Two things strike me here-first, the overruling hand of God in so leading their malice, which was all their own, as that they should fulfil the prophecy in Isaiah liii., in associating Jesus with the malefactors: secondly, the rapidity of the action, he is seized upon unlawfully one night, and, in spite of all Roman law and justice, executed the next day. Barabbas had not been so treated by man; neither were James, Peter, nor Paul, afterwards allowed to be so treated. A longer interval at least was granted to them, though denied to him who was the Prince of life.

12. Yet he died not by the death of the cross, though he died upon the cross. His suffering was cut short before the wonted time; for this, among other reasons, that the scripture might be fulfilled, "not a bone of him shall be broken”—“ Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, and, calling the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead" (Mark xv. 44).-"When they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs" (John xix. 33).

Rapid was man's wicked movement in its hurried enmity against the Lord to murder him! And he yielded himself to their hands; yet when all was accomplished that man could do, he was content and lingered not for the usual death of the cross -Having cried with a loud voice, he yielded up the ghost. In Ps. lxix. 20, we read, reproach hath broken my heart: and it seems as though this indeed was the immediate cause of the Lord's death. Sorrow upon sorrow had burst in upon him, when, having cried with a loud voice, he ceased to breathe. That it was unusual for one crucified so soon to die, is evident from the first of the above quotations. And one reason for its being so is seen in the second; for it was written, "Not a bone of him shall be broken"'—so graciously had God, by the predictions of his prophets, set a stamp upon every step of the path through which his beloved was to pass; and thus not only showing how greatly he loved to ponder all those steps of the lonely way of his Son, but how anxiously he desired to give every confirmation possible to them that should draw near to him through Jesus.

"Lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first" (John xix. 64).

Was this conscience at work, or was it the deeper plan of the enemy, forecasting what would be the issue, and trying to anticipate the report of the resurrection, and by such an anticipatory report to discredit it when it was truly reported? That it was from beneath is too evident, and how completely in this, as in other things, does evil outwit itself. In guarding against the report of an event they gather witnesses to behold it. Yea, they make the seal fast and the guard sure, in the full complacency, doubtless, of their own minds; but both the one and the other became the unquestionable witnesses against themselves in the result for it is but a little onward and we read

"Go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him: lo I have told you" (Matt. xxviii. 7). 'Why seek ye the living among the dead ?" (Luke xxiv. 5).

66

But all their precautions were in vain-his was the mastery over death and the grave; and no sooner had he lain there the appointed time than its power was broken and the joyful news spread abroad-he is risen ! Welcome news indeed to one

who understands the resurrection; for in it, as we shall see, the whole proof of the value and acceptance of his sacrifice was presented. It is a sorrowful thing to think how few now know the value and importance of the resurrection. I do not mean that they do not assent to it as a point in their creed-surely every christian does-yet very few see it and know it themselves in the spirit before God, so as for it to be a reality with themselves, as in the presence of God, and not merely a point of mental agreement with men around them.

"Our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death" (Luke xxiv. 20). “For as yet they knew not the Scriptures that he must rise again from the dead" (John xx. 9).

The entire unpreparedness of the disciples for the event of His death, notwithstanding all that Jesus had said to them to prepare them for it, is evidenced by these two passages. Their heads, full of Jewish notions and hopes about the land and themselves, there seemed no room for the words of the Lord with them; it was new truth to them, and instead of laying up in their hearts till further light might

dawn upon it, it seems to have been hardly attended to by them. Surely we may be warned by this; and the more so, as there is not the same excuse for such conduct in us as there was in them,-Jews--and without that deeper gift of the Spirit proper to us as Christians-living too in the very day of transition from one dispensation to another-such a thing in them can be more accounted for than the almost similar state we find now in many, as to those truths which open to them from the word, or may be heard by them from others, as the Lord graciously is awakening his church from her slumber in the world. Surely the truth which has been brought to light within the last thirty years in England from the word, has brought with it deep responsibility to all that have heard it: and yet how many are there who have heard and understood not, and are still acting as though all that which surrounds them in the nominal church had had no sentence pronounced against it by the truth so of late proclaimed. May the Lord deliver us from all blindness and

hardness of heart!

To be (D.V.) continued.

THE "CHRISTIAN OBSERVER" AND "THE PLYMOUTH

BRETHREN."

To the Editor of the Inquirer.

THE May number of the "Christian Observer" contains a letter addressed to the Editor, which is headed "Remarks on the Opinions of the Plymouth Brethren." The writer of the letter, who is obviously a Clergyman, signs himself IITs, and the letter itself, which is by the Editor pronounced "a calm and scriptural exposure of error," is preceded by the following remarks:

"We have occasionally received inquiries respecting the opinions of the persons known by the name of the Plymouth Brethren,' but have abstained from noticing the subject, upon the general principle which we followed in regard to Irvingism and many other extravagancies; that except so far as they become matters of great notoriety, or special cause arises for adverting to them, it is not for edification to make them the subject of popular discussion. It often happens that more unstable persons are led into error by its opposers than by its friends: the former drawing it from its obscurity and publishing it among the unwary, who thus become acquainted with the sophistries which they are unable to withstand......The Socialists boast that their publications have circulated manifold in consequence of the notice of them in Parliament!" &c.

With introductory and commendatory remarks of this sort, Iorig is ushered in as a "scriptural" antagonist of the "Plymouth Brethren." After a very broad hint that their theories are to be classed with those of "a Southcote or an Irving," the writer goes on to say, "their system is so much infested with extravagance, and so opposed to the true principles of Scripture interpretation, that I have let it pass, year after year, without directly attempting to expose its true character, notwithstanding I was told of its rapid growth and pernicious tendencies." A difficulty, he says, occurred in ascertaining their authenticated opinions; but that difficulty he has surmounted by the appearance of a volume "entitled Precious Truth, which is patronised by the Plymouth Brethren;" and it is from that little volume that he draws forth all the heresies of this "rapidly increasing and pernicious" sect. But before he examines their "false doctrine" as contained in that volume, he thus gives a brief sketch of their principles. "The brethren at Plymouth profess, and I doubt not in sincerity, to take the church as it existed in the days of the apostles for their exact model; at least as far as may be practicable, and consequently [a strange consequence!] to have done with all religious creeds, and forms, and shibboleths, as remnants and rags of Judaism. Nor do they obscurely intimate that their views of holy living, as the adjunct and fruit of their theory, are higher than those maintained by Christians of other denominations; so that the 'Plymouth Bre

thren' not only reject at once every possible claim of the Established Church, but they also condemn every Dissenting communion, as shackled more or less by its technical peculiarities. They are most nearly allied to the Baptists; as a large proportion of the Brethren have partaken of the rite of adult baptism. When these circumstances are weighed, together with their zeal for proselytism, which has been neither inactive nor inefficient, the work before me becomes a fair subject for scriptural investigation."

Some serious blunders are contained in this paragraph. 1. "The Brethren" do not "profess to take the church as it existed in the days of the apostles for their exact model." If they had pursued this plan, they must in some sort have imitated the Irvingites, and have set up apostles, angels, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, helps, governments, &c. &c. To copy "the exact model," there must be either the power and authority of God, by which that model was first set up, manifested by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, to make the church complete as at the first; or else the ingenuity of man must copy that model as well as the case will admit, without the power and the spiritual gifts. Into this error most of the sects have fallen; the Churchman contends for bishop, priest, and deacon, and endeavours to establish the threefold form of the priesthood of his communion, by mingling law and gospel, omitting several parts of the New Testament, and filling up the gaps with the rubbish of tradition. He finds a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon in the New Testament (the triple priesthood of Prelacy); and to this creature of his imagination he assigns all that the Holy Spirit did at the first assign to the whole body of believers. The Congregationalist denies the triple form of the priesthood, and contends for "the One-man System," as a more scriptural model; but not less than the Prelatist does he by his own inventions, ordinations, and traditions of clerisy, without any spiritual power in his appointments, take into his own hands the appointments of the Holy Ghost, and build up in the flesh that which should be reared by the Spirit alone. "The Brethren" avoid all sects, because the sects rear their churches in the flesh; that is, because they look for power from the flesh in places where the whole arm of power ought to be exclusively that of the Lord, the Spirit of life; because they invoke the help of the world, and invent terms of communion, and fabricate laws and rules unauthorised by the word of God. "The Brethren" recognise Christ as the alone and sole head of the church as to endowments of power, order, and grace. They appeal to the word of God for instruction; and look to the Holy Spirit, by which they have been anointed, to exercise gifts for the edification of the saints;-but they do not take the church "as it existed in the days of the apostles as their exact model," excepting in the articles of faith and obedience. To restore that model as it was at the first, is a work which none but the divine Head of the Church could effect: wherever the attempt is made by man (as it always is in appointments of ecclesiastical officers, or in any clerical arrangement), there there is a direct departure from the Lord and from his power; and this view of the subject is something far more than rejecting sects "as shackled more or less by technical peculiarities."

It is a mistake to assert that "the 'Brethren' are most nearly allied to the Baptists" -a very great mistake, and argues a superficial acquaintance with that subject which Пtoric undertakes to handle with all the solemnity and confidence of one who thoroughly understands it. It would be much nearer the truth to assert that "the 'Brethren' markedly disagree with the Baptists;" for if there be any peculiarity of the sect of Baptists it is this-that they insist on baptism as a term of communion, and will not allow any one to become their associate who does not, as a preliminary, submit to immersion. Now, as opposed to this, we may say that it is one of the fundamental principles of "the Brethren" to close the door by no such barrier :“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations...for God hath received him" (Rom. xiv. 1-3). Where with the mouth confession has been made to salvation, a confession which expresses a belief of the heart unto righteousness, there there is, or ought to be, satisfactory proof of the grace of God "God has received" such a one; who then are we, to shut the door against such a one till he shall have submitted to immersion? We may or may not have a decided opinion about the baptism of believers, and we may be fully persuaded that immersion is the proper mode of administering that ordinance; but assuredly "the Brethren" do not make baptism a term of communion; and this is a fact so generally

known by all that have come within the neighbourhood of " the Brethren" that it is surprising to find Ioris thus magisterially falling into a palpable error.

Another complaint is, that "the Brethren are remarkable for their zeal for proselytism, which has been neither inactive nor inefficient." This in truth is the secret of the whole article in the "Christian Observer;" because the clergy, and particularly those of the evangelical class, are beginning to be alarmed by the spread of those principles, which being quite distinct from the views of technical Dissenters, are making inroads in some of the hitherto undisturbed regions of the Establishment. But this is an old complaint, "a zeal for proselytism;" this was the complaint of the Church of Rome against the Lollards, the Waldenses, the Reformers; this is the complaint of the Brahmins against the Church of England in Hindoostan; and this is the mutual complaint of the Popish priests and the priests of the Establishment in Ireland against one another. The best remedy for this malady is for Iioris and the "Christian Observer" to shew the scriptural foundation of the Establishment, to convince all men of the three orders-bishop, priest, and deacon; to shew the Divine warrant in the New Testament for the secularity of the Church of England; to put the Prayer Book in such a light that no man may be able to gainsay it; to defend a parish religion, and so to fortify all the supposed weak places of the Church by scriptural authority and scriptural proof, that it may defy the approach of these pernicious principles." Let Iloris and the clergy do this, and they need not fear any proselyting zeal in whatever quarter it may make its appearance.

66

The next complaint is against doctrine. Ilioris quotes from page 5 of “Precious Truth" the following sentence :-" Man's corrupt heart, that is enmity against God, is ready enough to believe something about judgment and wrath, but altogether unwilling to believe such wondrous love as that God should give his Son to do everything for us, leaving us nothing to do but to confess that everything is already done, because he has assured us of it." The fault here, according to II., is the want of these words, "in the way of justification;" and he then concludes with this sentence:-"Throughout this volume, I do not find the necessity of repentance insisted on, or even noticed. It will, therefore, be difficult for the author to repel the conclusion, that he treats as superfluous in religion that which Christ and his apostles have distinctly spoken of as indispensable. Is not this being wise above what is

written? We may add, Is not this also being a heretic ?"

In noticing this complaint, I find it difficult to avoid a suspicion of malice and intentional slander in Πιστις. Does he mean to say that "the Brethren" treat “repentance as superfluous," and set aside that "which Christ and his apostles have distinctly spoken of as indispensable ?" Yes; surely he means to leave this impression with his readers, having first taken care to inform them that the little volume, "Precious Truths," on which he bases his accusations, "is patronised by the Plymouth Brethren." But is it not marked injustice to declare that because a certain doctrine does not appear in a collection of little tracts, therefore the doctrine in question is rejected by the writers of those tracts? This is indeed the whole proof of this grave charge; but what would the accuser say if, with similar candour, we were to assert "that in the whole of the thirty-nine articles regeneration and conversion are never once noticed, and that therefore it will be difficult for clergymen of the Established Church to repel the conclusion that the Church of England treats as superfluous in religion that which Christ and his apostles have distinctly spoken of as indispensable ?"

I contend that, for more reasons than one, it would be logically admissible to come to this conclusion; because the thirty-nine articles profess to teach the chief doctrines of the Christian faith-to give a summary of what we ought and what we ought not to believe; and, moreover, it would be difficult to shew how regeneration and conversion of an adult can be admitted in the Established Church, taken in connection with the baptismal office of that sect. Nevertheless it would be grossly unjust and unfair to assert that the evangelical clergy deny regeneration and conversion, when we know very well that many of them preach both (whether right or wrong, as clergymen, need not here be examined). Surely then, Tic, before he brought against a large body of Christians a charge of heresy, ought to have taken the trouble to ascertain what really were the views of "the Brethren" on this question. It was quite at hand for him to get all the information he could desire; for IIIOTIS hears much more of "the Brethren" and their doctrines than he finds agreeable; and

he knows very well that he need not have waited even for return of post to be furnished with a full statement of their views on the subject of repentance.

There is, however, even in this very tract, page 7, something very like that which Пtoric is so desirous to find :-" If you think that you are not a very great sinner, and that your sins will be pardoned because they are a few, you are not a Christian, because you are not believing in Jesus; but if you know that you are a very great sinner, but that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth you from sin, your sins are pardoned, because Jesus hath put them away (Heb. ix. 26)." This, in my apprehension, is preaching evangelical repentance. "Of sin, because they believe not on me." It distinctly asserts that a moral man, who has not seen himself “ a very great sinner," is not pardoned, and that because he falsely supposes that his sins are few. Is not this preaching repentance at the foot of the cross? Πιστις should examine

Precious Truths more accurately before he thus condemns them.

"In page 21 of Precious Truth," says II., "christians are condemned for minding 'earthly things,' without any attempt to shew that such things, if duly subordinated to those which are unseen and eternal, may very lawfully be attended to, and, indeed, cannot be innocently neglected." To clear up this accusation, it will be requisite to give the passage referred to:-"The Jews might have minded earthly things, and should have done so, because they were what God gave them; but they who mind earthly things now have their end destruction (Phil. iii. 19)-because they are not what God gives to fill the hearts of his people." This statement one would not suppose could be objected to-for what is it but a simple assertion in the fewest words of that which the scriptures had already asserted? The fault, if fault there be, must be with the author of the Epistle to the Philippians, who has declared that he writes it not without tears that some professing christians were then walking who minded "earthly things," and that their end would be "destruction." To mind earthly things is to mind earthly things, say what we will; and whatever it may be requisite to add, in the opinion of Iris, about "subordinating" such things to those which are 66 unseen and eternal," yet Paul did not think it requisite to make any such addition; but he adds that which mightily strengthens the expression of his sentiment-" for our conversation [Toλrevua] is in heaven;" and, shortly afterwards, he still more fortifies this doctrine,-"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." Alas! it is not requisite to preach sermons against the neglect of earthly things; the flesh is always ready to mount the pulpit with a sermon on this topic, and a very convincing one too, whenever earthly things present themselves to view. The effect of these homilies we see too conspicuously in the wretched worldliness and secular tone of professing christians, who, under a pretence of " subordinating earthly things to those which are unseen and eternal," fully indulge themselves in the lust of the eye and the pride of life: this is notorious, both amongst the evangelical church-people and the dissenters, and the notoriety is rendered more painful by the hypocritical pretences and theological special-pleading with which it is supported. A claim to inward mortification, united with outward indulgence, gratification of the flesh upon earth whilst the heart is spoken of as being in heaven, is a faithful representation of the theory of "subordination."

66

The next complaint is as follows-"In the same spirit it is contended that all war is inadmissible on christian grounds: a proposition directly opposed to the direct words of John, in reply to the inquiry of the soldier, and indeed to the principles of the Old Testament; since in it is clearly recognised the lawfulness of war, whenever rendered necessary, and especially by the invasion of an enemy."

This is, indeed, an old mistake very frequently confuted, and scarcely worthy of notice; but as it appears in the Christian Observer, the professed organ of the evangelical clergy, and is ushered in with much commendation of the Editor, I would not let it pass without a short word of reply. John the Baptist's ministry can scarcely be brought forward to settle any question of christian obligation. "Among them that were born of women, there had not till then arisen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Are we to take the opinions or precepts of John the Baptist as our guide, when we have in the church him who speaketh from heaven? Whose words and whose teaching are we to follow? the words and teaching of Jesus Christ our Lord, and of his holy apostles, speaking in the power of the Holy Ghost, or the imperfect, incomplete doctrine of the forerunner of the Son of God? "He came for a witness to bear witness