Miscellaneous
Writings Vol. Two
Christian
Holiness.
INTRODUCTION.
THE immediate occasion of the following pages has been a
recent attack upon "the theology of the so-called Plymouth Brethren" by a
professor of didactic theology in Boston University, in which what many beside
the present writer regard as some of the most precious doctrines of the Word of
God are stigmatized as antinomianism. This will account for whatever
controversial character may he found in them; a thing scarcely to be regretted
if it serve, as it does undoubtedly serve, to bring out and emphasize the
fundamental questions, as well as to exhibit the strength of the arguments on
either side. Truth will only suffer if there should be found in this a spirit
of acrimony or a contention for the mastery rather than the truth: both which,
alas are apt to be engendered by controversy. This, if it should be found in
me, I shall not beg my reader to excuse. Holiness is not a theme to be
discussed in a manner so essentially unholy.
I do not think Dr. Steele
will deny my competence to speak in behalf of the doctrines he incriminates. If
he has studied them, as he tells us, for ten years (p.ioo), I have done so for
twenty-five; and while he has done this from an outside (if not a hostile)
stand-point, I have known them from inside, estimating them by internal
experience (a very different thing), and bringing them daily to the test of the
Word of God. I speak of this the rather, because I do not propose to bring
forward in general the testimony of men, but to appeal to the Word itself
throughout, while yet I shall have again and again to disclaim Dr. Steele's
representation of the views he has attacked, of which I must say he has still
very partial knowledge. If he dispute my own, I am ready to meet him on that
ground also. In the meanwhile, I am sure that those who are acquainted with the
writings of those referred to will confirm my presentation of them.
It
is Dr. Steele who should have proved that the views he attacks are really the
views of representative writers among the "so-called Plymouth Brethren." He has
certainly not done so with any thing like the care that might be expected in so
grave a question. With the exception of a quotation or two from Mackintosh's
"Notes," and one from the "Eight Lectures on Prophecy," he has given little or
nothing with which one can properly credit "Mr. Darby and his school" (p. 86).
Some of his quotations are without clue to the writer; others are from the
large number of (supposed) "sympathizers" (p. 30), as to whom nothing is given
to show how far their sympathy extends, or that the doctrine presented in them
is really that of those they "sympathize" with. Dr. Steele speaks of Mr. Darby
as "their leading mind" and the head of the school.
He has studied
their writings for ten years, knows of course that Mr. Darby's own fill
thirty-seven volumes of near six hundred pages each, and it would be reasonable
to expect that he would quote largely from these so far as I know, there is not
one quotation. Dr. Steele's "Darbyism" somehow leaves out Darby! And this is
all the more strange, because he brings forward six times what that "venerable
Christian scholar" said to the writer (pp.18, 6o, 131, 158, i81), which of
course we have no means of verifying; but not one line or sentence from his
written books!
But Mr. McDonald, in the preface, has quoted Mr. Darby:
"Any thing which looks like church prosperity is, with Plymouth Brethren, a
delusion. 'The year-books of Christianity,' says Mr. Darby, 'are the year-books
of hell.'" (p. 15.)
Yet even this is given without a clue to whence it
is derived. I have taken some trouble to find it, but as yet without success.
Mr. McDonald may be surprised, however, to learn that it is from a Romish
historian (I think, Baronius), and not from Mr. Darby at all; although it is
used by him somewhere to show the state of the professing church. This is not
an extreme specimen of that kind of mis-representation of which the book before
us has many instances. Intentional misrepresentations I do not mean, but the
effect is the same for readers of such things. Take one example from Dr. Steele
himself as proof:- "At my request, Mr. Darby gave an exposition of Matt. xxv.
31-46. What pitiable makeshifts to explain away this most solemn and awful
passage in holy Scripture 'It was not a final and universal judgment, but a
review of the Gentile nations. Individuals are not here judged, but nations
other than the Jews.'" (p. 185.)
This is all put within
quotation-marks, as if it were the very words used on this occasion. In fact,
it is only Dr. Steele's impression of what was meant, and a very false one.
Take the written statement of the Synopsis (vol. iii.. p. 164), as evidence:
"It is the judgement of the living, so far at least as regards the nations - a
judgment as final as that of the dead." And if any one will turn to his tract
upon eternal punishment, he will find this very passage argued upon in proof of
it. "Eternal life and eternal or everlasting punishment answer to one another,
and mean the same in either case he punishment of the wicked, then, is said to
be of equal duration with the life of the blessed." This settles the question
conclusively as to whether in Mr. Darby's thought individuals or nations (as
such) are before us in this text. Inasmuch as it is with him a final judgment
to eternal life or eternal punishment, there can be no question that it is of
individuals. "All the nations" means simply "all the Gentiles," as he
affirms.
It is a strange excess of prejudice that can cause gross
misconceptions such as these. And then with thirty-seven volumes that lie open
to criticism, to prefer to give judgment upon private conversations! Assuredly
no honest mind will accept Dr. Steele's account in defiance of published
statements such as these. I am sorry to say that it is not only in such ways
that Dr. Steele shows the spirit that can animate one who "is not ashamed to
confess with tongue and type and telegraph and telephone" that he believes in
"a genuine CHRISTIAN PERFECTION." (p. 25.) Not only are sentiments imputed to
the objects of his attack which they refuse and abhor, but immoral practices
also. They are stigmatized as Antinomians, who believe that the sins of
Christians are not real sins (p. 89), that the efficacy of faith is
concentrated into a single act of assent to a past fact (p. 5oi), who are
indifferent to inward and outward holiness (p. 101), concealing the offensive
features of their doctrine with Jesuitical cuninng (p.130), and soon. Perhaps
the title of Dr. Steele's book should have prepared us for such charges. It
would have served his purpose better to have proved them; especially as somehow
these people "insist on deadness to the world, and entire devotion to God" !
(p. 55.)
But we are sanctified only by the truth: if, then, the
doctrines in question are not truth, we must concede they do not sanctify. Our
business at this time is wholly with the doctrines.
CHAPTER
ONE
ANTINOMIANISM : WHERE IS IT?
MR. FLETCHER'S definition of
antinomianism a curious illustration of the value attaching to names of this
kind in such controversies. Luther invented the term to designate the views of
Agricola, who denied the use of the law to produce conviction and repentance,
as well as sanctification. Mr. Fletcher's statement would condemn Luther
himself, and it was intended to include the chiefs of the Calvinistic
evangelical party of his day. Dr. Hodge says ("Outlines of Theology," p. 404),
"Antinomianism] has often been ignorantly or maliciously charged upon Calvinism
as a necessary inference by Arminians,"- such as Mr. Fletcher and Dr. Steele;
and he retorts the charge upon them thus: "It is evident that all systems of
perfectionism, which teach (as the Pelagian and Oberlin theories,) that men's
ability to obey is the measure of their responsibility, or (as the papal and
Arminian theories,) that God for Christ's sake has graciously reduced His
demand from absolute moral perfection to faith and evangelical obedience, are
essentially Antinomian." (p. 526.)
Thus it seems the Plymouth Brethren
have companions under the same imputation with themselves. As I have said, Mr.
Fletcher's definition was admittedly not made for them, but for such men as
Hervey, Toplady, Romaine, Whitefield, and others,- men with whom it would be an
honour to be condemned, but whom Dr. Steele seems anxious to associate with
those who "decry that evangelical legality (!) which all true Christians are in
love with - a cleaving to Christ by that kind of faith which works
righteousness"! And, reader, you are, according to the definition, an
Antinomian, unless you expect to be justified before God by your own personal
obedience, and not by the obedience of Christ, in the great day of final
account. (pp. 31, 32.) That is the test of antinomianism for Mr. Fletcher. -
Dr. Steele, in summing it up, however, adds new features, which are some of
them indeed part of the creed of hyper-Calvinisni, while some of them probably
no one would own in the present day, and none but a fanatic could ever hold.
Let Dr. S. produce, if he can, from the thirty-seven volumes of the "leader" of
the school, or from the numerous writings of C. H. M., or Wm. Kelly,- wide
enough scope, if this be the Plymouth doctrine,- the least intimation that "my
faith is simply a waking up to the fact that I have always been saved or that
"a believer is not bound to mourn for sin, because it was pardoned before it
was committed, and pardoned sin is no sin;" or that "by God's laying our
iniquities upon Christ, He became as completely sinful as I;" or that "no sin
can do a believer any ultimate harm;" or that "the conditions f the new
covenant, repentance, faith, and obedience, are not on our side, but on
Christ's side, who repented, believed, and obeyed in such a way as to relieve
us from these unpleasant acts." (pp. 35, 36.) After ten years of patient
inquiry, an accuser cannot be guiltless in putting out such things in a book
professedly against the Plymouth Brethren without guarding his readers against
attributing them to them as they would do necessarily otherwise. It is true Dr.
S. has not directly charged them with them; but this is the creed of an
Antinomian, and they are Antinomians. The argument is too simple and necessary
not to be made, and he must know it would be.
We now have a historical
sketch of antinomianism, which is of no special importance for our purpose. It
only needs to remind the reader again that the doctrines attributed to one and
another in it are not to be supposed transferable to that class of people in
whom we are told it has been in these days "revived." They are responsible for
their own views, but for nothing more. And the association with Dr. Crisp and
others only can avail to stir up feeling and create prejudice before the real
cause is taken up. Dr. Hodge states as to Crisp, that he denied the inferences
put upon his doctrine (" Outlines of Theology," p. 404), and certainly it is
hard to believe that he actually wrote or said, "Sins are but scarecrows and
bugbears to frighten ignorant children, but men of understanding see they are
counterfeit things' (p. 141). If he did say this, it is altogether needless to
bring him up from merited oblivion.
It is strange, however, that
whereas Agricola, Tobias Crisp, and such like come conspicuously to the front,
as do "John Wesley, the apostle of experimental godliness and of Christian
perfection," and "the seraphic John Fletcher," we are not once told with whom
these contended in their day, or with what.
On the whole, we are well
pleased with Wesley's definition of antinomianism. According to its root idea
("against law,") the only scriptural definition must be "the doctrine which
makes void the law through faith." (p. 38.) We have, then, to find the real
Antinomian to take the New Testament doctrine of the law, and inquire who makes
void the law? who refuses to take it for whatever purpose God has given it? who
perverts it to any other use? who takes off the edge of its requirement?
Searching along these lines, we can scarcely fail to find the Antinomian in the
only proper sense.
What, then, is the office of the law according to
Scripture?
It is (1), to give the "knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3: 20), not
only by putting it into account,- reckoning it up as the items of a bill (Rom.
v. 13), and making it exceeding sinful, as breach of plain command (vii. 13),
but also by detecting it in the heart in the shape of lust (vii. 7) and giving
it power by the very prohibition (vii. 8, 9).
(2) Although ready to justify
the doer of it (Rom. ii. 3), yet requiring complete obedience (Jas. ii. Gal.
iii. io), and finding none (Gal. iii. 10), it only condemns and curses and
never justifies- (Rom. 3: 19; iv. 15 ; Gal. ii. i6, 2! ; iii. ii ; V. 4).
(3) Its principle is not faith (Gal. iii. 12), and it cannot be added to or
disannul the promise of grace, which 430 years before had declared the way of
blessing for all the earth (vv. 17, i8); being given for a certain time and
purpose till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made (v. i9).
(4)
For those under it in the day of judgment, there can be therefore no escape
(Rom. ii. 12 ; iv. ii).
(5) As to holiness, sin shall not have dominion
over you, because. you are not under it, but under grace (Rom. vi. 4); it is
the strength of sin (i Cor. xv. 56), even to those delighting in it (Rom. V11.
22); in order to live to God and serve Him, we are delivered from and dead to
it by the cross (vii. 7, 6 ; Gal. ii. is), and dead, that we might belong to
Christ, and so bring forth fruit to God (Rom. vii. 4): we cannot have the law
and Christ, as a woman cannot have two husbands at the same time (vv. 1-3.) The
"righteousness of the law" is thus, and only thus, fulfilled (viii. 4).
This is the Scripture-doctrine of the law, and to the whole of it the so-called
Plymouth Brethren fully, and with a free heart, subscribe. It will be
difficult, therefore, to prove them Antinomians. As for their "rule of life,"
it is most certainly true that they do not believe it to be the law, but to
result from their place in Christ, a new creation. This is what the epistle to
the Galatians explicitly teaches: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature (ktisis, creation).
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy" (chap.
vi. 15, i6). Thus the exhortation is, "As ye have received Christ Jesus the
Lord, walk ye in Him" (Col. ii. 6). Or, as the apostle John says, "He that
saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked" (i
Jno. ii. 6). This manifestly includes the "righteousness "- all the practical,
moral excellence -" of the law," as the greater includes the less. Or, if Dr.
Steele will say it does not, he will no doubt let us know it. But, in fact, Dr.
Steele evidently does not speak the whole truth about the objects of his
attacks. He only permits you to see partially, and then through coloured
glasses. I am not aware that once throughout his book he speaks of the "rule"
which the Plymouth Brethren acknowledge. Yet their writings abound with
exhortations as to it, and he has studied them for ten years! Why this utter
silence, when he can permit himself to say of the "consistent Antinomian," and
they are such for him, "He thinks that the Son of God magnified the law that we
might vilify it; that He made it honourable that we might make it contemptible;
that He came to fulfill it that we might be discharged from fulfilling it,
according to our capacity" (p. 34). On his own part, it is only simple truth to
say, nothing that can vilify is omitted; nothing that could brighten the
picture is allowed to be seen.
But the antinornianism is here, that we
"affirm that our evangelical or new-covenant righteousness is in Christ and not
in ourselves," and that we are not under the law-modified to make it
practicable (here is Dr. Steele's own real antinomianisrn) as a rule of
judgment. For the opposite view, he quotes Baxter (Aphor. Prop. 14-17,)-
"Though Christ performed the conditions of the law (of Paradisaical innocence),
and made satisfaction for our non-performance, YET WE OURSELVES MUST PERFORM
THE CONDITIONS OF THE GOSPEL. These (last) two propositions seem to me so
clear, that I wonder that any able divines should deny them. Methinks they
should be articles of our creed, and a point of children's catechisms. To
affirm that our evangelical or new-covenant righteousness is in Christ and not
in ourselves, or performed by Christ and not by ourselves, is such a monstrous
piece of Antinomian doctrine as no man who knows the nature and difference of
the covenants can possibly entertain." (pp. 92, 93.)
So we must give up
"His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jer. xxiii.
6.) We must give up that Christ "of God is made unto us wisdom, and
RIGHTEOUSNESS, and sanctification, and redemption." (i Cor. i. 20.) To affirm
that our righteousness is in Christ and not in ourselves is but a monstrous
piece of antinomianism! Do Wesleyan Methodists indeed hold this? Let them speak
out if they do not, and disown this attempt to take from the Lord of glory one
of His "many crowns"! For our part, the name of Richard Baxter affixed to this
bold heresy will be of no avail to make it truth, nor weigh the lightest
feather-weight against the NAME we are thus called to renounce. Be it so, we
are Antinomians for it, then Antinomians we will be, and one of our proudest
titles it will be forever
Do we believe, then, that we have not to
"perform the conditions of the gospel"? If this means that Christ repents and
believes for us so that we need not, away with the utter absurdity, and saddle
it where it belongs! If Dr. Steele can find a sentence or hint to this effect
in any of the writers with whom he has been ten years familiar, then we give up
the man to the scorn and condemnation of all sane, moral men. But neither
repentance, nor faith, nor both together, are the righteousness in which a
believer stands before God. Faith is but that in which we rest in Another,- the
hand with which we lay hold upon Him. Repentance is the acceptance of the
divine sentence upon ourselves which leaves us hopeless except in that other.
Thus they are both included in true conversion, and never found separate. As
conversion is a spiritual turning round, so if the back is turned on self, the
face is turned to Christ, and vice versa. These are, if you will, conditions of
the gospel, although sovereign grace alone brings about in any the fulfillment
of them, but their fulfillment leaves us just as much Christ as righteousness,-
the only righteousness in which we are accepted.
Dr. Steele's comment
upon Baxter contains the full endorsement of these errors, with others of his
own :- "Thus speaks this pious, practical, well-balanced dissenter against the
fatal errors arising from confounding the Adamic law with the law of Christ,
the first demanding of a perfect man a faultless life, the other requiring an
imperfect man, inheriting damaged intellectual and moral powers, to render
perfect, that is, pure love to God his heavenly Father through Christ his
adorable Saviour, with the assistance of regenerating and sanctifying grace."
(p. 93.)
There are here about as many mistakes as lines, and they are
serious ones. Where does he find this Adamic law demanding of a perfect man a
faultless life? From Genesis to Revelation there is not even a hint of it. "Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This, as I understand it, was the law to
Adam. Was there a lex non scripta, different from this? Where have you it, Dr.
Steele? But there is small danger of confounding this with the law of Christ,
methinks. Theology perhaps may affirm what Dr. S. maintains; but theology has
fallen on evil days: we have learned nullius Jurare in verba magistri, save of
our "One Master," Jesus Christ. Now for this "law of Christ" cited, once more
to the statute book, Dr. Steele ! We know that the apostle says to the
Galatians who "desired to be under the law," but were biting and devouring one
another, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
(Gal. vi. 2). And we concede fully that the will of Christ is law to the
Christian. We believe fully that we are "inlawed," as it has been literally
expressed, "to Christ." (1 Cor. IX. 21.)
But all this fails to show
that peculiar character of law which our reviewer insists on, that immoral law
(as it would surely be) that lets off easily a man of damaged moral powers, and
allows him to proclaim aloud "with tongue and type and telegraph and telephone"
his "genuine CHRISTIAN PERFECTION." Oh, sir, if this be all, you should,
methinks, take your way more humbly into heaven; and if this is the
righteousness in which you hope to stand accepted before God, allow us to thank
Him that for you and us He has provided a better,- even in Him whom you, alas!
refuse as that.
This is fairly and fully the very antinominism with
which Dr. Hodge, not without cause we see, charges the school of perfectionists
to which our author belongs. And notice, that while he contrasts his strict
Adamic with his relaxed law, which we will not call the law of Christ, the only
law which God gave to man, what is called such in Old Testament and New,
contrasted as such with the gospel and its grace, that law on which the apostle
in Christian times insists as of unbending holy requirement,- this law escapes
somewhere into the darkness, evaporates, and is lost.
With Dr. Steele,
thus, there is no right standard of holiness; the Christian is let off easier
than the Jew while there is no true "salvation of God" at all. God puts man in
a salvable state, that is all; his final salvation is of himself, with God's
assistance. As for peace, upon this system none ought to have it, and, indeed,
Dr. S. does not say any one ought. "The removal of the wholesome safeguard
found in the fear of being morally shipwrecked and cast away, must tend to
looseness of living in not a few cases. It is possible that a few might suffer
no detriment from embracing such a theory, but they would be exceptions." (p.
96.)
And this is for people in whom no "sin in the flesh" remains,- in
whom spirit and soul and body are entirely sanctified So that along the easy
road of the relaxed law the perfect Christian requires to be driven with a
scourge of this kind! And these are they - for the absurdity cannot be left
incomplete in this strange and incongruous mixture of contradictory things,- in
whom perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment!
In fine,
we have neither peace, nor salvation, nor law, nor grace, and certainly not
holiness. Such is the really Antinomian law-gospel of Dr. Steele.
Chapter Two
Home | Links | Literature