paul expressly says that the
object of Christ's coming is that " the righteousness of the
law'' — nothing else, and nothing better — "might be fulfilled
in us" (Rom. viii. 3). (2) The works against which Paul
disputes are those which do not exclude boasting, but
Christ's work does exclude it. (3) It is our own works only
that are excluded ; for, referring to Abraham, the apostle
in Romans iv. denies that it was by his own works he was
justified. (4) On the Brethren's own principles our justifica-
tion has to do with law, for they admit that Christ gave a
satisfaction to the law in what He suffered. Mr. Stanley
says : " I must confess I do not see how God could be
righteous in reckoning a breaker of the law righteous be-
cause another kept it." If so, then it would be equally
unrighteous for God to accept the substitutional sacrifice of
Christ in bearing penalties in our stead. This theory would
overturn vicariousness in every form.

It is said that eternal life is nowhere promised to the
keeping of the law. A Brother says : " The law said,
'Whosoever doeth these things shall live in them' — that

96

Plymouth Bixtlirenism.

was all. It never even thought of new life — never eternal
life, never glory — simply continuance of the life and state
it formed. ... It had no promise of resurrection, of life
beyond death, whatever." This means, that in case of
perfect obedience to the law, the reward would have been
a continuance of life in this world. We reply — (i) That the
passage (Romans x. 5) in which the words occur, proves
that the reference is to eternal life ; for what the law could
not do, through the weakness of the flesh, that very thing
the righteousness of faith accomplished. (2) What shall we
make of Christ's replies to the rich young man and the
lawyer, when they asked " What shall I do that I may
inherit eternal life?" (Mark x. 17 — 19; Luke x. 25 — 28)?
Brethren reply that our Lord only wished to show them the
impossibility of " entering into life " in their own way, and
that He never speaks of eternal life " in either place.
They meant nothing less ; Jesus knew they meant that, and
not life in this world : are we to suppose that He meant
anything else in His answer — " This do and thou shalt live "?
If He did not mean this. He did not answer their question.
Was our Lord guilty of a wTetched quibble ? (3) What shall
we make of Romans vii. 10 : "And the very commandment
which was for life (C(or;v — Christ is called the life in this
sense) I found to be unto death " ?

3. It is argued that " the law did not require both death
and obedience. Death and obedience are the alternatives
of the law ; so that a man might choose the one or the other,
and in either way the claim of the law would be satisfied."
We reply — (i) The Brethren confound the sanction of the
law, which is death, with its requirement, which is obedi-
ence. Death is not the requirement of the law: it is
the penalty of disobedience. (2) " If Christ has rendered
to the law an obedience which is accepted in place of my
obedience, was there any need for His death at all?"
Christ's obedience has been rendered for man, not simply as
subject to the law, but as a sinner against the law. No
obedience rendered by such a one, and therefore no obedi-
ence rendered for him, as Bishop O'Brien shows, could
expiate his past guilt. If we had been like Adam in inno-
cence, the obedience would have sufficed without death.

Justijication.

97

But we are rebels and transgressors : our substitute must
therefore suffer as well as obey.

4. But it is asserted that justification, according to
Scripture, comes only through Christ's death. We answer —

(1) If this be so, then the Brethren are wrong in attributing
our justification to Christ's resurrection. (2) If Scripture
speaks of Christ being our righteousness in other respects
besides His death, it is arguing to no purpose to quote those
texts which attribute our justification to His death. The
argument would be effective if we denied the remission
of sins by His death, and held that it came to us only by His
obedience. Our justification may be ascribed to His death,
not as excluding His obedience, because death was the
completing act of His obedience. Where are Christ's suffer-
ings ever called a righteousness ? (3) We are expressly said
to be saved by His life (Rom. v. 10), as well as by His blood
(v. 9). (4) If nothing but His death is imputed, there can
be no righteousness imputed, for dying or suffering the
penalty is no righteousness — else a hanged murderer is right-
eous and has obeyed the law, because he has been hanged.
Surely those suffering in hell are not fulfilling the law.

III. The rig/iieous/iess of Christ, fulfilled itt His obedi-
ence and suffering, is the righteousness of God, and becotnes
the possession of believers through imputation.

The Brethren deny this position, and hold that the
righteousness of God is simply, as Mr. Darby puts it, " the
quality or character that is in God Himself," and that " we
are justified by His grace through redemption, and that
righteousness is declared in remission." Mr. Kelly says :
" The evident scope of the righteousness of God is that He
Himself is righteous in justifying the believer by virtue of
Christ's work in all its extent and blessedness." (i) The
righteousness of God cannot refer to the Divine attribute of
righteousness, because the act is one of grace, not of justice.

(2) It could not be properly said that Christians are made
the very "righteousness of God" (2 Cor. v. 21) — a Divine
attribute. (3) It is called a "gift of righteousness." The
idea is always that of a provision made for those without a
righteousness of their own. It is said that Scripture does
not speak of " the righteousness of Christ," but of " the

7

98

Plymouih BretJironsm.

righteousness of God." But if this were so, the fact would
make the vicarious character of the righteousness more
evident. Christ Himself is our righteousness. We are all
that Christ is : we " are the righteousness of God in Him "
(2 Cor. V. 21). But Peter speaks expressly of the "righteous-
ness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ " (2 Peter i. 2).

Brethren deny imputation by perverting its Scripture
meaning. Mr. Darby says : " It is an act of the mind ac-
counting the person something at the moment the act of
the mind takes place." Not a very clear or happy definition !
Mr. Darby says further : " But when I say, God imputed his
faith to Abraham for righteousness, it is plain that He held
Abraham to be righteous on account of faith, — that is,
imputing righteousness means, in Scripture, to hold a person
to be a righteous man, to reckon or account him such." We
reply, that the word "impute" means either to attribute to
another what is properly his own, or to denote the ascription
to us of what is not our own, as when we speak of the sin of
Adam, or the righteousness of Christ. There is a difference
between Xoyi^o/xat and A.oyt^o/xai €is. The latter form is
used to denote the assigning to a thing a value which
intrinsically it has not. Thus in Romans ii. — " Shall not his
uncircumcision be counted for (et?) circumcision ? " and in
Romans iv. — " His faith is counted for (ets) righteousness " :
that is, faith has only an assigned value, like a bank-note,
and Christ's righteousness, which it represents, has an abso-
lute value. Thus, faith is imputed to me for righteousness
— that I may become righteous — but Christ's righteousness
is imputed to me as righteousness. Faith cannot be
righteousness : for, first, it would then be regarded as a work,
while it is contrasted with works — " To him that worketh not,
but believeth." Secondly, my righteousness is imperfect, if
my faith is righteousness, for that is never perfect. Faith
imputed for righteousness is the doctrine of Romans iv., but
Christ's righteousness imputed as righteousness is that of
Romans v., where it stands forth in all its breadth — "As by
the disobedience of one man many were constituted sin-
ners, so by the obedience of one shall many be constituted
righteous." It is not on the ground that all are corrupt,
but that all sinned, that death passed upon all : " Where-

Jusiijicafwn.

99

fore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death
by sin, and so death penetrated unto all men on the ground
that all sinned '' (Rom. v. 12) — not on the ground that all
have been viade corrupt. As death reaches us on the
ground of one man's sin, so life on the ground of one Man's
righteousness. If we hold that the one came by the cor-
ruption of our nature, then we must say we are constituted
righteous by infused rig/iteousiiess — the doctrine of the
Church of Rome.

IV. Christ is our Sin-bearer through all Jfts life.

We shall now consider the heresies of Brethren con-
cerning Christ's sufferings and death. We believe that
Christ's righteousness consists of His suffering as well as
His obedience. The Brethren limit His vicarious suffering
to the cross, and deny that He was a sin-bearer at all during
His life. His sufferings through life, they say, came from
the hands of men, and not from the hands of God, and
were not, therefore, " satisfactory " or vicarious. The ortho-
dox doctrine is that all Christ's sufferings were "satisfactory,"
not in the sense that there could be atonement apart from
death, but that all His sufferings came on Him as " the
Lamb."

The Brethren argue that He was sin-bearer only on
the cross, because, on the supposition of His being sin-
bearer in life, He must always have borne the same weight
of damnatory wrath that He bore on the cross ; in which
case the Father would not have sent angels to comfort Him,
and heaven would not have opened o\er His head. They
say He never suftered under the hand of God till the cross,
and Christ, though treated as of sin, could never be re-
garded as sin, and could never stand in the actual relation
of a sinner to God.

1. AVe answer, that Christ neither in life nor death stood
in the actual relation of men to God. Man's actual relation
to God was one of personal guilt and personal curse. Not
so with Christ. Even on the cross, He was an object of the
Father's love and delight. If He had not been this, He
could not have been "an offering and a sacrifice for a
sweet-smelling savour."

2. John i. 29 : " Behold the Lamb of God, that beareth

ICO

Plymouth Brethrejiinn.

{aip(i)v) the sin of the world." — This proves that He was
the Lamb, and was the bearer of sin, three years at least
before His death. If the Greek word is translated " taketh
away," it still means " taketh away by bearing it."

3. He is to appear " without sin " at His second coming.
This implies that during the whole of His humiliation, he
was never without it. (Heb. ix. 28.)

4. God sent Him " in the likeness of sinful flesh^' and " for
sin" (Rom. viii. 3). That is, He was for sin from the day
He took on Him the likeness of sinful flesh.

5. "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to
fulfil all righteousness" (Matt. iii. 15). This refers to His
baptism. Why should the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins be necessaiy for the sinless Christ ?

6. " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ?
Father, save me from this hour ; but for this cause came I
unto this hour " (John xii. 27). This was not in Geth-
semane, but on the day of His public entrance into
Jerusalem. He reverts here to the vicarious suffering as
the design of His coming into the world.

7. What of the agony of Gethsemane? Did He not
bear sin in the garden?

8. "Surely He hath borne otir griefs and carried our
sorrows " (Isa. liii. 4). That is, He suffered all the pains
and sorrows due to us for sin. Few of the descriptions of
this chapter are to be restricted to the sufferings of the cross.

9. Of nearly fifty Psalms, quoted in the New Testament,
the references are to Christ's sufferings in life.

10. " Who His own self carried our sins in his own body
to the tree " — to present them for judgment (i Peter ii. 24).
The authorised version, " bare our sins on the tree," is
wrong ; for the Greek would then be vTrv^i'cyxfv €7rt tov ^vkov ;
whereas it is avr^vtyKcv liA to $vXov. The word av-qveyKcv
is a sacrificial word, and is used ten times in the New
Testament for "bringing up " or "carrying up," never for
"bearing." If, then, our Lord carried our sins to the tree,
they must have been on Him before He did so.

The Brethren maintain, however, that all Christ's living
sufferings flowed from the perfectness of His sympathies,
or from the persecutions of His enemies, but they were not

Jusii/icaiion.

loi

sufferings under the hand of God. We ask — (i) Was He not
always the Lamb of God? (2) Were not all His sufferings
preordained of God, and must they not have come from
God ? If He suffered hunger, thirst, weariness, and other
signs of an unparadisaical state, surely such things were the
results of God's governmental arrangements ; and in suffer-
ing them, He suffered as truly under the hand of God as
on the cross. (3) Gethsemane was a scene of suffering pre-
eminently appointed of God, yet- Gethsemane was not the
cross. Christ suffered in many things with His people
while suffering for them. The fact that He who deserved
blessing suffered, proves that He suffered only as surety.

V. Thi7-d-class sufferings of Christ on the cross.

The Brethren have broached a recent heresy to the effect
that Christ was a sin-bearer only during, the last three of the
six hours of His suffering on the cross— namely, the hours of
darkness. One class of His sufferings was at the hands of
men ; another class was borne for the sake of a certain
Jewish remnant that is to appear in the latter day on earth.
These two classes of sufferings are not, according to the
Brethren, vicarious or atoning. His sufferings at the hand
of God are alone of this character. This latest heresy of
Brethrenism led to many of its leading teachers withdrawing
from Darbyism.

This new truth, as it is called, is drawn from a peculiar in-
terpretation of the Psalms, and especially of the sixty-ninth.

The theory is this : that atonement was wrought wholly by
" the drinking of the cup," when Christ was forsaken of
God, but that "smiting" (Psalm Ixix.) does not refer to
atonement at all. The smiting and the cutting off — which
is death — are said not to be atoning.* Mr. Darby con-
trasts Psalm xxii. with Psalm Ixix., and says that in the
former Christ stands alone, and therefore His sufferings

* Mr. Darby says: "I do not find that smiting is ever used for
atonement (though atonement also was wrought when He was smitten),
but for the cutting off of Messiah in connection with the Jews. For-
saking of His God is that which in Scripture expresses that work which
stands wholly alone." — Siifferiiigs of Christ.

" They take advantage of God's hand upon the sorrowing One to add
to His burden and grief. This is not atonement, but there is ' sin ' and

102

PIymo2ith BrethrenLni.

work atonement ; while in the latter others are associated
with Him (ver, 26), and therefore the suffering cannot be
atoning.

1. We ask, was the righteous God punishing His righteous
Son unrighteously? This He did, if He smote Him not
as a substitute. If Christ was smitten of God and cut off,
but not in atonement, did He deserve it or not? If not,
where is God's righteousness ? If He did, where is Christ's
perfectness ? If all this be true, how is man to be saved ?
And why should Christ suffer for Israel's apostacy — an
apostacy against which He protested and entreated, and in
which He had no share ? Christ is killed by God in con-
nection with apostates ! And not in atonement !

2. It is argued that because He suffered with others, His
sufferings cannot be atoning, as theirs are not atoning.
What an idea ! Christ and the two thieves suffered the
same death. Surely Christ's death was vicarious, and theirs
was not.

3. It is said Christ had " distress from sense of sin," not
in connection with the woik of expiation. In that case He
Avould be disqualified for being our propitiation. He con-
fesses foolishness and sin in Psalm Ixix. ; but it is done
vicariously.

4. Did the apostles ever teach that Christ endured sorrow
and smiting from God, and then add, " This is not atone-
ment " ? Did they ever say that, though Christ was " meet-
ing indignation and wrath, He was not yet drinking the
cup" — the cup of atoning judgment for our sins? Mr.
Darby admits that the doctrine is only to be found in the
Psalms. Is this not strange ? No apostle ever said, as the
Brethren now do, " The Lord Jesus Christ has done you a
kindness in the three hours of darkness."

VI. The Death of Christ utiatoning.

The Brethren further teach that it is not the death of
Christ, but His drinking the cup of wrath, that is really

' smiting from God.' Hence we find the sense of sin also (Psalm l.xix. 5\
though, of course, in the case of Christ, they were not His own person-
ally, but the nation's — in a certain sense we may say ours, but specially
the nation's sin. But we have clear proof that they are not atoning
sufferings." — Sn£a-mgs of Christ, pp. 71, 72.

Justification. 103

atoning. Mr. Darby says : " Now, that which was properly
expiation or atonement was not the pure, however precious,
act of Christ's death. Of course death was necessary for
this, as for other objects in the counsels of God ; but it is
what Jesus went through from and with God, when made
sin — it is what He sufiered for our sins, not only in body
but in soul, under Divine wrath, that the atonement depends
on. Ma?!)' besides Jesus have beeii crucified, but atonement
was in no way wrought there." — Bible Treasury, September,
1866, p. 137.

Thus the Brethren separate His sufferings from His
death. They assign atonement to the sufferings, and deny
it to the death, though we are expressly said to be " recon-
ciled to God by the deajji of His Son."

1. The cross was the means of Christ's death : " He made
peace through the blood of His cross." Yet a Brother says,
" The cross in itself would not take away sin."

2. Christ's bearing the curse of the law was death. He
"redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
curse for us ; for it is written. Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree" (Gal. iii. 13). Yet a Brother says,
"The thieves bore it as He did" — as if to prove that there
is no atonement here. Paul expressly attributes our redemp-
tion to His hanging on a tree.

3. J. is said, " That which was properly expiation or
atonement was not the pure, however precious, act of
Christ's death." This heresy is based on a certain interpre-
tation of the Psalms. But the question arises, Why did not
the apostles teach us this doctrine ? They had these very
Psalms, and were able to understand their application to
Christ as well as Mr. Darby. Yet they always persist in
representing Christ's death as atoning.

4. In opposition to the idea of an unatoning death, Christ
says : " I lay down my life for the sheep." Surely this
implies an atoning death.

5. Brethren say the atonement is not in the sufferings
inflicted upon Christ at the hands of men. We reply, the
Scriptures take little account of agency, and make much of
the fact itself It was men who " with wicked hands "
slew Him (Acts iii. 13—18); but Peter says, "But those

I04 Plymouth Byethrenisjii,

things which God before had showed by the mouth of His
prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled."
How? By human agency. This explodes the idea that
the sufferings on the cross, inflicted by the hands of men,
are to be distinguished from those directly from God's
hand, in order to show that the one was atoning and the
other not.

6. According to this theory, if Christ had left the cross,
after passing through the desertion and the darkness, without
dying, there would have been atonement.

VII. Justification in its relation to our future sins.

The Brethren teach that all our sins, past, present and
future, are forgiven at our conversion, and therefore they
maintain that Christians are wrong in praying for the pardon
of sin. We ought, they admit, to confess our sins to God,
but we must not pray for their forgiveness. They seem to
base their whole theory on one passage — Hebrews x. i, 2:
" For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, can never with those sacri-
fices which they offered year by year continually make the
comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have
ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once
purged should have had no more conscience of sins." Mr.
Macintosh says upon this passage : " If therefore I am once
' purged,' I have no need to be purged a second time. Is
the believer never to know what it is to have a perfectly
purged conscience ? Must he be ever asking to have his
sins put away ? God declares in the most absolute manner,
'Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.'
Should the believer, then, be pei-petually asking God to
forget what He says He will never remember ? " — Once
Purged, pp. I — 5.

This theory seems plausible, but it is quite opposed to
Scripture.

I. The Brethren confound atonement with forgiveness,
the securing of pardon with the application of it to indi-
viduals. The purchase of a gift is not equivalent to the
bestowal of it. "To put away sin" is not, as the Brethren
say, to forgive sin, but to atone for it. Atonement supplies
the ground of forgiveness, but is not. forgiveness itself.

Justification. 1 05

2. Mr. W. Kelly seems to hold that all our sins were
actually forgiven when Christ died. He says, " The Lord's
Prayer was not intended to be the expression even of the
same men when their whole standing and condition was
changed, when the tvork was done and all trespasses for-
given." This is to say that those who used the Lord's
Prayer were not forgiven till Christ died. It is likewise to
assert that none of the Old Testament saints were forgiven,
— contrary to Psalm xx.xii. — and that the woman in Simon's
house was not forgiven when Christ said, " Thy sins be
forgiven thee." But I deny that our sins were forgiven
when Christ died. They were atoned for, not forgiven,
(i) We were not in existence to commit sin. You cannot
expunge a debt till it has been contracted. (2) If all were
forgiven when Christ died, how could the individual par-
doned ever have been guilty ? "But we were not in exist-
ence to be atoned for." The cases are different. A father
can lay up property for his unborn son, but the son cannot
get it till he is born.

3. If all our sins are forgiven on our believing, as the
Brethren generally teach, why did David pray for forgiveness?
The apostle in Romans iv. 6 — xo shows that the blessedness
of the New Testament saint is exactly the same as that
of the Old Testament saint, in the matter of justification.
Why did Christ tell His disciples to say in the Lord's Prayer,
" Forgive us our trespasses " ? It was to be a daily petition
— not one used once for all — for it ti-as to accompany a
petition for daily bread. Why should believers ask for for-
giveness every day, since it came to them in all its fulness
on the day of their conversion ?

4. Hebrews iv. 16: "Let us therefore come boldly to
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy." — Why ask
for mercy already obtained on the day of conversion ? Mr.
Macintosh laments the darkness of Christians who say "We
are miserable sinners," and who ask Christ to "wash their
guilty, sin-stricken souls." Yet Paul was not ashamed to
confess he was " the chief of sinners."

5. If Christians are not to pray for forgiveness after their
conversion, and unbelievers, as Brethren teach, are not to
pray for forgiveness before conversion, it follows that pardon

io6 Plymouth Bi'etJwenism.

is never to be prayed for. Is this not strange ? Yet the
Psahns are full of such prayers.

6. James v. 15: "Even if he have committed sin, it
shall be forgiven him." — Here a believer is supposed to have
committed sin after conversion, and forgiveness is said to
follow its commission in the order of time.

7. The Brethren wholly misrepresent the meaning of
Hebrews x. i, 2. (i) The apostle does not here deny that
the Old Testament saints had a conscience perfected ; he
only denies that they had this perfection from the law. He
denies that sacrifices could make perfect. But what the law
could not do, the grace of the Surety did effect for Old
Testament saints. (2) Besides, the conscience of sins was
not of sin as accusing before God, but of sin as a thing yet
to be expiated on the cross, and not to be expiated by the
sacrifice of beasts. (3) Brethren seem to say that Old Testa-
ment saints had no peace of conscience. Yet they had the
full assurance of faith, gloried in their present grace (Psalm
iv. 3), and with the same assurance of hope expected future
glory. (Psalm xvii. 15, xxxii. 5, ciii. 10, 12, prove that
their conscience bore witness that their sins were forgiven.)
Mr. Macintosh admits that they had assurance. If, there-
fore, they continued the sacrifices from year to year, it was
not because they were partially purged, and the sacrifices
needed therefore to be repeated, but because the sacrifices
were designed to be a shadow of good things to come.

8. I John i. 9 : " If we confess our sins. He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness." — Here the forgiveness follows the confes-
sion, and the confession is admittedly that of saints after
conversion. How often do Brethren confess sins ? How
do they meet this decisive text? (i) By asserting, in the
face of the passage itself, that the reference is not to forgive-
ness, but to the sense of forgiveness. Mr. IMacintosh says :
" The moment he truly confesses his sin before God, it is
a simple matter of fact to know that he is perfectly forgiven."
Mark the italicized words. To be forgiven is not to know we
are forgiven. The one is a Divine act ; the other is a feehng
in our hearts. (2) They assert that the passage does not say
" If we pray for pardon," but " If we confess our sins." Was

Justification.

1C7

there ever a more miserable quibble ? The Old Testament
saints confessed their sins and prayed for the pardon of them,
as we know by the passage (Ps. xxxii. 5) quoted by Paul to
prove the identity of our position with theirs : " I acknow-
ledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid.
I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and
Thou forgavest me the iniquity of my sin. For this shall
every one that is godly pray unto Thee." (See also
Hosea v. 15 — "I will go and return to my place till they
acknowledge their offence and seek my face." Here the
confession and the prayer are linked together.)

There is not the kast foundation, then, for a theory that
has banished from the Brethren's assemblies, not only
prayer for pardon, but all confession of sin along with
it. The Rev. F. Whitfield, speaking on an acquaintance
of twelve years," says there is no confession of sin in their
public prayers.

io8 Piyviouih Brethroiisin.

CHAPTER III.

FAITH.

'PHE Brethren hold the old Sandemanian doctrine, that
J- faith is only belief of testimony. It is the belief of
God's testimony concerning Christ. They hold likewise
that assurance is of the essence of faith. Faith is therefore
simply believing "that Christ died for me."* The two
doctrines, indeed, stand together. The doctrine that faith
consists in believing that we are justified has its origin
in the doctrine that faith consists wholly in a belief of
propositions. The Brethren regard faith as being solely
conversant with propositions, and not directed to Christ
Himself; and they view trust in Christ, not as faith, but as
the fruit of it, in the same sense in which peace, love and

* The Brethren regard their view of faith as so axiomatic that they
do not trouble themselves to defend it. At least, I can find no contro-
versial treatise or tract on the subject in any of their catalogues. The
only thmg I have discovered is two little leaflets, entitled "What is
faith ? " and "Faith and Life," which prove the Brethren to be Sande-
manians. The first tract says: " Tliere is nothing like the simple
certainty of faith. ' He that hath received his testimony hath set to his
seal that God is true.' I assume that I am a person in an anxious state
of soul, and wanting to get certainty of life possessed. I look at the
testimony of God. There I get absolute certainty. I say, ' God is
true.' This is faith. ... It is only to believe. Faith produces all manner
of fruit in us: there is wondrous power in it ; but still it is only lo
believe, — that is all. Just as though you had been deeply in debt, and
some kind friend had paid the amount, and when that was done had
sent you word. The person comes and tells you that your debts are
paid, and you believe it." The other tract says: "Believing on His
Son — believing what God tells me of His Son — I have life. It is
not tnie that all will be justified. It is certain that all that believe are
justified from all things. How do they know it ? God has spoken in
His Word, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of
God. This is the essence of faith."

Faith. log

obedience are fruits. But in that case, trust in Christ has
nothing to do with saving the soul, any more than peace,
love or obedience. It is mere belief that saves. The
Brethren, in a word, make the promise, rather than the
person of Christ, to be the formal object of faith, while the
majority of Christians believe the promise to be the warrant
and Christ the object of faith.
We have two points to consider.

I. We shall prove that faith is not mere belief of the
truth, but includes also trust or reliance on Christ.

1. The verb believe and the noun faith occur upwards of
fifty times in the New Testament with the preposition m
(on or in) governing the object of them, as in the passage
^ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ " ; and in not one of
these instances is that object a proposition to be believed.
Again, the same words occur nineteen times construed with
the conjunctive on {that), as in the passage " Believe that
I came forth from God " ; and in all these cases the
object is a proposition either expressed or implied. Further,
in the fifty cases referred to, there is nothing in the context
(except in one instance) leading us necessarily to refer to
any particular proposition to be believed ; while, with other
constructions, there is frequently allusion to some statement
or testimony. For example, when Paul said to the jailer,
" Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," did he exhort him
merely to believe that such a person existed ? Brethren
say — " Yes ; and that he might confide in Him for salva-
tion." Very well : but where do you get the idea of this
confidence, if it is not in the word " believe " ?

2. The word "faith" is of rare occurrence in the Old
Testament ; yet the Old Testament saints believed in the
Lord just as we do. It is significant that the word " trust "
is the usual one to express their faith. Does not this imply
that faith includes trust ?

3. Unless faith is taken to include trust or confidence,
there is not a single exhortation to trust or rely on the Lord
in the whole New Testament — which must seem extraordinary
to any one who reflects that this trust or reliance was con-
stantly inculcated on the Jews.

4. Faith and belief are not synonymous terms. Faith

no

Plymo u th BntJi ren isui .

always rests on the belief of certain facts as its foundation,
while yet the belief of these facts is altogether different from
the faith or confidence which is built upon them. You
trust a man with your goods. Your trust rests on a belief
that he is an honest and solvent man ; but the belief of
these facts expresses no confidence in him, but rather in
those who gave you the information. We may believe a
report and not act upon it. So we may believe God's
testimony concerning Christ, as thousands of sinners do :
yet we may not trust in Him for salvation. Thus, the belief
of facts is the foundation of faith or confidence ; but it is
not faith itself as a whole.

5. It is said that trust follows faith, as there are two
Greek words for faith and trust — proving evidently that faith
is distinct from trust. But the fact that there is a word in
Scripture for trust is not inconsistent with the idea that the
word faith includes trust. Trust stands for a certain state
of mind, independently of its foundation. But while trust is
an essential part of the meaning of faith — for our belief in
a man's testimony implies trust in his veracity — it is equally
essential that this trust should be built on the promises of
God.*

II. We come next to show that faith does not consist in
believing that " Christ died for me." The Brethren assert
that they believe this on Divine testimony. They set to
their seal that God is true. The Bible tells them their debt
is paid, and, therefore, faith is merely crediting the testimony
of God to this effect. But—

I. A man may firmly credit the testimony of God, and
yet doubt whether he is himself a believer, though he is
perfectly sure that Christ will save all true believers. If he
shows himself to be an unsaved person by his life, then the
more entirely he credits the Divine testimony, the greater

* It is significant that in the account of faith which Paul gives in
Hebrews xi. l — "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen " — faith is here regarded as more than
simple belief. It is confidence or trust. O'Brien says faith is here
"the confident expectation of things for which we hope, and a con-
viction of their existence, though they be not seen." So nearly all
commentators.

Faith.

I [ r

reason will he have to call his own state in question. When
Paul stood in doubt of the Galatians, did he mean to doubt
God's testimony ? or, did he not rather doubt whether
they were true believers ? The position of the Brethren is
simply this — " I believe that I am a believer." But if this
is true faith, it follows that we cannot deceive ourselves, for
the more firmly a man believes that he is a believer, the
stronger must his faith be. If this be so, there can be
no need for the Scriptural exhortations to self-examination,
or for warnings against self-deception. Paul said to the
Galatians — " Let no man deceive himself" The sum of
the whole matter is that the man is safest who thinks himself
most safe.

2. You say you have the Divine testimony to the fact
that Christ died for you, and that you ought no more to
question it than you question the fact of the Deluge. Are
the cases, however, exactly alike ? We know by Scripture
that there was a Deluge, but Scripture has nowhere told
A B that his sins are forgiven. No man's name is inserted
in Scripture as names are inserted in wills or grants. To
discover, therefore, whether you are the person to whom the
blessings of salvatioh belong, you must inquire whether your
state- and character correspond to those described in the
promises. The invitations are offered to all, even to the
chief of sinners, but they alone become interested in them
who embrace them. The feast of the kingdom is not yours
merely on the ground that you are invited to it.

3. Nothing but the express intention of Christ to save all
men, without exception, could warrant a sinner, while a
sinner, to believe that Christ died for him and will assuredly
save him. If the Brethren held the doctrine of universal
pardon, like Erskine of Linlathen, they could consistently
enough hold their peculiar doctrine of faith. But they do
not hold it. Yet they argue as if they did, as we see
by an extract taken from one of the leaflets quoted before.
If they tell people that their debt is paid — as they certainly
do in the leaflet — they tell them, in efi'ect, that they are
saved — saved, too, before they believe, and without believ-
ing. The Brethren, in fact, require the sinner to believe a
lie in order to salvation — that is, to believe he is pardoned

112

Plyjiiouik Bnihrmisin.

when he is not. He is not pardoned, for he is " condemned
already." They require him to beHeve he is pardoned before
he beUeves. Now, he is either pardoned or unpardoned. If
he is unpardoned before he beUeves, his behef brings him
into a new state ; if he is pardoned, it is absurd to speak of
him as coming into a new state. On their principle., how
could God punish the unbeliever in hell for having refused
to believe ? He would be punished for not believing that
God had pardoned him ; yet he knows in hell he never
was pardoned. Besides, the debt Christ paid for the sinner
includes the sin of unbelief, or it does not. If it does, the
debt cannot be paid and remain due at the same time.
On Brethren's principles, faith is utterly impossible ; for
the soul would be required to accept the proposition —
" I am saved " — in ofder to be saved. Yet every sinner
comes to Christ as lost, and not saved. Such a faith is
as unreasonable as to require a man to bring himself into
existence in order to exist. Therefore, unless there is a
special revelation that God has saved A B, he cannot
have a rational belief that God has saved him, save as
an inference from the gospel promise that God will save
all who believe.

4. If saving faith consists in being sure of our interest
in Christ, why should we be directed to give diligence
to obtain as well as preserve the full assurance of hope ?
(Heb. vi. 11; 2 Peter i. 10.) Such advice is unnecessary
to those who have this assurance already.

5. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves whether we
be in the faith, and supplies us with tests such as love
of the Brethren, etc., by which we may settle the question
to our satisfaction, (i John v. 2, iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ;
2 Peter i. 10.) The Brethren object, however, to the whole
doctrine of evidences, (i) They may object to evidences,
but in reality they themselves always look for evidence
of some kind. They trust in impressions, or visions, or
dreams. Assurance itself will be made an evidence of
saving faith. (2) Paul supposes the possibility of self-
deception at Galatia. (Gal. vi. 3.) (3) Brethren say that
holy duties or holy affections, even love of the Brethren,
may deceive us, and be in hypocrites. But so may faith

Faith.

113

deceive us. Are there not false faiths is well as false loves ?
Are there no dead faiths? May I not fancy I have the
immediate peace of believing when it is a different peace ?
Brethren say we forsake faith when we try to ascertain by
tests that we are the children of God. But these tests are
Divine testimony in themselves ; for the Spirit witnesses
with {crvixfxapTvpel)—not to — our spirits, that we are the
children of God. Our consciences must bear their testi-
mony. It cannot be blank.

6. If there is no faith where there is no assurance of
salvation, then spiritual life is suspended while the assu-
rance is in abeyance. For faith is indispensable to the
continued life of the soul : " The life I now live in the
flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God " (Gal. ii. 20).

It is clear, then, that the doctrine of the Brethren has no
foundation in God's Word. They may continue to repeat
their favourite saying that to doubt we are saved is to
make God a liar ; for they must know perfectly well that
the doubting which Scripture condemns is not doubting
our own safety, but doubting whether what God has said be
true.

This doctrine of the Brethren is only calculated to dis-
courage feeble saints and to nourish the pride of hypocrites.
I. Faith and Repentance.

The Brethren's view of faith as a mere belief of testimony
leads them to adopt a peculiar view of repentance.* Their
doctrine is that a sinner does not really repent till after he
has believed. If they mean that, in the order of nature, but
not of time, faith precedes repentance, I do not dispute their

* There is a little uncertainty as to tlieir views about repentance.
Some Brethren hold that it is nothing but a change of mind. But the
majority, including Mr. Darby, hold that it is, in the words of Mr. F. G.
Patterson, "the judgment we form of ourselves and alf in ourselves
under the effect of God's testimony which we have believed." Mr. Darby
says of it: "Habitually, in its use in Scripture, it is the judgment I
form in God's sight of my own previous conduct and sentiments conse-
quent on the reception of God's testimony, in contrast with my previous
natural course of feeling." Again : " It is not the sorrow itself. This
works repentance, if it is godly sorrow, and is not regret or remorse
(that is fxeTa/xeXfia, not neravola.) — words used sometimes one for
another, but not in Scripture." (Tract on Repentance.) Mr. Darby is

8

1 1 4 Plymouth Breihrcnism.

doctrine ; but they separate faith from repentance, so as to
lead to the supposition that they are not both necessary to
forgiveness.

We hold that faith and repentance are necessarily con-
nected with a view to forgiveness. Faith in Christ is trust
in Him and His work. But for it to be genuine it is neces-
sary we should feel our need of redemption. Bishop
O'Brien well says that faith is not the act of one careless
about the interests of his immortal soul, with little sense of
guilt and little fear of punishment.

1. Repentance is so connected with faith, and so in-
separable from it, that it stands before the blotting out of
our sins. " Repent and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out." Brethren say repentance comes after, not
before, the blotting out of sins. Consult such Scriptures
as — "If peradventure God will give them repentance to
the acknowledging of the truth." "Repent and believe the
gospel." In fact, true repentance always accompanies the
first actings of faith. In Isaiah Iv. 6, 7, there is no idea of
forgiveness and the comfort of it preceding any degree of
true repentance. True repentance is a believing repentance,
and true faith is a penitent faith. A general belief as to
God's mercy and readiness to forgive seems essential to
genuine repentance.

2. Which, then, is first — faith or repentance ? It seems as
absurd to ask the question as to dispute whether a garment
is washed or made clean first. It in fact becomes clean in
the process of washing. So, when we lay aside our unbelief,
we do so in the exercise of repentance ; and when we turn
from sin to God in repentance, we do it by faith in Christ.

It is 1 y faith we come to see our guilt and danger. We
do not say that faith is a modification of repentance, but
only that the transition from unbelief to faith takes place in

quite wrong in saying that these two Greek words are not interchange
able in Scripture. Any Greek concordance will settle this point.
Girdlestone says: " The distinction between /uera^eXeia, regret, and
ii.iro.voia, reconsideration, which Beza held, must not be pressed very
far, because, as we have seen, these words are used in almost the same
sense in LXX." {Old Testament Synonymes, p. 148). The Brethren
seem to hold repentance to be a mere intellectual review of ourselves
and our conduct.

Faith.

115

one of those changes ol thought and feeling called re-
pentance.

II. Faith a7id Prayer.

The Brethren have a curious opinion that unconverted
persons ought not to pray for salvation, but to take it with-
out prayer. They say truly enough there can be no true
prayer without faith, and they therefore infer that it is
absurd to counsel a sinner to pray for salvation before he
has faith.* They argue, further, that to urge the duty of
prayer before believing is to ask the sinner to work out his
own salvation.

All evangelical divines regard prayer as the expression to
faith, and not merely as a duty flowing from it.

Let us examine this very plausible opinion of the
Brethren.

1. It is the duty of an unconverted man to pray, as it is
his duty to believe. His unbelief is no excuse for the
neglect of this duty. (Acts viii. 21 — 23; Isa. Iv. 6, 7; Ps.
Ixv. 21.) Why, otherwise, is the neglect of prayer charged
as his sin? (Zeph. i. 6; Hosea vii. 7 ; Jer. x. 21, 25.) In
fact, if a sinner ought not to pray, he is justifiable in break-
ing the whole law of God, and equally justifiable in neglect-
ing salvation itself " But does not Scripture say that the
sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord ?
Yes; and everything else that he does. "The ploughing
of the wicked is sin " — is he not to plough ? In fact, he
should neither eat nor drink, any more than pray, for he is
required to do these common acts " to the glory of God '
(i Cor. X. 31) — which he cannot possibly do in unbelief.
Thus, on Brethren's principles, no man should do any duty —
obey his parents, or do justice to his neighbours — till he is a
believer.

2. The Brethren say the sinner ought not to pray, but
to take salvation without it. What is the difference ? Is it
possible to take salvation without desiring it? And is
not prayer the expression of this desire ? The application
of the soul to Christ for salvation seems to be as essentially

* " He will see that disciples are exhorted to pray, and he will note
that it is only disciples that are exhorted."— /"ra^'fr in its Proper Place,
r- 5-

ii6 Plyviouth Breth7'enisvi.

prayer, and as inseparable from it, as the motion of the
lungs from the act of breathing, or that of the heart from
pulsation. But if a sinner takes salvation before he prays,
and does so because he has not faith to pray, he is saved
before he has faith, and he is not of course justified by faith.
The Brethren counsel the sinner against praying, because
prayer implies faith, and yet exhort him to take salvation,
which is impossible without faith. On their principles a
sinner can never either believe or pray.

3. If a man ought not to pray before conversion, he
ought to know, or rather be sure, of his conversion before he
prays ; for if he be not sure of his conversion, he cannot be
sure whether he should pray or not. But, after all, how
can we tell whether a man has faith to pray or not, but by
his actually praying? Let every man be exhorted to pray,
as he is exhorted to believe. Peter told Simon Magus, still
" in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity," to
"repent of his wickedness and pray God if, perhaps, the
thought of his heart might be forgiven him." Brethren say
that Peter bids him to repent, and the least measure of that
fits for prayer. But Peter bids him not to repent in order
to prayer, but to repent and pray in order to pardon. What
folly it would have been to tell the diseased who crowded to
Jesus at Jerusalem of His power to heal, and then dissuade
them from asking a cure till it was ascertained that they
thoroughly believed all that had been told them ! Surely,
their asking Jesus was the proper evidence that they really
did believe in Him. Did not our Lord say to the woman
of Samaria, — " If thou knewest the gift of God .... thou
wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given
thee living water "?

4. But Brethren argue that we put the sinner in a way of
working out his own salvation, if we encourage him to pray
at all. "It might be a sufficient answer to say that the sinner
is encouraged by God Himself to call upon Him : " Thou,
Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy
unto all that call upon Thee" (Ps. Ixxxvi. i — 7); "How
shall they call on Him of whom they have not heard?"
(Rom. X. 10 — 14). But is there any weight in the Brethren's
objection ? Did Naaman the Syrian cure his own leprosy

Faith.

117

when he bathed in Jordan? Did the paralytic man cure
himself when he took up his bed and walked ? Did Lazarus
raise himself from the dead, when he arose at Christ's word
and came forth out of the sepulchre ? Does the beggar who
asks an alms work for his bread ? According to Brethren, it
is impossible to give the beggar a free gift, unless he lie still
as a stone till we put it into his mouth or his pocket. The
gift loses its freeness the moment he begins to ask for it.

ii8

Ply7noidh Byethre7nsm.

CHAPTER IV.

SANCTIFICATION.

n^HE Brethren are generally believed to hold Perfectionist
doctrine, and to deny a practical and progressive holi-
ness in the believer. This is a mistake. They do not hold
that sanctification is not in one sense progressive, or that
the believer does not commit sin. But they do undoubtedly
lay such a stress upon " sanctification in Christ," as " an im-
mediate, complete, and eternal work " — ^just as complete as
justification itself — and throw the practical work of holiness
so much into the background in their treatises and tracts,
that they have the appearance of sanctioning all the ex-
travagance of the Perfectionist theology. As a writer says :
" There have been certain Brethren who have enlarged upon
our being sanctified in Christ, and have almost forgotten the
work of the Spirit."

They hold, then, that we are perfectly sanctified, as we
are perfectly justified, in Christ ; that there is a sanctification
of the Spirit before we are justified; and that the Spirit
does not improve our old nature, which cannot be changed
or mended, but implants an entirely new nature, which can-
not sin. They believe also that the saint makes progress in
holiness, but they do not explain how there can be progress
in a being with two antagonistic natures, each of them in-
capable of change. They say the churches deny " sanctifi-
cation in Christ," while setting poor weak saints upon the
device of mending their old corrupt nature which cannot be
mended.

This is the Brethren's doctrine on sanctification.*

* "It is an important truth in its own place that the progressive
work of holiness proceeds after we are justified. But what is sanctifica-

Sanctification.

119

I. They quote a few texts to prove that sanctification is
used in Scripture, and especially in the Epistle to Hebrews,
to mean consecration, separation, or setting apart ; as it is
undoubtedly used in reference to the priest, the altar, and
all the holy things of the older dispensation. We admit as
fully as they do that the word " sanctify " sometimes has
this sense in the New Testament — as where Christ says, " In
their behalf I sanctify myself" But we deny that this is its
general signification. In all but a few passages it means
personal purity. The word aytacr/tos, sanctification, has this
meaning, as Brethren themselves admit, in eight out of the
ten instances in which it is used in the New Testament.
But we totally dissent from the view that sanctification in
the first sense is represented in Scripture as preceding justifi-
cation. They quote i Corinthians vi. 11 — "But ye are
washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Here,
they say, the order is washing, sanctification, justification.
We answer that justification is here placed last as presenting
the weightiest thought, and washing first because the apostle
had just been referring to Corinthian impurities. If the
Brethren insist on the order, why do they say that repent-
ance follows faith, when it is said, " Repent and believe the
gospel"? They quote also i Peter i. 2 — " Elect according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father in santification of

tion of the Spirit before we are justified ? And why is it that theologians
or preachers never say a word about this ? " — W. Kelly, True SancCi-
f cation, p. 25.

' ' The word of God never once teaches us that the Holy Ghost has
for His object the improvement, either gradual or otherwise, of our old
nature — that nature which we inherit by natural birth from fallen
Adam." — Perfection: Where is it ? p. 35.

"There is no cleansing of the old nature, no mending of old Adam ;
we have got the new nature that cannot sin ; the flesh is there ; but the
new nature is a sinless nature." — Darby, Notes on I John, p. 49.

" Sanctification is not merely a progressive work wrought in us by the
Holy Spirit, but it is one result of our being linked to Christ by faith,
whereby we become partakers of all that He is. This is an immediate,
a complete, and an eternal work." — Sanctification: What is it 1 p. 10.
[This contradicts Mr. Kelly's statement that sanctification precedes
justification ; for this writer makes sanctification a result of our being
linked to Christ by faith.]

120

Ply •Jiiou ih B.} -eth ; v;/ isvi .

the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Christ." Here, they say, we are sanctified that we might be
justified. Brethren will not surely maintain that Christian
obedience precedes justification ; yet this is the exact order
of the passage. The "sprinkling of the blood," in allusion to
the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices under the law
(Heb. ix. 13, 14), refers to the continued cleansing of the
behever, as it is presented in i John i. 7 : "If we walk in
the light .... the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth
us from all sin." Sanctification here does not precede
justification. Brethren also quote John xvii. 19 — "And for
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sancti-
fied through the truth " — as explanatory of the previous
prayer — "Sanctify them through thy truth." It cannot
mean " sanctify " in the Brethren's sense, for those for
whom He prayed were already justified. It refers either
to consecration to apostolic service, or to personal holiness.
They quote likewise 2 Thess. ii. 13 — "Because God hath
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sancti-
fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Here, they
say, the order is sanctification first, and then faith as the
instrument of justification. We have already seen that the
order of the words establishes nothing as to the succession
of the things they designate. Yet it is right to say that
regeneration precedes faith, and regeneration is the begin-
ning of the work of sanctification ; but sanctification is made
in Scripture to apply to the progress of a work which is not
only distinct from justification, but uniformly represented
as subsequent to it in Christian history.

We object, then, to anything like a revival of tiie old
Antinomian doctrine of " Imputed Sanctification." The
term is inaccurate and unscriptural. We know that the
Lord Jesus is made to us "sanctification" (i Cor. i. 30),
but this sanctification is not by imputation, nor does the
text say so. We might as readily prove imputed wisdom or
imputed redemption from this text. The Brethren, in fact,
use the word sanctification in such a manner as to make it
tantamount to justification, and they accordingly lay no
stress upon personal and practical holiness.

II. We shall now consider the Brethren's theory of the

Sandification.

12 1

new nature. Regeneration, they say, is not a change of
the old nature, but the introduction of a new : nor does the
introduction of the new alter, the essential character of the
old, which continues what it was, and is made in no respect
better.

1. There is not a passage in the New Testament where
regeneration is called the implanting of a new nature beside
the old, or where the renewed man is represented as
possessing two hostile natures. Paul does say, I see
another law" — not another nature or another man — "in
my members warring against the law of my mind." He
speaks of " the flesh lusting against the Spirit," — that is,
the Holy Spirit, not our spirit, — for he is not here (Gal.
V. 17) showing the fruit of the Spirit and the works of
the flesh as combined during life in one Christian, but he
points to these contrasted works and fruits as tests to dis-
tinguish Christians from reprobates. The apostle teaches
everywhere tliat the renewed man is imperfect, having two
principles of volition mixed in the motives of the same acts ;
but he does not teach that he has become two men or two
natures. " But the old nature is unchanged." We ask, Is
there change at all in regeneration? and what is it that
is changed ? Several passages are decisive upon the point.
(Col. i. 21, 22 ; Eph. iv. 23, ii. i, 5, 10.) Brethren reply
that Scripture says the sinful man is renewed, but not that
the old nature is renewed. True : because Scripture is
accurate. But it does not say that the man has two natures.
The fact is, depravity grows in sinners as holiness grows
in saints.

2. Brethren confidently quote Ephesians iv. 22 — 24 :
" That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt according
to the deceitful lusts . . . and that ye put on the new man."
Well, if this is to be literally understood, the two do not
dwell together ; because the old is put away, the new takes
its place. They are not co-existent, but successive. The
fact is, the Brethren are Realists in philosophy, giving actual
entity, not to say personality, to the carnal and renewed
natures.

3. Let us now ask, What does the Spirit sanctify?
Not the old man, for he cannot be mended ; not the new

I 22

Plymouth Brethrenism,

man, for he is perfect and sinless. Brethren thus get rid
of the Spirit's sanctifying work altogether. Above all,
where is there room in this system for progressive holiness ?
The new nature is perfect : it cannot advance in holiness.
The old nature is unchangeable : holiness cannot apply to it
in any sense or degree.

4. The Brethren's doctrine frees the saint from all
responsibility for sin committed. The new man cannot sin.
They quote, " It is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me." Do Brethren therefore infer that sin in a
believer is not sin at all ? Paul does not deny his respon-
sibility or his personality. There were two conflicting
elements in him, but one responsible self. But Brethren do
not deny that they sin : which nature, then, is it that is
responsible? Perhaps the old. Then, is it the old that
gets the pardon, and that is washed in the blood ?

5. This doctrine prepares the way for the singular
absence of all confession of sin in the public worship of
the Brethren. Is there not some secret or tacit denial of
sin altogether, as in any sense adhering to the believer ?

III. The true doctrine of Scripture is that sanctification
is a progressive work. It is the Spirit's work to apply
Christ's redemption, and His operation in justification and
sanctification begins at one and the same moment. The
moment a soul is justified, it is set apart to the Lord. The
separation is continuous all through life. Holiness proceeds
from stage to stage, as we naturally infer from the images of
Scripture, — the vine, the plant of corn, the living body, the
infant. (Heb. vi. i; Eph. iv. 11 — 16; 2 Peter i. 5 — 10;
2 Thess. i. 3 ; Phil. iii. 14 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18, iv. 16; i Thess.
V. 23.)

CHAPTER V.

THE LAW AS A RULE OF LIFE.

THE Brethren teach that the law given on Sinai was for
Jews, not for Gentiles, and that Christ's death has
abrogated it totally and finally. They maintain, therefore,
in the words of Mr. Darby, that " the men before jMoses,
the Gentiles since, and Christians now, are not under law.
Christians are not under the law in any sense ; for they
are not under the law, but under grace.'"' If a Christian
puts himself under the law, he is under the curse ; for the
law cannot but curse all who are under it. The Brethren
hold that the law makes no distinction between a regenerate
and an unregenerate man; and they deny that Scripture
sanctions the distinction made by divines between the law
as a way of justification and the law as a rule of life. The
only rule of life to a believer is Christ Himself

The Brethren hold two inconsistent views on this subject.
They say the law was wholly abrogated by the death of
Christ : then they say the law was not abrogated, but that
we are not under it. Mr. Darby says, in his Tract on
Law: "The apostle (in 2 Cor. iii.) sets aside the dis-
pensation of the law,, referring specifically to the ten
commandments, and yet mixes up the whole system with
them as inseparable, as parts of one great whole, to the end
of which Israel could not look, and which was abolished."
The same tract says : " The law is not abrogated, but we
are not under it. It is good, if a man use it lawfully ; but
it is not made for the righteous, but for the ungodly and
profane." Which statement are we to receive ? The Darbyite
argument, with all the array of Scripture texts adduced to
support it, is that the law is no longer in force ; but all
through their tracts they argue that it is still in existence to
condemn unbelievers. If the law was abrogated ^er se by

1^4 Plymouth Breihrenhui,

Christ's death, it cannot now be in force, even to condemn
unbelievers.

I. The Bret /ire fi hold that there was no law till the Decalogue
was given on Sinai.

Brethren do not deny that there was sin in the world
during this period ; but it was not the transgression of law,
— only lawlessness. Adam himself was not under law, either
before he fell or after it. Dr.. Davis says : " Respon-
sibility and moral obligation exist independently of law.
Adam had these in the garden of Eden, and in breaking
them brought in sin. Sin is defined in i John iii. 4 (which
]\Ir. Darby translates — ' whoso commits sin commits lawless-
ness ; and sin is lawlessness '). Sin is lawlessness, referring
to a state, not an act. Transgression is the breaking of a
given law. Till the law, sin {i.e. lawlessness) was in the
world, though not transgression (Rom. v. 13)."* There are
many errors here. We observe — (i) that Paul does not
regard sin as merely lawlessness ; for he says that " sin is not
imputed when there is no law" (Rom. v. 13,). Yet it was
imputed, for death reigned ; therefore there was a law. Sin
and law are correlates of each other : to be without law is
to be without sin. (2) It argues profound ignorance of moral
science to say that there can be responsibility and moral
obligation independently of law. What is meant by Adam's
breaking responsibility and moral obligation, and thereby
bringing in sin ? Is it meant that a child's violation of his
father's command will exempt him from responsibility and
moral obligation ? Is this sound philosophy ? (3) But if
Adam's act in Paradise brought him into a state of lawless-
ness— that is, into a state without law — was not that his state
already ? How, then, could there be any change in his
state ? Mr. Darby says, " A law to love God does not suit
innocence." Why not ? Does innocence not need to know
what it ought to do ? The idea of innocence implies law ;
for where there is no law there is no transgression. If
Adam was put under no law, it is simply absurd to speak of
his innocence. Let us ask, — If Adam had told a lie, even
though he had not eaten the forbidden fruit, would he not

* ILIp to In J II i IT IS.

The Law as a Rule of Life. 125

have sinned? It is expressly said that "God made man
{Adam) upright" {yas/tar — Eccles. vii. 29): a word that
ahvays has relation to law.

But take the case of all who li\-ed before Moses. Let
us ask, Who were redeemed from the law's curse, — Jews
or Gentiles? Both. Then, Gentiles, and all under the
patriarchal dispensation, must have been under the curse of
the law as well as Jews. Paul says expressly that both are
under law : " What things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law ; that ez'ery mouth may be
stopped and all the world may become guilty before God "
(Rom. iii. 19). Dr. Davis says there was no transgression
in the world before Moses ; but Paul says the " law was
added because of transgressions," — that is, the transgressions
were already in being when the positive law appeared. It
seems to be forgotten that Noah's precepts were given ages
before Moses. The violation of these surely involved
transgression.

II. The Brethren teach that believers are not under the law
in any sense. *

I. The Brethren always argue as if we held that life came
to us by the law. Mr. Darby actually says, in reference to
the law given to Israel : " It was given to have life by, but
was found, from man's sinful state, to be death." t There is
not the least foundation in Scripture for this opinion, any
more than for the stereotyped misrepresentation of the
Brethren that we regard the law as giving us life. We are
saved by grace, not by law.

* "As many as are of its works -on the principle of it : its works
are not bad ones — are under a curse (Gal. iii. lo). That is, law means,
in the apostle's teaching, something else than a rule or measure of con-
duct. It is a principle of dealing with men which necessarily destroys
and condemns them. This is the way the Spirit of God uses law in
contrast with Christ, and never in Christian teaching puts men under it,
but carefully shows how they are delivered from it, are no longer under
it; nor does Scripture ever think of saying. You are not under the law
in one way, but you are in another : you are, not for justification, but
you are as a rule of life." — Mr. Darby on Laio.

t Another Brother says that when the Israelites at Sinai answered
to Moses, who had reported the Lord's message on the mount, "All
that the Lord hath spoken will we do," they virtually renounced their
blessed position under the covenant of promise {Notes on Exodus,

126 Plymouih Brethrcnism.

2. It is argued that the law cannot but curse all who are
under it, and as believers are not under curse, therefore
they are not under law. We answer — (i) Scripture says
that " as many as are of the works of the law are under the
curse " (Gal. iii. lo). Who are they? The apostle places
in contrast those " who are of the works of the law " and
those " who are of faith " — that is, unbelievers and believers.
Believers are not of " those who are " of the works of the
law, though they are "under law to God" (i Cor. ix. 20).
Therefore the curse cannot reach them. (2) Brethren
admit that pious Israelites, like Samuel and David, were
under law ; yet they were not under curse I How can this
be, if all under the law are under curse? Were pious
Israelites not bound to obey the law ? If they were bound,
why were they not under curse for their disobedience ? This
argument can only be evaded by denying that there were
any believers at all among the Israelites. Will the Brethren
seriously tell us how the Old Testament saints differ from
the New Testament saints in their relation to law ? If Old
Testament saints could be under the law and yet not under
curse, because they were under the promise — that is, under
the covenant of grace — why should not New Testament
saints, saved by grace, be under law likewise, as a rule of
life, without being overtaken by the curse ? What difference
was there between David's sin and Peter's sin, in relation to
the law ? If David was bound to keep the ten command-
ments, including the seventh, are not New Testament saints
similarly bound ? Does not James settle this point when
he says, " He that said Do not commit adultery, said also,
Do not kill" (James ii. 11), and says this, too, to Christians?
Why, too, should God remind His people of His great love
in giving them the law (Deut. iv. 7, 8), if its only effect was
to curse them? Why should He promise to write this "cursing

p. 232). They undertook, it is said, the most presumptuous vow that
mortal lips could utter. How is it, then, that their answer is commended
in Deuteronomy v. 28, 29, where'God actually says, " The people had
well said all they had spoken " ! There are people wiser than God.
Brethren forget that Israel knew nothing of law except in connection
with promise and blessing. The grace was earlier than law even for
them.

TJie Law as a Rule of Life. 127

thing " in the hearts of His people (Heb. viii. 10) ? (3) Paul
says he is " not without law to God " (i Cor. ix. 20). Why
was he not under curse ? He says again, " I myself serve
(8oi;X€voo) the law of God" (Rom. vii. 25). Why, again,
was he not under curse ?

3. It is argued that Scripture makes no distinction be-
tween the law as a way of justification and the law as a rule
of life. The distinction existed in Old Testament times,
because, as we have seen, pious IsraeUtes were under it for
guidance, and yet were not cursed. We shall presently prove
that it existed in New Testament times. Brethren quote in
favour of their views Romans vi. 14 — "Ye are not under
the law, but under grace." I admit there is no reference
here to the two dispensations of law and grace, (i) The
passage proves nothing for the Brethren ; for, whatever it
means, it was as true of pious Israelites like David as of
pious Christians like Paul, — they were " not under the law,
but under grace," any more than Christians now — else, how
could they have been saved ? Will Brethren say that this
passage marks the difference between Old Testament and
New Testament saints? If so, then no Old Testament
saint was ever either saved or sanctified. (2) If the passage
implies that Christians are not under the guidance of the
law, then it equally implies that they are not under any
guidance at all — not even that of Scripture — for grace is not
guidance, but only supplies the power to follow guidance.
The law is the guide ; it is grace that disposes and enables
us to obey it. Brethren always confound the rule of obedi-
ence with the spring or motive that leads to it. The error is
just the same as to confound the steam-power that drives
the engine with the iron track along which it travels. (3) If
w^e are not under law for guidance, then why should Roman
Christians (Rom. xiii. 8), and Ephesian Christians (Eph. vi.
I — 3), and Christians in general (James ii.), be referred to
the law as a rule of life and conduct ? (4) The passage
means, " Ye are not under the law as a condition of salva-
tion, but under a system of free grace." Thus sin cannot
have dominion, for "grace reigns through righteousness
unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." " To say
that law here is the legal dispensation, is to say that all who

128 Plymouth Brcthrejihm.

lived under the law of Moses were under the dominion of
sin." (Haldane.)

4. Mr. Darby says: "No Christian supposes he is at
liberty to kill or steal. That is not the question. But does
"he refrain from killing or stealing because it is forbidden in
the law? Every true Christian, I am persuaded, will answer
No, though he recognises the prohibition as quite right [in
itself, but not as having relation to him]. The man who
refrained from killing simply because it was forbidden in the
law would be no Christian at all." (i) Mr. Darby here
shirks the question of obligation altogether. If a Christian
kills, does he commit no sin, in the face of James ii. 11
saying, " If thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the
law " ? How can the prohibition have no relation to him, if
he can still become a transgi-essor of the law? (2) Mr.
Darby confounds the love to God that restrains from sin with
the authority of the lawgiver that forbids it. The Old Testa-
ment saint recognised that authority to its fullest extent, yet
the love of God must have operated to keep him from
crime — that is, the two principles are perfectly consistent.
If the principle of grace in the heart is enough, why should
God have ever forbidden these crimes ? Why should He
repeat the prohibition against stealing in the New Testament?
(3) According to Mr. Darby, a Christian who steals or kills
commits no sins but those of unkindness or unthankfulness
to Christ. Nay, he commits no sin at all, because there
cannot be sin without law. If we are not under the law as
a rule of life, we are not bound to love either God or man,
and it is no sin to be without love to both.

5. The Brethren quote Romans vii. i — 5 in favour of
their views. This is their comment upon the passage :
" You cannot, the apostle insists, have two husbands at the
same time. You cannot be under obligation to Christ and
the law. Well, how is freedom to be obtained for the man
under the law ? He dies in that in which he was held. The
law could only assert its claim on the man as a living child
of Adam. ' The law has power over a man as long as he
liveth,' but I am dead to the law by the body of Christ ; the
bond to the law has absolutely, wholly and necessarily ceased,
for the person is dead, and the law had power over him only

The Law as a Rule of Life. 129

as long as he lived." This is the chief text of the Brethren
on this controversy. It seems at first sight very formidable.
But (i) the apostle cannot be expected to contradict him-
self If we are so dead to the law — that is, in a sense that
puts an end to all future relation, on our part, to the law —
how is it that the apostle says, "AViththe mind I myself
serve the law of God" — an objective rule or standard?
Surely, according to the Brethren's theory, the apostle is
here serving two husbands at one and the same time. He
says elsewhere he is "not without law to God," and, as if to
explain his new attitude, he adds, " but under the law to
Christ," implying that the one was not inconsistent with the
other. (2) The Old Testament saints were dead to the law,
just as we are, by the body of Christ. Had they two
husbands, in the sense of the Brethren's theory ? When
they were justified, they were free from the law, just as we
are, as to condemnation ; but they still had relation to law
as to guidance and conduct. When they were justified,
they were " dead to the law," and " dead to sin," just as we
are — " having their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlast-
ing life." (3) The interpretation already given of Romans
vi. 14 applies to this passage likewise. We are "delivered from
the law " in the same sense as we are there described as
"not under law," — that is, in the matter of justification.
(4) If we are married to Christ, we are " not without law to
God," — that " we should serve in newness of spirit, and not
in the oldness of the letter." Brethren say that these words
of the apostle imply that the believer has nothing more to
do with the law. Yet does not Paul say that he serves this
very law with the mind (Rom. vii. 25)? "The letter" here
means what it means in 2 Corinthians iii. 6, — " not of the
letter but of the spirit." In themselves there is no necessary
contrast between letter and spirit, for the apostle speaks of
the " holy letters " (Scriptures) as making Timothy wise to
salvation. But he speaks of the law taken apart from all
the spiritual associations it was meant by God to be identi-
fied with. The scribes were men of the letter (ypa/^t/xa),
and were so far at variance even with the teaching of
the prophets. Besides, the law is really spiritual (Rom. viL
14). In this sense, neither prophets nor apostles were

9

130

Plymouth Brethrenistn

ministers of thf letter. The reference, then, is not to the
objective standard of obedience, which is still the same, but
to the new spirit of that obedience.

6. The Brethren quote i Timothy i. 8, 9, in favour of their
views : " But we know that the law is good, if a man use'
it lawfully : knowing this, that the law is not made for a
righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient." Here,
they say, Paul asserts that the law is not made for the
Christian, (i) We admit that the law is not made for a
righteous man : it is made with a view to unrighteous men,
for "it was added because of transgressions" (Gal. iii. 19) ;
yet righteous men among the Israelites were under it. And
Jesus Christ the Righteous was Himself "made under the
law " for sinners. The law was not made for Old Testa
ment believers any more than for New Testament believers.
The apostle's saying has an almost proverbial aspect, like
that of Aristotle, " The law is not against the virtuous,
because the virtuous are a law to themselves." (2) If the
righteous have no relation to the law, they are without sin,
for "where no law is, there is no transgression." (3) The
law is not made for the righteous, yet the righteous are said
"to serve the law of God" (Rom. vii. 25) — unlike the
unrighteous, whose " carnal mind is not subject to the law
of God." This implies that the spiritual mind is " subject
to the law of God." (4) The apostle is here speaking of
the relation the law bears to the lawless ; and what is that ?
A state of condemnation. In that sense, certainly, it was not
made for the righteous. The apostle is refuting the error
of Judaists, who made the law necessary to salvation.

7. Brethren argue that love is the fulfilling of the law,
and that we are now under the law of love, and not under
the law of Moses at all. (i) They seem to forget, however,
that love was always the fulfilling of the law, even in Old
Testament times. Was not the sum of the tea command-
ments love? (Matt. xxii. 40.) Brethren argu; as if love
were a new thing, a Christian thing, that had come to super-
sede the old "fulfilling of the law." (2) Brethren quote
the passage, " He that loveth another hath fulfilled the
law " (Rom. xiii. 8, 9), as showing that if we have love, we
have nothing to do with the law. But believers are here

The Lazu as a- Rule of Life.

exhorted to love one another on the ground cj its being a
requtJ-evient of the law. What does the passage mean?
Love is the fulfilhng of the law — that is, love is the [prin-
ciple, or moving cause of our obedience, according to John,
" This is the love of God (tVa) in order that we may keep
His commandments." But the law prescribes the mode in
which this love is to be manifested. Brethren are guilty of
the old fallacy of confounding the rule with the moving
cause of obedience. This is to confound the railway track
with the steam-power that drives the train along it. The
law is the track and not the steam-power. Love does not
tell me what to do : it gives me power to do it. (3) The
principle of the Brethren destroys an objective standard
altogether, for it reduces our obligation to the standard of
our inclinations. " If our love be little," as A. Fuller says,
" we are not bound to a great obedience. It is, say, as if a
son said to a father, I will do what you ask me when I am
disposed, not because you command me." (4) To talk of
love as higher than law is folly, for love is the fulfilling of the
law, and nothing more. He that loveth wholly keeps the
whole law.

8. The Brethren bring a long series of charges against the
law, as a wholly insufficient rule of life. Let us consider some
of these charges against a law which Paul declares to be
" spiritual" as well as " holy, just, and good"; the principle of
which is " love out of a pure heart," and of which Christ said,
" The law is my delight." It is said, " Were I to make the law
my standard of action, I should fall very far short of my
proper mark." But if the law require a perfect obedience,
no obedience can go beyond it, for anything beyond it
would be transgression. Where is there a Brother with a
perfect love to God ? Yet this is required by the law. The
New Testament does not originate one iota of the Divine
law, but borrows it professedly from the Old Testament.
The principles unfolded by Christ in the New Testament
lay enclosed in the precepts of the law. Christ never
enjoined a greater love to God and our neighbour than did
the law of Moses. Brethren seem to forget His words —
"There is none other commandment greater than these."
If Brethren say that He has prescribed more modes of

132 Plymoiiih Brethrenism.

manifesting this love, I agree with them ; but there is na
instance of Christian obedience not comprehended in the
precept of love. If love be the fulfilling of the law, it is
preposterous to say, like the Brethren, that it cannot teach
me to lay down my life for the brethren. " But the law
could never teach me to love, bless, and pray for my
enemies." Why not ? It does not allow me to kill my
enemy any more than my friend. "Was it the law that
made Christ come and lay down His life for us ? " The
motive that brought Christ down was that love, which is the
very fulfilling of the law ; but it was the law that necessi-
tated His suffering death. " The law is no help against sin."
This is an assertion without proof It is opposed to the
experience of the vast majority of Christians. "The law
cannot work grace in me." God works grace in us by the
law. (Ps. cxix.) The law, without the Spirit, cannot work
grace ; neither can the gospel without the Spirit. " We
deny altogether that the law is a transcript of the Divine
character." It is a transcript of God's character, as far as
it goes. In the Decalogue God declared as much of His
will as was deemed necessary, and what He uttered was in
harmony with His character. Mr. Darby admits that " the
Christian should walk according to the precepts of the New
Testament, and all the light he can gather from the Old
Testament, even the ten commandments." That is, he
regards all this as the matter of his obedience. A. Burgess
answers this well : "To say the matter of the law bindeth,
but yet not as a law, is a mere contradiction : for what is a
law, but such an object held forth by the command and
■will of a superior ? According to the Antinomian assertion,
it should be true that love to God s^hould bind us, because
the matter itselt is good, but not because God willeth us to
love Him." Why, again, should a law be of temporary
obligation, whose matter is perpetual? The law does not
say " Thou shalt not kill " only till Christ comes. " But
Christ is our example. Christ is the measure of that walk."
If so, why then have we New Testament precepts? But
an example is not a rule. An example only illustrates a
rule, as in arithmetic. Besides, Christ gave us more than
example. He explained for us, in the first sermon He ever

The Law as a Rule of Life. 133

delivered, the spirituality of that law which was never to be
annulled. (Matt. v. 19.) The words of Christ are as obliga-
tory on us as His example. " But living in a risen Christ, as
one who has been taken out of reach of law by death, — that
is Christian life. The measure of that walk is Christ, and
nothing else." This is true only of the resurrection state.
If the Christian is taken out of the reach of law, he cannot
be subject to death, since death is the wages of sin, and sin
is the transgression of the law. " But the Lord Jesus gives us
a place, not under law, but in resurrection, and finally with
Himself risen." This is to confound the position which God
gives us in Christ with our practical walk and position here
on earth. We are risen with Christ. This is our represen-
tative life ; but so long as we are here, we " serve the law of
God " with the mind.

HI. We nozu come to consider the positive testimony to the
laiu as a continuing rule of life to belirccrs.

1. The first and greatest sermon of Christ was about thei
law. (Matt. V.) "Think not I am come to destroy the law
or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Nobody questions the application of these words to the
moral law. Our Lord foresaw Antinomian tendencies, for
He says, " Whosoever shall annul [or abrogate — 'Avotj] one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." This
implies its continued obligation in, not outside, the kingdom
of heaven — which, say the Brethren, includes the Church,
and which, say we, can only be entered by the gate of re-
generation. (John iii. 3. ) That is, the obligation of the law
continues in the very sphere of regeneration. Besides, the
righteousness which Christ enjoins as so superior to that of
the scribes and Pharisees, was one which included the ten
commandments, for He would not in the same breath tell
them to keep these commandments and enjoin a higher
righteousness which e.xcluded them. Remember, He does
not say, " Except your righteousness exceed that of Moses'
law," but " that of the scribes and Pharisees."

2. Romans iii. 31: "Do we, then, make void the law
through faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the law "
(i<jT(u/x£v — "we give the law fixed ^nd stable existence").

34

Plym 0 u th Bretli ; -en isvi .

There is not a word here concerning the abolition of the
law, or of its abrogation to believers. Yet, if it ceases to
be binding on believers as a rule of life, faith does make it
void. Brethren say, " Christ established the law by fulfilling
it, and through our legal oneness with Him we are no longer
called to fulfil it." We are not called to fulfil it for our
justification, but notwithstanding " with the mind we are to
serve the law of God." Besides, Christ's obedience to the
law for us does not do away with the necessity of our
obeying the law, as the evidence of our faith.

3. Romans xiii. 8, 9. The apostle here quotes five out
of the six commandments of the second table, and then
says, " He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law "—not
a law obsolete, but one still in force. And believers are
here exhorted to love one another on the ground of its
being a requirement of the moral law. Ephesians vi. i
contains the fifth commandment. Here Paul regards the
commandment as still in force, and of admitted authority
to Gentiles. Now, if Paul intended to renounce all con-
nection with the law on the part of Christians, why are so
many pages of epistles written to Gentile churches occupied
with it? If the apostle held, like the Brethren, that the
law was not in any sense binding on Christian converts, he
needed only to forbid it, as he did with circumcision. Was
it not the apostles who put the law in their hands ? Was it
a dead letter to them? James ii. 8, 10, 11, plainly sets
forth the continued obligation of the law on believers :
" For he that said. Do not commit adultery, said also. Do
not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law." No offence
can attach to the breach of an obsolete law. The passage
is thus addressed — "My brethren" (ii. i). The sin of be-
lievers does not cease to be sin, though tliey are forgiven
for Christ's sake. The " royal law " of ver. 8 is that of Moses,
■ where the second table contains our love to our neighbour.
Brethren say we are under the royal law, and the law of
liberty, not under the law of Moses. James represents the
royal law and the law of liberty as the same ; and illustrates
* the latter by two passages from Moses' law — " Thou shalt love

thy neighbour as thyself," and " Thou shalt not have respect

The Law as a Rule of Life. 135

of persons." So that the royal law remains in the gospel,
which establishes and confirms it, making it a law of liberty.

4. I Corinthians ix. 20, 21: " To them that are under
the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that
are under the law [the ceremonial law died with Christ,
and he was therefore no longer under it ; yet, in deference
to Jewish feelings, he still observed some ceremonial
usages of the Jews], I became to them that are with-
out the law [Gentiles] as without law (being not without
law to God, but under the law to Christ) " — \x.y] £)v avo/^os
&ew oAA' ewo/jLos Xpia-rS. There is therefore no medium
between being under law to Christ and being without law.
Brethren answer : " To quote ' under the law to Christ ' is
mere want of reference to the Greek. It is a^o/xos Xpia-rio,
'duly subject to Christ.'" This is no answer, (i) Brethren
do not explain the first clause — " not being without law to
God." He asserts here that the law of God has distinct
relation to him ; and the clause that follows is intended to
explain the consistency of that position with his being under
law to Christ. He that is without law to God is without
law to Christ. (2) ewo/xo? is correctly translated "under
law," for there is an analogous phrase in Romans iii. 19:
" We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law " (ev t<2 vofiw). Were not the
Jews under the law? Also, Romans ii. 12 : "As many as
sinned in the law shall be judged by the law " (same Greek).
The word in the text is used in Acts xix. 39 of the riotous
assembly at Ephesus — ev rrj evro/xu) eKKXrja-la — not, certainly,
"a duly subject assembly," but "an assembly convened
according to law." The word is no doubt milder than viro
vd/xov, but it is antithetical with avo/ios, which is " without
law," and not, as often translated, " wicked." If Paul, then,
was CT'vo/u.o?, he was not without relation to law.

5. I John iii. 4 : " Whosoever committeth sin trans-
gresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law."
Dr. Davis says : " It is in the original ' lawlessness,' referring
to a state, not an act. It is avofiia, not 7rapa/?acris vd/tov,

as in Romans iv. 15." (i) How does this help the Brethren ?
If it be lawlessness, it is unconformity to the law. If the
requirement of the law refers only to action, then there is

135

Plynnouth Brethretihm.

evil that is not embraced in- the law. Are the inward
passions not evil that find no outward vent? It is " by the
law we have the knowledge of sin " (a/j-aprta) — that is, both
as a state and as an act. (2) Lawlessness is not being
"without law," but is "disregard of law." Christ says the
scribes and Pharisees were guilty of avo^aia : were they
without law?^ (3) John does not say here that sin is
7rapay8ao-ts v6ix.ov, but James (ii. 9, 10) identifies afiapria
with s-apd^aa-Ls. Before the law was given on Sinai, there
were " transgressions," for, as we have already seen, " the law
was added because of transgressions " (Gal. iii. 19) — that is,
the transgressions were in being when the law appeared.
(4) John, then, asserts that " sin is violation of law," or
" unconformity to law," according to Romans viii. 7 — " The
carnal mind is not subject to the law of God."

6. Galatians v. 13, 14 : " By love serve one another; for
all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this — Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself" Paul here identifies the
love binding on Christians with the love enjoined in the
law. Darby says : " Hence, loving my neighbour as

myself, I fulfil the law ; not by having it, but having love
wought in me by grace, and not being under law." But
the Old Testament saint, who had love in his heart, fulfilled
that law in the same way as the Christian. Yet this was
consistent with his being under law.*

IV. We 7nust now notice the tendency of Brethrenite doctrine.

It clearly tends to immorality. Mr. Kelly says : " I am no
longer, as a Christian man, having to do with the responsi-
bility that attaches to mortal men, but am passed now into a
new state, even while I am in the world." This doctrine is
capable of serious misapplication. Let us hear the testi-
mony of Brethren themselves. Mr. William H. Dorman,

* I do not consider it necessary, in discussing this question, to occupy
space in proving the perpetuity of the Christian Sabbath. If the law
is still in force, the Sabbath stands. The Brethren reject the Sabbath
as creation-rest, but Paul says there is, notwithstanding, a "Sabbath-
keeping" for Christians. Brethren observe the Lord's day. Let me
ask, Why do they REST en that day ? We rest on that day because
we found upon the institution of the Sabbath in Paradise ; but where
does the New Testament prescribe rest on the Lord's day ? Nowhere.
Brethren are only consistent where they work seven days in the week.

The La'd) as a Rule of Life. 137

a Darbyite for twenty-eight years, says, in reply to a state-
ment of Mr. Macintosh, that "you cannot get on in the
assembly, if you live in secret sin " : " There is not an
intelligent person, young or old, in the assembly, where
he is minister, who is not painfully conscious that instances
among themselves contradict the statement, and that circum-
stances, and not the purity of the atmosphere, brought the
sin to light." Mr. Dorman says, " In an incredible number
of instances besides, the evil has existed for years " {High-
Church Claims, Letter v., p. 7). The Rev. Frederick Whit-
field, incumbent of Kirby Ravensworth, Yorkshire, who
worshipped twelve years with the Brethren, says : " I have
omitted altogether touching on one point — the flagrant
immoralities among the Plymouth Brethren. My personal
knowledge, and information from those amongst them,
supply me with some of the most shocking cases, so shock-
ing that I cannot bring myself to give them publicity
{Letter to Rev. Osmond Dobree, p. 43). An Address to
Plymouth Brethren (Hardwicke, 1862), by one who had
been much among them, and still greatly admired them,
says : " There have been gatherings .... in which the
Brethren were not one jot better than the sectarians around
them, in which there were many deplorable manifestations
of unlovely dispositions, and in some instances even of
immorality." Mr. Edward Dennett, in a pamphlet on The
Plymouth Brethreti (Stock, 1871), which he lately withdrew
from publication after he had joined them, speaks of the
gross antinomianism likely to result from the Brethren's
views of the law. He says : " There are many of the godly
among the Brethrea who lament this practical effect of the
doctrine." We shall close this chapter by a quotation from
Mr. C. H. Macintosh, a leading Darbyite, upon the general
moral tone of some of the Brethren's households : " They
speak of separation from the world, but their houses present
the most distressingly worldly appearance. They speak of
the world being crucified to them and of their being crucified
to the world ; and yet the world is stamped on the very face
of their whole establishment, and everything seems designed
to minister to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and
the pride of life " {Thou and Thy House, p. 28).

138

Plymouth Brethren uvi.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECRET RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS.

T^HE Brethren hold that Jesus Christ will come a second
■'- time secretly to take away all His saints, living and
dead, from the earth ; and that He will come a third time
publicly, along with the same saints, to judge the world. An
interval of years — long enough to admit of the rise of Anti-
christ and all the events of his reign — will intervene between
His coming for His saints and His coming with His saints.
The Scriptures, they say, distinguish between " the coming
of the Lord " and " the day of the Lord," which are not by
any means the same : the first applying only to His secret
coming for His saints, the second to His public coming with
His saints to judge the world. The first coming is to be so
secret that the rest of mankind will know nothing of it,
or of the removal of the saints, who are thus to be spared
from the tribulation of the last days. They say, further,
that we are commanded to wait for His " coming," which is
the hope of the Church, but not for His "appearing " in mani-
fested glory ; and, further, that no intervening events are
now to be looked for as signs of His coming ; so that
Brethren are in the habit of saying, when speaking of events
immediately before them, "Unless the Lord come first."

This curious doctrine of the " secret rapture " was first
broached, as Dr. Tregelles says, at an Irvingite meeting, and
was never heard of before. // necessitates a third coming of
Christ. The doctrine has no support whatever in Scripture.

I. We deny that there is any distinction made in Scripture
between " the coming of the Lord " and " the day of the
Lord." Both refer to the same event. If this can be proved,
the whole theory falls to the ground. Let us hear the

The Secret Rapture of the Saints. 139

Brethren on the point : " The first act ot the vapova-La,
' coming ' or ' presence,' is when He descends for His saints
and so comes to them ; the second, when He comes to the
world, which He has not done before. It is the latter which
is called His €Vi<^aveta, ' epiphany ' or ' manifestation,' and
which is never applied to the rapture, but always to Christ's
appearing in glory with His saints, while Trapovcria is some-
times used in speaking of the one, sometimes of the other,
as the context, or persons addressed, or the way in which it is
brought forward, determines ; for He may come and be
present in different ways to different persons." * (i) In reply,
we ask, how can Brethren say that Scripture distinguishes
between the "coming" and "the day" of the Lord, when
they admit that the " coming " is sometimes applied to "the
day"? It certainly does apply, in Matthew xxiv. 27, to
Christ's public appearing. The word irapovcria (" coming ")
occurs twenty-four times in the New Testament, and never
means a secret coming; yet // is the only word for if, accord-
ing to the Brethren. It is applied to the "coming" of Titus,
Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Paul, to the churches.
^(2) But, contrary to the Brethren's statement, the «7ri</)av€ta
or manifestation, as well as the Trapovcria, is given as the
hope of the Church : " Looking for that blessed hope and
the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ" (Titus ii. 13); " I give thee charge . . . that
thou keep this commandment .... until the appearing of
our Lord Jesus Christ" (i Tim. vi. 14). How could Timothy
keep this commandment if he was removed from the earth
before the " appearing " ? How can the saints wait, look, or
hope for His " appearing," if they have already been long
with Him ? They are supposed to be on earth till He
appears. Paul says : " A crown of righteousness, and not to
me only, but to them also likewise who love His appearing "
(2 Tim. iii. 8). Should it not be " love His coming " ? So
far from the " coming " of the Lord being the hope of the
Church, as distinguished from the " day," Scripture plainly

• "What is the Difference between the Coming [irapowia) of Christ
to receive His Saints, and His Appearing (eTri^dmo) in Glory with
them ? " p. 37.

Plymouth Brethrenism.

connects the hope with the " day " : " That we are your
rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord
Jesus" (2 Cor. i. 14); "Who shall confirm you unto the
end that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ " (i Cor. i. 8). The saints are to be "looking for and
hasting unto the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter iii. 12).
Here we have to do with the day. In, i Thessalonians v. 2,
"the day of the Lord is ta come as a thief in the night."
This might appear to be a secret coming. But the passage
means that it will be only so to sinners, not to saints, who
will be prepared for it. According to 2 Thessalonians i. 7,
there is no rest or relief (aveo-ts) to the saints till " the Lord
shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in
flaming fire, taking vengeance." Now, according to Brethren,
the rest of the saints should come, ages before, with the
secret rapture. The Corinthian saints were " waiting for the
revelation (aTroxdAui/ftv) of our Lord Jesus Christ " (i Cor. i. 7).

IL We proceed next to show that the idea of the secret
rapture is unscriptural.

(i) It supposes that not one believer will remain on earth
between the saints' rapture and the cVic^aveia or manifesta-
tion ; yet Timothy is to keep the commandments till that
very time — which he cannot do if he is removed before it.
(2) The parable of the tares refutes the idea. There will be
no removal of the wheat first by a secret rapture. Brethren
say the saints will be removed before Antichrist is revealed.*
How can this be, if the wheat and the tares are to be
removed together? They are to grow together till the
harvest. If Antichrist is not revealed till then, he will never
be revealed at all, for the very next act is the burning of the
tares. Besides, the parable says, before the wheat is gathered
into the barn " at the end of the age," the Lord will say to
the angels, " Gather ye together first the tares." Here it is
the wicked, not the saints, that are first gathered. The
Brethren say the gathering in question is that of false pro-
fessors around various centres oi" evil — such as Popery and

• 2 Thess. ii. 3, 8, proves that the coming of Antichrist will precede
the coming of Christ. Also, Psalm ex. I, the Father says to tlie Son,
"Sit tiiou at my right hand until \ make thy enemies thy footstool."
Christ will not, then, come beiure, but after Antichrist.

The Secret Rapiiire of tin Saints. 141

Neology — and the angels are evil angels who gather them.
■What an idea ! It is Christ's angels who do it : " The Son
of Man shall send forth His angels." The gathering here
involves removal from the earth, for it is immediately fol-
lowed by burning in fire. The Brethren, pressed with the
difficulty, say the parable does not refer to this dispensation
at all, but to the Millennial. But Satan will then be bound,
and how can he, according to the parable, sow tares among
the wheat? If the Church has been previously removed,
there will be in the field tares, and tares only. Besides,
Christ says " the harvest is the end of the age," and He says
elsewhere that He will be with His Church till the end of
the age. (Matt, xxviii. 20.) (3) The Scripture is quite silent
about a secret coming of Christ. The world is, according
to the Brethren, to know nothing of the sudden removal of
millions of saints. We answer (a) Christ is to come admit-
tedly with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, with the
trump of God (i Thess. iv. 16). A shout — a voice — a trump!
and yet secrecy J Matthew xxiv. 31 says, likewise, "He
shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
gather together His elect." (/') The angels told the apostles
at Christ's ascension that He would come again " in like
manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." He went in
a cloud ; and the Son of Man is to come in the clouds of
heaven (Matt. xxiv. 30). Where is the secrecy here ? (r) Why
is 1 Corinthians xv. silent about a secret resurrection? "The
trumpet shall sound " — is this secret ? {d) His coming is to
be like the lightning. (Matt, xxiv.) Is lightning invisible ?
Brethren say lightning refers to the rapidity of His coming.
It refers to His manifestation, {e) Corinthian saints are
waiting for the revelation of Christ — is that secret? (i Cor.
i. 7.) Yet Brethren say we are not to wait for that, but
for the secret coming.

III. The Brethren's idea that there are no events at this
moment intervening between us and the coming of Christ
is quite untenable. Our Lord's prophecies of His coming
in Matthew xxiv. and Luke xxi., in answer to the question
" When shall these things be ? what shall be the sign of
Thy coming and of the end of the age?" clearly tell us that
many events will occur before His coming, that certain

142

riy •))iouth B) Y /// yen ism.

signs will indicate His coming, and that then will be the end
of the age. How do Brethren get rid of this testimony?
By the daring expedient of saying that the whole of the two
chapters do not refer to Christians at all, but are for the
guidance of the Jews in the latter day. Would such a
thought occur to any unprejudiced reader ? Now, this Jewish
remnant will either be believing or unbelieving. If believing,
it is part of the Church ; and if unbelieving, the words of
Christ are not appropriate to it, as those He warned were
saints. How strange to make the apostles, who are viewed
prospectively as in the Christian dispensation — their names
inscribed in the foundations of the holy city — representa-
tives of unbelieving Jews in the latter days ! " What I say
unto you, I say unto all — watch" (Mark xiii. 37). The
parable of the tares, moreover, has no place for a " Jewish
remnant" ; for after the wheat is removed there is no sowing
of seed, but the next event is — " The righteous shall shine
forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father."

IV. But why do the Brethren object to signs before the
coming of the Lord? "Signs are Jewish; they are only for
Jews." But Christ told the Jews they would get no more
signs than that of Jonas the prophet. The signs must then
be for Christians. " But are we not told to watch for our
Lord's coming? How can we watch, if there are any
previous events predicted or signs to be observed ? " We
answer, that the watching is not to be irrespective of signs.*
The coming is to be as manifest as lightnmg, but signs will
precede it : So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these
things, know that it is nigh, even at the doors."

V. The Brethren ask, " If the saints come with Christ,
does not this language imply that they must have been
taken away before ? " Surely not. Scripture says they are
raised, changed, caught up to meet the Lord in the air, as
He comes, and when He comes ; and thus having met
Him, they come with Him. The expression " to meet the
Lord in the air " signifies to meet and come back with the

* The very command to watch occurs in the chapter (Matt, xxiv.)
said to be Jewisli. Why do they here take up Jewish ground? This
v.atching is in reference to a public manifestation preceded by signs.

The Stent Rapiure of the Saints. 143

person met. (Acts xxviii. 15.) Jesus said, "He shall
send forth His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
they shall gather together His elect from the four winds,
from the one end of heaven to the other." Here the elect
are not represented as with Him, but arc gathered out of
their graves, and afterwards they are with Him.

The notion that the Church is not to be in the tribulation
of the last times is quite gratuitous. Our Lord said to His
disciples, "In the world ye shall have tribulation." Did
not the saints in Revelation vii. 13 — 15 come out of the
great tribulation? "Were not the days to be shoitened
for the elect's sake ?

144 Plymouth Brethrenism,

CHAPTER VIL

THE SAINTS AND THE JUDGMENT DAY.

WHILE all Christians hold that Jesus Christ will one
day judge the whole human race, the Brethren alone
believe that the saints will not be judged at all. They
admit that the saints will appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ, — but this, they say, is not for judgment; that they will
give an account of themselves to God, — but this, they say,
has nothing to do with judgment ; and that the saints will
receive the rewards of service, — but this, again, has nothing
to do with judgment.*

The first question naturally to be decided is, What is
involved in the Judgment of the Great Day ? The Brethren
uniformly represent us as making it a process to determine
whether a man shall dwell in heaven or in hell — or, in other
words, that it is a question of acceptance or non-acceptance. t
This is not our doctrine. We hold that the question of

* "A general judgment — a thing unknown in Scripture. ... As
to judgment, there is no such thing for the saint, understood as
pronouncing on his state. He is already in glory when he stands
before Christ." "For the saints no judgment at all. Christ comes to
receive them to Himself, and raises them in glory to have them with
Him. But they do give an account of themselves to God when in
glory, and receive the reward of service, though it be grace that has
wrought it on them." — What do the Scriptures teach concerning
Judgment to come?" 7, 15.

■f- " Could Paul or Stephen be taken out of heaven to be judged as
to whether he should have a place there?" "Man would soon turn

it into a question of the acceptance of the person And when

he is manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, he is before Him
who Himself put them (sins) all away. Christ miist deny Himself if He
imputes them to him." — Ibid.

The Saints and the yndgment Day. 145

acceptance as to the saints is settled long before the day of
judgment ; and therefore we object to their statement that
"the sentence of the day of judgment has passed upon his
soul by faith," (a very unbiblical form of statement, by
the way,) for that sentence has nothing to do with ac-
ceptance at all.

But if the sentence of the day of judgment has already
passed upon the saint, we argue that it has likewise passed
upon the sinner, in exactly the same sense, though with
a differing result — for it is said, " He that believeth not
is judged already" (John iii. 19). We ask, then, what
has the sinner to do with the judgment-day, any more
than the saint ? If judgment has passed upon the one
before the judgment-day, so that there will be no further
judgment, it has also passed upon the other, so that there
will be no further judgment for kirn. Wherefore, then,
is there a judgment-day at all? Brethren say the wicked
only are to be judged on that day. Are they to be jiidgea
twice ?

The judgment-day in Scripture includes three things :
manifestation — giving account to God — receiving the things
done in the body. Is it not singular that all three, as
we shall presently see, apply to the sinner and the saint ?
Brethren argue that these three things do not imply judg-
ment. We hold that they do, and that saints are expressly
said to be judged as well as sinners in the day of judg-
ment. What evidence do Brethren adduce in support of
their theory ? They adduce John v. 24 — " He that hear-
eth my word and believeth in him that sent me hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment " ((cpiW) ;
and V. 29—" They that have done good unto the resurrection
of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection
of judgment" (KpicrecosJ. The word here, they say, is not
KaraKpLfjLa (condemnation), but judgment ; there is not a
word of judgment here for the believer. How are we to
explain this text in conformity with Catholic doctrine ?

I. The words Kpia-is and Kpivo) are, we admit, used for
judgment ; mostly for judgment simply, without respect to
the result, but in many cases for a judgment of condem-
nation, and sometimes for condemnation itself. The Lord,

10

146

Plymouth Brcthnnism.

then, says in John v. 24, 29, that the believer shall not
come into the judgment of condemnation.*

2. We point to passages in which the saints are expressly
said to be judged. James ii. 12 — "So speak ye and so
do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."
This is addressed to saints, and the word /xeAAovrcs points
to the judgment-day. i Peter i. 17 — "And if ye call on
the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth accord-
ing to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning
here in fear." Brethren say the Father only judges in this
world, and that Peter does not here refer to the judgment-
day. We reply that He judges at the last day by the
Son. He is called " God the Judge of all " (Heb. xii. 24) ;
and there is " a day when God shall judge the secrets of
men by Jesus Christ " (Rom. ii. 16 : see also Acts xvii. 31).
The expression "according to every man's work" is always
in Scripture connected with the day of judgment.

3. We point next to passages in which the judgment of
saints and sinners is ahke referred to. 2 Corinthians v. 10
— " For we must all appear {(fiavepuyOrivai. — be manifested)
before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may
receive the things done in the body, whether they have
been good or evil." Some Brethren say this refers to
saints only ; but Mr. W. Kelly admits that it refers to
both saints and sinners. Not a word is there here, they
say, of judgment. It is only manifestation, (i) But if the
saints are not judged, why should they appear in the same
place as the wicked — at the /Ji^/xa, the judgment-seat ?
What is a judgment-seat for, but for judgment? (2) We

* In three well-known passages, Kplvtji means condemnation and
not judgment. "Blessed is he that condemneth not himself (Kpipei)
in that which he alloweth " (Rom. xiv. 22). If it meant here judg-
ment, the sentence would rather be — " Blessed is he that judgeth
himself in that which he approveth." "Not" must be left out.
Again, "And shall not the uncircumcision condemn (/cpifti) thee,
who dost transgress the law?" (Rom. ii. 27.) Also Mark iii. 29 — "is
in danger of eternal damnation " (/c/)i<reajs). In the following
passages, Kpicris means judgment with a condemnatory result : —
Jude 6, 9, 15 ; 2 Peter ii. 4, 9, iii. 7 ; I Tim. v. 24; Matt, xxiii. 33
("the judgment of hell "). The following passages refer simply to the
day of judgment : — Matt. x. 15, xi. 22, xii. 36.

The Saints and the yudgnicnt Day. 147

are said to be manifested with a certain object — " that
every one may receive the things done in his body, whether
they be good or evil." But how are the things done in
the body to be estimated but by judgment upon them ?
(3) There is more than manifestation here, for when the
Lord comes " He will both bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and will manifest the counsels of the
hearts" (i Cor. iv. 5); and in that day "God shall judge
the secrets of men " (Rom. ii. 16) — not one class of
men — "by Jesus Christ." (4) If there is only manifesta-
tion and not judgment in this text, wherefore "the terror
or fear of the Lord " of which the apostle speaks ? (5)
Is there no judgment to be pronounced upon the account
(Ao'yoi') that we give to God? Why is there a giving
account at all, except for the purposes of judgment ? Paul
says — " Why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost
thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ "(Rom. xiv. 12). The
fact of our standing before the judgment-seat is given as
a reason why we should not judge our brother. The argu-
ment would be absurd, if we are not judged. Brethren say
— " We shall give account of ourselves to God, repass our
whole life and all God's blessed ways with us, see it all as
God sees it, and wonder at all the all-perfect grace which
has led us onward from our birth." This is nothing but a
travesty of Scripture. There is not a word here of sin or
evil done. Are we merely to tell God the story of our lives ?
Is there not an account to be given of our deeds and
our words, according to that Scripture—" But I say unto
you that every idle word that men shall speak they shall give
account thereof in the day of judgment ; for by thy words
thou shalt be justified, and by thy words shalt thou be
condemned" (Matt. xii. 36)? Is there nothing of judg-
ment implied in our giving account? According to the
parable of the talents, is there not to be a judgment upon
faithfulness and unfaithfulness ? Are not all the servants
called to account? How, otherwise than by judgment, can
the rewards be apportioned ? " My reward is with me
to give to every man as his work shall be " (Rev. xx. 12). Is
there not judgment upon the work here implied ? Ministers

148

Plymouth Biethrmisvi.

are to "give account" of their ministry as to faithfulness,
lest they should do it with sorrow and not with joy.
(Heb. xiii. 17.) We read of the wicked giving account to
God — " Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with
them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you, who
shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick
and the dead " (i Peter iv. 4, 5). Has this account nothing
to do with judgment? If not, why in the same sentence refer
to God as Judge ? When the unjust steward was told to
give account of his stewardship (the Greek the same as in
I Peter), was it not with a view to judgment? When the
town-clerk of Ephesus feared he might be called to give
account (same Greek) for the famous riot, was it not
because he apprehended a judgment upon his official con-
duct ? Is there not, then, a judgment implied in the act of
the saint's giving account of himself to God ? There can be
no condemnation, for he is justified through Christ; but his
reward will be greater or lesser according to God's judg-
ment upon his deeds. (6) Is there no judgment implied in
the idea of our " receiving the things done in the body,
whether they have been good or evil " ? Was it not from
the " righteous Judge " that Paul expected to receive the
crown of righteousness? (2 Tim. iv. 8.) Is there no
judgment implied in the test of fire applied to the two
classes of builders (i Cor. iii. 12) : " The fire shall try every
man's work of what sort it is " ? And this refers to believers.

Another passage, asserting the judgment of all without
exception, is Hebrews ix. 27 — " And as it is appointed unto
men once to die, and after that the judgment," (here the
death and the judgment are co-extensive,) " so Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that
look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin
unto salvation." Brethren assert that this passage supports
their view Death and judgment, they say, are here made
the lot of fallen man ; but Christ comes " without sin unto
salvation" for the saints. We reply — (i) Salvation and
judgment are not inconsistent, for there is a judgment of
acquittal as well as of condemnation. (2) Is it sinners only
that die? If saints did not die, the passage would be
decisive for the Brethren. But death and judgment are
here declared to be inseparable.

TJ'lC Saints and the Judgment Day. 149

Matthew xxv. 31 — 46. — We have here an account of the
general judgment, in which the two classes of mankind
appear under the designation of sheep and goats. Is there
not judgment here? Brethren deny that the passage refers
to the general judgment at all ; but to the Gentiles, or
nations, because it is said — " And before Him shall be
gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.''
The supposition is perfectly gratuitous, (i) In that case,
nation is separated from nation, which is absurd ; for they
could not be all good in one nation and all bad in another.
The word " nation " is to be used as it is in Matthew xxviii. :
" Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them "
(avTovs), — not the nations as nations, but the members
of those nations. (2) Some say the " sheep and the goats"
represent all who name the name of Christ. If so, then not
a single heathen will be judged — though every man is to be
judged "according to his works." Others say the sheep and
the goats represent such Pagans as have shown kindness
either, as some say, to the Jews, or, as others say, to mis-
sionaries. But where, in that case, shall any " righteous "
be found worthy of the kingdom prepared from the founda-
tion of the world ?

Rev. XX. 12 — 15. — Here again is the general judgment.
"No," say Brethren ; " it is only the judgment of the wicked."
Why, in that case, should it be necessary to open the book
of life at all ? The expression '' Whosoever was not found
written in the book of life " implies that some were found
therein.

Other decisive passages are Acts xvii. 31, x. 42 ; 2
Timothy iv. i ; Romans ii. 12 — 15; Ecclesiastes iiL 17.

Brethren object that the saints cannot be judged because
they are to come with Christ to judgment. Where is the
inconsistency or the difficulty ? Brethren admit the mani-
festation before the judgment-seat. Might we not ask, how
can they be manifested, when they are to come with Christ
for manifestation? It is argued, likewise, that the saints
are not to be judged because they are themselves to be
judges with Christ, (i Cor. vi. i — 4 : " Do ye not know
that the saints shall judge the world ? . . . Know ye not

Ply moil ih Breih ren i svi .

that we shall judge angels?") The passage is, undoubtedly,
a difficult one ; but it does not say that the saints them-
selves shall not be judged. Bengel says the saints will
themselves be first judged. Then will they be associated
with Christ in judging the world. (Matt. xix. i8.) Dr. Gill,
a Millenarian divine, after rejecting the idea of the saints'
assessorship, says : " The apostle's meaning is, that in a little
time the saints — men under a profession of Christianity, at
least — should be governors in the world, and bear the offices
of civil magistracy in it," as occurred a few centuries after.
The judgment of evil angels he understands to mean " their
ejection out of the Gentile world, out of their oracles, idols,
and idol-temples, to which Christ refers, John .\ii. 31."

CHAPTER VIII.

THE WORLD.

THE Brethren hold peculiar views on the relation of the
Christian to the world and to certain worldly employ-
ments. They affirm that the world is lying under the curse ;
that its governments are in the hands of God's enemies ; and
that a great part of the world's labour is for Satan. The
duty of the Christian is, therefore, to take no part in civil
government, in politics, in magistracy, in the military and
naval services, and in the great majority of worldly callings.
Medicine, agriculture, and a few of the handicraft trades,
seem to be the only allowable employments in this dispen-
sation. The views of the Brethren concerning " the doomed
world" also necessitate a peculiar attitude toward philan-
thropy, and their doctrine of " separateness from evil" leads
likewise to an unswerving opposition to all our missionary
and religious societies.
I. Worldly Employments.

The position of Brethren is that the " world is a doomed
world." But they do not make it sufficiently plain whether
they mean by the world the earth or its unconverted inhabi-
tants. Sometimes it is used in the first sense. "C. H. M.,''
in his Notes on Genesis (pp. 69, 74), says Christians ought
not to improve or ameliorate the state of the earth which
God has put under the curse. But, in that case, Abraham
was wrong in turning its capabilities to account, and it was
wrong for Solomon to censure the sluggard for allowing his
fields to be "all grown over with thorns and nettles." In
that case tillage is wrong ; gardening is WTong ; and all the
counsels of the Book of Proverbs as to the best way of

Plymouth Breihyejiisvi.

turning the earth to account are inapplicable to Christians.*
But, generally speaking, Brethren mean by the " doomed
world " the people of the world, in the sense of John : " The
whole world lieth in wickedness." They bring into play a
distinction perfectly groundless, between the two dispensa-
tions. They say that this world and its benefits were the
reward and object of the Mosaic dispensation, while the
new dispensation debarred the enjoyment of worldly re-
wards, and has only the heavenly in view. Wealth, power
and worldly honour might be enjoyed by Old Testa-
ment saints ; but in this dispensation — " having food and
raiment let us be therewith content." Christians have
therefore nothing to do with the world's governments
and employments, because they are pilgrims and strangers
in the earth. What have pilgrims and strangers to do with
it ? A Brother says : " What is the Christian's position ?
He is a stranger and pilgrim on earth. (Heb. xi. 13 — 16 ;
I Peter ii. 11.) Then, he has neither inclination, right nor
title to political power. By profession he surrenders it.
Who may take part in the government of a country?
Natives only, not strangers. What has an Englishman,
living in France, to do with the government of France?
But he is moreover a pilgrim, and therefore has less reason
still. If a stranger may not interfere in the policy of a
foreign country, much less one who is not even residing in
it, but merely passing through it, on his way to another land.
To meddle with politics, therefore, is to put off our character
as pilgrims and strangers." {The Christian and Politics —
Broom.)

I. Who, then, are pilgrims and strangers ? Brethren answer
— the saints of this dispensation. It is true that Peter calls i
Christians by this name when he warns them as " pilgrims
and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts" (but not from '
worldly employments). Yet, was it not the saints of the old
dispensation who were first so called ? Is this not strange,
especially if they had their portion in this world ? Was it

* It is absurd to say, as some have done, that the earth is cursed
because it rejected Christ. The mountains and rivers of the earth had
nothing to do with Christ's rejection. In reality, the earth was under
the curse before He was crucified at all.

The World.

153

not of Old Testament saints that Paul spoke in Hebrews
xi. 13 — " These all died in faith . . . and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth"? (See also Genesis
xlvii. 9.) So far from seeking their portion here, Old Testa-
ment saints " desire a better country [than Canaan], that is,
an heavenly." Now, what did these pilgrims and strangers
do ? So far from abjuring government and politics, they
engaged in every interest of this sort. David calls himself
a pilgrim and a stranger (Ps. xxxix. 12, i Chron. xxix. 15),
yet he was a king. Joseph was a prime minister at a heathen
court. Daniel and Nehemiah took political service under
the Persian monarchy. It is clear, then, that the distinction
made by the Brethren between the two dispensations has no
foundation whatever. If Christians are to content them-
selves only with " food and raiment " in this dispensation,
we are not to forget that the pious Agur asked nothing
more under a former : " Give me neither poverty nor riches"
(Prov. XXX. 8).

2. But we now ask whether the New Testament has
specified the employments we are to follow in this dispen-
sation ? Where does it forbid Christians to be magistrates,
or statesmen, or military or naval officers? If the "powers
that be are ordained of God," surely a Christian can fill one
of God's own appointments. The New Testament, however,
expressly tells us that the saints did occupy worldly positions
connected with heathen governments. Was not Erastus a
chamberlain at wicked Corinth ? Was he required by Paul
to resign his place? Why did the saints remain "in Caesar's
household" (Phil. iv. 22)? If there was corruption any-
where, surely it was at Nero's court. Why was there no
" separation from the evil " ? Did all these saints serve the
world ? Was not Cornelius a Roman soldier ? Was he
required after his conversion to resign his commission?
Captain Percy Hall, who resigned both rank and pay in the
navy on Brethrenite principles, will find it hard to justify
the position of Cornehus. Yet he says : " The fountain of
authority, whence I derive mine, as holding a commission
in the navy, is the 'world,' which is the enemy of God,

as declared by His Son Jesus How, then, can I

retain it ? How can any who say they are His retain any

154

P^) 'in 0 1 1 th Bi -dJi 1 xn ism .

authority conferred on them by the world?" Whence, then,
had Cornelius and his devout soldiers their commission ?
From the world. And why should it be wrong to accept em-
ployment from the world as a naval officer, and yet right to
accept employment from the world as land-agents, barristers,
bakers', grocers' and drapers' assistants ? Are they all serving
godly employers ? Were the Corinthian saints all serving
such ? " But Christians cannot serve their native country
in war without serving the flesh and the world." Then
Cornelius and his pious soldiers are condemned. " But it
is not the gospel, but the law, to kill men." Was it under the
gospel or under the law that Ananias and Sapphira were put
to death ? Was there anything more severe under the law ?
The Brethren object to a Christian becoming a magistrate,
because he must in that case deal with law and not with
grace. But is it not by Jesus Christ that " kings reign and
princes decree justice "? If the Lord commands the magis-
trate to use not the sword in vain, is it not the same as if the
Lord used the sword Himself? We object altogether to the
principle that it is right for a heathen magistrate to make war
and to execute criminals, but wrong for the Christian to do
the same. How can it be wrong for a Christian to do what
is not wrong in itself? On the principles of the Brethren,
Queen Victoria ought to abdicate her throne ; our army and
navy ought to be disbanded ; our jails ought to be closed ;
our law-courts brought to an end ; and no force whatever
ought to be used to punish transgressors, enforce bargains,
or recover debts.

3. The Brethren justify their position by our Lord's saying
"My kingdom is not of this world." Yes : but we live in
two kingdoms. Christ recognised the two when He said
" Give to Ccesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the
things that are God's." Paul was in Christ's kingdom, yet
he appeals to Lysias — the representative of another kingdom
— to protect him from conspiracy. Why did he not rather
take wrong? Why did he appeal to Caesar at all? He
ought, on the Brethren's principles, to have cast himself on
the Lord, and not upon the world. Why ask the world, with
its armies and navies, to protect him ? Was not God
sufficient? Why did "the saints in Cesar's household"

The UoHd.

155

forget that they belonged to a kingdom not of this world ?
The Brethren say that a Christian ought not to entangle
himself with the affairs of this world. (2 Tim. ii. 4.) What
do they mean by entanglement ? Ought a Christian to
marry? Paul says: "He that is unmarried careth for the
things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
but he that is married careth for the things that are of the
world, how he may please his wife" (i Cor. vii. 32, 33). Is
this saying stronger than the saying to Timothy ? After all,
everything turns upon the meaning of the entanglement ; and
Old Testament saints were no more allowed to entangle
themselves with the affairs of this world than are those of the
New Testament. The world that Christians are to guard
against is plainly described by John — " the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life " (i John ii. 16).

4. But the question now occurs, Is it possible for Chris-
tians to maintain the separateness from the world advocated
in Brethren's tracts ? And do Brethren themselves act upon
their own principles ? They think medicine, agriculture,
and some of the handicraft arts legitimate. Are all these
employments not in some degree implicated with the an-ange-
ments of the law ? You cannot practise medicine without a
degree recognised and conferred by — " the world." Whence
did Dr. Cronin, Dr. Davis, Dr. Wolston, obtain their degrees?
Was it not from worldly universities ? " C. H. M." says, in
reference to the choice of a profession for Christians, " Christ
did not take any of the learned professions, but was known
as a carpenter. Has this no voice for us?" Then do all
Brethren follow handicraft trades ? How comes it to pass,
in the teeth of all their principles, that Brethren are peers,
barristers, attorneys, crown prosecutors, doctors, officers in
the army and navy? Why are such officers allowed to speak
in their assemblies at all? Why do Brethren who own
property sue and distrain for rent ? Are they consistent ?
Are they really as separate from the world as they would
have us believe ?

II. Philanthropy.

The Brethren carry out the principle that " the world is a
doomed world " consistently enough by leaving it to its fate.
They think it wrong to improve the world, for they say

156

Plymouth Brethrenisii: .

Christianity is " not to shed its blessed influence over every
institution of man for ameliorating the condition of his
species" {Philanthropy— ^xooxw.) Thus, they hold philan-
thropy in contempt. They "can detect under the show
of philanthropy the features of an apostacy marked as the
way of Cain, the error of Balaam, and the gainsaying of
Korah." This is strange language for the followers of Him
who went about every day doing good. Its meaning is
this : Christians were quite wrong in putting an end to
gladiatorial combats, in abolishing slavery and the slave-
trade, in crushing suttee and infant-murder, in reforming
prisons, in founding hospitals for the insane, the sick, the
blind, and in mitigating the horrors of war by Red-Cross
societies. " God's object," this tract says, " is not to make
nien comfortable in the world, but to give them power to
live above it." As if an apostle did not pray for Gains
that "he might prosper and be in health"; as if godliness
were not "profitable for the life that now is"; as if we were
not to "do good unto all men" !

This tract says: "Viewed in the light of God's truth,
philanthropy is minding the things of the flesh. Give it all
the success to which it aspires, grant it all its usefulness,
death ends all its efforts. To mind the things of the flesh
is death." A strange misinterpretation of Scripture ! The
apostle does not mean by " things of the flesh " the body
and its temporal wants ; but all things opposed to the things
of the Spirit. That is, fleshly lusts. On the Brethren's
principles, if I give a sixpence to a beggar, I mind the things
of the flesh, and the end of my act is death ! Did Jesus
mind the things of the flesh when He fed the five thousand ?
The tract says also : " Philanthropy may improve the disci-
pline of prisons, but why are there prisons at all ? It may
multiply hospitals, but can it prevent sickness?" What
absurd talk ! May we not as justly ask : Christ can cure
disease, but why are there diseases ? Is not the one question
just as sensible as the other?

We are told that philanthropists follow the standard of
utility, not the will of God. This is not the case. Howard,
Zachary Macaulay, Clarkson, Mrs. Fry, George Moore, Lord
Shaftesbury, were no utilitarians. As Christian people

The World.

157

they never thought of anything but doing the will of God.
Does not everything done according to the will of God con-
form to the standard of utility ? It is an unworthy insinuation
of this tract-wTiter to speak of philanthropists as acting thus
— " for their own ends " ! Did not Z. Macaulay waste his
fortune in trying to suppress the slave-trade ? Was not
Clarkson's life often in danger as he climbed the decks of
Liverpool slave-ships ? Was not Howard in constant danger
from the plague? Their own ends, forsooth ! But something
worse is yet behind : " Philanthropy, so-called, actually
invades the province of God and usurps His place. It is a
vain pretence of man to be wiser and better than God in
meeting and dealing with evil and with the misery of man."
Then the tract refers to the true f^ikavOpiinria. of Titus iii. 4,
where God's love to man appears in the salvation of men.
But surely Christ did more than save men's souls ; and do
not all philanthropists act on the principle that Christianity
is fit to meet all the evils, physical and moral, of the world ?
Jesus went about every day doing good to men's bodies as
well as men's souls. Is not this the very plan of Christian
philanthropists, whether they work singly or collectively?
The Brethren's principle is to leave the doomed world to its
fate ? Is this principle from above or from below ?

It is a fearful travesty of Christianity for Brethren to
deride the action of Christian men to mitigate the evils
of the world. Consistently enough, Brethren have done
nothing and are doing nothing to support the thousands of
benevolent agencies that the Christian spirit of our day has
brought into being

III. Religious and Missionary Societies.

The principle of separation from the world which the
Brethren advocate leads them likewise to object to all co-
operation with confessedly religious people in other sects in
carrying out religious projects. The Brethren object to all
missionary and Bible societies, because such societies are not
"the approved modes of God's agency, however we may rejoice
in their objects." They do not deny that these societies
are good, for a tract on Religions Societies (Broom) says :
" Nor can we deny that it was the Spirit of God which put
the desire into the hearts of the good and holy men from

P.'yjiiou til Breth yen u m .

whom they originated." The Bible ought to be translated,
they say, not by religious societies, but by the Church of
God. Missionaries ought not to be sent to the heathen by
missionary societies, but by the Church of God. (This
objection cannot apply to those churches which send out
their own missionaries.)

Let us ask, how do the Brethren obtain their Bibles?
Do they translate and print them for themselves? Or,
rather, does " the Church of God " — as they speak of them-
selves— do this work in its collective capacity? Or is it
done by individual Darbyite publishers ? Is it not a well-
known fact that the Brethren for the most part get their
Bibles from the Bible societies they so strenuously condemn?
Why do they thus connive at the wrong done by the socie-
ties, and despise God's "approved modes of agency"? Where
they have attempted to publish new translations of the
Scriptures, have they not done it through the well-known
publishers of the Brethren? Surely this is not church-
action ! It is nothing but the enterprise of individual
publishers. Can this be " God's approved mode of agency"?
The Brethren have a perfect machinery for publishing tracts
and books — that is, for " teaching God's truth " — in the
hands of publishers like Morrish and Broom. Where is
there Scripture warrant for this practice? Has not the
Bible Society as much right to publish the Bible, and the
Religious Tract Society to publish tracts, as Messrs. Morrish
and Broom have to publish Bibles and tracts for the
Brethren? It appears, then, that the Brethren are doing
exactly what other Christians are doing ; only that they act
inconsistently with their own principles. We need say
nothing concerning the Missions of the Brethren. T/iey
have no Missions. They leave the heathen to their fate, and
prefer rather to start missions for the purpose of converting
Christians from other denominations.

IV. Effects of the Brethren's doctrine concerning the 7C'orid.

The Brethren's idea of separateness from the world has
wrought great moral and social mischief among them. It
has had the worst possible effects upon the family religion
of Brethren, as well as upon their family comfort. Miss
Whately has well remarked : " The same persons who will

The World.

159

rebuke a fellow-Christian professing piety for worldliness in
wearing a trifling ornament, or looking at a secular book, or
joining in cheerful general converse, will allow their uncon-
verted children the most entire liberty, and, indeed, in some
instances, exclude them from participation in family worship
or religious instruction/'* But, happily, we have Brethrenite
testimony on this point. " C. H. M.," one of the leaders, in
a tract, Thou and Thy House (Morrish), has brought the
gravest charges against Brethrenite family religion. He says :
"According to the thoughts and actings of many parents, it
would seem as though they regarded their children in the
light of heathens, who had no present interest in Christ or
relationship to God at all." He charges this upon "an
entirely false application of the principle of grace," as well
as upon the neglect of parental government. " Besides, the
question arises, What are my children now ? They may be
going about like idle, wilful vagrants, bringing sad dishonour
on the name and truth of Christ ; and yet all the while I
satisfy myself by saying ' I know they will be converted yet.'
This will never do." What is the state of Brethrenite
families ? The tract says : " That there has been the most
grievous failure in the management of our houses, every
honest conscience must admit ; but nothing can be more
shameful than for a man calmly and deliberately to sit down
satisfied with a disordered condition of his house, because
he cannot attain to the standard which God has set before
him." " The Lord, I believe, in righteous judgment, is
taking up the families of brethren, to show in them the
actual condition of the testimony amongst us. In many
cases, it is well known, that the children of Christians are
the wildest and most ungodly in the neighbourhood." "How
often has one felt a pang at hearing such words as these :
' Such-a-one is a very dear, godly, devoted brother, but oh !
he has the boldest and wildest children in the neighbour-
hood, and his house is a sad mess of misrule and confusion.' "
This is true testimony ! And is this all the outcome of the
superior piety of the Brethren? As to the influence of
Brethrenism upon the comfort of families, I shall merely

* Plymouth Brdhrcnism, p. 98. (Ilatchards.)

r6o

Plymouth Brcthrcniwi.

quote a passage from Mr. James Grant, which every one who
knows the Brethren intimately knows to be perfectly true :
"I shall be fully borne out by the concurrent testimony of
thousands of persons, all of them speaking from painful
experience, when I say that no tongue can tell what an
amount of domestic unhappiness has been caused by the
circumstance of some leading members of a family adopting
Darbyite opinions, while the other members of the family
were opposed to those opinions. I might unfold specific
tales of this kind which could scarce be credited ; but that
would not be expedient."* Mr. Grant supplies ample proof
upon this point. There is no exaggeration in his remark —
" It is a curious fact that a generous, open, agreeable
Darbyite is very rarely to be met with. Plymouth Brethren-
ism changes the most kind, courteous and winning manners
into the opposite." How difierent from the spirit of true
Christianity !

* riymotith Bj-etJu-cn, pp. 96, 97. By James Grant. (Macintosh.)

i6i

CHAPTER IX.

CONCLUSION.

WE shall now briefly consider the future prospects of
Brethrenism in the light of its past history, its strange
doctrinal developments, and its peculiar method of opera-
tions as a sect preying upon the membership of all our
churches.

Let us first, as a necessary part of our inquiry, understand
the true causes of the original success of Brethrenism.

I. It owed its first success, undoubtedly, to the deep
yearning that existed fifty years ago in the hearts of Chris-
tian people for a greater spirituality in the churches. There
was a powerful reaction at that time against ecclesiasticism
and formalism in religion, as well as a sort of revulsion from
what seemed effete and powerless in the current evangelism.
Those who were drawn to Plymouthism, therefore, naturally
manifested a marked dislike for old ways, for ever}'thing that
belonged to the usual routine and order of things, for every-
thing long established and calm in its workings. They were
very feverish in their moods. These were the people of whom
Dr. Duncan remarked, in connection with their doctrine of
the Church, that " they were so disgusted with the carcase,
they were ready to take up with the ghost." Just as Ter-
tuUian was driven off, by the decaying supernaturalism of the
Church in the early ages, to find refuge in the Phrygian
fervour of Montanism, so, fifty years ago, many Christians
were led by the deadness of the churches to seek rest in
what turned out afterwards to be a most reactionary and
unsteady pietism.

II

1 62 Plyviouth Brethreiiism.

2. The aspect of Brethrenism at its start was peculiarly
favourable to its progress. It offered itself as a refuge to
Christians, without regard to distinctions of sect or even
opinion, on the basis of the common life. The principle of
union was " the love of Jesus instead of oneness of judgment
in minor things, things that may consist with a true love to
Jesus." Persons would have been received at the Lord's
Table for occasional communion who attended the ministry
of other churches. Thus, as a system of pure spirituaHsm,
it exercised a very fascinating influence over minds of a
certain cast. But it was likewise singularly happy at the
start in gathering into its fold not the worst but the best
members of all our churches — many of them people of rank
and wealth, whose high position gave them a title to
worldly esteem.* Besides, it started with a body of highly
trained ministers of the gospel, who had been Fellows or
graduates of Universities. These are the men who have
made Brethrenism what it is, both theologically and ecclesi-
astically. They are, most of them, still living and actively
identified with its continued progress. Brethrenism still
attracts the best people in our churches. When we consider
the peculiar type of piety manifested by many of these con-
verts, we are reminded of a saying of Blake the artist, that
a change of religion seldom occurs Avithout at once deepen-
ing and darkening the religious life. We do not deny the
existence of genuine piety among the Brethren, but it is
seldom associated with a catholic or kindly temper toward
the saints of other churches.

3. The love of novelty has, no doubt, likewise had its
share in adding converts to Brethrenism. The whole aspect
of Plymouth theology is like a plunge into a new element.
There is hardly a single doctrine of our theolog}' which
Brethrenism has not transformed, while it defends its own
conclusions by an array of Scripture texts which excites the
wonder of new disciples. Its views of prophecy have an
extraordinary fascination for some minds, and are often

* Mr. C. Rust says : "Unlike other sects, they originated, not with
the lower nor with the middle class of society, but they can enrol among
their leaders gentlemen of the learned professions, esquires, baronets,
and even peers of the realm."

Co72ch(s{on.

the first means of attracting disciples to the system. Its
pecuhar doctrines are taken for deep truths — though, to
our mind, they are at best either mystical crudities not
easily understood, or the revival of exploded heresies. We
are not, of course, to forget that the convert to Brethrenism
gains a new position of privilege by his change. Without
importance in the Church of his fathers, he is now able to
assert himself as a preacher of the gospel.

4. We incline to think that Brethrenism has owed much
of its success likewise to the confident tone and attitude
of its leading apostles. There is an overwhelming con-
fidence of statement in their writings. It is this peculiarity,
as we know, that is the peculiar charm of Romanism to
timid and hesitating minds. But no Bellarmine or Man-
ning was ever more decisive or unexceptive in his judgments
than Mr. Darby, Mr. Kelly, or Mr. Macintosh. The bold
entireness of their convictions upon every question allows
no concession, no hesitation, no ambiguous expression of
a half-doubt upon any point whatever. Everything is clear
to the minds of Brethren, even in the difficult department
of prophetic interpretation. They know precisely all the
metes and bounds in this awful field of study. Thus,
while their disciples are ready to reject with scorn articles
of faith which have entered into the heart of the Church
for generations, they show the most simple and credulous
dependence upon the last Darbyite heresy of yesterday.

5. Brethrenism has, no doubt, gained rather than lost
by the new ecclesiastical constitution which now governs
the system. It is well known that the Open Brethren
are virtually Independents in Church-government. The
Exclusive Brethren have constructed something like a
Presbyterian organization, which gives a sort of compact-
ness to its scattered societies. It is true that Mr. Darby
and his lieutenants are the real rulers of the system, but it
has an organized framework, with something of a collective
force and authority, which has greatly increased its effec-
tiveness as a religious body. This firmer constitution
perhaps accounts for the greater success of the Darbyite
societies when compared with those of the Open Brethren.

1 64 Plymouth Brethrenism.

Having thus considered the causes of its past success, we
are now perhaps in a better position to consider the future
prospects of Brethrenism. Several reasons incline us to
believe that it is not destined to have a very long reign.

1. We might naturally draw this conclusion from the
history of similar developments of religion in the past.
There is something most significant in the ruin that quickly
fell upon Donatism, and in the insignificance to which
Sandemanism, Walkerism, and Kellyism sank soon after
their rise. Andrew Fuller explains their ruin by the
statement that "A system of religion which, instead of
arising from a love of truth, has its origin in dislike or
opposition, even though it be to error, will come to nothing."
Plymouth ism too obviously resembles the systems already
mentioned to meet with a different fate.

2. The divisions and heresies which have rent and dis-
ordered it almost since its foundation point inevitably to
the same conclusion. It is always in crisis. It contains
in itself the seeds of its own disruption, by making trivial
peculiarities in worship or discipline as essential to fellow-
ship as the doctrines of salvation themselves. It brings
souls into bondage to every little punctilio, and thus drives
off the more ingenuous spirits. Its history is little else than
a weary chronicle of dissensions and schisms. Mr. H. G.
Guinness says : " The wear and tear of reality has put their
ideal of a church to the test, and it has fairly gone to pieces."
A Plymouthist says : " The Brethren have been more pros-
perous in establishing truth by their arguments than in
confirming it by their practice." Mr. Dorman says : " No
religious movement, perhaps, ever so thoroughly succeeded
in defeating its own ends." Mr. Craik says : " Brethrenism,
as such, is broken to pieces." Another says : " Anarchy, as
a matter of fact, is running riot now among Brethren, and
every fresh difficulty will produce some fresh confusion."
If all Christendom were Plymouthist to-morrow, it would
be splintered into a thousand fragments in the course of a
few years. We need say nothing more of the heresies of
Rlymouthism. It is not, indeed, a substantive religion. It
is a mere transitional phase of religious speculation. Dr.
Tregelles often lamented the " Rome-ward doctrines veiled

Conclusion.

165

in apparent sanctity " which were current in Brethrenism.
On its ecclesiastical side it tends to Romanism, as on its
doctrinal side it tends to Rationalism. Darbyism, indeed,
has been called Popery to the Church as Romanism is
Popery to the world. It has, as a matter of fact, given con-
verts both to Popery and to Rationalism. Can we believe
that a system so unstable is destined to endure ?

3. The want of evangelistic zeal in Brethrenism seems
also to justify the belief that it will not last. Other churches
are recruited from the world. The Brethren let the world
alone, and live upon the industry of their neighbours — find-
ing it more convenient to plunder the Church than to gather
in the outcasts from the lanes and byways. It is, therefore,
quite natural that they should have no missions to the
heathen, to the Jews, or to the Roman Catholics. If they
appear in India or the Continent at all, they start no inde-
pendent missions of their own, but settle down on other
men's foundations, scattering, as Dr. Judson, the missionary,
says, "our poor Protestant soldiers and half-castes as sheep
without a shepherd. They have actually in Italy driven
back converts into Romanism. Andrew Fuller said of
Sandemanism : " There is not a surer mark of false
religion than its tendency and aim being to make prose-
lytes to ourselves rather than converts to Christ." Would a
church without missions not have been an anomaly in
apostolic times? Can it be supposed that a church with
no gospel for the masses will have a future ?

4. The want of preaching gifts must have its influence

* Dr. Jessop, the veteran American missionary in Syria, supplies us
with the latest information concerning them. The mission there has
been greatly harassed by the Brethren, though their influence has
much declined, mainly through their own divisions. He says: "The
five men who followed the Plymouth apostle in Beirut will now
neither commune with him nor with one another. The Brethren break
the Sabbath openly — going to the market and doing worldly business, as
they are 'not bound by the law.' One of them robbed the shop of a
brother Plymouthile. The rest called him to'account. He replied that
he had enough to do in looking after his new nature, and had no time to
manage his ' old Adam,' for whose deeds he denied all responsibility."
Dr. Jessop says the churches ought to pray for Divine protection against
the Plymouthite delusion."

1 66 Plymouth Brethrenism.

in shortening the reign of Plymouthism. Its founders, as
we have seen, were all clergymen. But these must
soon give place to men less cultivated and with fewer
gifts of ministry. Even as the system works at present,
there is much truth in the statement of Mr. Guinness,
that " the ministry of the Brethren is, to say the least of
it, worthless, often nonsensical and erroneous." Are not
the leaders themselves constantly lamenting that the igno-
rant and the high-minded, and those unable to edify, rush
forward to minister — "satisfied that they have the mind
of the Spirit " ? Mr. R. Govett may well say to the
Brethren : " To the eyes of all spectators, and to many
among yourselves, the Plymouth idea of ministry has failed
when reduced to practice." What else can be expected if
men are true to the principle that previous preparation is
sinful and dishonouring to the Spirit ? The fact is, there is
no originality, variety, or durability in the ministry of the
Brethren. The preaching is deplorably monotonous and
superficial, without intellectual vitality or freshness. Indeed,
no lay movement ever did anything in the way of extending
or edifying the Church. The leading evangelists of the
eighteenth century, whose work has had an abiding vitality,
were all clergj'men, like Darby and Kelly, and, perhaps,
better informed than most of the ministers of their day.

5. It is impossible to overlook the remarkably anti-social
aspect or tendency of Brethrenism as being Ukely to affect
its continuance. In the last chapter we have exhibited its
ascetic aspect towards the world, its protest against modern
philanthropy, its isolation from all sorts and degrees of
Christian fellowship outside Brethrenism. Mr. James Grant
says : " I know, indeed, of no sect so utterly devoid of kind-
ness of heart. Darbyism is the most selfish religious system
with which I am acquainted." It disregards all the usual
courtesies of evangelical brotherhood. Its separative in-
fluence in family life has been already referred to. Miss
Whately says : " We see on every side wives refusing to
pray with their husbands, brothers estranged from brothers,
and daughters leaving pious parents to lead a life apart,
close and happy ties of affection and friendship severed. I
never knew a family that Plymouthism entered that it did

Conclusion.

167

not wreck its happiness." What sort of a rehgion is that
which does nothing but disorganize family hfe ? Can we
beheve that, at a period of growing catholicity and kindli-
ness in all the relations of Christians with each other, this
anti-social temper, so unlike the spirit of Christ, will not
create a repellency round Brethrenism that will ultimately
lead to its downfall ?

These are our reasons for believing that Brethrenism is
not destined to become one of the great permanent forces
of ecclesiastical history. The question may be reasonably
asked, in connection with this subject, whether the Church
can do anything to hasten its downfall? Briefly, then, we
observe — (i) That the churches ought to look to their own
soundness and piety. As epidemics tell worst on weakened
constitutions, so the power to repel attacks of error will be
just in proportion to the soundness and life of our churches.
Wherever Ritualism or Ecclesiasticism becomes rampant,
there will be an apologj' for Plymouthism. At least, the
conditions of its growth are already in existence. We can-
not rest in a traditional orthodoxy. We must pray the Lord
not only for the dew, but for " floods upon the dry ground."
We must pray for love to abound in knowledge and judg-
ment, so that we may have Christian fervour without
bigotry, and intensity of religious action without fanatical
exaggeration. (2) Our Christianity ought to be of a theo-
logical type, so as more successfully to resist the inroads of
Brethrenism. There must be the preaching of a full gospel.
There must be greater evangelistic zeal. There must be
an individual dealing with souls in the matter of salvation.
(3) There must be great wisdom in dealing with those who
have been temporarily seduced by Plymouthist teaching.
Truth must be wisely vindicated against errorists. My
experience leads me to believe, with Archbishop Whately,
that a directly controversial policy has much the effect of a
fire-engine on a burning house. Some of the water will fall
where it is not wanted on the solid stone wall, while that
which falls on the blazing beams and rafters may be cast off
in hissing steam ; but what is poured on the wood just
beginning to kindle may possibly stop the burning and
prevent the adjoining rafters from catching the fire.

1 68 Plyjuonth Brethrenism.

It ought to be the prayer of all the churches that the
Lord would guard His people against the seductions of
a system which, if it obtained general currency, would
reproduce in these latter days those disastrous strifes
and wanderings which divided the primitive ages of the
Church.

LIST OF

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS

PUBLISHED BY

Arabia, Egypt, and | ndia. ByMrs.RicHARD burton

Author of "Inner Life in Syria." A Narrative of Travels of Captain and
Mrs. Burton. Profusely Illustrated. Demy 8vo, \bs.

A PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA AND MEDINA. A

Personal Narrative by Richard F. Burton, Author of "The Gold
Mines of Midian." New Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6.>.

THE LIFE OF LORD BEACONSFIELD- By. J. P.

O'Connor. In 700 pages, bringing down the History of the Premier to the
entry into London after the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 105. 61L

GEORGE CRUIKSHANK, Artist and Temperance Advo-
cate. By Blanchard Jerrold, Author of "Life of Douglas Jerrold,"
"Life of Napoleon," etc. With many Illustrations. Crown 8vo, lOiS-. (jd.

THE SEVEN HEROINES OF CHRISTENDOM. A

Christmas Book for Girls. By Ciiarlks Duke Yonge, Regius Professor
of Modem History, Queen's College, Belfast, and Author of "The History
of the British Navy," "The Life of Marie Antoinette," etc. Illustrated,
crown 8vo, cloth elegant, 6^.

Contents.

Joan d'Arc. I The Empress-Queen Maria Theresa.

Margaret of Anjou. Flora Macdonald.

Is.ibella of Castile. Marie Antoinette.

The Countess of Derby. |

THE QUEEN OF THE LAKES. A Romance of the

Mexican Valley. By Captain Mayne Reid. Uniform with "The Captain's
Cabin." Illustrated by ^YaUer J. Allen. Crown Svo, cloth, 2s, 6d.

A\NAY WESTWARD ; or, The Cadet Button. A Romance

of American Army Life on the Western Prairies. By Capt. Frederick
Wiuttaker. Edited by Capt. Mayne Reid. Crown 8vo, cloth, y. 6d.

SOUTHEY'S LIFE OF NELSON. Illustrated. Crown 8vo,

cloth, 2s. 6d.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

2 NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS,

C/u-af' Edition, Is.

HAVERHOLME ; or, the Apotheosis of Jingo. A Satire. By

Edward Jenkins, M.P. Libinry Edition, cloth elegant, crown 8vo, price 6s.
Contents.

15. Spirit and Truth.

16. The Cardinal-Archbishop.

17. The Reverend Mr. Deiv'^.

18. The Monsignor and the Canon.

19. The God Jingo.

20. Lord Straithnoddie.

21. Indo-Gothicism.

22. Count Screwfalloff's Oath.

23. The Result of Count Screwfalloff's Oath.

24. The Scare.

25. Mr. Doublehalterand " the Chimes" take
French leave.

26. The Climax.

27. Tin<;o take? another Turn.
2S. 'I here is a God.

1. The Overture.

2. Mr. Wyville Willesden's Opinions.

3. Money and Principle.

4. The Lobby and its Figures.

5. I'roublesome Thoughts.

6. " Nothing succeeds like Success "—how-

ever won.

7. An Ugly Recollection.
S. The Marquess de Saltimhurj-,
9. The Marquess de Saltimbury explains his

Position.
!0. Peers and the Prerogative.
II. Mr. Doublehalterand "the Chimes."
,2. The Countess Willowerovc.

13. The Whigs and the " Front Bench."

14. IMr. Goodrock.

THE BOYNE AND AUGHRIM : the Story of .?ome Famous Battle-
fields in Ireland in 16S9. By Professor Witherow, Author of " Derry and
Enniskillen." Crown 8vo, cloth, price $s.

MEMORIALS OF IRISH PRESBYTERIANS, with Selec-
tion.? from their Works. By Professor AVitherow, Author of " Derry and
Enniskillen," etc. Crown 8vo, cloth, ^s. '

DERRY AND ENNISKILLEN IN 1688-9 : the Story of .some

Famous Battle-fields in Ulster. By Professor Witherow. Fourth Thousand.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3^. 6ci.
" An excellent work on a subject of still enduring interest. . . . Natural, candid, and lifelike."
—The Times.

PLYMOUTH BRETHRENISM : being a Refutation of the Doctrines
of the Plymouth Brethren. By the Kev. ^^■.M. Croskery, Londonderry.
Cloth, 2s. 6d.

PRAYER, PRAISE, AND THANKSGIVING. A Study of the

Order for Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Litany. By JoiIN Bkistow,
M.A. Cloth, 3^. 6</.

THE FLAG OF DISTRESS. By Capt. Mayne Reid. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 3^. 6</.

THE LONE RANCHE. By Capt. f.L\YNE Reid. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3^.6./.

THE DEATH SHOT. By Capt. RLvyne Reid. Profusely Illustrated.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 3^. 6J.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MULLAN & SON. 3

Edition. Thirty. fifth Thousand.

A CANDLE LIGHTED BY THE LORD. A Life Story for the
Old and the Young, and the Rich and the Poor. By Mrs. Ross. Twenty-
four Illustrations. Foolscap 8vo, cloth, \s. 6d.

" A really touching and charmingly written taleof the type of ' Jessica's First Prayer.' " — Record.
" A story of real life, told with a simple pathos that will cause it to live." — Fountain.
".Admirably told— without exaggeration oi precocity. It wins it way to the heart." — The
Frccnian.

'• riV ■:. . - .£■..'■) i . I ll ; L AS THE WINGS OF AN ANGFL."— /. lOO.

jW'j Stories ly the AtitJwr of ''A Candle Lighted."

WINIFRED MARTIN. Cloth, with 25 Illustrations, crown 8vo, price 6s.

LITTLE MOTHER MATTIE. By the Author of " A Candle Lighted
by the Lord." Cloth gilt, illustrated, i^. 6</.

TBffi PRIDE OF THE FLOCK. By the Author of "A Candle
Lighted by the Lord." Cloth, illustrated, i^. 6d.

REID'S HISTORY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

IX IRELAXD. Comprising the Civil History of the Province of Ulster,
from the accession of James the First. Xew Edition, with continuation by
W. D. KiLLEN, D.D. Three vols., l^s.

"The very best book, in my opinion, which has ever been written on these matters."—
J. A. Frol de, in Frascrs .yiagaziiie.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

4

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS

THE CAPTAIN'S CABIN. By Edward Jenkins, M.P. Cloth
elegant, unifonn with "The Devil's Chain," "Ginx's Baby," etc. Illustrated
by Wallis MacKay. 2s. 6<f.

" Mr. Jenkins has performed the feat of getting into one small volume as much 'sensation ' as
would usually supply capital for at least nine. It makes a pleasant hour's reading."— A //terup/tm.

" Very amusing. It is simply fun and drollery, and sentiment and graphic painting." —
Giian/r'ati.

LUTCHMEE AND DILLOO. A .Story of West Indian Life. Three
vols. By Edward Jenkins, M.P. 3U. 6^/.

"The tale is told with unfl.agging power. The descriptive passages are all of great force and
heauty, and the native episodes are full of humour."— Co>i/i.-/;!/ora>y Re7'U-w.

Thirty-snx'ulh Edition, u>ith 20 lUustratious by F. BARNARD.

GINX'S BABY : His Birth, and other Misfortunes. By Edward Jenkins,

M.P. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 2s. 6d.

'•The great attraction of this edition is the clever illustrations, forcibly reminding one of
George Cruikshank.--/';Vi'<>;7a<' U'orU.

" in:. UO.MiU OF GL .AU1)I.\.\S TOOK A GOOD LOOK AT UllI."— /. I37.

BARNEY GEOGHEGAN, M.P., and HOME RULE in ST.

STEPHEN'S. By the Author of "Ginx's Baby." Tenth Thousand. \s.

" Barney will probably rank with the best work of the clever author of ' Gin.x's Baby.' " — Daily
Review.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MULLAN & SON, 5

Late*t Work of the Rev. W. Arthur, M.A., Author of " The Successful
Merchant," "The Tongue of Fire," etc,

THE POPE, THE KINGS, AND THE PEOPLE. A His

tory of the Movement to make the Pope Governor of the

World. Tracing the Ultramontane movement for what is called "The
Reconstruction of Society,'' or the establishment of a Theocracy under a
Pontiff, with dominion over all Rulers or Nations. The period includes the
Six Years from the publication of the Syllabus to the end of the Vatican
Council. In two vols., demy 8vo, 2^s.

" A valuable history dr.iwn from the most authentic sources ; and showing great industry and
learning, as well as clear and vigorous reasoning." — Coitici/i/iara/y Review.

" It is the result of a thorough and carefidstudy of all available materials for gauging the policy
of Pius IX. and his advisers. It is a work of real importance, and deserves the attention of all
who are interested in the matter of which it treats. It cannot fail to make a deep impression on
the public mind."— 7 Academy.

" One of the most important works that has lately appeared on questions of serious theological
and ecclesiastical interest." — Truth.

"Mr. Arthur's learned and temperate work consists chiefly of a history of the .Syllabus and the
Vatican Council, and will be valued by, students of the subject ; and concentrates within a reason-
able compass what those to whom foreign soi*ces are open would have to go far and wide in
search of." — EA-amhu r.

Other Works by the same Author.

ITALY IN TRANSITION. Illustrated by Official Documents from
the Papal Archives of the Revolted Legations. Crown Svo, 6/.

Twenty-sixlh Edition.
THE TONGUE OP FIRE ; or. The True Power of Christianity. Crown
Svo, cloth elegant, t^s. 6J. Cheap Edition, cloth limp, is, 6d,

yao Edition., Eighty-tiinth Thousand.
THE SUCCESSFUL MERCHANT : Sketches of the Life of Mr.
Samuel Bldgett. Crown Svo, J,s. 6d. Cheap Edition, \s. 6d.
" It is just the book that parents are glad to be able to present to their sons."— Ba/tist.

THE MODERN JOVE. A Series of 'the Collected Speeches of Pio
Nono. Crow n Svo, zs. 6d.

ALL ARE LIVING. Fourth Edition. Price 8./.

SHALL THE BIBLE LIE UNDER A BAN IN INDIA P

Fourth Edition. Price iJ.

FULL, FREE, AND PRESENT SALVATION. Twenty-first

Thousand. One Penny.
DID CHRIST DIE FOR ALL ? One Penny.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

KKW BOOKS AND NKW EDITIONS

Cheap Edition, \s.

THE DEVIL'S CHAIN. By the Author of " Ginx's Baby." Twenty-
sixth Thousand, with Illustrations by F. Barnard and Gordon Thompson.
Crown 8vo, price \s. ; cloth limp, i^, dd. ; cloth extra, 2s. (>d.

"The book outvies in interest the mo^t sens.itional of novels." — Dundee Adv ether.

" ' The Devil's Chain' is a most telling collection of drink incidents, cleverly forged together
in a collected tale." — Gunnfiaii.

" This powerful and well-sustained stoi-j- contains ample evidence of being the w ork of a man of
genius." — Seoismait.

" The most powerful contribution which has yet been made to the literature of the temperance
paxty."—Noncoii/onii:st.

HL. DKA(.(,i;d Illvl; lisro THE SIDE-IiAR OK A rUIlLIC-HOL'SE, AND I'UT HKR O.N' THE SEAT
AGAINST THE WAINSCOT."—/. 9.

Py the Author of " dux's Bahyy
LORD BANTAM, down 8vo, cloth, price 5s. ; Cheap Edition, cloth,
price is. 6d.

LITTLE HODGE. Cheap Edition, illustrated, zr. 6d.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MU^LAN & SON. 7

FATAL DAYS; or, FRAXCE, EUROPE, ami the SIXTEExXTH 01'
MAY. By .M. De la Fr.\nche-Comte. Crown 8vo, price 2s. (s/.

" Presenting a vivid portraiture of the domestic politics of France.

" This able exposition of the present state of France and of Europe." — Li-.'crpml AUhn.
" Since Victor Hugo's 'Napoleon the Little,' there has not been the equal of this work for
trenchant criticism in French politics."— .\'D/-//(tf?7« Ec'u>.

THE DINNER BELL. A Gastronomic Manual, teaching the Mistress
how to rule a dainty and knifely Cuisine, and the Cook how to prepare a
great variety of dishes with economy. Edited by Fix Bec, Author of
"The Epicure's Year Book,"' "The Book of ^lemis" "The Cupboard
Papers," etc. Cro\\Ti 8vo, cloth, zs. 6d,

GERMAN LOVE. A Tale. By Professor Max Ml'LLEr. Small post
Svo, cloth elegant, price ^s,

" Is one of the loveliest love-stories ever written, exquisite in feeling and thought, and perfect
in its literarj- form." — Ci»i^i.'gat!oiialist.

" It is full of intense interest, and one of the best books of its kind ut have ever met v.ith ; one
leaves it with regret" — Brighto;t GazL-tte.

THE FINEST OF THE WHEAT; or, The Bread of Forgiveness.
By Mrs. Brock. Small crown Svo, cloth extra, 3^. 6d.

" This book forms really pleasant reading. It is sufTused with tender thoughts, savoured with
Evangelicalism, and is broad enough to be welcomed generally." — Nonconfonnist.

"A series of meditations and homilies on the Atonement, quite worth reading." — L:tci-ary
Clntixkniait.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND RITUALISM. By

the Right lion. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. Demy Svo, sti.'if wrapper, \s. ;
cloth boards, i^. bd.

"The two Essays have won so much celebrity that there will be a general desire to possess a
handsome reprint ia librarj- form." — Liverpool Daily Post.

FERGUSSON'S BROCHS. A Short Essay on the Age and Uses of
the BROCHS and the Rude Stone Monuments of the Orkney Isles and the
North of Scotland. By James Fergusso.N', D.C.L., F.R.S. Royal Svo,
cloth, bevelled boards, price 3^. (xi.

" The testimony of the relics is distinct and unequivocal both as to the absence of Scandinavian
and the presence of Celtic characteristics. They form a very important and remarkable group of
antiquities entirely unknown out of Scotland."— ^Vc/jWiiw.

CHANGES in the Incidence of IMPERIAL TAXATION

and in the proportions borne liy the Richer and Poorer CLisses. By WiLLIAM
Holms, M.P. Paper cover, crown i6mo, price 6d.
■'It forms a neat volume, which will be read with interest."— .V^;/^/: Britisft Daily Mail.

THE HUMAN MIND : A System of Mental Pliilosophy, for the General
Reader. By James G. Murphy, LL.D., Belfast. Crown Svo, 346 pp.,
cloth, i,s.

" He Is always clear and interesting, and can teach :\i,\rC:t3h\'j."— Morning Post.
" His literary style is neat, and, indeed, what may be called elegant." — Scotsmati.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

8

NEW B(^KS AND NEW EDITIONS

A\iu and Cheap Edilion, Rei'ised.
THE LIFE OP DR. COOKE, Belfast. By Professor Porter,
Author of "Giant Cities of Bashan," etc. Cloth, with Steel Plate and
Wootlcuts, 5J-.

" The life of Dr. Cooke " says Lord Cair.vs, " was a large portion of the rehgious and public
history of Ireland for the last half-century."i v^uu^

Nciu JFork hy William Gilbert.
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. An Unvarnished Picture of the
Effects of Intemiserance. By William Gilbert, Author of " De Profundis "
etc., etc. Small post 8vo, price ^s., cloth elegant. '

"There was a charm ^yhich riveted the interest of the re.ader, and made him intenselv
anxious to follow the narrative to its sad bitter end. "- Good TemJ>lars Watchword. "'^"""^^'J

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MULLAN AND SON. 9

George Macdonald.
EXOTICS : A Translation of the Spiritual Songs of N'ovalis, the Hymn-Book
of Lutlier, and other Poems from the German and Italian. By George
Macdonald. Small 8vo, cloth, price 6s.

" To all cultured lovers of spiritual songs and meditations, this little volume will prove a
treasure."— Edinburgh Daily Rcfii'.v.

SCIENCE AND REVELATION : A Series of Lectures in Reply to
the Theories of Tvndall, Hl xllv, Darwix, Spenxer, etc. Demy 8vo,
cloth, 5^.

" A series of tractates excellently printed, and produced in a style that would dcr credit to any

house Very clearly and cleverly, as well as honestly, does each author proceed in his

review. " — Publishers Circular.

THE DOCTRINE OP ETERNAL PUNISHMENT VIN-
DICATED AG.\1XST RECKXT attacks. By the Rev. Profe^or
Watts, D.D., Belfast. Demy 8vo, sewed, is.
" I cannot help saying how much I am impressed with the great ability, the candour, the sound
philology, and the logical acumen that Dr. \Vatt>5 has brought to bear on the discussion of this
profoundly difficult, 2ind, after all, mysterious s-bject." — Dr. H. A. Bo.\ru.m.\k.

RECOLLECTIONS OP MY LIFE AND TIMES : An Auto-
biography. By the Rev. James Morgan, D.D., Belfast. With Selections
from his Journal, and a fine .Steel Portrait. Demy Svo. cloth, 6;/.

" Eminently calculated to perpetuate the work of usefulness with which the name of Dr. Morgan
was identified during his lifetime, and serves greatly to enhance the dignity of a career for which
there has been no e.\act parallel since the foundation of Presbyierianism in Ireland." — Nortlurii
IVhig.

LIFE OP THE REV. JOHN EDGAR, D.D., Professor of Theology
in the Assembly's College, Belfast. By W. D. Killen, D.D. Crown Svo,
cloth, y. bd.

" It is a delightful record of benevolent enterprise, by an ennobling Christianity, sustained by
the richest and most e.v.-iltcd eloquence, and carried on with the most unconquerable energy.
This choice volume ought to be in ever>- household library throughout the United Kingdom. —
Loiuiomictiy Standaid.

THE PLAN OP THE HOUSE : A Catechism of Church Govern-,
mem and W orship ; intended for the use of Sabbath Schools, etc. By the
Rev. J. E. Henry, M.A. Cloth, ii8 pp., S<i'.

" Gives in small space a large amount of valuable information on subjects of great importance."
— Christian Banner.

A SACRAMENTAL CATECHISM. For the instruction of Persons
seeking admission to the Scaling Ordinances of the Churcli. By the Rev.
T. Y. Killen, Belfast. Fourth Edition, \d.
"We could not im.-igine a better penny's-worth put into the h.inds of persons desirous of realising

their duties as Christians." — Biitmian.

THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM. With the

Proofs arranged in Sections for Weekly Instruction, and having Hints for the
Teacher on the opposite page. By Jas. G. MfRi'iiY, LL.D., T.C.D. Price
id., or without the " Hints for Teacher," \d.

POEMS. By Mrs. Pkkiffer. Fcap. Svo, cloth, 6j.

■' Some of these are, to our mind, among the finest sonnets in the language." — Spectator.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

10 NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS

THE TURKS IN EUROPE. Who are the Turks? What have they
done? What is to be done with them? Ly Edward A. Freeman, D.C.L.,
LL. D. Demy Svo, 64 pp., price 6d.

BALDER THE BEAUTIFUL : A New Poem. By Robert Buchanan.
Small post Svo, cloth, Js. 6d.
" No terms of eulogy can well be too strong to employ in de^c; ibin;; it. It is unquestionably
the poet's masterpiece."

Fifteenth TJioitsaud.

THE SHADOW ON THE CROSS: The Present Crisis of the
Turkish (Question. ISy ]''d\vard Jenkins, M.P. Price 6(/.

GLANCES AT INNER ENGLAND, liy Edward Jemciks, m.P.

Cro\vn Svo, cloth, 5^.

Tenth Thousand.

JANUS; or the DouUc-faced Ministry. By Edward Jenkins, M.P. Price 6r/.

"An eloquent .irraignment of the Cabinet in regard to the management of the Russo-Turkish
X\if\a\\ly."— Northampton Moxiiry.

'* Written with passages of a powerful and stirring nature." — Salisbury yourjial.
"A clear, well-written pamphlet, and worth reading." — Cambridge Express.

THE CHRISTIAN CITIZEN, and THE CHRISTIAN

AND THE WORK OF LIFE. Two Addresses to Young Men and others.
By Edward Jknkins, r>I.P. Cloth elegant, is. 61/.

"The lectures are forcibly written, and cannot be too widely read by the young men of the
present day." — Literray ll'oiH.

"We he.artily commend the.c thoughtful addresses to the attention of all Christian men." — The

Primrfwe Methodist.

"Mr. Jenkins is brief, genial, direct, comprehen'sive. His book has a profound practical
purpose, which is to show how L'liristianity should inlluence a political life." — Noncoiifonnisi.

M'CRIE'S LIFE OF JOHN KNOX. Containing Illustrations of

the History of the ileformation in Scotland, with Biogr.aphical Notices of the
Reformers. V,y Thomas M'Crie, D.D. New Edition, with a Memoir of
Dr. iM'CiUE, by Andrew Crichton, LL.D. 500 pp., cloth, bevelled
boards, 3.>-. 6./.

"A classic of Englisli llternture, needing commendation to none." — Lilcraty IVorlil.
Second Edition.

THE LORD'S PRAYER: A Course of Sermons preached in the Tempfe
Church. By C. J. N'alghan, D.D., Master of the Temple. Small 8ve,
cloth, 3^. dd.

Ktiv Edition. Henry Kingsleys Last Story.
THE MYSTERY OF THE ISLAND: A Stirring Tale of Adven-
tures among the Horse Indians of Patagonia. By the late Henry Kingsley.
Crown Svo, 3^. dd.

STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OP RELIGION AND

HISTORY. By A. U. Fairkairn, M.A. Large po^t Svo, 9.-.

" Written with a firm grasp of the subject, in a clear, vigorous style, often rising into eloquence,
these catholic papers ileserve a hearty welcome, as a valuable contribution to the science of
religion."— /'«//>l/<i.''/c;«Jt-//'.-, Dec. 6, 1876.

" Every portion of the book bears traces of vigorous original thinking and of strong individuality,
and shows rare power of felicitous exposition."— .SV«i/j///<i«.

•4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY W. MULLAN & SON. 11

THE SELF-MADE MAN : An Autobiography. By K. F. Von KloI^en.
Edited, with a Sketch of his After Life, By Max Jah.n. Translated by
A. M. Christie. Two vols., demy 8vo, with portrait, 2Ss.

*' A most fascinating book." — Sami i-:l S.mii.ks, Author of ** Self-Help."

" We are much mistaken if this autobiography does not take rank as a classic. It is a
masterpiece of ingenious self-portraiture and graphic narrative. In its warmth and simplicity it
reminds us of Mr. Smiles' ' Life of Steplienson,' with the zest of autobiography superadded. —
Satiuilay Kct'inv.

BELL'S STANDARD ELOCUTIONIST. New and greatly En.
larged Edition. 1878. Seventy-second Thousand. Strongly half-bound in
red roan, cloth sides, 35. 6d.

PATTERSON'S INTRODUCTION TO ZOOLOGY. With

upwards of 350 lllustiations, and a Glossary of Scicntilic Terms. By
Robert 1'.\tterso.n, F.R.S. Thirty-sixth Thousand. 488 pp., half-bound
in roan, ^. 6d.

"Mr. P.itterson has added to our stock of scientific hterature a book in which are combined all
the essentials of elementary instruction, with the ease of a finished writer, and even the elegance
of an imaginative and poetic style," —.Vi-^.'i f.cttcr.

HELEN'S BABIES. With .some Account of their Ways : Impish,
Crafty, Innocent, Angelic, Witching, Repulsive. Also a Partial Record
of their Actions during ten days of their Existence. By their Latest Victim.
Presentation Edition. Cloth elegant, 2s. bd.

Sttiitution.

Every one knows that there are hundreds of thousands of fathers and mothejs,
each of whom possesses the best children that ever lived. I am, therefore, moved
by a sense of the eternal fitness of things to Dedicate this little volume to
THE PARENTS OF THE BEST CHILDREN IN THE WORLD,
with a reminder that it is considered the proper thing for each person to whom
a book is dedicated to inircliase and read a copy."

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

12

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIOI^S

STANDARD EDUCATIONAL WORKS.

iVau Edition. Eighty-Third rjwusand.

BELL'S STANDARD ELOCUTIONIST. New and Enlarged
Edition. Containing over 500 of the choicest extracts in the English
Language, with the Principles of Elocution fully stated. Strongly half-bound
in roan, crown 8vo, 510 pp., 3^. dd.
" Has long been accepted and held as one of the best books on the subject."— A'. B. Daily

News.

" Is strongly bound, and in every way fitted for the use of schools." — Dublin Express.

"This is the best book of the Vm&."— Bookseller.

" Has richly deserved its wide popularity."— .S7<7«fAi«/.

" Is a book so well known and so favourably spoken of that it would be almost a work of
supererogation for us to enlarge upon its met'as."—Ciz'/l Sc/z'/ce Gazeiie.

BELL'S JUNIOR ELOCUTIONIST. Selections in Prose and Verse,
suitable for Junior Classes. .Sixth Thousand. 208 pp., cloth, 2s.
"The selections are so good, they will attract the tyro tired oi iaWme."— Free luaii's Journal.
"We admire the selections made and the instructions given. " — Schoobnasier.

BELL'S LADIES' ELOCUTIONIST. A Class Book of Poet.7,
suitable for Young Ladies. With an introduction on the Principles of
Reading. 300 pp., cloth, 7.s. 6d.
"Admirably adapted for ladies' schools." — Pid>lisl:ei-s' Circular.

"Well worth the attention of those having charge of the education of girls." — Daily Kevieiv.
" It is certainly the \'ery best work of its kind that we have yet met with." — /risli Teachers
Joiimal.

" The pieces chosen are from jioets and thinkers, whose triumphs we all acknowledge, but
who are especially dear to the female jnind." — 1-ree man's Jonrnal.

KNOWLES' ELOCUTIONIST. A Collection of Pieces in Prose
and Verse, with an Essay on "The Principles of Elocution," by James
.SlliiRiD.w Kxowi.li.S. New Etlition, with considerable additions. Edited
by Robert Mullan. 418 pp., strongly half-bound in roan, 3^-. (>d.
" Has long earned for itself a well-merited popularitj'." — Literary World.

" 'I'his edition of a well-known work has been greatly enlarged, and appears to have under-
gone a thorough revision. The selections are untisually copious, and have been made with rare
judgment, and a taste educated and refined. "—/;•«/; Teacltcrs' Journal.

" Thoroughly suited to school purposes." — Scotsman.

MURRAY'S ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Abridged and Improved, by
the Rev. John D.WIs. Eighty-third Thousand. Cloth, ^d.

"Having reached its eighty-third thousand, we may fairly presume that this edition of
Murray has answered and is still answering its purpose as an accepted school book." — Bookseller.

MURRAY'S JUNIOR ENGLISH GRAMMAR. New Edition

Ninety-seventh Thousand. Cloth, dd.
" It is admirably adapted for school purposes."— /;vi7i Tcaciicrs' Journal.
'"J his is a very useful little handbook."— /"//W/j/if/v' Circuloi:

MANSON'S ENGLISH PRONOUNCING DICTIONARY.

With a Key to the Pronunciation of Scripture Proper Names. Revised by
Rey. John Davis, A.M. 24S pp., cloth, \s.

MANSON'S SPELLING BOOK. Revise<l and Corrected, with an
Lnproved Selection of Reading Lessons. 180 pp., cloth, %d.

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MULLAN & SON.

15

STAyDAJ^D EDUCATIOyAL iVORK'S-confiiuLJ.

PATTERSON'S INTRODUCTION TO ZOOLOGY. With

upwards of 350 Illustrations, and a Glossary of Scientific Terms. New
Edition. Thirty-sixth Thousand. 488 pp., 4?. 6J.
" Mr. Patteriwn has added to our stock of scientific literature a book in which are combined all
thi essentials of elementary instruction, with the ease of a fkiished writer, and even the elegance
of an imaginative and poetic style."— £i(/asl Xcws-Lc f/i r.

PATTERSON'S FIRST STEPS TO ZOOLOGY. Fifth Edition.

^Vith upwards of 230 Illustrations. 244 pp., 2.-. 6c/.

'■ Is remarkable for the clearness of its style and simplicity of its language." — Pro nntf Con,
"Carefully and clearly written, and quite in accoid;iiice with the latest discoveries In this
interesting science."— AviCrivi.

PATTERSON'S ZOOLOGICAL DIAGRAMS. 29 by 24 inches.

Sheet I — Invertebrate Animals, 56 Illustrations, is. Sheet 2 — Vertebrate
Animals, 31 Illustrations, is.

RUDDIMAN S RUDIMENTS OP THE LATIN TONGUE ;

or, a Plain and Easy Introtluction to Latin Grammar. Revised and Corrected.
132 pp., cloth, l.f.

HODGES' CHEMISTRY: The First Book of Chemistry in its applica-
tion to Agriculture. By J. F. HoDGKS, M.D., Public Analyst for Belfast.

Fourteenth Thousand. 206 pp., 2s.

SCIENCE MANUALS.

Interxled to serve as Elementary Text-Books of Science, which shall be at once
popular and accurate. The Authors have throughout aimed at combining sim-
plicity with fulness, and at placing before the student a complete outline of each
subject, giving due prominence to the most important portions. While the series
is cheaper than any other of a similar cliaracter, no expense has been spared in
binding, illustrations, etc., to make it one of the best and most complete.

Thf, Following are Re.\.dy : —

1. GEOMETRY AND MENSURATION. Part I.-First Book ol

Euclid and Mensuration of Rectilineal Figures. By W. J. Browne, M.A.,
Inspector of National Schools. 72 pp., strongly bound in cloth, price 6<t

" M once simple and philosophical, we can heartily commend it for beginners." — Standard.

" Few, if any, really important points have been left untouched, and the great v.ariety of
Exercises will supply a want hitherto much felt " — Derby Mercury.

" Very creditably got up, and thoroughly suited to its purpose "—Cambridsc

Cltroniclc.

"This little work is carefully .irranged, and will supply a very h.indy book for elementarj-
leaching "— Glas^o^.v Ki'. s.

2. ALGEBRA FOR SCHOOLS. Part I.— Definitions, Simple Rules,

Elementary Formulsc, and easy Simple Equations. By George Porter,
M.A., Head Master, Coleraine Model School. 68 pp., cloth, price dd.

" An excellent little book We heartily commend it as one of the very best of its

kind." — Educatioiutl Reporlei .

"Takes great pains to make the symbols clearly imderstood. The exercises are very easy
throughout, and special provision is made for home work."— Schoolmaster.

4, Paternoster Sqviare, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

14

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS

SCIENCE MANUALS^onlimud.

3. GEOMETRY AND MENSURATION. Part II.-Secor.<l

Eook of Euclid .111(1 Mensuration of Circle, Zone, Ellipse, and Surface of
Solids. By W. J. Browne, M.A. 6o pp., cloth, price 6a'.

"This is one of the bc^t books of the kind we h.ive ever seen .... amply accomplishes its
purpose."— £(/«<-(Z/;V>«(f/ Register.

"The elements of Geometry and Mensuration, in a convenient form, for schools, and in parts
gr.iduated to suit the different stages of instruction." — Literary World,

"A welcome addition to a subject which for mathematical tyros presents many obstacles in
its study. Will supply a want hitherto much felt." — Biriningliaiu MorniHg Xcivs.

4. BOTANY FOR SCHOOLS. Embracing the Structure, Classifi-
cation, and Description of Plants. By W. J. Browne, M.A. 8o pp., cloth,
^\■ith numerous Illustrations, price 8</.

"The morphologicil and structural portion is so well done as to render the book of gre.it use
to the beginner. Indeed, we do not know of any purely elementary work in which this part is
more satisfactory. The illustrations are very good and serviceable."— A'rt/«rr.

"A nicely got up little volume. It deals principally with structural Botany, but gives an
outline with useful brief descriptions of classificatory Hotany as well." — Science Gossip.

" Clearly written and full of information. The illustrations are very good. Altogether a
well-written and cheap little book." — Schoolmaster.

This voliiinc has been sanctioned by the Coininissioiiers of National Education.

5. ALGEBRA FOR SCHOOLS. Part II.— Greatest Common Measure,

Least Common Multiple, FormuLx, Fractions, Involution, Evolution, etc.
8o pp., cloth, price Si/.

6. MAGNETISM AND ELECTRICITY. For Schools and

Science Classes. By George Porter, M.A. 56 pp., cloth, price Sd. •

O TIIERS IN PRE FAR A TION.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

The following series of admir.^ble Lectures have recently been issued.
Demy 8zw. Price 4//. each.

SCIENCE AND REVELATION : Their Distinctive Provinces, With

a Review of the Theories of Tyndall, Hu.xley, Darwin, and Herbert
Spencer. By Rev. Professor Porter, Author of "Giant Cities of Bashan,"
" Murray's Handbooks to Syria," etc. ^d.

"Written with trenchant power and ability, and aflbrds convincing proof that he is master of
the subject."— /)o;tv; Keconier.

DESIGN IN THE STRUCTURE AND FERTILIZATION

OF PLANTS A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. With 13
Illustrations. ]]y Dr. MoORE, Glasnevin, Dublin. Price ^d.
" May be recommended for the information it conveys." —Gartle'iCrs' Chronicle.

AN EXAMINATION OF HERBERT SPENCER'S BIO-
LOGICAL HVPO'lHESIS. By Rev. Professor Watts, Author of
" Atomism," etc. Price 4;/.

"In the -work before us the le.irned Professor carefully examines the conclusions of Mr.
Spencer, .shows how unhappy arc many of his arguments, and exposes his sophisms."- ife-.ory
TeUgmfih.

4 Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MULL AN & SONi 15

RELIGION- AND SCIENCE-coniinucd.
THE DOCTRINE OP AN IMPERSONAL GOD IN ITS

EFFECTS ON MORALFrV AND RELIGION. By the Rev. W. TODD
Martin, M.A., Newtownards. 4^/.

"Here we have thirty-two pages of dose reasoning, carrying on the war to the enemy's gates,
and convincing the unprejudiced of the futility, as well as the w ickedness and misery, of such
h^YKi."— Publishers' Circular.

MIRACLES AND PROPHECY: Direct Proof, that the Bibk is a
Revelation from God. By Rev. A. C. MuRi'iiy, M.A., Londonderry.
Price 4^.

" Has ably treated the (|ucstion, and given a treatise whicli, in a small compass, embraces the
chief points requisite to sustain Biblical truth and refute nialcrialistic philosophy." — Dcrry
Standard.

PRAYER IN RELATION TO NATURAL LAW. By Rev.

Professor Wallace, Author of " Representative Responsibility," etc.
Price i4-

"One of the most thoughtful and scholarly discourses we have read for some time." — The
Witttess.

MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS BELIEF. By Rev.

John Macnaughtan, Belfast. Price 4(/.

THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OP CHRIST AN EVI-
DENCE OF THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. By the Rev. John
MoRAN, Belmont. Price is,d.

THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE BIBLE A PROOF OF

ITS DIVINE ORIGIN. By Rev. William Magill, Cork, Moderator
of General Assembly of the Presbyterian Churcli in Ireland. Price 4//.
" A very valuable series of argumentative tracts . . . which we commend most cordially
to the calm and dispassionate perusal of all honest inquirers after truth ... as sound,
logical, and, to our minds, unanswerable appeals to our reasoning faculties." — The Standard.

ATOMISM : Dr- Tyndall's Atomic Theoiy of the Universe Examinal and
Refuted. By the Rev. Professor W.A.TTS, D.D. New Edition. Tenth
Thousand. Price 417'.
" An adinirable and well-reasoned discourse." — Preachers' Lanierii.

YAYIN ; or, The Bible Wine Question. Testimony of Scripture, of the Rabbis,
and of Bible Lands against recent Sacramentarian Innovations. By Professor
Watts. Price 6(/.

THEOLOGICAL COLLEGES: Their Place and Influence in the
Church and in the World. Being the Opening Lecture of the Assembly's
College, Belfast, Session 1874-5. By J. L. Porter, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Biblical Criticism. Price 40'.

ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT : An Historic and Economio Sketch, Ey
W'. D. Henderson, Belfast. To which is added, a Letter to The Times,
by the Right Hon. Lord WaveNey. Price

4, Paternoster Square, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

16

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS.

A NOVEL TEMPERANCE TALE,

By the Author of "Helen's Babies."

THE BARTON EXPERIMENT.

ILLUSTRATKI) PRKSKNTATION KUITIOX.

f loth flct,rnnt. post Svo, price 2.r. dd.

■There is a good dcjl of ,-:ev, r «ritinLr iii tins story, and not a little clever ana convincing

4, Paternosier bqn.ire, London ; 4, Donegal Place, Belfast.

Date Due

^ 1

1

i

1

=afi4i