calypse is yet fulfilled," &c. this writer may, if he please, procure a work, * lately written by a highly esteemed brother, in which he maintains that very many of the predictions of this book are accomplished, and, if I mistake not, that the three years and a half embrace a period of 1260 years, according to the ordinary view, viz., that days are put for years.

As to the Psalms, the "Brethren" do indeed generally hold that many, if not all of them, 66 are to be understood spiritually" (and literally too) " of Christ and Antichrist, and Israel restored, or about to be restored, to his own land;" and this without losing aught of the value, instruction, or comfort, in self-application, of the holy principles contained in them. With respect to the Proverbs, &c. I have never heard, and know nothing of the interpretations here mentioned, save, indeed, that "wisdom" sometimes means Christ (see Lu. vii. 35; xi. 49; also 1 Cor. i. 24).

Art. L. As to the assertion here, that the "Brethren" insist that Babylon, Egypt, Tyrus, Idumea, &c. must by no means be explained of the ancient nations so called;" and also, that "Faith would at once see that the names, Babylon, &c. must have a tspiritual interpretation;" I would simply refer the reader to two papers in the "Christian Witness,” (vol. iii. p. 277, and iv. p. 101), in which the writer strongly maintains that they are to be taken literally; while the author of "Answers to a Clergyman," and others of the "Brethren," suppose the Babylon of the Apocalypse to be figurativet (p. 31).

I have not noticed the last of these multitudinous articles which have been framed for the "Plymouth Brethren," but, before closing, would make some remarks upon the long and incoherent tirude with which this writer winds up his paper.

And first, he thus (p. 582), as inconsistently as unwittingly, discloses one great secret of his hostility towards these Christians: "Without being ostensibly politicians," he says, "they have a strong sympathy with ultra-toryism, not a little quickened by recent reforms; the suspicion will enter, that a hatred of popular liberty bore no small share in the formation of their system." Who but this writer himself could see any connection between these things? Now, what is ultra-toryism? Is it not the extreme reverse of radicalism? And is not the latter term the name of restless insubordination to the "powers that be," while the former is expressive of subjec tion to them, and principles conservative of them? But it is a small thing with this writer to accuse the same persons of teaching that the " powers that be" are appointed by the devil; of libelling, condemning, and affronting magistracy; of equalising the royal sceptre and the pistol of the bandit; and of supporting "political oppression" and "* strengthening despotism," ,"—that is, of the extreme of radicalism and ultra-toryism at the same time!

It is very evident that this writer, who, for the occasion, is so zealous for magistracy and the "powers that be," would have no quarrel with the "Brethren" on this head, were they radical politicians, seeking, by organised confederacies with infidels and ungodly men, to intimidate their rulers into concessions of what they might please to call their civil rights and liberties. It is very clear that the real ground of his anger against them is, not that they are not peaceuble subjects (for if unresisting submission to their rulers, and prayer for their welfare, entitle them to be so called, they possess this title), but that they are not insubordinate citizens, raising the cry of civil liberty and religious equality; and strange it is that those who, more perhaps than any other Christians, desire to be "quiet in the land," and to inculcate and

"Notes on the Revelations, by J. N. Darby." I believe that many experienced brethren differ much in judgment as to many of the prophetic views in this work of their valued brother.

+ It would require more ingenuity perhaps than this writer possesses, to harmonise this statement with that in page 578; viz. that the "Brethren" hold that " in the interpretation of prophecy, the literal meaning is alone admissible." Were truth and the glory of God the objects of this writer in his strictures upon the views of the "Brethren ?" I fear not. In addition to what has been already said upon Art. xxviii. I would here give a short extract from the Notes on the Revelations, above mentioned. 'The application of symbols literally seems to me to be very false in principle, and a very unsuitable mode of interpretation. is the denial that they are symbols," (p. 39.)

Such differences, though a cause of humiliation, negative, at least, the idea of the grievous bondage under which this writer would fain represent the "Brethren” as being, with regard to the interpretation of Scripture.

practice submission to the authorities placed over them, should be repeatedly charged with despising this ordinance of God, and this by those very religionists who are distinguished for insubjection, except so far as the measures of their rulers please them, and are strenuous in their efforts to disturb and overturn the settled institutions of the nation. But I would tell this writer, and all who think with him, that this is not the subjection which the "Brethren" have been taught by the scriptures of truth; but that, while they would with thankfulness of heart acknowledge the mildness of the rule under which the providence of God has placed them, they have learned there a lesson which this writer confesses he understands not,* namely, that they should be subject even to a "cut-throat," if, by God's permission, their ruler, "for conscience' sake," as well as (nay, rather than) "for wrath," for, in obeying this ordinance, it is with the Lord they have to do, and not with man; "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake."

66

With respect to the assertion (p. 583), that, according to the "Brethren," churches, societies, universities, political protestants, radicals, &c., are all bad" (the writer has, with unusual consistency, left out tories in his enumeration here), I have nothing to say, as this simply amounts to what has been already admitted to be their judgment, namely, that the world is bad, too bad to be "mended by regulations." As to the triple paradox here, I suppose that if either a hypocritical profession of Christianity (and that of any nation is, and must be so, under the present dispensation-Acts xv. 14), or a profession of infidelity, or no profession of religion at all, even in the case of an individual, is a cause of sorrow to the "merciful man," it is much more so in the case of a nation. The Lord and his apostles passed through this world mourning over all these forms of evil,† and so should we. It is not that this state of things disappoints those whose expectations are all based upon the word of God, and who are not looking to see a world evangelised by man's efforts before the Lord comes; but it is that they have not hearts of stone, and are not too "wise" to "meddle with this sorrow :" besides, they are ever reminded by these evils, that the time is not yet arrived, when "the Son of Man shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity ;" and when, “at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow," &c., and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father." ‡

* His words are, "He (Paul) alleges that the Christian must needs be subject 'not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake;' whereas it is evident that we are subject to a cutthroat solely for wrath,' and not also for conscience' sake.' And yet he had just before described magistracy in the days of Paul as established by violence and injustice, supported by force, and constantly applied to wicked purposes.' When, notwithstanding this, we find this writer accusing the "Brethren" of "supporting political oppression" and "strengthening despotism" (that is, by silent submission), may we not fairly ask, How he and modern Dissenters would have acted in the days of Nero, when this scripture (Rom. xiii.) was written? and whether it is not now the sword of wrath alone that keeps them within bounds?

It is gravely added here that Rom. xiii. " was written precisely against the very error which he (Mr. Hall) and all his party hold." If by this be intended the wicked fiction that power is of the Devil, this scripture surely meets that; but as the doctrine the "Brethren" really hold is that of respectful subjection, which the believer is there taught, they can with great quietness of spirit read that portion of the word themselves, and with great boldness press it upon the consciences of politico-religious Dissenters.

+ As to the Apostle's ever looking at "the bright side of the picture," see Rom. i.-iii.; Acts xx. 29, &c.; 1 Tim. iv.; 2 Tim. iii.; Eph. iv. 17-19; and for the rest, see 2 Pet. ii. and Jude.

It might not be so easy to reconcile some of the paradoxes of this writer. For example, the "Brethren" are despisers of " the powers that be," and yet " ultra-Tories and supporters of all political oppression;" they hold that in the interpretations of the prophets "the literal meaning is alone admissible," and yet that the Babylon, Egypt, Tyrus, Idumea, of prophecy, "are only to be understood spiritually," the literal meaning being inadmissible. They hold it "unlawful to criticise or amend the translation of the Scriptures according to the laws [grammar] of common Greek and Latin ;" and yet are intolerably critical, and suppose that "valuable truths are hidden in grammatical and verbal changes." They hold that a person, if he is a partaker of the Spirit," must be received into the church. " be his opinions what they may," and then it may be discovered by his opinions that he is not " a

If this writer cannot understand (p. 548) the possibility of saints being in an apostate system, I know not how to help him. I suppose he would admit that there are very many such in the establishment, and yet, if he does not regard that system as apostate he is guilty of sin in not living within its pale. If he does, I suppose it is not merely in the ungodliness of individuals that the apostasy consists, and therefore, that it would not be removed were even all its members saints. As to his illustration of the province in rebellion, &c., daily experience, and the very confessions of this writer, too sadly prove that there may be much disloyalty even in the saints, of whom there are doubtless many in "modern dissenting churches." But it is well for us that it is with a God of patient grace we have to do.

This writer again recurs (p. 585) to the subject of unanimity. He speaks of the "Brethren's" unreasonable hankering after it, and tells us it is "a thing by no means to be desired!" "How shallow," he says, "is that philosophy, or that religion, which desires uniformity in this world." The reason he then gives would apply just as well to the next world, as to this. And what does the reader think is this reason ? Why, that it would cost too much. "It could not be attained without sacrificing all individuality of character, all peculiarity of education and experience." It is true there are many earnest exhortations in the word of God, to seek and follow after it (see Phil. i. 27; ii. 2; iii. 15; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 8, &c.), and that it is there represented as a great blessing. But these are by no means to be regarded, seeing that it would involve the sacrifice of those very things which God has graciously given His word, and imparted His Spirit, to subdue; and by subduing to assimilate the hearts and minds, the thoughts, feelings, and desires, of all the children of His family. But he next proceeds to state, philosophically, many of the positive advantages of want of unanimity, and thus winds them up ;-"humility must be taught by the consciousness of error," [I hope he does not mean that we are consciously to abide in error, in order to learn humility,] "the feebleness, too, of the human judgment must be displayed, by permanent and irreconcileable differences, Are we to break our hearts about this ?"......" "We are living," he continues, "amidst grand realities; it is a question of the world or Christ, irreligion or religion, death or life. We have no tears to spare for the absence or presence of a pulpit; for pews, or no pews; nor for numerous doctrinal questions of far greater impor tance. It is practically impossible to make much of secondary matters without making less of what is vital." Strange that this writer, so occupied with these great realities, could have found time to "watch the rise and progress of the views" of the "Plymouth Brethren" with such "deep and anxious interest ;" strange that he should have had leisure to form so detailed a digest of those views, and all of them secondary, as he has here presented to us, professedly drawn from their various publications! But, in very truth, were it not a subject far too solemn, all this would provoke a smile. What! those who can speak long and loudly about worldly literature, and earthly politics, and modes of earthly aggrandisement; whose very periodicals, called religious, teem with such things, and greater trifles still,† have

partaker of the Spirit at all." They hold that it is "unlawful to lay down any creed as a test of communion or a test for ministers," and yet that "to agree to differ is a base and carnal policy, a compromise with sin.” They hold that we should “ preach the gospel, feed the hungry, tend the sick," and yet that " a philanthropist can scarcely be a Christian." Their churches are asylums for the aristocracy, who, driven from the establishment, “cannot endure the democracy of the voluntary system ;" and yet the aristocrat, when he enters them, is no longer "to recognise superiority in himself, and all judgment and rule is in the spiritual few." They are devotedly pious," and yet hold very wicked doctrines (he says nothing of evil works), and "are likely to be chiefly signal as firebrands in the Christian world!" To these might be added many more; but I forbear.

* This writer well knows that the "Brethren" have no more objection to open pews than to open benches. Those who are not accustomed to detect principles in outward things may see no evil in locked and rented pews, the rent proportioned to their comfort and convenience. Others, however, can see, in this, disobedience to the Scripture, “ Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons" (Jas. ii.), and a selfish violation of the principle of Christian brotherhood, and of the law of love.

+ The contents of about half of the very periodical (The Eclectic Review) in which this writer's strictures have found a place, are as follows:-"Dissenters' Assurance Company," 22 pages; "Pictorial History of England," 14 pp.; "Sir Francis Head's Narrative," 15 pp.

neither time, nor tears, for important, even though not vital doctrines, which God in His grace and wisdom has seen fit to reveal for his people's guidance, in passing through this evil world; so occupied are they about the great question of "Christ or the world!" so occupied as not to have time tremblingly to examine what the principles of Christ and the world are, or to reject and disown the latter when discovered! Occupied, indeed, they are; but I fear much, it is about other questions than this; I speak of modern Dissenters on the whole, (believing that there are many blessed exceptions) for never could this great question operate to the neglect of searching out all the ways of Christ, and all the will of Christ. "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you" (see John xv. 14, 15; Mat. xxviii; 1 John ii. 3, 4). And it is a solemn thing to hear a poor sinner speak, as this writer does, of any doctrines of God's holy word, and virtually declaring that for him a great portion of it has been written in vain, or only to be neglected, slighted, and disobeyed.

One of the secondary things for which this writer has no tears, is the question of "open ministry;' no less a question than whether our ascended Lord is now dispensing gifts to men "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ;" and if so, whether they are to be suffered to be exercised according to His command (1 Pet. iv. 10, 11), or to be set at nought, and superseded by the exclusive, and cold, though perhaps polished, ministrations, which the college can supply? He here (p. 586), admits that the Dissenting Churches are guilty of this, that thus they "grieve and quench the Spirit," and that this "is to be lamented." But how much to be lamented we learn in the previous page. 66 "Happy is that family which can weep at the death of a sparrow; happy (may we add ?) the people that can repent and confess their sin, that some of them are Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists." The Lord pardon this levity. Happy, however, I should say, are those who are acting thus in ignorance, as compared with those who abide in known and acknowledged evil, and dare thus to trifle with the things of God.

6

It is in reference to such questions, that this writer further says (p. 586), "If we are too busy straining out gnats,' we shall presently swallow a camel."" A strange warning from the pen of a Dissenter! For, what has made him and others Congregationalists, &c.? Has it not been the casting off of some of the circumstantial evil, and little more, of Establishments; and, while making a great noise about this,

"Modern Poetry of Remote Ages," 7 pp. I shall present the reader with a few sentences from the last of these reviews; the first subject is "The Deluge, a Drama :" A decided current of poetry has of late years set in towards Noah's flood.". "Dr. M'Henry, who has just given us ten books on this subject, has been apparently so deep in the Flood, that he is actually not aware that any one has been there but himself.". "Has he not heard of Moore's Loves of the Angels' and Byron's Heaven and Earth ?'". "Dr. M'Henry has more consistently killed Irad in battle, so that there is no occasion for him to jump out of the ark in a love-fit." "The interest of the Deluge' turns on the love of Irad for Astarte, a Cainite maiden, but of a most gentle and most amiable character, who, however, loves an angel." The next work reviewed is "Mabinogion," or legendary romances of the Welch in the days of King Arthur, &c. containing matter full as foolish, if not, like the other, very nearly bordering on blasphemy. Of this work the Eclectic reviewer says, "We do not see how one library in Wales, of any pretension, can remain destitute of a copy of it without the severest censure on its possessor. From the paper on "The Dissenters' Assurance Company," I might also select passages which would startle many, and afford ample matter for sorrowful thought. The rest of the articles are of a semi-religious character, such as a review of "Macgill's Lectures on Rhetoric and Criticism." There is not a spiritual article (I might, perhaps, say passage) in the whole number, which, as I have never seen another, I may, I suppose, take as a specimen of the work. And it is this, with other works of the like kind, that is to give a tone to the Christianity of modern Dissenters! Alas! its acceptance amongst them too sadly shows what that tone at present is. * It has been already well shewn in a paper in the Inquirer, that, besides politics, this subject is the great ground of quarrel which the Dissenters have with the "Brethren," though this writer, who does not even attempt a vindication of close ministry, ingeniously endeavours to represent it as a mere circumstantial, a question of numbers and degree, and not of principle. I would add, that I may have noticed some fallacies and contradictions, which, with many others, have been already well exposed in that paper, from not having it before me, while writing the previous part of that which I am now closing.

retaining some of the worst principles of such systems? They have, indeed, long been "busy straining out gnats," while they have been all the time "swallowing camels." And if it please them to call camels gnats, and gnats camels, I can only say that names do not alter things.

But, "if we sigh and cry, that not all Christians admit of 'open ministry,' our hearts will become hard on occasions, really calling for sorrow.' And these are the words of one who thinks it "does no man good" to dwell upon the great subject of 66 a sinful world;" that it is "not wise to meddle with that sorrow ;" and who, while he condemns the "Brethren" for this, admits that they think it right to "preach the gospel, feed the hungry, and tend the sick."

66

And, may we not ask here, how these persons are engaged who profess to be so engrossed by this all-absorbing question of "Christ or the world," as to have no room for anxiety about such secondary things as open ministry," &c. Are they the selfdenying servants of all men for Christ's sake, and yet, like him, a thorn in the world's side, because, testifying by word and deed, that it's ways are evil, that judgment already rests upon it, and that execution, sure as the word of the living God, awaits it? Are they declaring plainly, the while, by their holy and unearthly walk, their patient endurance of evil, and by setting their face as a flint against its principles and lusts, that they are not of it, that their citizenship is in heaven, that they seek a country, and are waiting for their Lord? In a word, Are they "blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation," among whom they "shine as lights in the world"? If so, "the world knoweth them not" (1 John iii. 1). But the world can well understand the splendid and partitioned chapel, in which he with the "gold ring, and goodly apparel, sits high," but the "poor man in vile raiment" must take the low and distant place,—the paid and humanly educated, ordered, and distinguished clergy, the "voluntary system," (or reducing ministry in the sacred things of God, to the principles and terms of the the market), the luxurious, self-pleasing habits,—the exaltation of literature,—and the wrangling about civil rights and privileges. These things the men of this world understand, and can have fellowship with those who do them, and say, Such as we are so are they (see 1 Cor. ii. 15). But with such it is not the question of "Christ OR the world," but the principle of the world AND Christ. "If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord" (John xv.; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 12).

There is, however, another subject on which, as this writer feels very sore, so he gives the "Brethren " a parting word. They are slighters of human learning. "That any one who is, or is preparing to be, a religious teacher, should meddle with Latin or Greek is treated by them with grave rebuke or bitter raillery" (p. 588). He confounds general literature with the cultivation of languages; and then, because the "Brethren" object to the former, asserts that they despise the latter too.* All this writer's grounds of displeasure, however, may be resolved into one. The "Brethren" object to worldliness, whether religious or otherwise, and regard politics, literature, exclusive ministry, &c. as so many forms of it. But in so doing they are content with the godly way of "grave rebuke." With this the "Eclectic" writer is sore displeased. He has no quarrel with them for leaving other churches. He does not unite with the Churchman in the cry of schism. He could not, indeed, have hoped that those who, if guilty of it, set out in sin, should have ended in shewing to England "a more excellent way." No, he is angry with them for "molesting the peace of other churches," for disturbing those who are self-complacently "settled on their lees," for telling them that they cannot "serve two masters," that there is no

I would merely add, upon this subject, to what has been already said, that some of the "Brethren" have been long actually engaged in forwarding works intended to facilitate the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages. And as to their being hostile to education (p. 575), I would observe, that, though not joined with education societies, they think it a good thing to educate the poor in the useful and necessary branches of knowledge. This also they do "in detail," by erecting and hiring school-houses, and paying masters, to give instruction in the Scriptures, reading, writing, arithmetic, &c.