in precise meanings, and if his critics had known him they would not have taken him so seriously. As it was, a cry of heresy was raised. Darby interposed characteristically, pronounced Mackintosh wrong, and his critics worse. Mackintosh withdrew the objectionable expressions—in whole or in part, according to the critic’s point of view. All this is quite illustrative of Mackintosh’s status. On the other hand, what Darby or Mr. Kelly wrote may be accepted as the theology of Brethrenism, but with two reservations. In the first place, any peculiarity merely generated by a horror of New- tonianism filtered through scantily, if at all, to the level of the laity; and secondly, Darby’s views on the sufferings of Christ (of which the next chapter will present some account) always remained to a great extent esoteric.
Briefly stated, the theology of the Brethren is the ordinary theology of Evangelicals of a firmly but moderately Calvinistic type; but there are fairly important variations, of which some of the most significant relate to the doctrine of Justification. Darby taught that the Righteousness of God, as spoken of in Romans, is to be understood as God’s personal righteousness, and not as His provision and bestowment of righteousness. This would have been no novelty if it had appeared in connexion with a Rationalistic scheme of justification; but in its evangelical setting it was startling. Possibly Darby was driven back upon it by the force of the reaction against everything Newtonian. However this may be, an impression has arisen in some quarters that his general system was far less evangelical than was really the case. It has actually been suggested that the Brethren sympathised with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that justification is partially granted in
