A hypothetical case will perhaps help to set this very- important matter in a clear light. Suppose the members of a meeting of Brethren are discussing some delicate case of discipline. A local Methodist whom they have always considered a true Christian walks in. According to the theory of Darbyism such a man has as good a right to sit down and take his place in judging of the question as any Plymouth Brother of thirty years’ standing. Whether he has as good a right to take a leading part in the discussion depends on his personal qualifications. If he had spoken deprecatingly, saying for example, “I am only here as a fellow-Christian, not as a Brother,” the greatest man among the Brethren, if he knew his text, would have replied, “We are all here as fellow-Christians, and as nothing besides; we have no title that you have not”.
But these principles, however essential if the Brethren were not to “fall back into mere denominationalism,” were difficult to practise, and apparently not easy even to grasp. Certainly the rank and file were constantly turning back into Egypt, and put their leaders to no small trouble to inculcate these impracticable sublimities. On the surface the practice of the Brethren would have impressed the onlooker as very similar on the whole to the prescriptive usage of the free churches, conformity to which they so nervously dreaded. Still, their theory introduced some uncertainty and irregularity into their principles of membership.
The theory of course excluded “special membership,”
two or three visiting, is to me the question of adequate testimony to the conscience of the assembly.
“At the beginning [of Brethrenism] it was not so, i.e., there was no such examination. Now I believe it a duty according to 2 Timothy ii.” Darby, Letter dated San Francisco, August 1875.
