most part the writers of the Open Brethren are hardly more than an echo of Darby, Kelly, Bellett, Denny and Deck.[1]
The discipline of the Open Brethren in individual cases of questionable doctrine is doubtless variable, according to the meeting before which the question comes; but, in many instances, it would probably not be much less stringent than that of Exclusivism in its earlier and more sober days. But if the Open Brethren have excommunicated persons whose errors might have been more charitably and more hopefully dealt with from within, they have had the excuse that they were always under the malevolent scrutiny of their Exclusive rivals. The least symptom of a disposition to deal compassionately with some form of speculative error (assuming for the moment that the offensive tenets really were in every case erroneous) was eagerly caught at by the Exclusives, through a natural instinct of self-justification; and probably some of the Open party have been too nervously anxious not to give their adversaries a needless advantage.
In July, 1872, some of the “Open” leaders issued a manifesto, professing the ordinary principles of evangelical orthodoxy. With reference to “discipline,” they observe that it “should be restorative in its character; and the solemn act of separation should be resorted to only after loving and faithful dealing has failed to reclaim”. The honoured name of John Code appears at the head of the signatures.
It would be unsafe to infer that the Open Brethren are a more moderate and conciliatory kind of Darbyites.
- ↑ It must be remembered that Newton and Tregelles were never in any sense Open Brethren.
