Table of Contents

The Church Removed before the Apocalyptic Judgments

Appendix to

'Eight Lectures on Prophecy'

Scripture Queries and Answers

The Secret of Blessedness

Psalm 1.

Fragment.

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners

John 6.

Essays on Prophetic Interpretation

CBA8691

Preface.

Contents.

DEAR BROTHER,

THE PREMILLENNIAL CONTROVERSY.*

The Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God.

Man's will and God's Grace

The Power, Goodness, and Love of God

Romans 1: 20.

Psalm 19.

Five Letters on Worship and Ministry in the Spirit

Letter 1.

GOD PRESENT IN THE ASSEMBLY.

Letter 2.

THE CHURCH EDIFIED BY GIFTS.

Letter 3.

HOW TO DISTINGUISH THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT.

NEGATIVE MARKS.

Letter 4.

HOW TO DISTINGUISH THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT IN THE ASSEMBLY.

POSITIVE MARKS.

Letter 5.

MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS ON THE MUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF SAINTS, IN MEETINGS FOR MUTUAL EDIFICATION, AND ON OTHER SUBJECTS.

Bethesda in September 1857

Why do you still stand apart from Bethesda?

"DEAR BRETHREN,

JACOB HENRY HALE, SAMUEL BUTLER,

"MY DEAR BROTHER,

What are Mr. Newton's Present Doctrines

as to the Human Nature and Relationships of the Lord Jesus Christ?

1850.

CBA6375

Introduction.

__________________

_____________________

____________________

_____________________

Remarks on Mr. Newton's Letter to --.

The Origin of (so-called) Open-Brethrenism

giving the whole case of Plymouth and Bethesda

W. TROTTER

APPENDIX.

LETTER OF THE TEN

DEAR BRETHREN,

HENRY CRAIK, EDMUND FELTHAM, GEORGE MULLER, JOHN WITHY, JACOB HENRY HALE, SAMUEL BUTLER, CHARLES BROWN, JOHN MEREDITH, ELIJAH STANLEY, ROBERT AITCHISON."

W. Trotter - Other writings

W. Trotter

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com) (2011)

The Church Removed before the Apocalyptic Judgments

The Church Removed before the Apocalyptic Judgments.

Appendix to

'Eight Lectures on Prophecy'

from shorthand notes.

W. Trotter and T.S. (Smith?)

(New Edition, Broom & Rouse, 1890.)

There is one difficulty which meets the student of prophecy soon after he has crossed the threshold of his earliest inquiries. These inquiries may be supposed to have resulted in an entire conviction that the second advent precedes or introduces the millennium; that the Jews are to be restored to their own land — some of them in the first instance undergoing the utmost extremity of trouble there; that this trouble arrives at its height through a gathering together of all nations against Jerusalem; and that the nations thus gathered meet their doom at the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is revealed from heaven in flaming fire, and whose coming brings deliverance to the poor oppressed Jews, while it discomfits and destroys their adversaries. It may be supposed, moreover, that it is pretty plainly seen, from the whole tenor of New Testament teaching, that what is placed before us Christians, as our hope, is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ: that for this we are exhorted to look, and watch, and long, and yet patiently wait; in a word, that our proper posture of mind is that of continual expectation of this blessed event. But here it is that the difficulty I speak of arises. "If," says the inquirer, "a whole train of events are to occur on earth preparatory to the Lord's coming — if the Jews are to return to their own land — the Gentiles to be gathered together against them there — the time of unequalled tribulation to occur — the seals, and trumpets, and vials of the Apocalypse to run their course of judgment — and the coming of the Lord to ensue all this how can we, seeing that none of these things have begun to come to pass, be intelligently looking and waiting for the coming of the Lord? For these intermediate events we may wait; and until they commence, and as they transpire, we may look beyond them to that in which we know they will surely terminate; but how can we be in a posture of continual expectation of Christ, if his coming has thus to be certainly preceded by a number of yet unfulfilled events?" I think I have stated the difficulty in its full force; and it is to meet this difficulty, as far as any present light on Scripture may enable me, that these pages are written.

But first, I would remind you, my brethren, that difficulties are no reason for unbelief. If it be plainly revealed in the New Testament, that our place as Christians is to be always waiting and looking for our Lord, faith would receive and welcome this revelation, however many difficulties might encompass the subject. And that it is so revealed, who that is acquainted with the word of God can question? Our Lord himself had described the position in which he would delight to have his people found at his return — "and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord." (Luke 12: 36.) The definite assurance with which he comforted them in the immediate prospect of his departure was, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14: 3.) The very first thing presented to them after he had gone, while they were yet straining their vision, as it were, to catch another glimpse of him in the clouds whither he had ascended, was the assurance of his return. "This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1: 11) The Corinthian believers came behind in no gift: "waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 1: 7.) The apostle says of himself and his fellow Christians, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." And again, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor. 15: 51, 52.) He declares, that what he and his brethren longed and sighed for was, "not that we would be unclothed, (i.e., disembodied,) but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." (2 Cor. 5 4.) "For our conversation is in heaven," is his language elsewhere; "from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body," etc. (Phil. 3: 20, 21.) The Thessalonians had been "turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven." (1 Thess. 1: 10) In one form or another the coming is referred to in every chapter of this epistle. In the fourth chapter, the twice repeated expression, "we which are alive and remain," marks definitely enough what the posture is that becomes the church. How easy would it have been for the apostle to say, had such been the mind of the Lord, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so us also, who are to sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that they which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent us, who will ere then have fallen asleep." Why does he not speak thus? Surely, because it was the Lord's will that his saints should ever be expecting him. Not that the apostle could say, or that we can now say, that we shall certainly be alive and remain.. the apostle afterwards knew by special revelation that he himself would not; and we may not It may please the Lord to tarry till we have all fallen asleep in him. But in the absence of certain information to the contrary, faith would say, as is said in these passages, "we who are alive and remain." Faith puts us where our Lord would have us, in the attitude of readiness and expectation. The virgins "went out to meet the bridegroom." And if faith should be tried, and hope seem to be deferred, it is still not for any of us to say, "My Lord delayeth his coming." The apostle prays, 'land the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." (2 Thess. 3: 5.) He speaks again of a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give him at that day; "and not to me only," he adds, "but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Tim. 4: 8.) "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2: 13.) "Unto them that look for him," we are told, "shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation." (Heb. 9: 28.) And lest we should get weary, and hope deferred make the heart faint as well as sick, we are encouraged by the assurance, "Yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." (Heb. 10: 37.) And though Peter knew from our Lord's own lips, that he was not to tarry till his Lord should come, — though he had been told by what death he should glorify God, he does not say a word in his epistles to lead those to whom he wrote to suppose that they too should certainly depart ere the Lord returned. No, he exhorts them rather, and us too, in such words as, "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1: 13.) "Looking for and hasting unto the coming (or as in the margin, hasting the coming) of the day of God," is the way in which he describes our proper position in his second epistle. The coming is referred to in 1 John, both by way of exhortation and encouragement. (See 1 John 2: 28, and 1 John 3: 2.) In Revelation, the closing book of Scripture, "Behold, I come quickly," is a word so often repeated; the volume finally closing with "Surely I come quickly," from the lips of Jesus, while the church responds, "Amen: even so, come, Lord Jesus;" that there can be no doubt as to the impression left on the heart of the simple-minded believer, that it is our place of faithfulness and blessing to be always expecting our Lord, and awaiting his return. And with such varied and copious testimonies on the subject as these, if we had no solution of the difficulties that present themselves, it would clearly still be our place to maintain this attitude of expectancy, leaving, as we surely might, our gracious Master to clear away all the difficulties as and when it may please him. But there is a clue to the unravelling of this mystery. He has not left us without a solution of the difficulty in question. If he had, it would not have excused our taking any position but that which he has so plainly assigned us; while his tender, considerate love is the more displayed in relieving our hearts by the positive light he has shed in his Word on this question, so interesting to the heart that finds its joy in the daily expectation of his return.

Suppose then, my brethren, that there should be an interval between the coming of Christ into the air, where he receives the saints to himself, and his coming onwards to the earth, attended by his saints, to execute judgment; suppose there should be an interval long enough for the accomplishment of all these prophetic events which must be fulfilled ere he does thus come in judgment; suppose that the Jews should return to their own land, the Gentiles be gathered together against them, the antichrist arise, the great tribulation take place, the apocalyptic seals be opened, trumpets sounded, and vials poured out; suppose all this should occur between the taking away of the Church, and the coming of Christ to execute judgment on his congregated foes; suppose this, I say: would not this meet the difficulty in question? Could we not, in the light of such a fact (supposing it to be a fact), see clearly how we may be intelligently waiting for our Lord, without the idea of a single interposing event? Many events may, of course, interpose. But in this case we could not say of any of them that they certainly will. At any moment our blessed Lord might come to receive us to himself; and yet, in he interval supposed, all the events come to pass which we know from God's word must be accomplished, ere Christ comes to consume the wicked one with the breath of his mouth, and to destroy him with the brightness of his appearing.

Be it remembered, moreover, that the mere possibility of the occurrence of such an interval meets the difficulty which has been stated. If it be only possible that there may be such an interval between the descent of Jesus into the air, and his coming onward to the earth in judgment, what should prevent our being in the posture of daily and hourly expectancy of his return? What is the difficulty we are considering? Why, that the Jews have not yet returned to their own land, nor the other events occurred, which must occur ere Christ come in judgment. But then, if it be possible that after Jesus has descended into the air, and we have been caught up to meet him, an interval should ensue, in which the Jews may return, and all the predicted events come to pass, and then the Lord come onwards to the earth, his risen and glorified saints following in his train, — if this be but possible, I say, — does it not show that it is equally and blessedly possible that Jesus may come at any moment, and that there is nothing to hinder our receiving those scriptures in their simple, obvious sense, which exhort us to be always waiting and looking for his coming? And who will undertake to say that there may not be such an interval? Who would have thought that between two clauses of a verse, in Isa. 61 — two clauses only separated from each other by a comma — an interval of eighteen hundred years would have come in? Any one reading or hearing the prophecy in Isaiah's day, would have concluded that "the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God," were one and the same period. But when our blessed Lord quoted these words in the synagogue at Nazareth, he knew that there was to be an interval between them, and that he had only then come to preach "the acceptable year of the Lord," and not to introduce "the day of vengeance of our God." And accordingly he only read as far as the comma, and then "he closed the book, and gave it again to the minister, and sat down." (Luke 4: 20) And if, in this instance, there was room left in God's precious word for the whole of the present dispensation to come in between the two clauses of a sentence, who will be so bold as to affirm, that in our Lord's second coming there will certainly not be an interval of a few years between the first stage of it and the next? between his coming into the air to receive the saints, and his coming with all the saints to execute judgment, and reign on the earth? And again would I press it, my brethren, that if there may but be such an interval, if it be possible for any one to prove from Scripture that there will not be, then is it our privilege, even without a shade of difficulty on our minds, to be always looking and waiting for our Lord.

But I believe we are not left to the thought of what may be. There are several considerations which satisfy my own soul, not only that there may be, but also that there will be, such an interval. These considerations I desire in all simplicity to present, leaving them to be weighed by my brethren in the balances of the sanctuary. The Lord grant to each of us deep and real subjection to his blessed word.

The first consideration I would present in proof that there will be such an interval is not in the form of an exact quotation from Scripture, but drawn from an extensive comparison of one part of Scripture with another. I trust, however, to be enabled to make it plain to the most simple. We are all aware of the continual exhortations we have in the New Testament to a spirit of forgiveness, and to manifest towards others the grace in which our heavenly Father has dealt with us. And perhaps there is hardly a Christian anywhere who has not been perplexed with passages in the Psalms and elsewhere in the Old Testament where the heaviest curses and judgments are invoked by the worshippers on the heads of their enemies. And many of these psalms are evidently prophetic of the time immediately preceding the coming of the Lord to execute judgment. Can it be for us, my brethren, for the Church, that these prophetic utterances, full of imprecations, are prepared? And yet it is clear that they can have no place after the Lord has come in judgment, destroyed his adversaries, and delivered the remnant of his Jewish, earthly people. Whose language then can that of these Psalms be? and when can it be uttered? I believe it to be the language of the Jewish remnant, amid the deep darkness of their final tribulation, after the Church is removed. And you can neither suppose the Church to utter such language, nor to be still on earth while the Spirit of God leads the Jewish remnant to utter it, without confounding those things which the Holy Spirit in Scripture has been most careful to distinguish from each other.

The present dispensation is one of unmingled grace. God is not now imputing to men their trespasses, but freely forgiving all, the vilest and the worst, who believe in Jesus. And to us the exhortation is, "Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse not." "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink." "Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing: knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." Our Lord himself said, while his enemies were nailing him to the cross, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." The first martyr for the name of Jesus cried, in like manner, while they were stoning him to death, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." But there is a time coming when prayers like the following (inspired prayers, be it remembered) will ascend up to heaven. "O God, why hast thou cast us off for ever? why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture? Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this Mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt." Pause here a moment to remark that this must apply to the condition of Israel at some period subsequent to their going into captivity; yea, to a period long after they have gone into captivity. "Lift up thy feet unto the perpetual desolations; even all that the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary. . . . . . We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long. O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name for ever? Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom. Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name. Arise, O God, plead thine own cause; remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. Forget not the voice of thine enemies: the tumult of those that rise up against thee increaseth continually." (Psalm 74) This shows plainly enough to what period this class of psalms applies. It is to the period of the last Jewish tribulation. Look at another. "O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem: and there was none to bury them. . . . . How long, Lord? wilt thou be angry for ever? shall thy jealousy burn like fire? pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God? let him be known among the heathen in our sight by the revenging of the blood of thy servants which is shed. . . . . . And render unto our neighbours seven-fold into their bosom their reproach, wherewith they have reproached thee, O Lord." (Psalm 79) Once more. "Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us put them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. . . . . O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire, so persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. . . . . Let them be confounded and troubled for ever: yea, let them be put to shame and perish: that men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth." (Ps. 83) I need not further multiply quotations. There are such prayers and anticipations as these: "Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth." (Ps. 59: 13.) "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Ps. 58: 10) Need I ask again, Can it be the Church that uses such language, presents such prayers, and rejoices in such anticipations? Impossible. But may not the Church be still on earth, while the Jewish remnant thus pour out their souls? What! the one Spirit of God put a prayer for forgiveness of enemies into the heart of one, and inspire another to ask for their destruction! Besides, in the Church there is neither Jew nor Gentile; and the dispensation must be entirely changed before a body of people can be in existence, led of the Spirit to use as their own the language of such psalms as have now been quoted. If there be an interval after the Church is removed, during which the Jewish remnant is formed, and passes through its deep and unparalleled tribulations, looking forward to the coming of Messiah to deliver them, by the destruction of their adversaries and oppressors, all is plain, and easy enough to be understood. Without this, all is one inextricable mass of confusion.

Some one may be ready to say, "But these passages are all in the Old Testament; have we no intimations of like character in the New Testament?" Yes, indeed we have. Turn to Rev. 11: 3-6, where we read of God's two witnesses who are to prophesy in sackcloth twelve hundred and sixty days, that "if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will." Is this the ministry of the gospel of God's grace with which the Church is entrusted? Is there any resemblance between the two? Once, when our Lord was here below, a village of the Samaritans refused to receive him. "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did?" What was his answer? Did he give them the permission they asked? Nay, "But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." (Luke 9: 54-56.) How entirely must the dispensation have changed, and how evident that the Church must have been removed from the scene, ere a testimony such as that of the sackcloth witnesses in Rev. 11 can be raised up.

But let us look a little at the entire structure of the Book of Revelation. It is here we shall find the most definite, positive evidence of the fact, that the Church is taken up prior to the judgments under the. seals, trumpets, and vials. We have strong presumptive evidence in what has already been considered. Here we have, as it seems to me, direct and conclusive proof

In Rev. 1: 19, the favoured disciple is thus instructed: "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter," or "after these." The Greek words are meta tauta, which every Greek scholar knows simply and definitely mean, after these. They have not the force of our indefinite expression, hereafter. Meta is the Greek word for "after;" tauta is the Greek word for "these;" and, seeing that it is the neuter plural, it must be "these" things. Here then we have, on the authority of the blessed Lord himself, the division and arrangement of the book of the Apocalypse. "Write the things which thou hast seen" — these we have in Rev. 1, the vision he had beheld at Patmos: "and the things which are" — these we have in Rev. 2 and Rev. 3, the seven churches, with the judgment of their state pronounced by the Son of man: "and the things which shall be after these" — the visions which commence with Rev. 4 and extend to the close of the book. Let us consider these a little more in detail.

As to the first division, "the things which thou hast seen," it needs no remark; it is obviously contained in Rev. 1. "The things which are" — the second division of the book — requires a little more attention. There can be no doubt that the seven letters of Rev. 2 and Rev. 3 were addressed to the seven churches whose names they bear. But why were these seven selected to be thus addressed? Was it not, as very many who have studied prophecy judge, that they were chosen to be thus addressed, as representing in their spiritual condition, and in the warnings, threatenings, exhortations, and promises, needed by them, the whole course of the dispensation? That is, these epistles to the churches were prophetic of the several and (as I for one cannot but conclude) successive states of the church from the time that they were written down to the taking up of the true Church at Christ's coming, and the rejection of the false professing body as a loathsome thing, fit only to be spued out of Christ's mouth. Thus "the things which are" are presented to us in Rev. 2, Rev. 3. Now turn to Rev. 4: 1: "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter," or "after these." It is exactly the same expression as before, meta tauta. So that, this voice that John heard being witness, the third division of the book begins here. "The things which shall be after these" begin to be unfolded in ch. 4. What are these things? Rev. 4, and Rev. 5 present to us a scene in heaven, — a scene which neither answers to the existing state of things in the present dispensation, nor to the state of things in the millennium. The throne of him who is worshipped as "the Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come," is here seen by our apostle, and out of it proceed "lightnings, and thunderings, and voices." Surely this is different from the throne of, grace to which we are now invited to come boldly, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. "Lightnings, and thunderings, and voices," tell of judgment, not of grace. And yet it is evidently not the millennial state; for the seven-sealed book, which has not begun to be opened in Rev. 5, unfolds the judgments which precede the millennium. The Lamb, too, is here in the midst of the throne, and receives from him who sits thereon this seven-sealed book, as the only one in heaven or in earth who prevails to open it. Evidently, then, these two chapters describe a transitional state, an interval between the present dispensation of full grace and the millennial dispensation. The question is, Where is the Church during this interval? The only answer afforded by the Book of Revelation is, IN HEAVEN. Who are they that are symbolised by the twenty-four crowned elders in white raiment, and the four living creatures in these two chapters? Let their song give the answer. "And the sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth." They are clearly not four-and-twenty individuals literally. How could they in that case have been redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation? They are symbolic personages, representing the whole company of those who are thus redeemed, and who are to reign on the earth. Thus we see that those who are to share Christ's royal glory during the millennium are, during the transitional period between the present dispensation and the millennium, assembled around him in heaven, owning his worthiness, and anticipating their reign with him over the earth. And every glimpse that we have of them in chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11: 14, 15, 19 presents them in the same place. As another has beautifully observed: "In ch. 4 we see the living creatures and crowned elders around the central throne of God Almighty in the heavens. The action in the course of the book changes, but the place of these mystic personages never does. They are interested in the action, they sing and rejoice at certain stages of it, but they are never engaged in it, nor leave their high habitation."

My space allows me to notice but one or two points more. Rev. 19: 4, where we have the last mention of the crowned elders and the four living creatures, goes on to inform us of the marriage of the Lamb, his wife having made herself ready. Surely the Church must be complete and in glory, when, as the Lamb's wife, she is ready for the marriage. The marriage is in heaven. After the marriage heaven opens, and the rider upon the white horse comes forth to the final conflict; to tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Now mark the 14th verse: "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen white and clean." The fine linen has been explained in verse 8 to be "the righteousness of saints." The armies which were in heaven. In Rev. 2, 3 we have a sevenfold presentation of the Church in its responsibility here below. In Rev. 4 to Rev. 19: 4, we find the Church in heaven under the symbols of the elders and living creatures. The seals are opened, the trumpets blown, the vials poured out; all these bring dreadful sorrows on the earth and its inhabitants; but it is from heaven that the Church views the whole, and celebrates the praises of God and the Lamb. While waiting thus in heaven for the time when, with the Lamb, they shall reign over the earth, they are symbolised by the crowned elders and living creatures. But in Rev. 19 the false pretender, Babylon, having been judged, the marriage of the Lamb with the true bride takes place, and we hear no more of the crowned elders and living creatures. The Church, now married to the Lamb, comes in his train when he comes forth, conquering and to conquer. In Rev. 20 the reign takes place, and in Rev. 21: 9 to Rev. 22: 5 we have the Church's glory as the Bride, the Lamb's wife, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. The Church is never seen on earth, or anywhere but in heaven, from the end of Rev. 3 till in Rev. 19 Christ comes forth from heaven, and the armies which were in heaven follow in his train.

One word more. It is the positive promise of Christ in Rev. 3: 10 to those who have kept his word, and not denied his name; "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from (not keep thee in or keep thee through, but keep thee from) the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." Amen.  W. T.

Scripture Queries and Answers

Scripture Queries and Answers.

W. Trotter.

Bible Treasury, 2nd. Edition, February 1858.

[1st. Edition, February 1858 <02:031>]

<02:031>

Q. Why may not a believer use the prayer, "Be not angry with us for ever?" Is not God displeased, or angry with us, when we sin? Must we not, in this case, seek to be forgiven? And is not God displeased with us until we have sought His forgiveness? E. J.

A. The first point that requires to be noticed is, that the word of God expressly declares the believer in Christ to be free from condemnation. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8: 1). Nor is this their present privilege alone; its continuance is pledged to them by the same word. "He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life" (John 5: 24). Besides, the state of the believer in this respect is contrasted in scripture with that of the unbeliever. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3: 36). If then that which distinguishes the one class from the other be, that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever, while from the believer it has passed away, how evident that no believer can intelligently use the prayer, "Be not angry with us for ever."

<02:032>

As to the remaining queries, it is of all-importance to distinguish between the natural relation we all sustain to God, as creatures, and those new, blessed relations to Him on which we enter, the moment it can be truly said of us that we are believers in Christ. As creatures, we are responsible to God, the holy, righteous Judge of all. As fallen creatures, we are utterly and hopelessly condemned. "Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Ps. 143: 2). Such was the confession of the psalmist, prior to the accomplishment of redemption, and the full triumph of grace in the death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord. It was because of our total inability to stand thus in judgement before God that Christ took our place, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree. If grace has drawn our hearts to that blessed Saviour, we have God's word to assure us that in His death on the cross, our whole standing as condemned, sinful creatures before God came to an end. Believing in Him, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Eph. 1: 7). The believer is himself a justified, accepted person. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3: 24). "Accepted in the beloved" (Eph. 1: 6). The believer enters thus, the moment he is a believer, on entirely new relations to God. He is no longer condemned and under wrath, but a pardoned, justified, accepted person, through the boundless grace of God, and the infinite efficacy of Christ's precious work. He is adopted, moreover, into God's family; yea, born of God, and thus really His child. He is one with Christ, as a member of His body, —  "for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5: 30).

Standing in these new relations to God, it is, no doubt, possible for the believer to fail in the service and obedience suited thereto. It is even possible that through want of practical dependence on God, and watchfulness against the enemy, he may fall into sin. He may thus need His Father's forgiveness, or need mercy of " the Lord" — the Lord Jesus Christ. But in neither case does his sin need forgiveness in any such sense as he himself once needed it; in order to his becoming a child of God, and a member of Christ. The forgiveness and justification which attend my introduction to God's family are bestowed once and for ever; and the relations to God into which I am thus brought, are as unchanging as Himself. But if, being God's child, I am against my Father, his fatherly government extends to such a case, and I may have to suffer the present chastenings of His hand. "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear" (1 Peter 1: 17). But how wide the contrast between the chastenings of the Father, which flow from love, and are sent in order "that we may be partakers of his holiness" (Heb. 12: 10), and that "wrath" or "anger;" which rests upon unbelievers, and from which we are once and finally delivered, when the eye rests in faith on Christ and on His precious blood!

It is to this state of things, moreover, that the advocacy and priesthood of Christ apply. Nor is it the object of these blessed provisions of grace to turn to us the heart of our God and Father, as though our sins and failings had alienated us from that heart of love. "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 2: 1, 2.) Our Father would have us so occupied with the revelation of Himself in Christ, the Son of His love, as to be kept from sinning. But if, to our shame and sorrow, we do sin, it is not that He ceases to be our Father, or that we need a new justification. We have an advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ, who, on the ground of His accomplished righteousness, and of His having been the propitiation for our sins, pleads for us, and obtains those supplies of grace by which our souls, humbled and restored, again enjoy the undimmed brightness of our Father's countenance, the unchanged sweetness of our Father's love.

There could scarcely be a more specific answer to the queries before us than is afforded by the words of the apostle in Rom. 8 where, having considered every aspect in which the subject of the believer's safety and blessedness could be regarded, he triumphantly asks, "What shall we then say to these things? if God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us?" W.T.

The Secret of Blessedness

The Secret of Blessedness

Psalm 1.

W. Trotter.

The thesis of this Psalm is the blessedness of the godly man, in contrast with the certain doom of the sinner whenever the time may come for judgment to be executed. Blessedness is a preferable word to happiness, inasmuch as the former attributes to God who blesses, what the latter word, as used by man, assigns to fortune or chance. Still the word blessed is to be understood as meaning what is usually implied in the word happy. The psalm is thus an answer to the almost universal inquiry of mankind after happiness. It shows us where true happiness — real blessedness — is to be alone found.

Happiness is a positive state of existence; but so truly is this world "a vale of tears," that the idea of happiness most familiar to men's minds is a negative one, and views it as depending on the absence of pain, weariness, disappointment, sorrow. Scripture itself stoops to our weakness in this respect, and represents the future happiness of the saints as partly consisting in entire exemption from every kind of grief. "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more: neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat." "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." Again, "There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away."

But there are deeper and surer sources of unhappiness than any of the afflictions thus enumerated; the sources, in fact, from which all these afflictions flow. But for sin, not one single sensation of bodily pain, not one moment's mental anguish, would have been experienced by a single member of the human family. Not that present exemption from these effects can be secured by moral and spiritual deliverance from sin, which is the cause. The godly suffer as well as others, and in many respects, more than others; but this prevents not their blessedness. It may and does hinder the perfection of it; but not its reality. In this world of evil, a man without sin would be the greatest sufferer on the earth. Of this we need no other proof than the Man of sorrows, who was "acquainted with griefs." But who doubts His blessedness? It is in Him indeed that we have the only perfect instance of the character here described. It is not given as a description of Him, but of any godly man, and, primarily, any godly Israelite. For all the godly partake in reality of Christ's character, though in Him alone has it been perfectly exemplified.

In the description here given of the godly man, his character is viewed first negatively and then positively. The first verse shows him exempt from those deeper sources of unhappiness from which all afflictions have really sprung; while the second reveals the positive secret of his blessedness. As for the first — it is not, "Blessed is the man that feels no pain, sheds no tears, suffers no loss or disappointment." No! "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." We have here a double climax. First, as to the characters named: secondly, as to the attitudes described. The ungodly — sinners — the scornful. Walking — standing — sitting.

"The ungodly" are the least culpable in this climax of evil. Their fault is negative. They know not, love not, fear not God. He is not in all their thoughts. They do not wish to remember Him, or to know His will, or obey His commands. "Without God in the world" is the solemn portraiture of their state. Such people have their counsel — their habits of thought — their grounds of judgment — their principles of conduct. In all these God has no place: they are ungodly. Blessed in the man that heeds not their counsel, that follows it not. It includes all the maxims of the decent, reputable, but ungodly part of society; persons free from gross vices, but with whom self is the master-spring — the main object. Even with their freedom from gross vices, this is the case. They would not for their own credit, frequent a low tavern; but neither would they, and for the same reason, attend a cottage prayer-meeting. It is respectable to go to church, or to a well-cushioned fashionable chapel, and they go there; but it is equally respectable to attend the theatre or concert room, and as it is even more agreeable it is more willingly practised. For these and a hundred other habits and deeds such maxims are pleaded as, "We must do as others do." "What good is there in being singular?" "We must act conformably to our station." "This or that is expected of us." "What harm is there in it?" These are but a small specimen of that which is here termed "the counsel of the ungodly."

"Sinners" add to the ungodliness of the former class, positive ways of evil, wicked habits and pursuits. These differ according to constitution, early education or the lack of it, and a number of influences beside. "Every one hath turned to his own way." One may be a way of violence, another of fraud, and another of intemperance. Blessed is the man who equally abstains from all — who "standeth not in the way of sinners."

"The seat of the scornful" is occupied by the one who has so hardened himself against God as to mock at sin, deride the piety of others, and make a jest of sacred things.

Then, as to the second climax, to be in movement, walking, clearly affords more hope of being turned in a right direction, than where evil has been deliberately chosen, and a person stands in the way of sinners. But to be seated, and that in the scorner's chair — to be at ease — where God, and Christ, and heaven are only named to point a joke or raise a laugh; this is, beyond a doubt, the crowning attainment of such as call evil good, and good evil. Yet not only from this final maturity of shameless vice, but from all the steps which lead on to it, the subject of the psalm abstains. In the scorner's chair he declines to "sit"; in the way of sinners he will not "stand"; in the counsel of the ungodly he refuses to "walk."

Where then does he find the positive secret of his happiness? The psalm informs us, "His delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Man must have a positive object, or he cannot be satisfied. He is possessed of an understanding and of affections, for which employment must be found. On the nature of this employment more than on anything besides, does man's happiness depend. Let the understanding be either unoccupied or ill occupied; let the thoughts rove at random, or be fixed on subjects corrupt in themselves, and debasing in their tendencies; let the affections cling to objects in themselves unsatisfying, and which separate from God; or let the affections, directed towards proper objects, be destitute of those objects: how in any case that has been supposed, can the soul be happy? And if the soul be unhappy, mere bodily ease and accommodation serve but as a mockery of its woe. On the other hand let the thoughts be rightly directed and diligently employed: let the affections be in habitual exercise on their proper, suited objects, and circumstances are of little power to hinder happiness in such a case. Such occupation for both the understanding and the affections is found in the word of God, here called, "the law of the Lord." We must not restrict the expression to the "ten words" spoken on Sinai, or even to the whole law given by Moses. It is used of the entire revelation which God at that time had vouchsafed to man; and as it was in and to the nation of Israel that this revelation had been given, the name of God here used is that of His covenant relation with Israel — "Jehovah." "His delight is in the law of Jehovah." What a number of thoughts are suggested by this statement. We have the idea of authority, for it is a law that is in question, however extended the signification and use of the word. But it is an authority cheerfully acknowledged. His delight is in the law, and how evident it is that the Lord Himself — Jehovah — must be both known and loved, for the heart to find its delight in His law — His word. For us, of course, divine revelation is now much more extended still: it comprises the revelation of God in the person and work of Christ, already come. God has thus made Himself known in a much more personal way than in Old Testament times; so that while the authority of the word is no less absolute, the affections find a personal object to rest upon, much more distinctly manifested, and love takes the place of law. I speak now of the terms by which the whole revelation as known by us may be designated, and of the difference between these and the one here used — "the law of the Lord." But even in the Psalmist's day, how easy the yoke of a law in which his delight was found! His delight was in it. Surely there is no less for us to delight in, now that God is fully revealed, and revealed as Love.

But lovely as is this portraiture of a man whose delight is in Jehovah's law, this is not the whole of what is presented here. "In his law doth he meditate day and night." This is the natural result of delighting in it; and by a happy reaction the result becomes, in its turn, a cause of increased and ever increasing delight. The more we delight in God's word the more habitually shall we meditate therein; and the more we meditate on God's word the more shall we delight therein.

Just as a man's speech or writings is the means or instrument by which he communicates his thoughts, and makes known his feelings, so is God's word the instrument or means by which He makes Himself known. Meditation is the means by which we, on our part, become possessed of that which is made known. In the case of a fellow-creature, suppose I find all my happiness in keeping company with him, listening to his discourse; or, supposing him absent, in reading his letters or writings, poring over their contents, repeating them to myself and following out the trains of thought to which they give rise — clearly, in such a case, it is my delight in the speaker or writer, my admiration of his character or abilities, my sympathy with his thoughts and principles and pursuits, my attachment to himself, which accounts for the delight I have in his writings and discourses. So, if my delight is in the word of God, and if in that word I meditate day and night — my thoughts, whenever released from pressure, returning to God's word and flowing spontaneously in that channel, it is because God Himself is known, loved, and delighted in. If it be, then, the secret of true happiness which is here unfolded to us, what is it but that God Himself alone suffices for the happiness of his intelligent creature, man? "Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." (Psalm 37: 4) "The Lord is my portion, saith my soul." (Lamentations 3: 24) "Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." (Psalm 73: 25) "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup." (Psalm 16: 5) Such breathings as these are expressions of the counsel of the godly. Even as to the means of enjoying Him as our portion, other scriptures are not wanting. "Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever; for they are the rejoicing of my heart." (Psalm 119: 111) "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart." (Jeremiah 15: 16) See also Psalm 19: 7-11; and the whole of Psalm 119.

The happiness attendant on the character and course of the godly man is described in verse 3; first under the figure of a tree, and then in literal terms. What a picture does the former part present! "A tree" — one of the loveliest objects in creation — a specimen of living beauty.

"Planted" — not a wilding, growing from seed scattered haphazard by the wind, and alighting anywhere — but planted: some skilful eye discerning the suited situation, and some careful hand removing all obstructions to the future growth of the tree thus planted in a generous soil, with every advantage of watchful culture that could he bestowed upon it. "By the rivers of water"; and not dependent, therefore, on the fitful shower, though profiting by it whenever it falls. A river at the roots, this tree is secure from drought. What a lively representation of the man who depends not for happiness or usefulness on any creature supplies, who leans not on an arm of flesh, but trusts in the living God, and finds all his springs in Him. "That bringeth forth his fruit," and "in his season" too. Not like "untimely figs" which the tree casts unripe and unfit for use; but in his season, the time when it is expected, having reached maturity, and being fit for every end to which it is adapted. So the godly man — active when in health and vigour, patient and resigned when sickness compels retirement, firm when firmness is required, yielding and submissive when it is for God's glory that he should be so — "he bringeth forth his fruit in his season." "His leaf also shall not wither." Instead of any decay in his profession — that which man's eye meets as the leaf in the tree that profession is sustained in ever fresh and changeless vigour and consistency, by the life from which it springs. "And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." Such is the literal statement of the blessing from God which attends the godly man. But this requires a little close attention.

In present result, judged by any human or earthly standard, this statement would not seem to be verified. When we hear the psalmist himself exclaiming, "Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant, broken down all his hedges, brought his strongholds to ruin, set up the right hand of his adversaries, made all his enemies to rejoice": when we hear him asking, "Wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?" (Ps. 89: 39-47): and when we hear Christ Himself saying, "I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain" (Isa. 49: 4; see also Matt. 23: 37) — it is evident that, "whatsoever he doeth shall prosper" is not to be taken as an absolute promise to be fulfilled in every sense, and in every case, and at all times. "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law" (Rom. 3: 19). This follows on a number of quotations from the book of Psalms; so that this book would seem to be included in the term "the law." It was Israel to whom "the law" was given, whether in its narrower or wider sense; and we have seen that the name of covenant relation with Israel is the name here used. Now it was part of Jehovah's covenant with Israel, that obedience should be attended with prosperity. "Blessed shalt thou be in the city, in the field, the fruit of thy body, the fruit of thy ground, cattle, kine, and the flocks of thy sheep" (see Deut. 28: 3, 4). The first thirteen verses indeed may be read as an exposition of the words before us, "whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."

But then these promises are to the nation in case of their obedience. Jehovah's government would secure all this blessedness and prosperity to His nation, if obedient. But the First Psalm treats of a godly man, not an obedient nation; nay, of a godly man, in contrast with the wicked. This, as to character, we have seen in the first two verses, we are to see it shortly in results. But the very presence of the ungodly, and even of scorners, implies a testing time for the faithful; and, as unfolded largely in other Psalms, the great test is the suspension of this word as to any present fulfilment, so that instead of the godly man prospering in all he does, it seems as though the wicked were in prosperity and the godly persecuted and forsaken. But this is not brought out here, and where it is, it is only for the present. There is a judgment impending, the effect of which will be to remove the ungodly, and leave only those as the righteous congregation, who, in the presence of the ungodly, and of the trial inseparable therefrom, have sustained the character of the man here described. In other words, a remnant, distinguished from the wicked part of the nation, by the character here given as that of an individual godly man, will become the nation, when the judgment has swept the ungodly away; and then of each such person it will indeed be true, "whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."

"The ungodly are not so": entirely contrasted in character, whatever prosperity they may have for the present, it is short-lived, and they themselves, like "the chaff which the wind driveth away." Think of the difference between the tree planted by the rivers of water, and the chaff which the wind driveth away! It is only till the judgment that the wicked can be supposed to prosper; but that judgment is sure, and "the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous." They are mingled together now, however different in character; dwelling in the same city, perhaps under the same roof, sitting at the same table, or sleeping in the same bed. But judgment will distinguish accurately between the one and the other. And mark well, there is no hint here of the translation of saints to heaven, such as we are now taught to expect at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a mystery never revealed till apostolic times — till redemption had been accomplished, the Holy Ghost had come down, and the earthly people had not only rejected and crucified their Messiah, but rejected the last offers of mercy through His death, by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. Then, when nothing remained but for sovereign grace to call out from every nation a saved people to be associated with an earth-rejected Christ in His heavenly place and glory, then it was revealed, that He will perfect His work of grace by descending to raise His sleeping, and change His waking, saints — all being caught up together to meet Him in the air, and so be for ever with Him: a translation of the whole body of the saints from earth to heaven, not dependent on any judgment to fall upon the wicked.

This is our hope as Christians; while, on the other hand, the judgment treated of in the first Psalm, and throughout the Psalms, is a judgment by which the wicked are removed, and the righteous left as Jehovah's congregation an the earth. It is the judgment of Luke 17: 24-37, Matt. 24: 37-41, and numerous scriptures besides, in which we read of the wicked being taken, and the righteous left. Meanwhile, "the Lord knoweth" (both discerns and approves) "the way of the righteous"; "but the way of the ungodly" (however seemingly successful now) "shall," in the time of judgment, surely "perish."  W. T.

Fragment.

W. Trotter.

BT vol. 11 p. 288.

I think we shall find all through the Psalms two classes: one, the faith which looks to God and trusts Him, and pleads for an answer in righteousness; and the other, the cry out of distress and in distress of heart under it, though the principle of faith be in the cry. I remember attributing the former more to Christ, the latter to the remnant. Now in the spirit and character of them this is true; but the exclusive distribution to one or the other is wrong. They are all the remnant, only in two different aspects, and one more fully and directly the Spirit of Christ, though in Gethsemane He did cry in distress to God.

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners.

John 6.

W. Trotter.

BT N8, 326 etc.

Well does the writer remember the effect on his own mind of the perusal, now many years ago, of a paper in the first volume of the "Christian Witness," on "The distinct characters of the several writings of the New Testament." If not the first, it was among the first means of leading him to read Scripture in the light of the characteristic subject and aim of each distinct portion of it. But; while leaning on God's grace as the only efficient cause of true instruction, every attempt to impart to others what has been so precious to his own soul, has served more deeply to convince him of the truth of one remark in the paper above referred to, viz., that, "The expression of one's own thoughts, and the acting so as to awaken similar thoughts in others, are two very different things; and the latter is a rarer and more self-denying attainment than the other." It is not as attempting much more than the former, that the following thoughts are submitted to such as bring all they read and hear to the test of the word of God itself.

Much that at that time had to some of us all the vividness and freshness of truth newly discovered to the soul, has long, as to the letter of it, at least, been familiar to all who are likely to read these remarks. The way in which the same blessed Person is presented in Matthew as the Messiah of Israel; by Mark, in active service as the Minister of the word; by Luke, in the fulness of that grace, in which He, the Son of man, came to men as such, to seek and to save that which was lost; and by John as the Word which was in the beginning, which was with God, and was God, but which was made flesh, and dwelt among us; all this the reader has doubtless read and heard again and again, until the words remain in the memory, whether they be understood and enjoyed through divine teaching or not. The peculiar character of John's Gospel has been dwelt upon by many. Many have pointed out how the glory which passes before us in that Gospel is the glory of Christ in His highest divine titles and relations; "the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Sweetly has it been shown, moreover, that while no other Gospel so freely unfolds this highest Godhead-glory of Christ, no other shows the sinner in such immediate contact with Him, receiving of His fulness. These and other leading features of the book, though never losing their interest, have yet to numbers become familiar truth. What the writer would now suggest may bear no comparison in importance with these chief characteristics of this Gospel; but nothing is lost which contributes in ever so small a degree to acquaintance with the precious record of the glory of Him of whom it is said, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

In perusing any book, inspired or uninspired; if we find certain words occurring often enough to awaken attention to the fact, and then, on examination, discover that they are thus used throughout the book, we immediately conclude that they either express its great theme and object, or at least that which is very closely related thereto. Reading thus the Gospel of John, certain words can scarcely fail to impress the mind with the frequency of their use; while a comparison with the other Evangelists confirms the conviction that the words in question do really bring out what is in closest connection with the great leading subject. For instance, the word life meets the eye almost at the beginning of the book, reappears most prominently in John 3, and afterwards, indeed with such frequency as to awaken the enquiry, Can this be one of the leading words in this Gospel? Can it have a characteristic force? Let us see.

But, before comparing this Gospel with the others in this respect, we do well to remember that there are more words than one in the New Testament rendered life. One ζωή, means life, in the strict, absolute sense. I speak only of the use of this, and other words, in the New Testament.* Another, ψυχή, soul, is frequently represented by the word life; but it is not the natural, ordinary use of the word; and if it were, it is as often so given in John as in any other of the Gospels. The word βίος, used for life, in the secondary sense of living, or way of living, does not occur in our Gospel at all. It is to the first word, ζωή, life in its absolute sense, that our inquiry relates. It occurs in Matthew, seven times; in Mark, four times; in Luke, six times; and in John, thirty-six times. Its force and bearing, as thus characterizing John, may be estimated by such passages as, "In him was life"; "Not perish, but have everlasting life"; "Passed from death unto life"; "The resurrection of life"; "I am the bread of life"; "I am come that they might have life"; "That he should give eternal life"; "That, believing, ye might have life, through his name." Is it nothing that in the midst of this world of death, the One who has life in Himself has been here to manifest it in His own person, and to impart it to us who were dead in sins? Nor has His rejection by the world, and His ascension on high interrupted for a moment this outflow of life from Him to dead sinners. He is glorified of the Father, who has given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as the Father "has given" Him.

*The word πνεῦμα spirit, is once rendered life, in Rev. 13: 15, which has no bearing on our present inquiry.

But let us turn to another word — love. Here, also, we have two words, ἀγαπάω and θιλέω, each with its shade of meaning, rendered to love in the English New Testament. Taking both these verbs, with words immediately related to them, such as the noun love, we find one or other of them in Matthew twelve times; in Mark, five times; in Luke fifteen times; and in John fifty-six times. Nor can we doubt the force of such words as characterizing this Gospel, in view of such passages as the following: "God so loved the world"; "Now, Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus"; "Having loved his own which were in the world"; "One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved"; "As I have loved you, that ye also love one another"; "If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him"; "That the world may know that I love the Father"; "Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me." LIFE and LOVE! Precious words! Life the gift of love. Divine love, in the person of the Son, bestowing a life, not only eternal in its duration, but of such a nature that the love wherewith the Father loved the Son can now rest on those of whom He said, addressing the Father, "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

But in what sphere does the revelation of this love take place? True it is that none profit by it vitally and everlastingly, but they in whom the native opposition of the heart is overcome by almighty grace, in the positive communication of life. But is it only among God's ancient people Israel that such persons are found? Are they the only inheritors of this blessedness, so immeasurably surpassing their fruitful land, the covenanted portion of their tribes? Let us see. The word world is quite as characteristic of our Gospel as either of those which have been under consideration. We stop not to notice the word αἰών, sometimes translated world, but intrinsically referring more to duration than to the world itself, absolutely considered. "The times which pass over it," the world morally viewed, is what it signifies. The word χόσμος, the world literally, including both the earth and its human inhabitants, occurs in Matthew nine times, in Mark three times, in Luke three times, and in John seventy-nine times. How it is used, the reader may judge from such instances as — "God so loved the world"; "The Saviour of the world"; "I am the light of the world"; "Now is the judgment of this world"; "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world," "The world seeth me no more," "The prince of this world"; "I have overcome the world"; "I pray not for the world"; "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"; "The world hath not known thee." Could it be more evident than it is, that when the Eternal Word — the only-begotten Son — was made flesh and dwelt among men, the question was one which concerned not Israel alone, or Israel more than others, but the whole world! It was towards the world the love of God was shown in the gift of His only-begotten Son. It was as the Saviour of the world that the blessed Lord Jesus appeared, and as the light of the world He shone; and, now that He has left the world, and returned to the Father who sent Him, He has left the world under the solemn responsibility of rejecting Him, and of not loving the Father of whose love He was both the messenger, the gift, and the expression. If He had tears for Jerusalem, and said, "How often would I have gathered thy children together . . . but ye would not," with what feelings did He bid farewell to the world, towards which such love had been shown, and by which such love had been repulsed and trodden under foot?

But there is one other word in its comparative use illustrative of the difference between this Gospel and the others. It is the word πιστεύω, to believe. We have it in Matthew eleven times, Mark fifteen times, Luke eight times, and in John ninety-nine times. Nor does this amazing disparity exhibit the whole amount of the difference. Six out of the eleven occurrences of the word in Matthew give it in connection with miracles, or in reference to false prophets, or in the lips of ungodly scoffers. So of eight passages in Mark, out of the fifteen that it contains. But in John, the vast majority of cases in which the word is employed, are those in which it expresses the believing in Christ Himself unto life eternal. "That all through him might believe"; "To them that believe on his name"; "That whosoever believeth on him should not perish"; "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life"; "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins"; "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Lord, I believe."

It is added by the Holy Ghost to the last quotation, concerning the man that had been blind, "And he worshipped him." May we all have his simplicity of faith, and more of the deep joy which filled and overcame his heart in gazing with his new-found sight on the One whom he now beholds by faith as the "Son of God." It is to faith alone that the discovery is made of His glory and His grace; and faith counts the One whom it receives as unspeakably more precious than all attendant blessings, privileges, and favours, vast and unutterable as these may be. "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name."

Thus have we seen the life revealed in Christ, and bestowed by Him as the gift of the Father's love in Him, not to any class or nation privileged by descent, but to all to whom it is given to believe on Him throughout the wide world. To that world itself, indeed, was the coming down to it of God's well-beloved Son, the expression of a love on God's part, which has no measure but the gift that it bestowed. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Never, till at the moment of now perusing it, had it been noticed by the writer, that in this one verse all our four words are found — life, love, world, believing! Thus does it gather, as into one focus, the light shed throughout the book from the person, mission, and work, the life, death, and resurrection — victory of the Son of God.

In turning to John 6, one point it is important to consider; that is, the contrast between the way in which Christ is presented here, and in the previous chapter. Life, in its communication by Him, and its inception by us, is the theme of both chapters; but in the fifth He is seen in full Godhead-title and glory, as the Source and Dispenser of the life sovereignly imparted by Him to us. The recipient of the life is regarded as entirely passive, and called into life by the almighty, new-creating, voice of the Son of God. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live." Here, there is nothing in the case of the sinner but the powerlessness of death itself, till the deep silence. is broken by the voice of the Son of God, who never thus speaks in vain. His voice makes itself heard in the soul, till then dead, but no longer dead as it hears the voice of the Son of God. It lives. "They that hear shall live." But we read here of no exercises or feelings, no desires or sense of need, of which Christ is the object. It is Christ in divine title and competency, as the Son of God, who speaks; and the soul, till then dead, hears and lives.

But in John 6, our Lord is seen in the place of humiliation He had assumed as man, "come down from heaven," and the object thus of those desires, and of that sense of need, of which the quickened soul is conscious, but conscious, mark, because of the sin and ruin which it know not till the voice of the Son of God broke in on its deep sleep of death. It is not always, perhaps not often, that these things can be distinguished in fact. The discovery of Christ in the soul, awakens, perhaps, the first sense of desire after Him, producing thus the hunger and thirst which He only, in further discoveries of Himself and of His work, can appease. But though this may be true in principle, as it surely is, the soul, while going through this passage in its history, is too much occupied with itself to distinguish very accurately the order of its experiences. What is of infinitely greater moment is the truth by which, instrumentally, they are produced; and this, blessed be God! we have in all its fulness and variety in the scriptures under review, and in other portions of God's holy word.

In the early part of our chapter, we find our Lord fulfilling, in the midst of Israel, the predictions of Ps. 132, where, in connection with Jehovah's choice of Zion, and placing David's son upon the throne, we read, "I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her poor with bread." But though Jesus be thus manifested as the heir of all the glories prophetically unfolded in the psalm, He is not here taking that place. Israel and the earth were as yet unfit for this; and God's time for it had not arrived. Hence Jesus retires before the urgency awakened of His own act in this feeding of the multitude. When they would have taken Him by force to make Him a king "he departed again into a mountain himself alone." Indicating thus that He would be on high during the postponement of His kingdom, His absence was continued until His disciples were in great trouble through a storm by which they were overtaken in crossing the lake. Jesus rejoins them with words of comfort, "and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went." This episode does not so much refer to the church, or to the saints composing it, as to the Jewish remnant in days to come. The return to them of the now absent but exalted Messiah will both hush the storm which will be threatening their total overthrow, and conduct them at once into the haven of rest. The heavenly saints will be taken from amid the whole scene of trial and of conflict, to be with their Lord whom they meet in the air.

All this, however, is but introductory to the great subject of the chapter, which is linked with these details by the inquiry of those who next day followed our Lord to the other side of the lake. They seem to have been swayed by the most sordid motives with which they are pointedly charged by the Lord. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you; for him hath God the Father sealed." If they would come after Him, and this was all the "labour" they had performed, He would have them come for that which would endure. Not the perishing sustenance of a life which shortens each moment of its existence, but the imperishable food of an imperishable life, which it was the great errand and business of the Son of man to give. Son of man He is, blessed be His name, and not simply Son of God; but in this place of humiliation to which He had stooped, how had the Father singled Him out from the whole race of mankind, setting upon Him alone the seal which marked Him out as the object of the Father's perfect approval and infinite delight. Believers are now, since the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, sealed; but it is in Christ that they are thus distinguished. "In whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Christ was sealed because of His intrinsic perfections; we, through our identification with Him in the place He has taken as having accomplished redemption. But the verse under consideration brings us to the Son of man as giving "meat which endureth unto everlasting life."

They who could follow Christ for loaves only, seek to excuse themselves for the neglect of this better gift. "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" is their next question. In what lovely, patient grace does the Lord reply, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Is He the One who, of all that ever trod this earth, was counted worthy to be sealed of God the Father? How evident, then, that to believe on Him is that which God must approve, and without which nothing else can be accepted in His sight.

The only answer of the people is an inquiry after signs, with a reference to the manna in their fathers' days, which seems intended to depreciate, by comparison, the miracle of the day before. It is as though they would say, "If you would have us believe in you as the sent One of God, you must shew us greater works than these. You have fed five thousand once; our fathers, in Moses' day, ate manna for forty years": as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat." Then did our Lord begin to unfold the great subject of the chapter. The reasonings of Jewish pride and unbelief gave Him the occasion; but, dealing with these in the most unsparing way, how does He, at the same time, present Himself as the Object on which any hungry, thirsty, fainting, perishing one might feed and live for ever. "A full Christ for empty sinners" indeed. These Jews were not such, and so went away. But how many fainting ones, perishing with hunger, have here been regaled, and found in Jesus the bread of life!

The remainder of our chapter affords us a threefold view of this blessed One. Christ incarnate — Christ slain — Christ ascended. May we have grace to listen, to receive, and to worship.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." How simple, and yet how weighty and conclusive His answer to their unexpressed thoughts about Moses, as though Moses were shown, by the miracle of the manna, to be greater than our Lord. "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven." He was but a receiver of it, like the people themselves, who subsisted on it for forty years. It was God's gift, and despised, alas! by those who lived on it, just as "the true bread" was now being despised by their descendants. Our Lord does not pursue the subject of the manna. He does not say, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father did. No; He would not speak of the manna in connection with the Father's name, as though the import of that name were disclosed by the gift from heaven of bread for six hundred thousand men and their families for forty years. Was this more, in reality, than His feeding all His creatures every day and every hour? "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing." So vast are the Creator's stores, and so easy their application in Providence to the creature's need!

But the Father's name is linked with deeper wonders far. All the riches of grace are told out in the revelation of that name. "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." What was that? The answer is at hand. "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." The Father's provision for a dying world was to send from heaven His only begotten Son. His appearing here was as the lowly Son of man. The fact was of worldwide interest. All alike needed this bread from heaven, and all alike were welcome. Not to Jew or Gentile, as distinct and privileged, but to the whole race as perishing, was this bounty sent. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" (1 John 4: 9); "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5: 19). But the world would not be reconciled. It had no taste, no appetite for this "bread from heaven." There might be the momentary movement of the affections by His gracious words, leading some present to cry, "Lord, evermore give us this bread"; but it was only to make their rejection of Him more manifest and decisive when they came to understand His meaning. But let us listen to His words.

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." Dear reader, do you understand these words? Has your soul-hunger been appeased by this "bread from heaven," this "bread of life"? Has your soul-thirst been quenched by receiving in Him and of Him the water of life? Or is it possible that one who reads these lines should fall under the condemnation of the words next uttered by Christ? "But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believed not." No language so cutting as that of rejected mercy, repulsed and slighted love! Here was this blessed One; His errand to this world nothing less than to be the expression of His Father's love, and the Saviour of lost men! He bore His credentials in every gracious word that fell from His lips, and every action of His perfect spotless life. One of these, the miracle of the loaves, had attracted after Him the multitude, who from selfish motives had followed Him across the lake. They confessed thus that they had "seen" Him; but, alas! they "believed not." When they understood that He was the bread of life, they shew plainly it was not for such food that they had come. They would have had another meal such as on the day before; but for the One who gave it they had no heart. He had come to save them, if they would, from a worse death than that by hunger, but they had no sense of their danger and need in this respect, and therefore had no heart for Jesus as their Saviour; and they would not receive Him. Nor would any, with Christ shown to them thus and nothing more.

These men were not worse than others. Their unbelief was manifest and declared; and He treats them, therefore, as unbelievers, as rejecters; but this is what would be the result in every case, were we left to our own thoughts of Christ, when thus seen as "come down from heaven." Thank God, there is something more. Christ had not only come, as bringing life and love so near to the world, to men as such, that only by refusing the life and repelling the love could they hold on in their sins; He had come to fulfil the counsels of His Father's love in the sovereign gift of life, as shown in John 5; and of this He now proceeds to speak, though still as "come down" and here in humiliation, the Object for faith to receive and appropriate. Such faith, it was evident, had no place in man's heart; but God could give it, and would sovereignly in His grace. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out."

How humiliating and heart-breaking for us, that, in the presence of incarnate life and love in the Person of the incarnate Son of God, no one would have come to Him, no one have been benefited by His mission, had there not been those who were given Him of the Father, and on whose coming therefore He could securely reckon. Man's will would, in each individual, have held out against Christ, had not the Father resolved that He should have some as the trophies of His victory, and the reward of His coming down from heaven. Alas, that our deadness to such love should have called forth such sighs as seem to breathe in these words of Jesus. Is it not as though He were accounting to Himself for the marvels of human unbelief? — as though saying, After all, it is but what I might have counted on? Nothing will affect man's stony heart, save where My Father's grace effectually intervenes, and on that I may securely count. All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me. And, then, to see how perfectly He fills the servant-place He had taken. For any now to come to Him is the proof of their being among those given to Him of the Father; so He may well declare of such that He will cast none out. The heart to come to Jesus is the sure sign to Him, had that been needed, of His Father's gracious working; and, therefore, He is but obedient to His Father's will in receiving, without question as to the past, all who come to Him. "Him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out." Precious words! Rich has been the comfort they have yielded to many an otherwise desponding one; but how greatly is their value enhanced when the coming to Christ is seen, not as an act of man's fickle will, but as the effect of the Father's drawing to Jesus of one given to Him in the counsels of that Father's love before the foundation of the world.

Then, too, as we have just seen, the reception of such a one by the Saviour, irrespective of every consideration beside, is not merely the fruit of His compassion for the sinner, but of His grateful obedient acceptance, as the servant of His Father's will, of the one sent to Him, brought to Him, by the unseen drawings of that Father's love. All thus rests, not upon any fancied good in the sinner, but upon the Father's choice and the Son's obedient love. "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will; but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." How He thus discloses that a far deeper and more important work had been entrusted to Him than that of satisfying Israel's poor with bread; no less a charge than that of raising up at the last day all given to Him of the Father, without losing one. Blessed Lord! to whom besides could this charge have been entrusted?

But, while disclosing, as above, that His real errand was one not depending for its issues on man's will, known already to be so perverse as in every case to reject the Saviour — an errand, too, embracing the safe production by Christ in resurrection blessedness of all given to Him by the Father — it is touching to find how solicitously He leaves wide open the door to any one anywhere who is disposed to enter. He may not, as yet, be able to account for the change in his own condition, as we have seen it accounted for by the Saviour; he is not the less welcome, or his final safety the less certain and unfailing. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

The great stumbling-block to the Jews at that time was His professing to have come down from heaven, just as afterwards, in Paul's day, the doctrine of "Christ crucified" was "to the Jews a stumbling-block." And for precisely the same reason, their pride disdained the being indebted to One so lowly; and they were so self-satisfied as to see no need for One to come from heaven, and much less for One to die upon the cross to meet their case and be their Deliverer and Redeemer. Their case, as they thought, was by no means so desperate as this. They could not have denied their national subjection to the stranger's yoke; and, a "great prophet" to have stirred up the people to crowd around the standard of some great commander who would have led them on to victory over their Roman oppressors — this would have been a Messiah to their mind.

But for a plain, homely man, reputed to be the son of a carpenter of Nazareth, to profess to have come down from heaven and to speak of Himself as the bread of life, engaging to raise up His followers at the last day; in other words, for the lowly Jesus to present Himself as the Saviour of their souls and the giver of everlasting life, this was a deliverance and a Deliverer of which they felt no need, and for whom they had no relish. They did not hunger for such bread; they did not thirst for such life-giving draughts. "The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?" They could understand that a heavenly existence prior to His being a man on earth was implied in this language; in other words, that it was divine glory, veiled in His lowly place and condition as Son of man, which was in these words declared by Him as His. With this implied claim they contrast what they suppose to be His origin, and inquire, "How is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?"

In answer to all such cavillings the Lord only again retires into His own consciousness of how the case really stood. "Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him: and I will raise him up at the last day." No one hungers for the bread of life so as to come to the Saviour except as drawn by a sense of urgent need which exists in none but those whom the Father draws. The prophets had declared of all who should inherit Israel's promised blessings in the latter day, "And they shall be all taught of God." This scripture our Lord quotes, and again consoles Himself with the assurance, "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me." All in Israel who had inwardly heard God's voice, not only came to Jesus, but were overjoyed to do so. Take Nathanael for an instance (John 1: 49). It was these dealings of God with the soul under the fig-tree, these humbling discoveries of self and sin leading to guileless confession of total ruin, that accounted for any coming to Christ. But, as it were, excluding the sense which might have been put on His words, the Lord adds, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

What treasures do these few words unfold. However souls may be taught of God, drawn of the Father, and consequently come to Christ, it is not that the Father is immediately revealed, so as to be seen. There was no incarnation of the Father, as of the Son. He abides in unmanifested Godhead; and, only in the Son, who stooped to "come down from heaven" and be here a Man upon earth, is the Father to be seen. "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father." Infinite distinction between this blessed Son of man and all men on the earth, whither in grace He had humbled Himself to come. He had seen the Father. In the depths of that eternity in which the Word had been "with God," in which the "eternal life" was "with the Father," had He, who now humbly speaks of Himself as "He which is of God," "seen" what no creature can  - "seen the Father." What unfathomable secrets of love and blessedness and glory are wrapped up in these short simple words!

Tread softly, O my soul, for surely this is holy ground. And here He was, He who had seen the Father, He was here to make Him known. He had become incarnate for this very end. He had taken flesh, came down from heaven, or He would still equally with the Father have been beyond the ken of mortals, beyond the creature's sight. "No man hath seen God at any time the Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." Who else could? And how else could we ever have known Him? How else could the light of the Father's love and grace have beamed into our dark hearts, and shed its lustre on our whole upward path to the abodes of which the Saviour afterwards said, "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you; I go to prepare a place for you." When there with our adorable Jesus, and privileged to behold His glory, how will there be connected therewith the witness of what He had known and enjoyed there from all eternity! "For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

From these depths He returns, and with what perfect ease and grace, to the simplest presentation of Himself as the bread of life. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life."

How simple the way in which the Saviour is received! Just as a hungry man, with bread before him, asks no questions, makes no demur, but eats and lives, so the Saviour, with a hungry soul before Him, needs nothing to commend Him to such a soul's grateful, adoring reception. But where are such? Alas! it was the lack of all taste for Christ, the self-complacency which felt no need of Him, that prevented these blinded Jews from receiving Him. And where is there an appetite for Him now? Precious bread of life He doubtless is — perfectly adapted to nourish and sustain divine life in man, even if that life be in its most infantile stage, the very earliest moments of its communication by grace to the soul.

But without this what is there? Death! A corpse has no appetite — it neither hungers nor thirsts. No more does the soul that is still dead in sins, dead to God. It is of the woman who seeks her happiness on earth that the word is spoken, "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Tim. 5: 6), but it would surely be as true to say that he who thus lives is also dead.

Dear reader, if fashion, wealth, or pleasure — the world in any of its forms — be all we wish, all we seek, what can the bread of life be to us in that state? Insipid and distasteful indeed in our esteem! Christ will not help us to win the prize in any race of ambition or pursuit of pleasure. He who passed by the nature of angels, and all the gradations of human rank, to be known on earth, as these Jews tauntingly designated Him, "the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know"; or as some in Mark 6: 3, "Is not this the carpenter?" — He is not one in whom pride can find its food. And as to pleasure, what can they who seek it find in the One "who pleased not Himself" — who tells us in this very chapter, "For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me"?

And yet, solemnly as the fact begins to declare itself, that between this incarnate One and those who surrounded Him there was not one thought, feeling, or motive in common, how graciously He continues to urge every consideration which might be adapted to produce in them an appetite to awaken desires after Himself, the Living Bread! They had referred to the manna, and covertly to Moses as the giver of it, in order to depreciate Christ. He returns to that subject now, to press on their attention the contrast for themselves. "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever." Wondrous words! The manna, testimony as it was of God's power and grace, and type indeed of Christ Himself, in its actual use did but nourish for a few years that poor, fleeting, feverish, forfeited life, which begins at our birth and ends at our death. A taper wasting from the moment it begins to shine; "a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away" — is it for this, or the support of it, or for the brief pleasure that it affords, that men toil, fret, weary themselves, despise heaven with all its glories, refuse or neglect Christ and His great salvation?

Yes. It was so in our Lord's day on earth. It is so still. Oh that His words (thank God, "they are spirit and they are life") may reach the heart of some one who cons these pages — the words in which He contrasts with everything in this poor, perishable life, that interminable existence in unutterable peace and joy, that "everlasting life" which all receive who receive Him! Hungry soul, can you not feed on Jesus? As you would appease your natural hunger on the suited food, can you not find in Jesus what meets your entire case, what satisfies your every wish? Here is an undying life — an unwasting one; to "live for ever" is the effect of feeding on this bread from heaven. "That a man may eat thereof and not die: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." Has the worldling anything to compare with this? Do his most feverish dreams of happiness on earth embrace the element of unending continuance? It is just for him the one element wanting, the lack of which spoils all the rest.

How passing wonderful, that the One who stood before these Jews as the lowliest and poorest of men had the full consciousness then of having a life to bestow, to communicate, which death cannot touch, and which is, in its own proper nature, everlasting life! He is no longer here in humiliation, speaking such words of grace and truth as these; but He has not ceased to be the giver of this life, Himself the fulness of the life He gives. "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."

To gather up a little what has been under review, we have here "the Son of man," One who is really partaker of flesh and blood, a Man conversing with the men who had followed Him across the lake — we have this Son of man, the Sealed One of God the Father. He is the Sent One too, and the first thing for any one who would please God is to believe on Him whom He hath sent. He has, moreover, meat or food to give, which endures to everlasting life. In the conversation with the parties just adverted to, the mystery of His presence here is declared, and many of the moral traits of that life of which He is the full expression, and which He was here to communicate, are either stated in words, or come out in practical display. He was from heaven, the incarnate One. He was the Father's gift, a character in which He delights in this Gospel to speak of Himself. He was the true bread — the real and only nourishment for divine life in man, had it only been there.

What perfect adaptation to man's need is this bread from heaven. He who is that bread gives life, moreover, as well as sustains it where it is. But where is it, alas! save as sovereignly bestowed, when all would equally have treated it with disdain? They had seen Him and had not believed. There is the heartiest welcome, an open door, none refused; he Who comes is no more to hunger, he who believes is no more to thirst; but the Saviour has to take refuge from universal rejection by mankind in the certainty that all would come to Him who were given to Him of the Father. The outflow of His own love in receiving all such, and casting none out who come, is thus seen as the perfection of obedience to His Father, whose will, not His own, He had come from heaven to do. How the heart bows in contemplation of such obedience! He who could speak of raising up His people at the last day as though it were as easy and simple an act of obedience as any that He performed while here, speaks of Himself as having it in charge not to stop short of this. "This is the Father's will . . . that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

Blessed Jesus, how safe, to be confided thus to Thee! But more than this, this safety appertains to all who see Him and believe on Him, "the last Adam, a quickening Spirit." Though it may be of His resurrection-place that this is spoken, such is the fulness of life in His person that the eye that rests on Him receives, with the beams of His countenance, that life which these beams impart. To believe on Him is to have everlasting life. The drawings of the Father, His secret teachings, secure that they shall come to Him who are the gift to Him of the Father's love. The Father Himself, undisclosed save to the Son ("He who is of God"), draws to the Son by that sense of need which is met by Him alone. He is the bread of life — not a perishable life like that of which even the manna in the desert was the food — but everlasting life.

What unfathomable wonders these few verses disclose! The infinite grace displayed in the fact of the incarnation — how little is it pondered by our careless, frivolous hearts! And then the perfectness of this blessed One in the place of humiliation to which He had stooped — the absoluteness of His obedience, and the delicacy of His self-hiding, self-consuming service! To these Jews He had to speak of Himself, for they challenged His claims, and invidiously compared Him with Moses, and His miracle with that of the manna. He answers as feeling the reflection on His Father, not on Himself. "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." Blessed Saviour! grant us daily and hourly to feed by faith on Thyself in all the perfectness in which Thou wast displayed to the eye of God while sojourning in this vale of tears.

But our attention is claimed by deeper wonders still. The incarnation is one marvel and mystery and glory of the gospel, the cross is the other. Any third miracle to compare with these the records of eternity afford not. There has been none such in eternity past; there can be none such in eternity to come. The Word made flesh! The Holy One made sin! But why was this? Was it not enough that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him? Had this been all, not one sinner of Adam's race would have been found on high to sing the praises of his Saviour-God. Christ the incarnate Word, had there been no deeper mystery of love, would have shown, more than anything beside, man's hatred to God, and the utter hopelessness of his case. The blessed One well knew this when He came into the world, but now the proof was before His eyes. The more His intrinsic excellence, His moral perfectness was displayed, the more manifest it became that between Him and fallen man there was not one moral quality in common.

It is not, as others have observed, a question of degree, a race in which one immeasurably outdistances another. No; it is contrariety — contrast — of the most absolute kind. All that men value and seek He declined and shunned. For all on which His heart was set they had no relish whatever. Men seek their own glory; He sought His Father's alone. Men do their own will; His Father's was His only business. Men love those who resemble themselves, and such as love them; He loved where there were no qualities He could approve, and where there was hatred to Himself that thirsted for His blood. To think of One who for the three and thirty years of His sojourn on earth never did one thing to serve Himself, spare Himself, exalt Himself, but for every moment of His life was and did, spake and thought and felt, exactly as the Father would have Him! Let a man's eyes be opened, as they are when his ears are unstopped by the voice of God's Son; let his opened eyes rest on THIS BLESSED PERSON as the divine records set Him forth, and what is the result? "Woe is me," he exclaims, "I am utterly hopeless now! Hard and vain have been my struggles to win life by keeping the law; but now, as I look on this moral picture, every trait, every line, convicts me of being exactly the opposite. I admire His ways, I could sit and gaze on Him and wonder; and if I could be like him — alas! every attempt deepens my conviction that it is all in vain. If Christ be what God delights in — and He is — He never can delight in me, for His ways and mine are farther than east and west asunder. What is to become of me, wretched man that I am?"

What, indeed, must have become of any of us, had Christ only glorified His Father in coming down to sojourn here as a living man? But this was not the whole; He Himself assures us it was not. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

As come down, as incarnate, He was the bread of God, His Father's gift; but there was bread which He Himself would give, even His flesh, which He would give for the life of the world. Now this giving of His flesh was the laying down of His life, the yielding Himself up to death, that He might become to sinners — to fallen, perishing men — what bread would be to a crowd of persons perishing with hunger.

It is in a slain Christ alone that sinners can now find what meets their deep and solemn need. Well may our need be met where God has been perfectly glorified about our sins! Convicted, by His life, of total contrariety to Him in every moral trait, whither shall we turn but to the cross, where this same blessed One gives His flesh that we may live?

Did His love go even to such lengths as these? It did. When nothing less than the death of a sin-atoning victim of infinite value could meet our need as guilty ones exposed to the wrath of God, or justify God in justifying us, His love was found equal to the emergency, and He gave His flesh for the life of the world.

That such is His meaning comes out more emphatically in His reply to the next cavil of those who stood round about Him. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" was their carnal, foolish inquiry. He stops not to explain, but repeats and amplifies His previous declaration. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Evidently, for the blood to be apart from the flesh, so as to speak of eating the one and drinking the other, the blood must have been shed in death. So that we have here, in the fullest way, the death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, set forth; and, at the same time, the most solemn testimony of ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL, and of the equally absolute necessity for ITS INDIVIDUAL RECEPTION. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Who besides could have thus provided for our perishing souls? What other life would have had in it the atoning value, the saving efficacy, at once to meet the highest claim of God's moral glory, the glory of all His perfections, and reach down to the lowest depths of our need as guilty, ruined, hopelessly undone sinners?

And yet it is as Son of man that He here speaks of Himself. How could He have suffered death had He not become the Son of man? How this links together the mysteries of Bethlehem and Calvary, the Incarnation and the Cross! The one was in order to the other. He came to die. "Once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." It was "for the suffering of death" that He was "made a little lower than the angels." And it is by His death we live.

Though He had life in Himself, and though, anticipatively of His atoning work, He gave life at any time to any poor sinner, it was only on the ground of that work that life could flow from His person to any who heard His voice and believed His words while here; and the actual shedding of His blood as that of the great and all-atoning Victim for our sins, was the only way in which the flood-gates of mercy could be thrown open to guilty, justly condemned sinners. How widely they are flung open now! How completely has Christ's precious sacrifice removed all the obstacles to our salvation presented by the character of God, His holy nature, the majesty of His throne, and the faithfulness of His word! "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness"; and while this perfection might surely have been displayed in the endless punishment of the whole guilty race, how then would the love of God have been exercised or shown? Where is that love so manifested as at the cross? and where besides is God seen as so inexorably just? The flames of hell arc not so glorious a vindication of His righteous claims as the agonies of His spotless, immaculate Son. God's holy hatred of sin could not go further than the averting His countenance from the Son of His love when drinking the cup for us.

Who will not tremble before this holy Lord God, who, sooner than tarnish His throne, or break the word which had gone out of His mouth, that sin should have death for its righteous punishment, gave up to death — the death of the cross — the One who had been in His bosom from all eternity? And then to think of that One voluntarily yielding up His life? In obedience to His Father and in love to us He drinks the cup of wrath, that in Him, the Slain One, we perishing sinners may find all we need. Life flows to us through His death; and the soul that finds its hunger appeased and its thirst quenched by what Scripture tells of Christ on the cross, has not only life in Him, eternal life, issuing in the resurrection of life at the last day, but a present fulness of nutriment and refreshing, of which the Saviour witnesses in the words, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Continuing to feed on Him as the slain as well as the incarnate Christ, we abide in Him and He in us. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

This language assumes, though it does not mention the fact, that He who used it would rise again. And with Christ as risen, they who feed on Him as slain, are so identified that He here for the first time in Scripture speaks of our dwelling in Him and He in us. Dwelling in Him we participate in all that is His; and by His dwelling in us we become vessels for the manifestation of what He is.

Nor is this the whole. Christ's own life as the Son of man was a life of entire dependence on the Father. And ours is one of dependence on Christ Himself. But the one is presented as the model for the other. "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by* the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by* me." Blessed Jesus, teach us thus to live in hourly dependence on Thyself! It is at this point that the Saviour sums up the whole subject of which He had been treating. "This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

* διὰ τὸν πατέρα more accurately rendered "on account of the Father," i.e., by reason of what the Father is and His living.

But the native sphere and home of this undying life is not earth but heaven. To all intents it is an exotic here. Perfectly was it manifested in the three and thirty years' sojourn on earth of the Son of man; and, as we have seen, this display of divine life in man, in the person of Christ, is one great leading subject of this Gospel. But the One in whom this display took place was a stranger here. The Book witnesses this fact throughout. We have not far to read before we find the words, "And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness comprehended it not." And then more plainly still, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Even His own people, the Israel of Jehovah's choice, had, as we have also so largely seen in this very chapter, no heart for Jesus. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." Thus rejected by those among whom He came, He makes no secret of whence He had come. To Nicodemus He says, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" Who so competent to tell as He to whom these things were familiar, and the mystery of whose Person still made heaven His home, though as man He had come to sojourn below? "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Such were His own words to the Jewish rabbi; while in the same chapter (John 3), the Holy Ghost by the Evangelist's pen delightedly bears witness to Him as the heavenly Stranger here. "He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth." Alas that He has to add, "And no man receiveth his testimony"!

Our own chapter bears abundant witness to His having come down from heaven. This was what so provoked the opposition of the Jews; an opposition which became so open and so fully declared as to force from the Saviour's lips the most solemn statements as to the contrast between their origin and the sphere whence He had come. "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above; ye are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8). No; He was from heaven. A true, real Man; veritably partaker with the children, blessed be God, of flesh and blood; partaker, as He has been telling us, of a life which He would give in the shedding of His blood, that there might be the link between Him and all who receive Him of an undying life. But all this could not constitute Him a native of this world, a denizen of the earth. He was a stranger here; and when many of His disciples began to say inwardly to themselves, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" He, knowing their thoughts, replied, "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? "

Thus does He give, somewhat obscurely indeed, as suggesting much more than was spoken, the first intimation of the third great fact of which our chapter is the witness. Christ incarnate, and thus come down from heaven; Christ slain, His blood shed for sinful men, becoming the suited food of a life, the first movement of which in us is in the sense of our need as sinners, a hunger which can only thus be appeased; and now Christ ascended, involving of necessity His resurrection, but including much more than this. The eternal life which was with the Father before all worlds — the eternal, uncreated, all-creating Word which "in the beginning" was "with God" and "was God" — had come down, and become in that act of deep humiliation "the Son of man." He was now returning to that sphere of unmingled blessedness, of highest glory, whence He had come forth to Bethlehem's manger and Calvary's cross; but He was returning thither as Son of man. Thenceforth He should be seated as man on the throne of His Father. Heaven, not earth, becomes thus, from the moment of His session there, the home of all who, by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, become partakers of His life. Earth becomes a wilderness, a place of exile, to all such, just as it was to Him while here. He is our life, and this associates us necessarily with heaven and all that is native to that abode of purity and joy. As another once remarked, "If sin has opened to man the place of woe never designed for him but for the devil and his angels, grace has opened to him that heaven which is peculiarly and distinctively the dwelling-place of God." "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's; but the earth hath he given to the children of men." So the Psalmist wrote, and such indeed was the only inheritance which could have descended to us, even from unfallen Adam. The earth was given to him (Gen. 1), but when his sin had opened hell to the finally impenitent and unbelieving, grace opened heaven to all who become willing to enter there in the value of Christ's blessed Person and atoning work.

What He but obscurely hints to His disciples in our chapter has since become accomplished fact, and one of the great foundation-facts of Christianity. Christ has gone up on high. The Son of man has ascended up where He was before. His request to His Father (John 17) has been fulfilled. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Nor would He be there alone. "Father, I will [or, desire] that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." Heaven is now the revealed home and sphere of that eternal life which, if absolutely and perfectly displayed on earth in the One of whom we read, "In him was life," is also derivatively enjoyed by all who believe. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"

It was for other lips and another pen than the beloved disciple's to unfold this subject in detail. The place in heaven in and with Christ, bestowed on believers by the grace which reigns through righteousness by our Lord Jesus Christ, is Paul's distinctive theme. The manifestation of divine life on earth, perfectly in Christ, and really though derivatively in us, is the theme of John's Gospel and Epistles. It is, of all themes, the most vital, essential, fundamental. But deeply interesting it is to find such links as our Lord's words last quoted, and those from John 17: 24, evincing that whether Paul or Peter or John be the instrument of communication, it is one vast circle of truth which is revealed, of which the centre and fulness are found in the Person and Sacrifice and Exaltation of the Son of God and Son of man; Christ, the Word incarnate, Christ slain, Christ ascended; "a full Christ for empty sinners."

Many who had for a season followed Christ drew back from the time when this discourse was delivered. This did not surprise Him; but it afforded Him the occasion of challenging the hearts of those who still surrounded Him. To them Jesus said, "Will ye also go away?" No one wonders that Peter was spokesman for them all; and he might not yet have measured himself, as afterwards through grace he did when he went out and wept bitterly. Nevertheless there is a warmth, an energy, a decision about his words that we may well covet, and as to which we may challenge our hearts, dear Christian reader, whether we could reply thus. Go away! "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

May our hearts repel thus, and disown, every thought of any other than this blessed Christ of God. "To whom shall we go?" To whom indeed? Oh, to abide in Him! May we have grace to cleave to Him with purpose of heart, and may He be glorified in each of us, for His Name's sake. Amen. W. T.

Essays on Prophetic Interpretation

Essays on Prophetic Interpretation.

by W. Trotter.

Publishers: Allan, Morrish, Tunley.

CBA8691

Preface.

Those who knew the author of these Essays will need no recommendatory words of another; those who knew him not, will find no bad introduction here. Besides their intrinsic value, it seems seasonable to reproduce them in a collected form, particularly the review of Waldegrave's Bampton Lectures on New Testament Millenarianism, at a time when a new edition goes forth of a book, clever, perhaps, in criticizing others, but wholly erroneous in its own teaching. (W. Kelly.)

Contents.

1 On Principles of Biblical Interpretation,

2 Distinctions between the Old and New Testaments,

3 Connexions between the Old and New Testaments,

4 The Three-fold Cord; or, Christ's Three Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King,

5 New Testament Millenarianism,

6 New Testament Millenarianism,

7 The Millenarian Question,

8 Present State of Controversies on Apocalyptic Interpretation,

9 The Premillennial Controversy.

Chapter 1 — ON PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.*

(*1. New Testament Millenarianism; or, The Kingdom and Coming of Christ, as taught by himself and his apostles: set forth in eight sermons, preached before the University of Oxford in the year 1854, at the lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, by the Hon. and Rev. Samuel Waldegrave, M.A., rector of Barford St. Martin, Wilts, and late fellow of All Souls College. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1855, 8vo., pp. 686.

2. Notice of the above. in "The British and Foreign Evangelical Review." No. 14, October, 1855.

3. Notice of the above, in "The London Quarterly Review," No. 10, January, 1856.

4. Millennial Studies: or, What saith the Scriptures concerning the Kingdom and Advent of Christ? By the Rev. W. R. Lyon, B.A. London: Ward and Co. [This volume has appeared since the present article was in type. We include it with the others, as completing the array of publications on that side of the question; and we hope to notice its arguments in succeeding papers, so far as they may differ from those of the Bampton Lecture.])

HAD evidence been wanting of the extent to which the millenarian question has taken hold of the minds of thoughtful, intelligent christians, it is afforded by Mr. Waldegrave's volume, and by the two laudatory notices of it mentioned below, — all in direct antagonism to pre-millennial views. The rev. lecturer, in the preface to his work, refers to "the prestige under which for many years past the tenets he has endeavoured to combat have been urged upon the attention of the church," while one of his reviewers remarks, that "it is in the English church that this theory has met with most favour. Of the evangelical party probably the majority are on that side, while the tractarians are at least favourably inclined to it." He complains that, "though the press has for years been teeming with productions of every kind, in defence and illustration of this theory, hardly any clerical voice was raised against it," but congratulates himself that this "can no longer be said." The volume under review supplies the lack. "In the Bampton lecture now before us, we have a full treatment of the whole subject; the numerous foot-notes, and the large body of notes in the appendix, showing how well the author has digested the literature of the subject down to the latest." Such is the testimony of the British and Foreign Evangelical; while the London Quarterly represents "the subject discussed in these lectures" as "one of large and growing interest and importance;" exciting "more attention and argued with greater spirit and energy in the present, than in any former period." "No mean place," we are told, "has it obtained in our current religious literature."

Believing, as we do that, in its grand leading features, pre-millennialism is the truth of God, we cannot but rejoice in such testimonies to the attention it hasawakened, and the reception it has met with among christians of various denominations, and especially in the English church. As to the latter, the London Quarterly informs us, that "it is well known that the pre-millennialists' view is on the increase among the evangelical clergy in the established church of England; and it is this fact which led Mr. Waldegrave, as he says, 'not to hesitate to avail himself of the opening given by his appointment to the office of Bampton Lecturer, to indicate the many respects in which he believes the doctrine of a personal reign to be at variance with the plain teaching of Holy Scripture.'"

Statements such as these from the avowed rejecters of premillennialism can scarcely fail to prove gratifying to those who discern, in its spread and increase, nothing but the progress and triumph of truth. Nor have we the least need to quail before the opposition it has evoked. It is true, as one of the reviewers of the Bampton lecture almost admits, that a favourable change has taken place in the spirit and character of the controversy. "These who contend for the pre-millennial advent and personal reign of Christ upon earth used," he says, "to complain, that their works were read with a jaundiced eye, that the views of extreme writers were ascribed to the entire party, and that the whole question was misunderstood and misrepresented by their opponents." No doubt such complaints were made, and with good reason. Any one familiar with the earlier stages of the controversy must certainly subscribe to the justice of the charge. Nor can we entirely accord with the British and Foreign Evangelical, that "such charges are not, and cannot be made now." They certainly cannot be made with justice against such writers as Dr. Brown and Mr. Waldegrave. These authors have endeavoured, and generally with success, to understand the positions maintained by their opponents; and any instances in which they have incorrectly stated the views and arguments against which they have employed their pens, may be accounted for on other grounds than that of wilful prejudice or wilful inattention. But what shall be said of the London Quarterly? It represents Dr. Brown to be "as fair in stating the opinions he combats, as he is successful in overturning them;" and of Mr. Waldegrave it speaks as furnishing "ample proof that he has thoroughly investigated the controversy; that every book of importance on both sides he has carefully examined; and that his views have been formed honestly, and with a sincere desire to know the truth." Would that his reviewer had earned a similar character! In what pre-millenarian work did he find, as an argument for an eclectic and pre-millennial resurrection, the statement of the apostle, in 1 Thess. 4: 16, that "the dead in Christ shall rise first?" Do not all the writers of that class agree with what the London Quarterly so labours to prove, that the apostle in these words simply affirms that the righteous dead will be raised prior to the change which is to pass on the living saints, and to the translation of both to meet the Lord in the air? We own to some degree of familiarity with the writings of premillennialists; but we know of none in which the argument is used, which the London Quarterly with so much parade first exhibits and then destroys. Such cheap and easy victories tend to damage rather than to aid the cause in support of which they are achieved. Pre-millenarian arguments may, doubtless, have been based on 1 Thess. 4: never, that we are aware of,* on the assumption that the apostle asserts the doctrine of the first resurrection in the words "the dead in Christ shall rise first."

[*The reviewer had some slight ground for the charge.]

Nor is this the only instance in which the views of his opponents are misrepresented by this reviewer. "Pre-millenarianism contravenes," he says, "the many Scripture statements that the saints, glorified with Christ at his coming, are so absolutely secure in the possession of their perfected happiness, as to be beyond the power of attack from their adversaries. No conflicts can follow their enthronement in complete bliss." Assuredly not: but where has this been called in question by pre-millennialists? On what foundation does the reviewer rest this charge against them of contravening this self-evident truth? He does not condescend to inform us. Had it been some rustic who, on first hearing of the "thousand years" and the "little season" which succeeds, had enquired in amazement, how such doctrine could comport with the perfect security of the glorified saints, identified, as these might be in his mind, with "the camp of the saints" and "the beloved city," it would have been an easy task patiently to instruct him, that it is not "the glorified saints" who are supposed to be the objects of Gog and Magog's attack, but the earthly saints of the millennial state, who will not at that time have put on immortality, any more than we have now. But a writer in the London Review — a scholar, a critic, a commender of others for their fairness and impartiality, as well as for their acquaintance with the views they controvert — he ought not to need such instruction. He ought to have been better informed of what pre-millenarians teach, than to be capable of charging them with contravening what they hold, equally with this reviewer, as most certain and most dear.

Still, in the main, the tone and bearing of the controversy on the post-millenarian side has undoubtedly improved. Much is now conceded that was disputed at the first. As to the serious questions which remain, it is not now so much a contention as to what pre-millennialists mean, as an inquiry whether what they affirm be taught by Holy Scripture. Their writings, as well as the subjects to which these writings relate, have evidently been studied by the able men who have lately entered the lists against them. In this we heartily rejoice. Truth has nothing to fear from the most searching investigation. Should anything in pre-millennialism be proved by these esteemed antagonists to be contrary to God's Word, or not taught therein, none would owe them heartier thanks than pre-millennialists themselves. Nor do we question that many writers who bear this name have presented vulnerable points, which skilful opponents have been quick to discern, and able to overthrow. Some parts of Dr. David Brown's book on the second advent we deem unanswerable; but they are those in which he assails, with righteous indignation and complete success such notions as that of the endless succession of human generations in the post-millennial state. But as to the great questions of the advent, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom, we confess that neither in his book, nor that of Mr. Waldegrave now before us, have we met with anything to shake even for a moment our conviction, that the views which they oppose are true, and demonstrated to be so by the Word of God.

In one thing we cordially agree with Mr. Waldegrave, namely, that "The controversy before us is, of all others, one which Scripture alone can determine. We may not appeal for its decision to tradition, whether Rabbinical or patristic. The one only question is this, What saith the Scripture?" But then it is the whole of Scripture, not one part of it exalted at the expense of other parts, by which the question must be determined. Above all, it must be by the diligent and prayerful perusal and study of the prophetic portions of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament, that prophetic questions are to be decided. We never think of referring chiefly to the preceptive parts of the sacred volume to decide doctrinal difficulties; and if it has pleased God that a third part of the Old Testament, and one whole book in the New, should consist of prophecy, it seems strange to remove the investigation of prophetic questions from this vast field of prophetic instruction, to other parts of Scripture which confessedly, consist in the main, not of prophecy, but of narrative, doctrine, and precept. Such seems to us to be the drift and tendency of Mr. Waldegrave's opening lecture. The principles of interpretation which it inculcates seem to us to call for the gravest consideration, before they are adopted as our guide in the discussion of the important subjects to which the seven remaining lectures are devoted.

The opening lecture is the subject of special commendation by both reviewers. "The best feature of the work before us," says the British and Foreign Evangelical, "is the high vantage ground on which he plants his foot at the very outset, and from which he puts forth all his strength." "He wisely commences," says the London Quarterly, "in his first lecture, by affirming in the most explicit manner, that the Scriptures are our only authority in doctrine, and lays down two important principles, or rules, by which we are to be guided in our interpretation of those Scriptures.

These rules are introduced by our author himself in a passage, to the opening sentences of which we cannot but demur. "Before we begin our Scriptural researches, it is most important that the principles according to which they are to be conducted should be clearly defined. For there is no controversy in which fixed laws of biblical interpretation are more needed, — none in which they have been less observed." Now, at the risk of differing from some of our pre-millenarian brethren as well as from Mr. W., we cannot forbear enquiring, Whence does the need arise, the existence of which is here so confidently affirmed? Where does Scripture itself inform us of any such need? For our own part, we have a deep distrust of rules of interpretation previously laid down. Who thinks of adopting any rules or principles for interpreting Mr. W.'s language, before he commences the perusal of the Bampton lecture? There may be literal statements here, and figurative expressions there; but who would postpone the perusal of the book, until he had determined how the one class was to be distinguished from the other, and as to which class should have the precedence in fixing the meaning of the writer? It is not thus we read other books; we suffer them to make their own impressions on our minds, never doubting that the literal and the figurative will each commend itself to us in its own proper character, and the meaning of the writer be apparent in both. And when the book is worth perusing, these expectations are justified. Why should we adopt any other plan in reading the Word of God? May we not safely trust ourselves with it, and with its divine author — that indwelling Spirit, whose illuminations are never withheld from the humble, trustful, prayerful student of God's Word? "We may not indeed appeal to tradition," as our author says, "whether rabbinical or patristic?" No, we would add, nor to modern, human rules of interpretation, which, when once adopted, make Scripture speak a language that they force upon it, instead of leaving it, and every part of it, to speak in its own language to the understanding, the conscience, and the heart.

The two rules on which Mr. Waldegrave builds so much, and which meet with such high commendation from his reviewers, are as follows: we give them in his own words.

"Those rules are embodied in the two following axiomatic propositions.

First — in the settling of controversy, those passages of God's word which are literal, dogmatic, and clear, take precedence of those which are figurative, mysterious, and obscure.

Secondly — in all points upon which the New Testament gives us instruction, it is, as containing the full, the clear, and the final manifestation of the divine will, our rightful guide in the interpretation of the Old."

These rules, be it observed, or, at least one of them, our author does not establish by proof, but assumes, as self-evident. We are told by the London Quarterly, that "Mr. W., with great force of argument, successfully establishes the two 'axiomatic propositions' which he lays down as essential to the correct interpretation of the word of God." Our author himself, however, so far from arguing in favour of both his rules, says of the first, (p. 9), "None will care to dispute it." And again, "this is the statement of a self-evident truth." Again, (p. 12), he speaks of "the postulate which thus removes the decision of the millenarian controversy out of the province of the Apocalypse." In favour of his second rule, Mr. W. does adduce some arguments; but he has the consistency not to speak of it as self-evident. It is for the London Quarterly to commend him for establishing, with great force of argument, a postulate, or self-evident truth!

We do not, however, admit, and we think that many will hesitate to admit, either of these rules to be self-evident truths. Each contains certain elements of truth; but in the form given them by our author's pen, the order in which they stand in his opening lecture, and the use to which they are applied both in that and in his subsequent discourses, the object is but too manifest of removing from the court the chief witnesses on whose depositions the settlement of the case fairly depends.

Our first remark is on the order in which these rules or propositions stand. We are far from imputing any unfair design to the rev. author; but had the order been inverted, had the first proposition been the one which asserts the supremacy of the New Testament, had the reasoning which establishes it, (by the fact of the Great Prophet's words being therein contained), been first presented to the reader's eye — above all, had it been declared that "in the New Testament as a whole, and not merely in the gracious words which fell directly from his lips, the voice of Jesus is heard" (page 18) — had the question been asked (page 21,) "Where are the great Prophet's words recorded?" and the answer given, "In the whole. New Testament Scriptures;" — had this, we say, been the order of our author's discourse, the reader might have been startled to be told, in the second place, that one whole book of the New Testament — the prophetic book — is, in the examination of prophetic subjects, to share the fate of the Old Testament, and yield the palm of supremacy to some portions only of the New, which our author deems fittest to be the arbiters of the controversy. The contradiction would have been manifest and glaring first to have exalted thus the New Testament "as a whole," and then to have reduced its chief prophetic portion to a level with the Old. But, by arranging these propositions as they actually stand, appearances are saved, the Apocalypse quietly disposed of in the first place, and then "the whole New Testament Scriptures" mean, for the present controversy at least, the whole, minus the Apocalypse and any other portions which Mr. Waldegrave may deem "figurative, mysterious, and obscure!"

But why, we ask, this marshalling of Scripture against Scripture? this exaltation of one part of God's Word over another? To us it appears a hazardous course; nor can we deem the cause a good one, which requires such a mode of defence. True, we have the author's repeated assurances, that he believes the whole volume to be inspired, and that he does not wish to depreciate those portions which he would place in the back ground when prophetic questions are discussed. These assurances we are bound to receive; but we must not, on this account, shrink from examining other statements of his book, and considering their probable effect on those by whom his views may be adopted. That we may in this do Mr. W. no injustice, we give his own words.

"In the pursuit of his object, the author has appealed to the Lord and his apostles, as they speak in the literal portions of the New Testament volume. For he is convinced that they constitute "the one divinely appointed court of arbitration in all such matters of exegetical controversy." Pref. page xii.

"Our present enquiries must be first directed to the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and allegory." Page 10.

"In a matter controverted (if I may so speak) between the Apocalypse and other portions of the divine word, that book cannot by itself determine the question; appeal must be had to authority higher, not in point of inspiration, but in point of literality of doctrinal statement upon the subject under discussion." — Pp. 11, 12.

"The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things, or against the tenour of the immediate context, and yet may at the same time, come into serious collision with the "proportion of faith." — Page 14.

"But this leads me to the real difficulty of the case. How does this rule apply when the words of Jesus Christ cease to be merely supplementary to, or explanatory of, those of Moses and the prophets? What shall be done when a seeming conflict arises between them?" Page 25.

After treating of the acknowledged contrariety between the ritual law and those New Testament revelation by which it has been abolished, our author proceeds:

"Nor is the case materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ. For there are, unquestionably, times in which the teaching of Christ appears, directly or by implication, to militate with the announcements of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those announcements are understood in their plain and literal sense. What shall be done? Another meaning of the prophets' language must be sought for." Page 27.

"He therefore shows the most true appreciation of their high dignity — yes, and he manifests the most true reverence to, Scripture as a whole, who surrenders many a pleasant phantasy, rather than consent that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord." Page 28.

Let these quotations be pondered by the christian reader, and let him judge whether we give an exaggerated account of our author's principle, when we say that it arrays Scripture against Scripture, and exalts one part of it at the expense of another.

What can be the meaning of the last quotation? No doubt every fantasy, pleasant or unpleasant, ought to be surrendered, rather than that any theory should be adopted which would represent the prophets as contradicting their Lord. "Which would represent them" thus, we say; for we cannot conceive that any contradiction should really exist between writings which are all and equally inspired. For this reason we wonder what Mr. W. can intend by urging the surrender of many a pleasant fantasy rather than that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord. It is the exceptional clause which exceeds our comprehension. What can constitute such a necessity as it contemplates? Sad must be the theory, whether pre-millennial or post-millennial, in which the existence of such a necessity is involved!

Human interpretations of God's Word may, doubtless, be at variance with each other, and with God's Word itself. But what our author sometimes states, and at other times implies, is the possibility of Scripture statements themselves being apparently opposed to each other. He speaks of the literal portions of the New 'Testament, as the one divinely appointed court of arbitration. Arbitration, and in a court, supposes litigation. Who are the parties in the case? In a matter controverted (if he may so speak) is his reply, between the Apocalypse and others portions of the Divine Word, that book cannot by itself determine the question, but appeal must be had to higher authority. We do not insist here on the absurdity of making the literal portions of the New Testament parties to the suit as well as arbiters of the question; we only furnish proof that the point of which our author treats is the supposed existence of questions, or differences, between one part of Scripture and another. He sometimes maintains that such differences are possible, while at others he seems to say that they exist. "The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things or against the tenor of the immediate context, and yet may, at the same time, come into serious collision with 'the proportion of faith.'" The real difficulty of the case, he affirms to be, "when a seeming conflict arises between them," i.e., between the words of Jesus and of the prophets. Nor will the word "seeming" suffice to justify the statement. Mr. W. illustrates his meaning by a reference to the ritual law. Now it is not a seeming but a real and most important difference which exists between the law and the gospel. The one appointed a place where Jehovah's name was to be put — a place to which certain acts of worship were to be rigidly restricted. The other records the blessed announcement by our Lord that all such restrictions were to be abolished — that neither at Jerusalem nor at Gerizim, distinctively, or exclusively, should men worship the Father. What could be more real than the difference between the precept, love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy, on the one hand; and, on the other, the injunctions by which our Lord replaced them, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, etc.? True, they were not given to the same people and at the same time. True, the divine lawgiver had unquestionable authority to repeal any of his own institutions, which for temporary uses he had established, replacing them by others of a widely different character. But that which we would have our readers to note is that, in the cases to which Mr. W. has thus referred, it was a question of really repealing one precept or injunction, and issuing others directly opposite. The repeal was real, the contrariety was real; and the only key to the consistency of the proceeding, is the supremacy of the lawgiver, whose title to fix the duration of any of his laws can be questioned by none. But neither can any one question the contrariety between the laws which are repealed and those which are ordained in their place. When, therefore, our author says, that "the case is not materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ," the Word "seemingly" is out of place. So far as Christ's relations to the prophets is illustrated by his relation to the law, it is not a seeming but a real variance which is indicated.

Nor do the next words by Mr. W. tend to weaken this impression. "For there are, unquestionably," says he, "times in which the teaching of Christ appears, directly or by implication, to militate with the announcements of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those announcements are understood in their plain and literal sense." This is a most serious statement and cannot be too strictly weighed. We are not left to appearances as regards the law. Distinctly and avowedly does our Lord again and again place his sayings in contrast with what had been said of old time. As distinctly does the Holy Ghost reveal, with regard to the whole Levitical economy, that it terminated at the cross. — "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2: 14). But where have we such announcements as to the prophets, or as to one single prediction which they were inspired to place on record? Our whole question is as to their predictions. We do not forget that, as belonging to the dispensation which commenced at Sinai, and expressing those relations with God which bore the impress of the Sinai covenant, the prophets are, by the Saviour, connected with the law, in such passages as "The law and the prophets prophesied until John." But it were a mere play upon words to confound such a use of the expression "the prophets" with the question at issue between Mr. W. and those whose views he assails. We repeat, that our whole question is as to the predictions of the future recorded by the prophets; and where, we ask, is the ground for Mr. W.'s assertion, "That the teaching of Christ," either "directly or by implication," appears to contradict these predictions? How can we suppose the existence of good ground for such an assertion? To revoke an edict is one thing; to recall a prediction is another. The former, when at least the edict is divine, only indicates that it had been temporary in its purpose, and, having done its work, is laid aside: the latter would imply some want of accuracy in the prediction, which subverts the idea of its being divine. For a typical observance to cease, when the antitypical event has transpired, is a matter of course; but for a prediction to need to he explained away, when events prove that the fulfilment does not exactly correspond with the terms in which it had been foretold, would be such a reflection on the prophet, as our author would be the last person in the world, willingly or knowingly, to make. No, we are ready by the grace of God to surrender all fantasies, however pleasant, as soon as they are proved to us by the Word of God to be such. But we are not prepared to surrender a jot or tittle of that Word, or to accept a principle which represents one part of it to be contradictory to another, however "figurative, mysterious, or obscure" either part may be judged to be.

That an element of truth is contained in both the propositions laid down by our author has been already admitted. Every one admits, that the plainer portions of any book are of service in elucidating those parts which are more obscure. But when the book in question is an inspired book, and admitted to be so in all its parts, it amounts to self-contradiction to represent one part as of higher authority than another. However we may be assisted by the plainer passages in learning the import of such as are more difficult, all are equal in authority, and equally demand the submission of the whole man to the voice of God, speaking to us as really in the most figurative and mysterious texts as in those which are most literal and clear. We have Scripture for the fact, that there are in some parts of the sacred volume "things hard to be understood." God forbid that we should refuse the light shed thereon by the simpler statements of inspiration. If humbly to avail ourselves of aid and instruction thus graciously provided had been all to which our author exhorts us, we could only have bid him God speed in such a service. But "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable;" and we need to beware of principles which would supersede the necessity of patiently, prayerfully, humbly examining all that Scripture says.

Nor must we forget that, easy as it may seem to be, to give precedence to such passages as are "literal, dogmatic, and clear" over those which are "figurative, mysterious, and obscure," it will not be found as easy in practice as it appears in theory. Who can furnish us with a list of each class of passages? Or, supposing it furnished, who can assure us of its accuracy? A judge, or, an arbiter, requires credentials which are above dispute. Who then shall certify us of the number and identity of the passages which are said by Mr. W. to "constitute the one, divinely appointed court of arbitration" in the millenarian controversy? Is there no such thing as the question with regard to which passages are literal and which figurative? Do not many which seem clear to some appear obscure to others? Is it not one prominent feature of the millenarian controversy, that passages which, on the one side are affirmed to be literal, are on the other side maintained to be figurative? Are all these to be excluded from "the court?" And is it to consist of none but such as are admitted on both sides to be "literal, dogmatic, and clear?" If not — if we are first to be agreed upon the passages which claim a place as arbiters, and then to receive their judgment of the points under discussion, we shall find that we have been multiplying instead of reducing the number of controverted points, entangling and prolonging instead of clearing and shortening the debate.

On one item in the first proposition we have hesitated to remark. It contrasts "literal, dogmatic, and clear," with" figurative, mysterious, and obscure." Literal and figurative, clear and obscure, are contrasts sufficiently obvious and distinct: but is mysterious the opposite of dogmatic? Does not the latter word denote "pertaining to a dogma?" Is it not synonymous, or nearly so, with "doctrinal?" And is mystery the opposite of doctrine? But it is not to remark critically on this point, that we refer to it. The fear of seeming to lay any stress on this view of it made us hesitate to notice it at all. But in one passage already quoted from our author, he seems avowedly to maintain that doctrinal passages are to decide prophetic questions, and places all prophetic scriptures in contrast with doctrine. The statement is the more remarkable for being introduced by the following emphatic words. Having styled his first proposition a self-evident truth, he proceeds — "But mark its necessary consequence! our present enquiries must be first directed to the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and allegory." This would be indeed a compendious mode of studying prophecy! Leave all the prophecies aside, and study the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume! But here again, does that volume contain no doctrines as to the future? And what are doctrines m to the future but prophecies? Of two things one; "the strictly doctrinal portions" to which Mr. W. refers, bear on the future or they do not. If they do, they are prophecies, and "all the prophecies," are not so figurative as he represents. If they do not, of what avail can it be to study them in order to understand prophecy aright?

The fact of the matter is this: there is no such contrariety between one part of Scripture and another, as might be supposed from our author's representations. Only in appearance are its statements ever in conflict with each other; and this appearance arises, not from Scripture itself, but from the state of our own minds. Scripture, from first to last, is one harmonious whole. Were any of us to understand it perfectly, the harmony of all its parts would be perfectly discerned. In proportion as the Holy Spirit does enable any to understand it, this harmony is perceived; but He alone can teach to profit: and it is in the prayerful, diligent, humble perusal of Scripture itself — of all Scripture; — in its perusal, moreover, as subject to it, and not as subjecting it to our own minds, that the teaching of the Holy Spirit is afforded. Of all moral preparatives for the study of prophecy, or of any branch of revealed truth, there is none so important as that we have just indicated — entire subjection to the Word of God. By it are all to be judged eventually; the christian submits himself to it now. He may find statements in it on one subject, which he cannot, at the time, reconcile with what he understands its declarations on some other subject to be: but what is he to do? Is he to prefer the one class to the other, and having made his selection, subordinate those which he deems of lower, to such as he regards as of "higher authority?" Would that be to reverence God's Word, and submit to its authority? Surely not. The man who trembles at God's Word will, in such a case, reflect that the discrepancy is only apparent; that it may arise from his own misapprehension of either class of passages; or even that he may yet be ignorant of some collateral truths, which, when known, will clear up all. He concludes to confess his ignorance, and wait on God.

Take for instance, the millenarian controversy. Many there are to whom it seems written in numerous passages, that the second coming of Christ is to precede the millennium, and to introduce it; while our author, with many other excellent, godly men, maintains that this is contradicted by plain statements of the New Testament. They admit that many portions of the Old, and some parts of the New, seem to favour the pre-millennial doctrine; but they deem it inconsistent with what they judge to be the evident sense of certain literal passages of the latter volume of inspiration; and they contend that the Old Testament must yield to the New — the figurative and obscure to the literal and clear. But may we not well pause, ere we consent to this course, and inquire whether we be indeed shut up to such a necessity? Contradiction or discrepancy in God's Word there cannot be: the secret of the difficulty must be found elsewhere. May not our brethren have come to hasty conclusions as to the sense of what they term the literal passages? Is it not a presumptive evidence, of their having done so, that the effect of their use of them is to place them in apparent opposition to what they admit to be the literal and obvious import of other Scriptures? Pre-millennialists make no admissions of the kind, nor have they any need to make such. The pre-millennial view does not set Scripture against Scripture, nor does it deem such a course admissible. Allowed, even by its opposers, to harmonize with the obvious sense of many Scriptures, it claims the support of all — yea, of the very passages adduced against it, when these passages are rightly understood. And is there to be no question allowed as to the sense of these? Is it by the passages themselves, or by post-millenarian deductions therefrom, that the pre-millennial testimony lying on the surface of so many other passages is said to be contradicted and overruled? And may we not inquire whether such deductions be fair and well-founded? whether they be compatible with the passages themselves, and with other passages equally literal and clear? There can be no refusing or evading such enquiries; and when instituted in a calm and impartial spirit, and conducted with humility, patience, and prayer, we have no fear for the result. It has hitherto generally issued in a firm and abiding conviction, that pre-millennial views are as much taught by the literal as by the figurative portions of Holy Writ; that they are, in short, the doctrines of Scripture throughout: and that the only way to avoid receiving them, if serious attention be at all paid to them, is — first, to attach an erroneous meaning to certain passages, and then, to subordinate all others, not to these passages themselves, but to the human and mistaken sense in which they are understood.

Chapter 2 — DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

IN turning to Mr. Waldegrave's second proposition, that "in all points upon which the New Testament gives us instruction, it is, as containing the full, the clear, and the final manifestation of the divine will, our rightful guide to the interpretation of the Old," we wish particularly to guard against being misunderstood. There is much of truth contained in it, beyond all doubt; but all the force that it can justly exert on any christian mind is the result of what we acknowledge as cheerfully as our author himself. There are distinctions between the Old Testament and the New, which no christian can fail to recognize. The authority is the same in both; for both are the word of God. The grand central object is the same; for both testify of Christ. "The law, the prophets, and the psalms," as well as the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, have him for their glorious, never-failing theme. But how differently is he presented in these two grand departments of divine revelation! The difference is felt even by those who would be at a loss to define its nature and explain its cause. Much that Mr. W. says on this point is so self-evident, that our only wonder is that he should have thought it needful to say it at all. At the same time he is far from having succeeded, as it appears to us, in illustrating the most important aspects of his subject; and the arguments he has advanced seem anything but conclusive, in favour of the principle of interpretation for which he contends.

It is not so obvious as Mr. W. would intimate (page 15), that in New Testament revelations as to the future, "figure is the exception, literality the rule." That this may be the fact as to the whole volume, we do not dispute; but in regard to its prophetic passages, which can alone decide prophetic questions, the statement is far from being indisputable. The numerous parables by which our Lord conveyed prophetic instruction to his hearers, as well as other obvious considerations, will at once occur to our readers. But as this is not the basis on which Mr. W. rests his defence of the principle in question, we would not bestow upon it a more extended notice than he gives to it himself. His great argument we give in his own words:-

"The New Testament has this distinct and incontestable claim to the right of arbitration, that it is the inspired record of the words of that Great Prophet, of whom it was said, 'him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you:'" p. 15.

In illustration and support of his argument, Mr. W. expounds the passage in Peter's discourse, from which these words are quoted. He explains that Jesus is the Prophet of whom Moses wrote and Peter spake. He refers to the gospels, as containing much that this great Prophet taught, but contends that the Acts and Epistles may with equal truth be regarded as his oracular communications. He shows that by these the previously "imperfect revelation of the Divine will" is completed (many things being thus revealed, which were hidden before); and that the New Testament is not only supplementary to the Old, but often expository of its contents. He proves that in certain cases Old Testament institutions are abrogated by Christ in the New Testament; and from the whole he infers, that on prophetic subjects the literal portions of the New Testament are of greater weight, and entitled to more consideration, than the predictions of the older volume of inspiration.

To the argument drawn from the setting aside of Levitical rites, and the passing away of typical ceremonies, we have already replied; showing, at the same time, how seriously our author's reasoning arrays Scripture against Scripture, and exalts one part of it at the expense of another. Nor do the particulars now enumerated require much remark. It may well be questioned whether the fulfilment of the Jewish lawgiver's prediction in our blessed Lord, as declared by Peter in the third of Acts, constitutes the highest feature of the distinctive character possessed by the New Testament. Questions might be raised as to the meaning of the word "prophet" in the text on which Mr. W.'s discourse is founded. Is the foretelling of future events that which is chiefly indicated by that term as applied by Moses to himself, and to that blessed One whose advent he predicts? Is it not rather as the founder, by divine appointment, of the legal economy or dispensation that he speaks of himself, while he foretells the coming of another, by whom a better dispensation should be established? Moses and the law were to be heard, till Christ should come, and the gospel be introduced; or, as the evangelist has it, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1: 17). In either case, it would seem rather to be the divine authority of the lawgiver than the supernatural foresight of the seer, that is indicated by the word prophet, as used in the text under consideration.

Nor do the words — "him shall ye hear in all things" — imply that his revelations are more strictly true than were those made by means of Moses. The One of whom the passage treats was to be "a prophet," says Moses, "like unto me." The authority of Moses, as their divinely appointed legislator and the founder of their system, was acknowledged by the Jews; but he himself foretold the coming of another of equal (he does not say higher) authority; and him they were to hear in all things. Moses himself thus sets his seal to the mission of Christ, by which his own temporary economy was to be superseded and replaced; but until thus superseded and replaced, Moses was to be heard, and his injunctions to be obeyed as implicitly as Christ and his words are now to be submitted to by all. In fact, we have Christ's own declaration to assure us, that such as truly heard the one, reverently and obediently listened to the other also. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." (John 5: 46.)

In a word, neither Moses nor Peter lay down a canon of interpretation in the passage on which our author builds so much. The question in Deut. 18, and in Acts 3, is not whether the Old Testament or the New is to be preferred as fixing the sense of a disputed passage, but, whether Jesus was to be received as the Messiah. "No," said the Jews, "we know that God spake by Moses, and we will cleave to Moses." "Moses himself commands you to receive Jesus," was Peter's reply! A cogent reply it was, worthy of the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration it was made, But to infer from it, that the meaning of Old Testament prophecies is to be authoritatively determined by a few passages of the New Testament, deemed literal and clear by those who make such a use of them, would be to fix upon it a sense which, we are bold to maintain, the apostle never contemplated; it would be to draw from it a deduction, as contrary to the passage itself rightly understood, as it is derogatory to the book of inspiration as a whole.

We shall have occasion to return to this chapter in Acts, but would now invite the attention of the christian reader to the whole subject of the connexion between the Old and New Testaments. It is one of profoundest interest in itself; while its bearings on the millenarian question are quite as important as our esteemed author represents them to be. The reader himself must judge, whether the path, to which Mr. W. invites us, be one in which the brighter lights of the later revelations become really available for the elucidation of those, which are more obscure in character, and of more ancient date.

That which, first of all, distinguishes the New Testament, is the record it contains of the perfect revelation of God himself, in the person of his Son. Viewed as an inspired writing, its authority cannot be greater than that of the equally inspired writings of the Old Testament. But as to its subject — that which it presents to us, we, no sooner open it, and begin to read, than we find ourselves in the presence of God himself. "God was manifested in the flesh." It is God who speak in the Old Testament as really as in the New. But in the one, he is in the distance, or causing his voice to be heard from amid the thick darkness in which He dwells; in the other, "Emmanuel" — "God with us" — is the wonder which bursts upon us in the first chapter of the book. "Verily, thou art a God that hidest thyself" (Isaiah 14: 15) is the utterance even of the evangelical prophet, as he is often termed. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," is what the evangelist affirms, (John 1: 18); and it is this which stamps its character on the New Testament throughout. God himself is revealed in the person of Christ. No doubt he was the prophet like unto Moses, whose coming Moses had foretold. But while Moses was "faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after," Christ was as "a Son over his own house." He was "counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house." And while "every house is builded by some one, he that built all things (which Christ did) is God," (Heb. 3.) The true, distinctive glory of the New Testament shines upon us in the fact, that "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Nor is even this the whole. Not only was he, as a messenger, thus pre-eminently glorious; he was himself the glory of the message. God was revealed not only by but in him, who was "the brightness of his glory, the express image of his person." "The Word was made flesh," says the evangelist, "and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," was the language of this blessed One Himself. The Old Testament contains nothing resembling this. The will of God is there partially disclosed; his creating power and providential wisdom are exhibited; his government of Israel and the nations is copiously treated of; man's dreary history is largely recorded; the grace of God to individuals is placed in striking relief, while testimony is borne to their faith, and its precious fruits; Christ himself is foreshadowed and foretold, from the pronouncing of the curse on the serpent, and the first institution of slain sacrifices, in Gen. 3 and 4, to the last of the long line of Israel's prophets, and the re-establishment of Levitical rites, on the return from Babylon, in Ezra's and Nehemiah's day. But God himself was not revealed. "The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness," is Solomon's thought of God, in erecting for him the temple in which he deigned to take up his abode. But there, as in the tabernacle which had preceded it, everything testified of the barriers which sin had raised between God and his people, and of the distance and reserve which marked the relations existing between him and them. Foreshadowings there were of the Saviour, in whose coming this reserve was to he laid aside, and by whose sacrifice this distance was to be destroyed. But it is in the New Testament that we find ourselves actually in the presence of Jesus, who, while a man and the lowliest of men, was yet the full revelation, the perfect display of all that God is, in his wisdom, power, holiness, and love. All this was manifested in him, moreover, in perfect grace to the sinner. With wisdom, which confounded his adversaries by a word — power, which controlled the elements, and to which devils themselves were subject — holiness, so absolute and intrinsic, that contact with main's evil could not defile him, his love and grace were such, that a poor sinful Samaritan woman could freely converse with him, while he revealed himself to her as the Saviour, and his Father as the One who sought such as she, to worship him in spirit and in truth! God, fully revealed in grace in the person of his Son, is that which constitutes the inexpressible charm with which the New Testament is invested, to all who have been convinced of the reality of their lost estate as sinners against God. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost!"

Another distinctive feature of the New Testament is the record it contains of the accomplishment of redemption by the cross. In Old Testament times, it was not only that God was not fully revealed, but that man had little or no access to him. True, he deigned to fix his earthly abode in the midst of his people Israel, and to speak of himself as dwelling "between the cherubims." But who could venture to approach him there? One man only, and he but once a year, and even then it was with blood newly shed, and amid clouds of incense covering the mercy-seat lest he should die. These were the types of that sacrifice by which guilty man was to draw near to God; but so long as the types continued, "the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest." Christ only could open the way. To accomplish this he had not only to reveal God to man, but had to present himself a sacrifice on man's behalf to God. The whole nature and character of God had to be manifested and glorified with regard to sin, in order for any of our sinful race to be admitted to his immediate presence. Sin had to be put away. The believer well knows by whom this has been accomplished. One only was equal to the mighty undertaking; but by him it has been once and for ever achieved. He "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." At his expiring cry, "It is finished," "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." No veil remains between God and the sinner who approaches in the name of Jesus. "Boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say his flesh," is now the assured, indubitable privilege of every true believer. But where, save in the New Testament, is this made known to us? And what more real distinction can exist between the Old Testament and the New, than the one we are now considering? Many prophets and righteous men had desired to see and hear what the disciples saw and heard when Jesus was on earth. How would they have rejoiced, had they been permitted, as we are to read of the exaltation of the risen Jesus to the right hand of God — of free remission through his blood — and of access through him, without a single interposing veil, to the immediate presence of God himself! Yet such are some of the wonders which the New Testament distinctively unfolds.

But there is one characteristic feature of the later volume of inspiration — a most important one — on which Mr. W., in his opening lecture, bestows the slightest possible notice. He does indeed say (page 23) "that there are many things which Moses and the prophets — even if they knew them — did not commit to writing," and adds, that "Jesus, however, has perfected the volume of inspiration." But it is not thus slightly that the New Testament itself treats of one grand department of truth, the primary and exclusive revelation of which it claims as its own. The divine glory of Messiah's person, and the wondrous efficacy of his atoning death, had been variously typified and foretold in the Old Testament; and that which, as to these verities, distinguishes the New Testament, is that it records what the other only foreshadows and predicts. But as to one vast range of truth, we have the distinct announcement in the New Testament, that it had been in all previous ages unknown and unrevealed. Hear the Apostle, who, writing to the Ephesians, "of the dispensation of the grace of God," which had been given him to them-ward, says, "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery: (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ); which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3: 2-5). Again, he describes the objects of his vocation to be "to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (verse 9). Writing to the Colossians, the same apostle speaks of Christ's body, "which is the church; whereof," he says, "I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil (or fully to preach, see margin) the Word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to the saints: to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you the hope of glory" Col. 1: 24-27. In these passages, we have the distinct mention of a certain mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, which from the beginning of the world had been hid in God, which had been hid from ages and from generations, and was only now made manifest to the saints. Of this previously unrevealed mystery it is said, that by revelation it had been made known to Paul; and that Christ had now revealed it to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The knowledge of this mystery Paul represents as the dispensation of the grace of God which had been given him, in order that he might make all men see what is the fellowship of this mystery; he speaks of the saints as those to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery; and he declares that he had been made a minister according to the dispensation of God, committed to him for the completing of the word of God. Such we take to be the force of the expression "to fulfil," or "fully to preach the word of God." Evidently that word was incomplete till this mystery was made known.

We have no intention, in the present paper, to consider the subject of this mystery, as it is developed in detail in the two epistles from which the above quotations are made. The proper place for considering it at large may be, when we come to discuss our author's statements on the subject in one of his subsequent lectures. For the present, let it suffice to refer to the passages themselves, and to one verse in Eph. 3, not yet quoted, which prove, that the heavenly unity of the church with Christ by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is the mystery of which the Apostle writes. These are the words in which he himself defines it: "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Eph. 3: 6.) "Christ in you, the hope of glory," are the terms in which he sums up this mystery in Col. 1; but then he declares that it is "among the Gentiles" that "the riches of the glory of this mystery" have their scope and their development. Now nothing can be more obvious, even to a cursory reader of God's word, than that the Old Testament abounds with predictions of blessing to the Gentiles under Messiah's reign. Our post-millenarian brethren will, at all events, admit this. It was no unrevealed mystery that, when the Seed should come to whom the promises were made, both Jews and Gentiles should be blessed under him, and by him. But that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, — that believing Jews and believing Gentiles should be incorporated in one, being brought thus in to a position of perfect equality with each other, by both, and both alike, becoming the body of Christ; that there should be thus a community or corporation of persons, not only blessed under Christ and by Christ, but blessed in him and with him, "quickened together," "raised up together," and "made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ," as the epistle to the Ephesians declares; that — Christ should be in such, the hope of glory, — this is, indeed, what had been hid in God from all former ages and generations, and what was only revealed to the apostles and prophets of the new economy, since the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, and the descent of the Holy Ghost from heaven.

The importance of this subject, in its bearing on the millenarian question, can scarcely be over-rated. Let it be once assumed that the subject of the prophecies is identical with that of the epistles — that the latter contain nothing but what was more obscurely revealed in the former — and the consequence is inevitable. The prophecies are spiritualized in order to raise them towards the level of the epistles; the epistles are brought down to the level of the spiritual sense put upon the prophecies; and each department of divine truth is thus shorn of its peculiar, distinctive character. The church of God, indwelt by the Holy Ghost and thus made "one body" and "one Spirit" with its risen and glorified Head in heaven, is confounded in men's thoughts with the whole company of the redeemed from the beginning to the end of time. All its peculiar blessedness as one with Christ, whether in his present rejection, or in the glory in which he is by and by to be revealed, is reduced to what is common to saints of every dispensation. Old Testament predictions, concerning such as are to be blessed under Christ and by Christ, are regarded in the spiritual sense sought to be imposed upon them, as expressive of the portion which pertains to those, and those only, who are blessed in him and with him, "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." This is a theme which we cannot at present pursue; but here is to be found, we are fully persuaded, the fundamental error of the Bampton lecturer, and of nearly, if not quite, all who reject premillennial views. We hope, hereafter, to give the subject the fullest examination in the light of God's word. We turn from it now, to point out some other considerations connected with the distinction between the Old Testament and the New.

The three great characteristics of the New Testament we have seen to be, that God is there made known as fully revealed in Christ; accomplished redemption is there proclaimed, with all its blessed results; and there we have the unfolding of the previously unrevealed mystery of the heavenly unity of the church with Christ, by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Two results naturally ensue, and may be seen to pervade the volume. First the subjects with which it prominently and distinctively deals are not such as relate to God's government of creation, Israel, and the nations, with which the Old Testament is so largely occupied; but the more vital and momentous questions of eternity, the soul, life, death, heaven and hell. We are far from intending that the Old Testament says nothing of the latter class of subjects, or that the New Testament is silent on the former. It is with the general features — the predominant character of both volumes, that we are at present concerned; and who can doubt that eternity is stamped upon the one, as prominently as time is impressed upon the other? Now it is to God's government of the world that prophecy applies; and hence the extent to which the Old Testament consists of prophecy. In proportion as the subject is touched upon in the New Testament, it becomes prophetic; but even in its prophetic parts (as Matt. 13, and 24, 25; 2 Thess. 2; and the Apocalypse as a whole), eternity is connected with what takes place in time, in a way but little known in the Old Testament. Then, secondly, the distinction between Jew and. Gentile, so maintained in the older volume of God's word, begins in the latter one to fade away before the glory of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God; it disappears before his cross, by which the middle wall of partition is broken down; and one essential feature of "the mystery," revealed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, is this, that in a risen and ascended Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. Not that these distinctions have finally ceased in the world, viewed as the subject of God's government. So far from this, "Jews," "Gentiles," and "the Church of God" form the present triple distribution of mankind, in an apostolic precept enjoining upon believers an inoffensive course towards all the three. (1 Cor. 10: 32.) It is in the church, the body of Christ, that these, and all mere human distinctions, have passed away. "Male and female," as really as "Jew and Gentile," is an unknown, unrecognised distinction, in regard to the oneness of believers with an earth-rejected, heavenly Christ. (Gal. 3: 28).

The connexions between the Old Testament and the New we reserve as the subject of our next communication.

Chapter 3 — CONNEXIONS BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

OUR attention was directed, in our last, to the distinctions which exist between the two departments of divine revelation. We found them to be, in some respects, wider and more important than would be gathered from Mr. W.'s opening lecture; besides differing in character from those on which he there so much insists, and, indeed, from any recognized by him in any part of his volume. We must not suppose however, that the change from the old order of things to the new, was immediate; or, that as soon as we open the New Testament, Christianity, in its distinctive and full-grown character, will burst upon our attention. Some of its grand elements are there from the very beginning; but they present themselves along with much that pertains to the former economy; much that has since passed away. The fact is, that the four gospels (and, in a certain modified sense, even the Acts of the Apostles) describe a transitional state of things, as distinct in some of its features from the Christianity which it introduced, as, in others, from the Judaism which it succeeded and gradually set aside. While, therefore, we doubt not for a moment, that it is in the New Testament God's present testimony is found that by which he immediately addresses our souls, whether as sinners or as saints; and while it is therefore most important that the Old Testament should be read in the light cast back upon it by the New; it is equally indisputable, that many things in the New Testament can only be understood through previous acquaintance with the Old. To know ourselves as ruined and undone, and to know Christ crucified and risen as our only Saviour, is to have everlasting life: and this knowledge God can, by his Spirit, communicate by means of any portion either of the Old Testament or the New. But if, knowing that the great question of eternity has been settled for us, by the sovereign grace which has blotted out our sins, and accepted us in the Beloved, we are desirous of full acquaintance with our Father's mind and will, as revealed in his word, we may not neglect either the Old Testament or the New. They are mutually illustrative of each other's contents, and neither can be neglected without serious loss. God may now usually begin his work in individual souls by means of truth revealed in the New Testament; but it is with Genesis that he begins the book of inspiration; and if we are, through his aid and teaching, to understand it as a whole, it is there our researches must commence. Should we reverse this order, and begin with the New Testament, we should continually meet with words, statements, and allusions which the Old Testament alone could explain.

Let it be supposed that some one to whom both volumes are unknown, should open the New Testament and begin to read, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

"Who was David?" and "who was Abraham?" are questions which must instantly arise. Where could the answer be found, except in the Old Testament? Nor is there a verse down to the seventeenth, by which similar inquiries would not be aroused — inquiries which must receive their answer, if answered at all, from the same source. Passing over some verses, on which nevertheless, we might make similar remarks, what could be known of the import of verse 21, had the Old Testament no existence? "He shall save his people from their sins." What people? And, why "his" people? What is the nature of the relations subsisting between him and them? What has been their conduct in these relations? Whence their need of being saved? And what are we to understand by the salvation he is to bestow? These are all questions naturally suggested by the words; and if some of them must find their answer in the continued perusal of the book itself, how many of them can only be solved by reference to more ancient records of equally divine authority? A direct quotation from these records is what immediately follows: Isaiah's prediction of Emmanuel, the Virgin's son, was to find its accomplishment in the birth of Jesus. But, enough. We might take any other chapter of Matthew's narrative, and almost any chapter of the narratives by the other three evangelists, and we should find ourselves as continually thrown back upon the law, the prophets, and the psalms, for the import of quotations or allusions which would meet us at every step.

We have referred to the transition from Judaism to Christianity, as having gradually taken place. Of this fact, the New Testament itself affords abundant evidence. Were this evidence to be carefully examined, other facts would be educed — facts overlooked by Mr. W. and by those generally with whom he symbolizes, but which have a most direct and important bearing on the questions at issue. In the introduction to his Epistle to the Romans, Paul speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ under two distinct aspects: as "made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" and "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1: 3, 4.) As "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" he had special links of connexion with Israel. Where the apostle is enumerating Israel's distinctive privileges, such as the adoption, the glory, etc., that by which he crowns the catalogue is, "and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." (Rom. 9: 5.) It is from the same apostle's pen that we have the words, "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Rom. 15: 8.) "Made of a woman, made under the law." (Gal. 4: 4.) Let any one read the gospels in the light of these apostolic statements, and how evident it must be to him, that innumerable links with Israel and Judaism, having no place in Christianity as existing in Paul's day, were maintained by our blessed Lord during his sojourn on earth. Circumcised the eighth day, and duly presented by his mother according to the law, he afterwards accompanied her and Joseph to the annual feasts in the city of solemnities. It was in the synagogue that he commenced his ministry at Nazareth, and often is it noticed afterwards that he taught in their synagogues. How frequently were those whom he healed or cleansed directed by him to go and show themselves to the priests; and how did he charge the twelve not to go into the way of the Gentiles, or enter any city of the Samaritans, but to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "The Scribes and the Pharisees," said he, "sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsover they bid you observe, that observe and do." (Matt. 23: 2, 3.) It was on the night of the passover, and after he had faithfully observed it with his disciples, that he was betrayed into the hands of men.

How different is all this from the christianity of the epistles, and, in many respects, from what we find in the Acts of the Apostles. No doubt there were other elements, new, heavenly, and divine, from the very beginning of the gospels. Christ was there, the Son of the Father, the image of the invisible God; and wherever this full divine glory of his person peculiarly stands forth, the limits of Judaism and of his dispensational links with Israel were not sufficient to restrain the outflow to sinners, whether Gentile or Samaritan, of that grace, to introduce and exercise which "God was manifest in the flesh." Most true is this, and most blessed. But it nullifies in no degree the fact, of which we have seen such ample proof, that, throughout his continuance on earth, the Saviour deigned to maintain many a link with the nation of the Jews, and with the economy under which they had been placed.

Why were these national and dispensational links maintained by our blessed Lord? A profoundly interesting question, to which, happily, his own words afford an explicit reply. They place it beyond doubt, that as one part of an extensive tract of land might be selected and enclosed, as a specimen of the whole, for the purpose of testing its fruitfulness by actual experiment, so the nation of Israel was chosen of God for the purpose of testing whether man, favoured with every advantage of even divine care and culture, would bring forth fruit towards God. Isaiah had long before sung of Jehovah's vineyard in a very fruitful hill, fenced, and planted with the choicest vine; the stones gathered out, a tower built in its midst, and a wine press made therein. Touching this vineyard, (which the prophet declared to be the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant), it had been asked, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5: 4.) Because of such strange results of so, much diligent, unwearied culture, judgment had been, pronounced in Isaiah's day, and the execution of it had been long impending, when the Lord Jesus Christ appeared. The trial was not complete till then. "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin." (John 15: 22.) A vineyard let out to husbandmen is the figure employed by our Lord, to set forth their privileges and responsibilities, and to describe their guilt. (Matt. 21: 33, etc.) It is not, as in Isaiah 5, the fertility of the vineyard that is in question, but the honesty of the husbandmen, and the consequent productiveness to their Lord, and of the grounds entrusted to their care. "When the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits." Thus had the prophets been sent to Israel. With what result? "The husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another." Thus had Israel dealt with the prophets who had been sent to them. But great is the divine long-suffering. The owner of the vineyard had patience with the husbandmen, and "sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise." Was there no hope remaining? Could no further means be tried? Yes: "last of all, he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son." Such, therefore, is one aspect in which the mission of Jesus is to be viewed. No doubt he came to reveal the Father, and to accomplish redemption by the sacrifice of himself; but he also came seeking fruit on God's behalf from those who were responsible for rendering it. Before he became the sacrifice for human guilt upon the cross, he was presented as the final test of man's condition before God. Israel was the theatre in which the experiment was made: but it was human nature itself — man, as such — that was put to the test. With God in the distance, or behind the veil, man had, with every lesser advantage of laws, messengers, prophecies, warnings, promises, made no return to God for the pains bestowed: would he, now that God was revealed in the person of his Son, be more submissive or obedient? Alas! "when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him." The last astounding proof of God's forbearing love, of patience which nothing yet had sufficed to exhaust, drew forth from man — from Israel — the expression of intense and complete hatred. They cast him out of the vineyard and slew him!

The application of this parable was left by the Saviour to the Jews themselves. He asks them what might be expected to be done by the lord of the vineyard to those husbandmen, and they are obliged to reply, "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto others." He then reminds them of the Stone rejected by the builders, and of its high destiny to be the Head of the corner, and adds, "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

But it was not only as the representative of God's claims — as seeking fruit — that the Jews rejected their Messiah: — it was also as the revealer and expression of God's perfect grace. A certain king makes a marriage for his son, and sends his servants to call the invited guests — such as were bidden: "but they would not come" (Matt. 22: 1-14). Nothing is claimed of the guests at a marriage feast; everything is provided; and the guests partake freely of the bounty of their host. But the grace which thus provides all for man, and makes him welcome to the whole, is as unwelcome to his heart as those righteous claims of God's holy law, with which he refuses to comply. "They would not come." But what cannot grace do? The death of Christ is itself made the ground of new invitations! "Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are now ready: come unto the marriage." What can be represented here, but the ministry of the apostles to Israel after the death and resurrection of their Lord? Alas! it was with the same result; save where sovereign grace imparted a new life, and thus subdued the opposition of man's will, these further invitations met with no better reception than the former. "They made light of it . . . . and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and slew them." It was for this rejection of the gospel of an ascended Christ, proclaimed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, that judgment was executed on Jerusalem and the Jews. "But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Nor was it till they had thus rejected mercy, offered to them in every form, and pressed on their acceptance in every way, that the proclamation of heavenly mercy went forth universally — all being now indiscriminately, bidden to the feast. "Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage."

if we turn now to the early chapters of the Acts, from which Mr. W. extracts the passage on which his opening discourse is founded, we shall find that what they present is this lingering of divine mercy over Israel, before the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. They had indeed committed an unparalleled crime in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, and in a certain sense filled up the measure of their iniquity. But the vinedresser had interceded for the barren fig-tree (Luke 13: 8). Jesus, on the cross, had cried, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do:" this, their ignorance, thus pleaded by the Redeemer on the cross, is precisely what the Holy Ghost admits by Peter in Acts 3: 17; "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers." So far were they, in answer to the intercession of Jesus, conditionally forgiven, that instead of judgment being instantly executed, full, free, absolute forgiveness was proclaimed to them on condition of their repentance. Observe too, that it is national forgiveness of which the apostle treats, and the restoration of their forfeited national blessings, even including the return of Jesus himself. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that (see the Greek*) the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord: and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Forgiveness of sins, and the times of refreshing, or restitution, of which all the prophets had witnessed, as well as the return of the Lord they had rejected, are here proposed to the Jews on condition of their repentance. This was the only condition on which Old Testament prophecy had suspended the arrival of these bright and happy days for Israel; and on this condition they are still held out by the apostle. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." He well knew that they who had rejected and crucified a humbled Messiah on earth, would still reject the Holy Ghost's testimony to an ascended and returning Christ; and everything which ensued was arranged of God accordingly. But if Jesus himself, looking down, upon Jerusalem, and weeping over it, could say, "If thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!" we need not, in the unchangeableness of God's purposes, find any difficulty as to vast and wondrous results depending on Israel's repentance, as taught in Acts 3, even though it was surely foreknown of God that they would persist in their sin, and that wrath would come upon them to the uttermost. We may well understand, that what was long afterwards said by Paul to the Jews of a certain locality was true of the whole nation: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46). The martyrdom of Stephen terminated for the present all hopes of Jerusalem's repentance, or of Israel's reception of the Lord whom they had crucified; and seeing that every Old Testament prediction of the kingdom (or the millennium) treated of its establishment as dependent on Israel's conversion, that also was indefinitely postponed. And thus was the way prepared for the revelation of the mystery, till then necessarily concealed, that the period of Christ's rejection by Israel and the earth should be occupied in the calling and formation by the Holy Ghost of "the Church" — the elect body or bride of Christ — to be the vessel of his sympathies and sharer of his rejection while he sits on the Father's throne on high; and also to be the sharer of his glory when he shall "take to him his great power, and reign" upon the earth.

*The Greek word ὅπως occurs upwards of fifty times in the New Testament, and is never, save in this instance, rendered "when." its ordinary rendering, and simple obvious import, are as given above.

But is Israel cast off hopelessly and for ever? Is there to be no fulfilment of those bright visions of rest, and blessedness, and supremacy on earth, under Messiah's sway and Jehovah's smile, with which the Old Testament abounds? Is it anywhere declared by our Lord himself, or by his apostles after him, that these predictions are never, in their plain and obvious sense, to be fulfilled? that they are to receive no accomplishment but that which is alleged to consist in the amalgamation of any converted Israelites with the church of the present dispensation? Such is the doctrine of the Bampton Lecturer: and such, with more or less of consistency, is the doctrine of the reviewers, Mr. Lyon, and all the modern rejecters of millenarianism. They all deny that Israel is to have any national distinction or pre-eminent place in days to come. Some admit that the Jews may be restored to their own land; others deny this, as savouring of the worst features of millenarian literality; while some, of whom Mr. Waldegrave is one, treat it as a doubtful, uncertain matter: but all agree in denouncing the expectation of any real fulfilment of those national hopes for Israel, of which Old Testament language, if at all literally understood, constitutes so plain a warrant. "Christ," say they, "discountenances such hopes, and the apostles forbid them." But is this the case? Does the New Testament bear out these bold, confident, and oft-repeated assertions? We believe not. We believe that the New Testament needs only to be candidly, prayerfully, and diligently studied, in its evident and inseparable connexion with the Old, to satisfy any Christian inquirer, that these assertions are not only baseless, but contrary to what the New Testament distinctly declares.

First, be it remembered, that the Old Testament itself predicts, in several passages, that for a long season Israel would remain in unbelief; while judicial blindness, rejection by Jehovah, scattering among the nations, and abject misery under the Gentile yoke, should be the result of their sins, and of their having rejected their Messiah. See, among other passages, Isa. 6: 9-12; Isa. 50: 1, 2; Isa. 53: 1-3; Isa. 63: 17; Isa. 64: 7; Hosea 1: 69; Hosea 3: 4; Hosea 5: 14, 15; Micah 3: 9-12; Micah 5: 1. But, secondly, all these prophecies and numbers more show decisively that Israel's rejection and unbelief are but for a time, however prolonged; and that this dreary period is to be succeeded by the days of promised blessedness and rest. Thirdly, our Lord and his apostles distinctly recognize both these truths. Without doubt they declare, and that most unequivocally, that the Israel of that day were sealing on themselves the calamities by which they had been already overtaken, and bringing upon themselves and their children still heavier judgments than any which had yet been inflicted. Nor do they fail to portray the blessings to the Gentiles which result from the way in which divine mercy has overruled the sin of the Jews and their consequent rejection for a time. But do they anywhere intimate that this rejection is final and irreversible? Do they anywhere teach that the present Gentile dispensation has permanently and unchangeably replaced God's natural relations with the earthly people of his choice? Far from it — as far as possible. In Matt. 23 — the sequel, in fact, to the series of parables which have been already considered, and in which our Lord had told the Jews that the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to others — after pronouncing upon them the dire and oftrepeated woes which their evil and hypocrisy drew forth from those blessed lips; after declaring that on them should come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, lamenting over them in such pathetic language, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together, and ye would not!" after declaring, as he crossed the temple's threshold, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate;" does he not add, as though he would not leave them utterly hopeless, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, TILL YE SHALL SAY, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord?" Can we suppose the Saviour to have used these as his parting words, if he knew that they would never nationally welcome him, and never see him again, till, as individuals, in common with the whole human race, they behold him on the great white throne? Could words more clearly intimate, that however they might be in the act of rejecting him, the days would come when they would welcome him with all their hearts? that however certain — sadly, sorrowfully certain — that till then they should not behold him, yet that then, made "willing in the day of his power," they should see him again, and see him to their joy? "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," were words well known to Jewish ears. They form a part of that magnificent Psalm (Ps. 118) which was well understood to be an inspired, prophetic utterance, prepared beforehand as Messiah's welcome to the throne. These very words had been but a short time before uttered by the disciples and the multitudes on the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. Had they been sincerely used — used, moreover, not only by those who did chant them forth, but by the heads of the nation, and by the nation itself as a whole — then, what might not have occurred? In that case they would have known the day of their visitation, and everything must have been changed. Alas! they know it not. The fervour of the multitudes was rebuked by the Pharisees; and on the part of the nation as a whole, the cry was ready to be uttered, "Away with him! Crucify him!", It behoved Christ to suffer, "and enter into his glory." "The stone" was to be first "rejected of the builders;" but where was the prediction of this fact recorded? In the very psalm quoted by our Lord when he said, "Ye shall not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Thus does he at once interpret and endorse Old Testament prophecy, linking together in his farewell words to Israel their future national reception of him as their Messiah, his return to them at that time from heaven (where, as the rejected Stone, he is at present exalted), and their own celebration, in that day, of his triumphs and their deliverance in language prepared for them by the sweet singer of Israel. Read Ps. 118 in the light thus shed upon it by our Lord's words; read it, as the joyful, adoring utterance of the penitent, pardoned, delivered Israel of the latter day, when they see their long-rejected, but now welcome Messiah, and say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; read it thus, we say, and every line, every word is pregnant with meaning, and redolent with joy. Set aside Israel's hopes, and the attestation of them by our Lord in the moment of Israel's deepest guilt and degradation, and how unmeaning the Psalm becomes!

If we turn, moreover, to the testimony of the apostles, we shall find it confirmatory, not condemnatory, of Israel's hopes. Take, for instance, Rom. 11. The chapter opens with the enquiry, "Hath God cast away his people?" to which the emphatic and almost indignant reply is at once subjoined, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." Ah," says our author, and many others of his school, "it is the elect — the Israel of God — of whom the apostle speaks." This is Mr. W.'s grand solution of almost every difficulty which arises to his theory of interpretation. But what question was there among those to whom the apostle wrote, as to whether God had cast off the souls of his elect? Had God utterly and for ever cast off his people Israel — the literal, natural Israel? was a question naturally arising out of all that the apostle had been teaching; and it was one of deepest interest to his brethren according to the flesh. No doubt he mentions an election from among them — "a remnant according to the election of grace." But this remnant is not his subject in the chapter before us; he only refers to its existence as one argument among many, by which he proves that Israel — the nation Israel — is not utterly and for ever rejected of God. It is thus that he distributes his theme. Not utterly, seeing (1) that he himself is an Israelite; (2) that in the worst days of the nation's previous history, such as those of Elias, God had a remnant; and (3) that "even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." He thus proves the first part of his proposition, that it is only to part of Israel that blindness, hath happened, not to the whole. But is the blindness to be permanent, even to the extent in which it does exist? No. "Blindness in part is happened to Israel," not for ever, but "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved." Mr. W. has the boldness to suggest whether the word "Israel" in one part of this quotation may not be understood literally, and in the other figuratively! whether "all Israel" and "the fulness of the Gentiles" be not one and the same body of men! Could temerity itself go farther than this in dislocating and confounding the statements of God's holy Word? What must be the system of interpretation which requires of its exponents to go to such lengths as these?

But it is not at once that the apostle states the conclusion, that "All Israel shall be saved." He reaches it by successive and ascending steps. He argues (1) that through the fall of Israel salvation has come to the Gentiles, "to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy." Can they be for ever cast off, if even God's present mercy to the Gentiles be designed to provoke Israel to jealousy, and so beget in them gracious and holy desires after him under whose chastisements they at present remain? (2) If the Gentiles have reaped such profit from Israel's fall, what shall the receiving of Israel be "but life from the dead?" Here is anything but an obscure intimation, that Israel is yet to be received; and not only so, but that the reception of that people is to inaugurate a period of blessedness for the world — the Gentiles — with which the present is not worthy to be compared. (3) The reception of Israel having been thus referred to, the apostle reasons from the very graffing in of the wild Gentile olive to the good olive tree from which the natural Jewish branches have been broken off, that it is possible for these latter to be graffed in again. (4) He advances another step, and proves it to be not merely possible, but probable: "how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" Then (5) finally, he declares the certainty of their conversion and salvation, quoting in proof of it a passage from Isaiah 59: 20, which inseparably associates it both with the coming of the Lord, and the introduction of millennial blessedness on earth. No doubt there has been, is, and shall yet be, an election from among Israel; but Israel itself, as a nation, is elected of God, and it is with reference to this election that the apostle says, "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Of what other election than that of the nation itself can the apostle say, "as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes?" Our brethren sometimes indulge themselves in speaking of a certain passage as "a millstone round the neck of pre-millennialism;" but certainly the eleventh of Romans may not inappropriately be regarded as a like fatal incumbrance to those "high-minded" prophetic theories, which deny the validity of Israel's national hopes, and seek to resolve all its bright prophetic future into the present heritage of "Gentile branches," even now through unheedfulness to this warning grown "wise in their own conceits," and ready, alas! to be cut of!"

One remark we must by no means omit, — that it was not by Israel alone that Christ was rejected when he came before. He was presented to the Gentiles, in the person of Pontius Pilate, the representative of Gentile power; and his rejection is treated by himself and by the Holy Ghost as his rejection by the world. It was, as we have seen, in Israel that the test was applied; but the question to be decided was, whether Christ would be received in his own world. It was decided in the negative. In John's gospel, where Christ is presented in the full divine glory of his person, as the Son of the Father, rather than in his dispensational characters and relations, as in the other gospels, this fact is largely and solemnly insisted on. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1: 10). "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men [not Jews merely] loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3: 19). "Now is the judgment of this world" (John 12: 31). The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him" (John 14: 17). "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye see me" (verse 19). "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you" (John 15: 18). "And when he (the Holy Ghost) is come, he will reprove the world of sin. . . . because they believe not on me" (John 16: 8, 9). "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee! (John 17: 25). Who can read these passages and entertain a doubt, that the Christ of the Acts and of the Epistles is a world-rejected Christ? This is another great truth which our brethren who reject pre-millennialism overlook, or, at least, by their system, set aside. This really constitutes the most essential, fundamental difference between their theories and the Christianity of the New Testament, which consists in knowing, confessing, and serving Christ, and in waiting for him, as the rejected One of this world. "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men" (1 Peter 2: 4). By and by he will arise from off the Father's throne, and receive to himself the co-heirs who are now being called; the power of the throne will then be exercised in vindication of his long-despised and rejected Name; and when all things are prepared for the solemn event, he and his saints will return, and this earth shall be subdued to his sway. Of these things the prophecies of the New Testament bear witness; the more they are studied, and the better they are understood, the more evident will it be, that no contrariety exists between the Old Testament and the New. The prophecies of the Old Testament leave room for the revelations and mysteries of the New; the latter fill up, but do not contradict, the former. They both exhibit the purposes and ways of God for the glorifying of himself in Christ, as one vast harmonious whole; and in their combined light, grace and righteousness, mercy and truth, Jew and Gentile, heaven and earth, are all seen to be to the praise of the glory of him, of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things: to whom, indeed, he glory for ever. Amen.

Chapter 4 — THE THREE-FOLD CORD; OR, CHRIST'S THREE OFFICES OF PROPHET, PRIEST, AND KING."

THE object of Mr. Waldegrave's second lecture is indicated by its title — "The kingdom of heaven, as now existing, the proper kingdom of Christ." He represents pre-millenarians as maintaining the negative of this proposition; but prior to his entering on the direct discussion of it, he advances what he deems two strong preliminary reasons in its favour. What are these?

"In the first place, it may well be questioned whether the mediatorial offices of the Lord Jesus are, in operation, separable from each other. A Three-fold cord cannot be quickly broken. Christ is at this moment acting in the capacity of God's anointed Prophet; He is also discharging the functions of God's anointed Priest; it is difficult to believe that He has never yet exercised dominion as God's anointed King, that He is not yet King de facto as well as de jure. The three offices would seem to be conferred for the same object, and to have, as respects the discharge of their several duties, the same beginning and the same termination. Their one object is the salvation — the salvation to the uttermost — of the people of God. Their actual exercise in the work of that salvation began with the ascension of Jesus; it shall terminate with the accomplishment of the number of his elect." Bamp. Lect. pp. 39,40.

We are not at present called upon either to affirm or deny that Christ "has never yet exercised dominion as God's anointed King:" but as to our author's mode of proving that he has, we may safely affirm, that it would be difficult to find within the same compass in the works of any sober-minded Christian writer, so many erroneous and contradictory statements as the passage just quoted contains. Have Christ's three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, as respects their actual exercise, the same beginning and the same end? And did they begin with his ascension? Did not our Lord discharge the functions of a Prophet — yea, of God's anointed Prophet — while on earth? What meant, then, his quotation of Isa. 61: 1, 2, in the synagogue at Nazareth? "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Could any language more fully express his being anointed to the Prophetic office? And was it only anticipatively of his ascension that he quoted these words? Hear what he says. When he had closed the book, given it to the minister, and sat down; when all eyes were fastened upon him; "he began to say unto them, THIS DAY is this Scripture FULFILLED in your ears," Luke 4: 21. Christ not the anointed Prophet until He ascended! This is indeed a worthy use of the principles of interpretation asserted by our author! Had he forgotten his own words, page 24, where having referred to "direct quotations" by our Lord from the Old Testament, "coupled with express mention of their fulfilment," he says,

"The expositions thus supplied must, without hesitation, be accepted as sound. Nor should there be any reserve in our submission to them. For indeed to speak of accommodations, of inadequate and inceptive accomplishments, where Jesus speaks of fulfilments, is virtually to set aside His Prophetical authority, and to open the door to a most dangerous licence in the interpretation of Scripture."

Most heartily do we concur in these sentiments. But how condemnatory they are of the position maintained by their author, that Christ began the "actual exercise" of his prophetic office when he ascended on high! Is not Luke 4: 18, 19, a "direct quotation" from Isa. 61: 1, 2? Is it not "coupled with express mention of its fulfilment?" Where besides have we the mention of such a fact in terms equally express? "This day is this Scripture FULFILLED in your ears!" And was it "fulfilled?" Then, Mr. W. is in error when he says, "their actual exercise (that of Christ's three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King) began with the ascension of Jesus." If it was not "fulfilled," our Lord's words would have to be understood by way of "accommodation, of inadequate and inceptive accomplishment;" and to understand them thus would be, according to our author himself, to "virtually set aside Christ's prophetic authority, and to open the door to a most dangerous licence in the interpretation of Scripture."

But it is not by implication alone that Mr. W. contradicts himself on this subject. Let the reader weigh with each other the two following quotations:-

"The three offices have, as respects the discharge of their several duties, the same beginning and the same termination. Their actual exercise began with the ascension of Jesus," p. 40.

"But where are the words of this great Prophet recorded? To begin with the four gospels: each contains enough, and more than enough, to establish him for a Prophet mighty in deed and word God and all the people. And yet these were, as the Holy Ghost testifies, but the beginning of his instruction," p. 18.

Let not the reader suppose that we have any satisfaction in exposing such self-contradiction for its own sake. Gladly would we pass it by as a slip of the pen, were it not that each of the contradictory propositions maintained by Mr. W. is, in its turn, essential to his argument. It behoved him in the first lecture to maintain that Christ was a prophet, and acted as a prophet while on earth: the position he seeks in his second lecture to establish, requires that Christ should only begin to act thus when he ascended on high! The three offices are to be coeval in their exercise; and to maintain that Christ acted as a king while on earth would be more than any readers could be expected to believe; while, as to the Priestly office, the apostle explicitly declares, that "if he (Christ) were on earth, he should not be a priest," Heb. 8: 8. Scripture decides that Christ's exercise of his priesthood dates from his ascension to the right hand of God. Our author, to prove that his kingly office also had its commencement then, maintains (though in contradiction of his own statements, as well as of God's Word) that it was then he entered on the discharge of his prophetic functions. Such must always be the confusion attendant upon the effort to bend God's Word to a system of our own. The very opposite of Mr. W.'s argument is the truth. He says that the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, are coeval in their exercise; but instead of this, the Lord first fulfilled his prophetic ministry while in humiliation on the earth; he then entered on his Priestly functions when he ascended up on high; and it is when he comes again in his glory that he will be manifested as king. We do not mean by this that he ceased to be "God's anointed Prophet" when he began to act as "God's anointed Priest;" or, that he will lay aside his priesthood when manifested in the glories of his kingly power. We know that to be "a priest upon his throne," Zech. 6: 13, is his distinctive glory in that day. Nor do we object to Mr. W.'s thought, as expressed in his first lecture, that Christ continues to fill on high the prophetic office on which he entered while on earth. All we maintain is, that what distinguished his sojourn here was his prophetic work, while as yet he had not entered on the functions of his priestly or his kingly office; that what distinguishes his session at the right hand of God is the discharge of his priestly functions, however, he may yet, in a certain sense, fill the place of prophet; and that what will distinguish the coming dispensation, will be his proper, actual reign, however the glories of his priestly and prophetic offices may be conjoined therewith.

It may be interesting, ere we leave this subject of time, to observe how our post-millennarian brethren differ from each other, besides contradicting themselves. Pre-millenialists are expected to be of one mind on every important subject; and their differences, even on subordinate points, are dwelt upon by their opponents as a strong presumption against their views.* If such an argument be of any weight, it may be well to see how it bears upon our brethren by whom it is used. The Bampton lecturer dates, as we have seen, the commencement of Christ's "actual exercise" of all his three offices from his ascension to heaven. Mr. Lyon, on the other hand, dates his reign, at least, from the promise to our first parents in the garden. "His kingdom really began when the first promise was given." Millennial Studies, p. 4. Mr. W. maintains that "as respects the discharge of their several duties," the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King have not only "the same beginning," but also "the same termination." Mr. L. teaches, that "he will continue on the throne as king, though not as priest, his priestly functions ceasing because there will no longer be any need for them." It is evidently not by Mr. W.'s argument of "the threefold cord" that Mr. Lyon has been led to reject pre-millennialism; and if it has so little weight with his friends, he need not be disappointed to find it of still less cogency with his opponents, against whom it is directed.

*See Millennial Studies, p. 16, where Mr. Lyon says, "It may be proper to observe here that millenarians are far from being agreed among themselves in their views of Christ's kingdom. . . . Among anti-millenarians there is at least consistency and agreement." With admirable consistency this writer almost immediately afterwards speaks of Mr. Birks' views as similar to those usually held by millenarians.

Our author's second preliminary argument in favour of his proposition, that "the kingdom of heaven, as now existing, is the proper kingdom of Christ," is a singular one indeed. It is no other than its invisibility!

"To walk by faith, not by sight, — to endure as seeing Him who is invisible, is the characteristic, the duty, the prerogative of the Christian. Hence the fact, that the present, true, real, and effectual kingship of Messiah calls for the exercise of his faith, is in very deed a strong presumption in its favour," pp. 41, 42.

If this be not to confound things that differ, how could such a censure be incurred? We had always supposed that the period of faith and patience stood contrasted in Scripture with that of rest, and blessedness, and glory, in which Christ and his saints are to share the reward of his sufferings on their behalf, and in which their endurance of suffering for his sake is also to find its recompense. It was for Mr. W. to discover, that the distinctive features of the one period prove it identical with the other — the contrasted period! The apostle, in writing to the Thessalonians, does speak of glorying in their patience and faith, which says, he "is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer," 2 Thess. 1: 5. Nay, says our author, it proves that the kingdom has already come! It is the place of a Christian to walk by faith; therefore, argues Mr. W., the present exercise of the proper and only royalty ever to be exercised by Christ may be inferred from its being an object of faith, not of sight! But it is not of Christ's royalty that the apostle treats, where he says, that "we walk by faith, not by sight," it is of heaven's joys; and Mr. W.'s argument is as applicable to the one subject as the other. It as much proves, that we are now, in the only sense in which we ever shall be, in heaven, as that Christ now reigns in the only sense in which he ever will reign. Alas! we are not in heaven. It is by faith, not by sight, that we walk. But does this mean that the future objects of that faith — the "things hoped for," of which faith is doubtless "the substance" — does it mean that these are actually present? No, but the reverse. When these are present, and we are present with the Lord, "sight" will take the place of "faith;" and when Christ reigns, in that sense in which his glorious reign is foretold in Scripture, his royalty will be manifest to sense, and no longer, as at present, an object of faith alone.

Chapter 5 — NEW TESTAMENT MILLENARIANISM.

IT would but weary our readers were we to subject the whole of Mr. Waldegrave's thick octavo to an examination as minute as has been already bestowed on his opening lecture. Nor is it in any sense requisite. The principles of interpretation laid down in the first lecture are so carried out and applied in the subsequent discourses, that if we have succeeded in showing these principles themselves to be faulty and unsound, we need bestow no pains on the discourses which are confessedly founded thereon. The fundamental character of the "axiomatic propositions" with which our author commences the discussion, is not only admitted, but triumphantly asserted, both by the London Quarterly and the British and Foreign Evangelical Review. The latter declares that these propositions constitute "the best feature of the work;" while the former says, that "with great force of argument," he "successfully establishes" them, and lays them down "as essential to the correct interpretation of the Word of God." We are happy, to find that since our first notice of the  volume, it has been reviewed both in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, and in the London Monthly Review. Both works concur in the condemnation due to Mr. W.'s fundamental axioms; while our own readers, we trust, have been fully satisfied, that humbly and prayerfully to study the prophetic portions of God's Word, whether figurative or literal in their style, is a more likely mode of arriving at the truth on prophetic subjects, than Mr.W.'s plan of subordinating the greater part of prophetic scripture to other portions, in which prophetic subjects are not handled. Let the Word of God speak for itself as a whole, is what we should earnestly suggest; and let us not cumber ourselves, in the study of it, with rules and principles of man's devising.

The second lecture has already been slightly noticed. We only now add, that, in common with Mr. Lyon and other post-millenarians, the lecturer merges all that is distinctive of Christ's royalty, or kingdom, in the place which he fills as the Redeemer, or Saviour, of his people. Referring to his three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, Mr. W. affirms that they are "conferred for the same object," and he defines that object to be, "the salvation to the uttermost of the people of God." Our brethren see nothing in Scripture of a period or dispensation in which Christ is to be displayed as the Second Adam, inheriting through redemption, the dominion forfeited by the first, — in which the sword of government first entrusted to Noah, and since wielded by so many for purposes of selfish ambition and revenge, shall be held by the One, of whom David sang: "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God; and he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain," 2 Sam. 23: 3, 4. — in which David's royalty shall be exercised by David's Son and Lord, and in which the supremacy of the four great Gentile kingdoms shall be set aside and replaced by the final and universal kingdom of the Son of man. With them everything is limited to the single subject of the salvation of the soul, and the glory of Christ in connexion therewith: or, if there be one super-added thought, it is that of his glory as Judge, on the great white throne, declaring the final award of each individual, in the sentence of endless happiness, or eternal woe. But to state such a theory is to refute it. Its own poverty and nakedness, form the most striking contrast to the richly varied testimony of Holy Writ, to "the sufferings of Christ and the glories (see the Greek) which should follow." Of these glories, the "many crowns" on the head of Jesus are the expressive symbols; and while to saved sinners the name of Saviour may well be the sweetest that they know, who that knows that name would wish the One who bears it to be despoiled of any one of those "many crowns," or to be shorn of that other name, "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS"?

No doubt there is a kingdom, of which our Lord spoke largely and solemnly while on earth: a kingdom which he announced as then near at hand, and which did form a most prominent subject of his instructions to his disciples and of his discourses to the multitude. But nothing can be more unfounded than Mr. W.'s assertion, that "the words, 'kingdom of heaven,' 'kingdom of God,' and 'kingdom of the Son of man,' are in the gospels, convertible terms," p. 44. Mark and Luke do indeed generally use the term, "Kingdom of God," where Matthew uses the phrase, "Kingdom of heaven;" but this fact by no means proves them to be in themselves, and universally, "convertible terms." "Kingdom of heaven" is a phrase used nowhere in Scripture but in Matthew: and the instances in which that evangelist employs the other expression, "Kingdom of God," show most decisively that they are not "convertible terms." "The kingdom of heaven" is always spoken of by our Lord as future, though near at hand; and for this reason, that it denotes a rule or sovereignty exercised by himself after his ascension to heaven. Accordingly, where in Matthew he speaks of the kingdom as then present or existing, he does not use Matthew's phrase, "Kingdom of heaven," but changes it to that of the other evangelists: "Kingdom of God." "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you," Matt. 12: 28. "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof," Matt. 21: 43. And while even these two expressions are thus seen to be anything but uniformly interchangeable, the other phrase, "Kingdom of the Son of man," is in the gospels contrasted with the ordinary use and signification of Matthew's term, "Kingdom of heaven." The proof of this we proceed to place before our readers.

The great subject of Matt. 13, our Lord himself being witness, is, "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." The disciples ask why he speaks in parables to the multitude, and in reply he says, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Why does he say "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven?" If the kingdom of heaven as now existing be, as our author affirms, "the proper kingdom of Christ;" if it be, as the third lecture seeks to show "the true kingdom of his father David;" why should such an expression be employed as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven?" The fact is, that the Old Testament had foretold that "the children of Israel" should "abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim." But then it had also declared, "Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days," Hosea 3: 4, 5. Isaiah, too, had borne witness to the judicial blindness which was to come upon Israel. Our Lord quotes his words in this very chapter: "This people's heart is waxed gross," etc. The prophet's anxieties had been awakened to know the duration of this judgment on his beloved people, and he had asked, "Lord, how long?" receiving for answer the words, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, and the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land," Isa. 6: 11, 12. It would be superfluous to attempt to exhibit here Isaiah's testimony to Israel's restoration and blessedness at the close of this long, dreary period. It was shown in our last paper but one, how fully the prospect of Israel's restoration, and of our Lord's return in power and glory in connexion therewith, is recognised both by himself and by the apostle Paul. Then the kingdom of God will come with power. Then shall the dispensation of the fulness of times be ushered in, in which all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, shall be gathered together in one, even in Christ. (See Eph. 1.) But how was the interval to be filled up? In what character was the rule of heaven, or of God, to exist during the days of Israel's blindness and dispersion, and during the consequent postponement of the proper kingdom of Christ — the kingdom of the Son of man? "The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," as unfolded in the parables of Matt. 13, form the answer to this deeply momentous question. Christ was to suffer first, and to reign afterwards. This all Scripture shows. But more than this, — his kingdom was to exist in mystery first — in open manifestation afterwards. The transition from the one state to the other is, moreover, most definitely set forth in this very discourse. "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. THEN shall the righteous shine fourth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," verses 41-43. Then it is, at the harvest — the end of the age, that mystery terminates and manifestation begins. To this agree the words of the mighty angel in Rev. 10: 7: "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God" shall "be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." Accordingly we read, Rev. 11: 15: "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." But with our brethren, the kingdom in mystery and the kingdom in manifestation, the period of patience and that of judgment in power, are hopelessly confounded: nor do they suppose that the Son of man will gather out of his kingdom all things which offend, till just before he delivers up that kingdom to God, even the Father, when God shall be all in all!

One strange argument brought forward by our author in Lecture 3 we must not overlook. Stating his subject to be, "The true meaning of the prophecies, which are said to require that Jesus of Nazareth should yet be manifested to the world as King of the Jews," he says:-

"I begin by remarking, that if the pre-millenarian interpretation of those prophecies were sound, the New Testament is the very place of all others where we might naturally expect to find it clearly enunciated. The Jew had his full share, both in the sermons the apostles preached, and in the letters they wrote. Affection would combine with duty in prompting the first heralds of the gospel to take every stumbling-block out of his way. And what were the stumbling-blocks of the Jew? Messiah crucified, and the door of faith opened to the Gentiles. What then, I may well ask, would have been the obvious course for the apostles to follow, if Israel's ancient glory was yet to be received under the personal government of Jesus the Son of David? Surely they would have said, 'Be not offended at a crucified Messiah; the prophetic writings must be viewed in their integrity; they speak of the sufferings of Christ, as well as of the glories that should follow; you do wrong to overlook the cross, while you gaze so intently on the crown. O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken; learn first to accept as your Messiah the despised and rejected Jesus; soon will he come again as Israel's triumphant King.'" etc., pp. 84-87.

This, says our author, is the way in which modern millenarians would preach to the Jews, and in which, he supposes the apostles would have addressed them, had they been millenarian in their views and expectations. But did Mr. W. forget, when penning these words, that millenarians hold no less really than himself, that Israel's rejection of Christ was an awful sin, justly punished by the nation's longest and most complete dispersion? that however grace might linger over Jerusalem, so long as the feeblest hope remained of its repentance, the only token of real repentance would have been their cordial reception of the Christ they had crucified? and that as long as this point was held by them against God, no one who cared for God's glory could use his promises of final restoration for the purpose of coaxing and flattering impenitent rebels, as Mr. W. supposes millenarians would have done? Mr. W. writes as though millenarians deemed the rejection of Christ by Israel to have arisen from a mere intellectual mistake! as though we thought this mistake had only to be corrected, for Israel to receive him with open arms! Alas! it was a widely different case! They had both seen and hated both Christ and the Father. They loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own, they had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. Let, then, the final purposes of God's grace as to the nation be what they might, that which the apostles had to testify to the Jews was this, that persisting in their rejection of the Christ they had crucified, continuing to resist, as their fathers always had resisted, the Holy Ghost, judgment was what inevitably awaited them. What would our author think of preaching the glories of heaven to such as were obstinately rejecting the gospel of God's grace, and hardening themselves in sin? Just as reasonably might the apostles have dwelt in retail on the glories of Israel's future restoration, to the men who were ready to follow up the murder of the Messiah by the murder of his martyr, Stephen.

Still, where it was a question of ignorance, and not of wilful rejection of the truth, our Lord does (namely, to the disciples) use the very words which our author supposes would have been suitable, had millenarianism been the truth. "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory." Yea, more; until Jerusalem's rejection of an ascended Christ was fully confirmed, the apostles did present the hope of Christ's return, to bring the times of refreshing, the times of restitution of all things, as one great motive to repentance. This was shown in a previous paper, to which our readers can refer.

But while, in addressing that impenitent generation, it would have been preposterous to dwell in detail on the glories and triumphs which await repentant Israel in the latter day, the apostles' silence as to these details is no justification of our author in denying them. The denial of Israel's prospects, as unfolded in the Old Testament, may be, and is, a stumbling-block to the modern Jew, when connected with the preaching of Christ crucified. This fact millenarians have pointed out with obvious justice and conclusive force: but it does not follow that Mr. W. is entitled to put words in their mouth, or, rather, on their behalf to put words in the mouths of the apostles, the folly and extravagance of which must appear to all. The folly and extravagance rest not with millenarians, but with the author, who could thus misrepresent the requirements of their doctrine, supposing it to have been that of the apostles themselves. We are perfectly content with what the apostles did say, and immeasurably prefer it to any millenarianism put into their lips by Mr. W.!

Chapter 6 — NEW TESTAMENT MILLENARIANISM.

"THE ingathering and glorification of the church" is the subject of Lecture 4, in which our author simply gives expression to the popular but unfounded idea, that all saints from the beginning to the end of time constitute the church. We are quite aware that Mr. W.'s views on this point are shared by many who differ from him widely on prophetic subjects; but his mistake is not the less serious on this account. On any other subjects than those of Scriptural inquiry and interpretation, men would smile at such a quiet assumption of the point to be proved, as that which characterizes Lecture 4. The opening sentence declares, in the most positive terms, the affirmative view of the question which ought to be discussed. "As Christ is the exclusive Author, so is the church mystical the exclusive recipient of salvation," p. 140. So affirms Mr. W. But suppose any one should deny the truth of this proposition, on whom would fairly rest the burden of proof? Surely on Mr. W. himself; but in vain would any one read his discourse with the view of obtaining it. He assumes the truth of this opening declaration, and reasons from it throughout, as though it were not only incontrovertible.

"And so has it been from the very beginning. Immediately that Adam fell was the foundation of this spiritual edifice laid in the primeval promise of redemption. Successive ages beheld it rise, as one by one, Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all who, like them, by faith obtained a good report, were builded up upon the one chief corner stone."

It may shook the prejudices of some who differ from our author on prophetic subjects, as well as of many who agree with him, when we affirm our conviction that this paragraph expressly contradicts God's Word. Such is our conviction, nevertheless: but instead of assuming its truth, we proceed at once to lay the grounds of it before our readers. Mr. W. says, that the foundation of the church was laid in the primeval promise. The Lord Jesus Christ said, four thousand years after the first promise was given, "Upon this rock (the confession of him just made by Peter) I will build" — not "I have builded," or "I am building," but "I will build my church," Matt. 16: 18. That is, he speaks of it as a then future work. And though he was, in his own blessed person, as the Son of the living God, the foundation of the church, it was not as a living person upon earth that he was laid as the foundation. For this, his death was indispensable. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit," John 12: 24. It was not until rejected of the Jewish builders, that he was exalted to he "the head of the corner," and that his death was indispensable to the church being builded on him as its foundation, the, Epistle to the Ephesians largely testifies. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto, God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby," Eph. 2: 14-16. It was thus and then the foundation was laid; and being laid, the apostle adds, "Now, therefore, ye (Gentile believers) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (New Testament prophets, surely*), Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone:" verses 19, 20.

*A reference to Eph. 3: 4, can scarcely leave a doubt of this. We read there of "the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." They are "prophets" to whom, with the apostle, had been revealed by the Spirit, that which was hid from all previous generations.

Do we wish, then, to deny or call in question the salvation, saintship, life, or glory, of the Old Testament believers? God forbid! They were quickened by the Spirit, beyond doubt. By virtue of the foreseen sacrifice of Christ, they were forgiven and saved. They will all have part in the first resurrection, and partake of heavenly glory. But no one of these things, no, nor all of them together, constitute the church. The church shares these things, life, justification, resurrection, and heavenly glory, with the saints of Old Testament times; but that which constitutes the church is something additional to all these, and of which the Old Testament bears not a single trace. It is the actual living unity with Christ and with each other of those, who, since Christ's resurrection, are formed into this unity, by the presence of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. God had a nation in former times; and the Holy Ghost by Caiaphas teaches us, that it was for that nation Christ died. All the blessedness, therefore, of restored and forgiven Israel in days to come, is as simply owing to the atoning death of Christ, as is now the salvation of individual souls. But "not for that nation only," the Holy Ghost adds, "but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad," John 11: 52. There were, then, children of God prior to the death of Christ; but instead of forming one body, they were isolated individuals, "scattered abroad." For their gathering together in one, the death of Christ was absolutely needful. So was his resurrection; for it is only as "the beginning, the first-born from the dead," that he is the "head of the body, the church," Col. 1: 18. Nor was it till he had ascended, that the Holy Ghost could be sent down; and it is by his presence and power that the gathering together in one takes place. "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you," John 16: 7. "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified," Acts 2: 39. "Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear," Acts 2: 33. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles," 1 Cor. 12: 13. It is of Christ, ascended and glorified, that we read in Eph. 1: 22, 23, that "the church is his body, the fulness (or complement) of him that filleth all in all."

Now it, is of the church thus formed and constituted that Scripture predicates completeness at the epoch of Christ's return. How easy to see, that if statements made in Scripture concerning this elect body of Christ be applied to all saints from the beginning to the end of time, false conclusions may easily be drawn from premises so unsound. All our author's reasonings as to baptism and the Lord's supper, the intercession of Christ and the preaching of the Word — all his attempts to show that on millenarian grounds, these would have no place after the completion of the church and the coming of Christ — all his endeavours to reduce us to the dilemma of holding, either that no souls will be saved after Christ comes, or that they will be saved without the present means or channels of salvation — all rest on the baseless assumption that the church consists of all saved souls from the beginning to the end of time, and all, consequently, fall to the ground. Souls were saved for four thousand years before the church had any existence, save in the counsels and purposes of God; and souls will doubtless be saved throughout the millennium, after the completion of this wondrous "workmanship" of his — this chef-d' oeuvre of his wisdom, power, and grace. If there lacked not the means and appliances of salvation before the church began, why should we suppose any lack when the church is perfected and in glory with her Lord?

On the subject of the judgment, Mr. W.'s great endeavour is first, to prove that millenarianism "deprives it of its chiefest terrors to the ungodly;" and, secondly, that these terrors consist in what he regards as the doctrine of Scripture, namely, that of a simultaneous judgment of all the righteous and all the wicked. But as all his arguments on these topics have been answered again and again in well-known works on prophetic subjects, we will not detain our readers by any detailed remarks thereon. On Mr. W.'s theory, that the millennium is already past, and that we are probably far advanced into the little season by which it was to be succeeded, the doctrine of a simultaneous judgment of all at Christ's coming, may well, indeed, strike terror into the hearts of the ungodly. On this theory, the coming and the judgment are both at the door. But how the postponement of Christ's coming, and of all judgment, to the end of a thousand years yet to commence, should be a doctrine of greater terror to the wicked than that of Christ's speedy appearing in the clouds of heaven, to execute judgment on his living foes, having first received his people to himself, we are perfectly at a loss to conceive.

Lecture 6 is on the "recompense of reward to be conferred upon the saints at the second coming of their Lord." With much that it contains we heartily agree. We hold as strenuously as Mr. W., that the main blessedness of the saints hereafter is in the visible and personal presence of Christ among them, or, to be more accurate, their presence thus with Christ. Heaven itself, we delight to know, is the locality of the saints' inheritance. If some pre-millennialists have thought otherwise, our author cannot be ignorant that it is in company with some of their most distinguished opponents,* that they look on the renovated earth, as the eternal dwelling-place of the saints. Our own belief is, however, identical with Mr. W.'s, that the place which Jesus has gone to prepare for us, is in the heaven where his own glorified body now is, and of which he says, "that where I am, there ye maybe also." Equally satisfied are we, that from the moment the saints are caught up to meet the Lord Jesus in the air, their state will "not admit of any, the very slightest admixture of evil." But is it not a purely gratuitous assumption of our author's, that this unalloyed perfection of the future state of the saints, precludes any contact or connexion (by Divine appointment, and as ministers of good), with a state of things less perfect, than their own? What! is the state of the holy angels imperfect, because as ministering spirits they are now sent forth to minister to them which shall be heirs of salvation? And if angels can be made thus the channels of Divine beneficence, remaining undefiled and uninjured, their joy unclouded by the imperfection and need with which they come in contact, but only to succour and befriend, shall it be deemed impossible for those who are "blessed and holy," as having part in the first resurrection, to be ministers of blessing to the earth over which they are to reign with Christ a thousand years? And yet this is the sum and substance of Mr. W.'s argument in Lecture 6.

*Dr. Urwick, for instance, Mr. Fairburn, and Dr. David Brown himself.

As to the resurrection and reign of the saints with Christ for a thousand years, Mr. W. judges "that the thousand years may be even now in progress, if not entirely past," p. 377. He does not venture to propound this view till he has occupied mote than half of Lecture 7, with an exposition of the spiritualist theory held by Whitby, Dr. Brown. Mr. Lyon, and many others. This theory he prefers to the pre-millennial view; but after stating certain objections to it, he proposes, as free from such objections, and as best entitled, in his judgment, to be adopted, his own view above stated. And though at first so modestly introduced as a question, whether "the thousand years may be even now in progress, if not entirely past," it grows, in the course of its development, into a theory of interpretation, in which the binding of Satan is reduced to his being "for that period forbidden to invent and propagate any new (!!) religious imposture among nominal Christians"; the resurrection and reign of the saints with Christ are resolved into their being, while yet on earth, "quickened together with Christ," and seated "with him in heavenly places;" and this spiritual reign and resurrection are represented as perfectly compatible with their suffering unto death at the very time they reign as risen with Christ! But hear Mr. W. himself:

"If this view of the verse be correct, the thousand years will prove to be a period in which Christ's witnesses are witnesses even unto death — a period, in short, of martyrdom, not of triumph — a period in which Satan (being precluded indeed from the invention of fresh delusions), is able notwithstanding to wield those already in existence with such effect as to make the church of God to prophecy in sackcloth and ashes," p. 386.

This is, no doubt, a view of the millennium quite new to most of our readers. We will not pass upon them the reflection which would be implied, in seeking to rebut a principle by which Scripture language is made to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. Such a principle is not to be met by argument, but by the moral reprobation which attaches to the calling good evil, and evil good. But we are as yet only on the threshold of our author's system. The thrones, and sitters on them, to whom judgment was given, are the powers that be, employed as executioners of Satan's malice, in persecuting the saints to death? The saints reigning, be it remembered, and Satan bound all the while! "The rest of the dead" who rise not, till the thousand years are finished, are "the great body of truly living souls brought to God," during the little season in which Satan is loosed from his prison and goes forth to deceive the nations of the earth afresh! The ten centuries preceding the Reformation are suggested by Mr. W. as "the longer, the millennial period pourtrayed in the passage before us," while it is intimated that the "three centuries which have rolled away since that epoch," have borne the marks of "the little season" which was to succeed the millennium.

Such is the "New Testament Millenarianism" of the Bampton Lectures; a system commended to us by the lecturer, as one which does "not dislocate the whole frame-work of Christian truth," which he alleges is done by expecting a pre-millennial advent of our blessed Lord. To set aside such an expectation, is the great object of his book. In this object, his reviewers of the London Quarterly, and the British and Foreign Evangelical, are heartily agreed. But as to the interpretation of Rev. 20, they are wide as the poles asunder. Mr. W. declares it already fulfilled: the London Quarterly maintains "that the scenes which this Scripture pourtrays are yet future," and addresses itself to the inquiry, "Is it to be interpreted literally or figuratively?" Nor is the enquiry prosecuted far, before the conclusion is arrived at, and stated thus, "We have no hesitation in saying, that the only consistent interpretation is the figurative one, which recognises the revival of the early martyrs and confessors in their spirit and character." The British and Foreign Evangelical, while dealing most tenderly with Mr. W.'s millennial theory, is yet obliged to say,

"There are, in our opinion, two fatal objections to this view. First, the text on the face of it appears plainly to intimate that the life — whatever be meant by it — was posterior to the death, not contemporaneous with it. . . . Throughout the New Testament wherever it (the word ἀνάστασις) is used in connection with death, there is not one instance in which it does not signify a state posterior to death — either the intermediate state or the bodily resurrection, which, for our own part, we think it plain that the language of this symbolical vision expresses."

Admirable unanimity of sentiment! — Here are three writers, who agree in denouncing the expectation of a pre-millennial advent of Christ, and in opposing the literal interpretation of John's millennial vision. But when asked to interpret it themselves, one says, It is already accomplished. No, says the second, its accomplishment is future, but it is to be figuratively understood. No, says the third, it is bodily resurrection, which the language of this symbolical vision expresses.

Here, for the present, we conclude our notice of these books. Dr. Brown's book is by far the ablest of any which have appeared in opposition to pre-millennialism, and we rejoice that an examination of it is in progress by another pen. The Lord grant that we may not be permitted, amid any heats of controversy, to lose sight of the solemn, sanctifying truths in which all real Christians are agreed. Whereto we have already attained, may we walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing; remembering the promise, that if in anything we be otherwise minded, God shall reveal this unto us also.

Chapter 7 — THE MILLENARIAN QUESTION.

[The following letter was addressed to the esteemed author of a volume, entitled "The Flight of the Apostate." A Poem in three Parts. By the Rev. H. NEWTON, B.A. Wertheim and Mackintosh, London. Its merits as a poem it would be out of the writer's province to discuss. It was on account of along and ably-written note it contains on the millenarian question, that the volume was shown to him by its author. The following letter was written in reply, and as it discusses questions of general interest, it is presented without alteration to the reader.]

MY DEAR SIR, — I have read with interest and attention, not only the notes you had marked for my perusal, but the entire volume of which they form a part. The notes contain as condensed a view as I have ever met with, of the argument against pre-millennialism. Should you find time to read "Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects," I think you will see that I have there replied to almost each point touched upon in your notes; but as my replies are scattered through the volume, I will endeavour as briefly as I can to state why your arguments fail to convince me of the justice of the conclusion at which you have arrived.

In the first place, I demur entirely to the statement (page 101), that "the seat of the theory of the personal millennial reign of our Lord upon earth is acknowledged to be in Rev. 20: 1-10." That this passage treats of the subject, all who hold the doctrine of the personal reign will, of course, admit; that it, supplies the instruction as to the period of that reign, from which the distinctive word "millennial" is drawn, is undoubtedly true; but to say that "the seat of the theory" "is acknowledged to be in Rev. 20," is not correct. It represents us as acknowledging what we not only deny, but are prepared to disprove; viz., that it is from this passage exclusively or pre-eminently, that the knowledge and proof of the doctrine is to be drawn. For myself I can truly say, that except as to the single point of duration, it was not from this Scripture more than others, or so much as others, that my own belief of millenarianism was derived; and as to the point of duration, my views underwent no change when the pre-millennial doctrine was received. I believed in a thousand years of blessedness on earth before I saw that it was to be introduced by the personal coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The attempt to make the whole question turn on the interpretation of Rev. 20, is, in my opinion, much more common than just. Had it pleased God to withhold that chapter, or even the entire book of Revelation, the proof would still, it seems to me, have been complete and decisive, of a long period of universal righteousness and joy introduced by Christ's second coming, and characterised by his reigning along with his risen and glorified saints over Israel and the nations of the earth. You will not suppose, from this statement, that I undervalue the confirmation afforded by the Apocalypse of doctrines previously revealed, or the precise instruction of Rev. 20 as to the 1000 years' continuance of Christ's reign. That against which I protest is, the representation that this passage is the seat instead of a seat of the doctrine in debate.

It was with sincere pleasure that I found on pages 40-54, the distinct recognition on your part of an approaching crisis, "when God will 'take the cup of trembling out of the hand of the Jew, and put it into the hand of the Gentiles that afflicted him.'" You say, "Whether we turn to the old or to the New Testament, we read of a time (immediately preceding the triumph of the gospel) of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." "We have repeated intimations in Scripture," you say, of a grand crisis, a final and decisive controversy, a day of retributive judgment upon nations, which have put the last insult upon his truth." You quote the passages I have trodden the wine-press alone," etc., "For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." "It consists," you observe, "of judgments, unlike preceding ones, by which 'the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.'" You speak of it as "connected in many places with the fall of Babylon, almost everywhere characterized by surprising rapidity, and accompanied by a prophecy of the restoration of Israel; so much so, that these events have been always apprehended to be synchronous." You add a serious of quotations from Isa. 13, 14, 24-27, 34; Jer. 23, 25, 50, 51; Ezek. 36, 39; Joel 3; Micah 4, 5; Zeph. 3: 8, 9; Haggai 2; and Zech. 1: 15-21, 12: 2, and 14: 13.   1

It was not from Rev. 20 that I received pre-millennial views, however confirmatory of those views that chapter may since have proved. It was from the many passages which treat of that solemn crisis, your expectation of which is so forcibly expressed in the above quotations. I found links of connexion between these and many New Testament passages, which left no doubt on my mind that not only do Israel's restoration, judgment on the Gentiles, and the universal triumph of truth and righteousness, synchronize with each other, but that the synchronism includes another event, the most central and majestic of all: the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. In proof of this, allow me to call your attention to one or two of the passages you quote, along with the connected passages in the later volume of inspiration.

One passage to which you refer is, that in Daniel's prophecy, in which he predicts a "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time." Happily, I have no need to prove to you that this does not refer to the time of Israel's overthrow and Jerusalem's destruction by Titus, but to the yet future, though rapidly approaching time of Israel's deliverance and restoration. This you believe and maintain. In quoting Daniel's words you insert an explanatory clause, which shows. decisively that you regard as future the time of unequalled trouble which he foretells. "A time (immediately preceding the triumph of the gospel) of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time," is the form in which you quote the passage. Turn then, my dear sir, to Matt. 23, 24, and what do you find? At the close of the former, our Lord, crossing for the last time the threshold of the temple, says to the blinded and infuriated nation, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Then follows the conversation between him and his disciples in which, he having foretold the destruction of the temple and its buildings, and they having asked him, "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age" (αιωνος)? he delivers to them the majestic prophecy, in which he certainly answers the two latter questions, whether the first be answered by him or not. It is in this discourse he quotes Daniel's words, adding to them what still further distinguishes the epoch in question from all others: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Such is to be the extremity of distress, that those days are, for the elect's sake, to be shortened, else "there should no flesh be saved." But while Daniel connects this tremendous crisis with the deliverance of his people, our Lord connects it also with a more solemn event. "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." I am not ignorant of the efforts made to show that this is not a real personal coming of Christ, but only a figure of his interposition in providence at the destruction of Jerusalem 1800 years ago. With you I need make no reply to this interpretation; as you quote the prediction of the time of unequalled trouble, as one yet to be fulfilled. And if it be not a personal coming which our Lord's words denote, I know of no language by which such an event could be described. And when we bear in mind the declaration which gave rise to the whole discourse, "Ye shall not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," I see not how the conclusion can be resisted, that in Matt. 24: 27-31, our Lord predicts the circumstances under which repentant Israel will see him again — see him, as truly and personally as when their impenitent forefathers saw him cross the threshold of that house which was "desolate" indeed when his presence was withdrawn.

Isa. 24-27 is another Scripture from which you quote, in reference to the solemn crisis which you regard, justly, I believe, as at hand. It is indeed an impressive testimony to those judgments, "by which," as you observe, "the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." But it is in the midst of this prophecy, connected both with the judgments to be executed and the blessedness to ensue, that we find the words quoted by the apostle in 1 Cor. 15: 54, quoted there by him with the most precise declaration of the epoch at which, and the event in which, they are to find their fulfilment. "So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." To speak of Rev. 20 as being the only or the principal passage which treats of a premillennial resurrection at Christ's coming, is surely to overlook this divinely-inspired comment of the apostle on the saying recorded by Isaiah. Seeing that the Holy Ghost has deigned to tell us in the New Testament when a certain prediction of the Old shall be accomplished, is it not boldness approaching to temerity, to insist on interposing a thousand years between the event foretold and the moment indicated for its accomplishment?

Isa. 59: 18, 19, is a remarkable prediction of the crisis you anticipate. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompense. So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him." Here we have the judgments, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the universal prevalence of piety which is to follow. But are these the whole of the events predicted in the passage? No; the next words are, "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." These are the words quoted by the apostle in Romans 11, where, predicting Israel's future conversion, he says "And, so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Should the variation between the passage in Isaiah and the quotation in Romans be insisted upon, it seems to me that either way the doctrine of the premillennial coming of Christ is established. If the Old Testament version be received, that coming is foretold; if that in the New Testament be preferred, it declares the presence of the Deliverer at the epoch in question, and thus presupposes his coming.

Both from Isaiah and from Joel you quote the passages which treat of the harvest and the vintage. I need not insert these quotations bore. But who can fail to note their connection with "the harvest" in Matt. 13, which our Lord declares to be "the end of the age" — the harvest and vintage in, Rev. 14, where "he that sat on the cloud (like unto the Son of man) thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped;" while "the winepress trodden without the city" is said, in Rev. 14: 15, to be trodden by the One who comes forth from heaven, followed by "the armies which were in heaven," to his victory over the beast, the false prophet, and their armies. On this coming and victory there follows, as foretold in the much-controverted twentieth chapter, the reign of the saints with Christ. To your remarks on this chapter, I would now turn.

Your first observation is, that in the Apocalypse "life and death, and rising from the dead, stand for the enjoyment, the loss, and the recovery of corporate or political existence and power." It is thus you interpret Rev. 11 and other portions of the book; and you infer that these words are to be so understood in Rev. 20. But with whatever weight this argument may apply to numerous pre-millenarian expositors of the Revelation, you are not unaware that there are those who look for the fulfilment of ch. 11 in the sackcloth testimony, martyr-death, and triumphant resurrection of two individual men, yet to appear on God's behalf in the crisis which is probably at hand. And should it even be conceded that the terms life, death, and resurrection, are in some parts of the Apocalypse used figuratively, it would not follow that they are to be so understood throughout the book. Much less can it be justly inferred from such premises that these terms are to be understood figuratively in passages of ch. 20, which certainly seem to be literal explanations of the symbolic scenes which the Prophet of Patmos beheld. "This is the first resurrection," and, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years," for no part of John's description of the vision which he beheld, but would appear to be a literal statement of what that division was designed to represent. So that if life, and death, and living again, were to be understood figuratively in John's statement of what he saw, it would by no means follow that they are to be understood thus in his explanatory statements; and it is in these that the proof of the doctrine of a pre-millennial resurrection of the saints is found.

You say "There is a very obvious reason for the distinctive epithet first, in the first resurrection which the world is to witness." It is, that "as the resurrection of an individual saint at the last day is, as it were, seminally contained in his spiritual life, in his being quickened in time; so it is with regard to the entire mass." "They have their part," you observe, "in the mystical body of Christ, which, when triumphant in every part of the world, has that triumph denominated by a resurrection, not of this or of that people, but generally by a first "resurrection."

But if this be so, how can "the rest of the dead" consist, as you represent, of "the rest of the wicked, slain as a party, having no corporate, acknowledged existence" till Satan is loosed, when "they do live" again in Gog and Magog's rebellion? Let the prophecy be understood as treating of a literal, bodily resurrection, and the language is intelligible and appropriate. Righteous and wicked are both alike dead in the sense of bodily dissolution; and it might, therefore with the utmost propriety be said, after naming the resurrection of the saints, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." Both form one aggregate of dead ones, of which part, after the abstraction of another part, can properly be termed "the rest of the dead." But if the risen and reigning martyrs do but represent the triumph and ascendency of the church during the 1000 years, and the resurrection of "the dead" the revival of wickedness at the close of that period, with what propriety, either as to language or facts, could this phrase, "the rest of the dead," be so used? As to language, I say: for surely the pre-millennial non-existence of the righteous as a party, and the millennial non-existence of the wicked as such, cannot make the two at any time appear, as one aggregate of dead ones, of which it could be said, that part of the dead rise, and "the rest of the dead" rise not again for 1000 years. The very idea carries absurdity on the face of it. Then the phrase is just as inappropriate as to facts. Do you really mean that prior to the millennium, truth and righteousness are to be so extinguished from amongst men, that the saints, "as a party," have no "corporate acknowledged existence?" If not, from what state of death do they emerge, rendering it in any sense proper to term the millennially non-existent wicked party "the rest of the dead"? No; the attempt to set aside the literal import of the words, "first resurrection" and "rest of the dead," involves all who make it in difficulties and confusion, with which the alleged difficulties of pre-millennialism bear no comparison whatever.

It seems to me that you greatly overrate the magnitude of the post-millennial rebellion, when you say "an extent of territory and a number of subjects is here ascribed to Satan such as the beast and the false prophet never had." The words of scripture are, that Satan "shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breath of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." No doubt it is a solemn defection from Christ which is thus depicted — an awful proof that unregenerate man, with every possible advantage, is powerless to withstand the enemy when he is let loose. But his going forth "to gather," would not necessarily imply that he succeeds in gathering all; and the expression "as the sand of the sea" is, as we all know, applied in the Old Testament to Israel, and does not, therefore, necessarily denote such an unprecedently overwhelming multitude as you represent. But be this as it may, what ground there can be for speaking of "millions upon millions of close hypocrites, mixed up with the company of the truly converted" during the millennium, I am at a loss to conceive. Forty or fifty years would be "a little season" compared with a "thousand;" and supposing that none were deceived by Satan, but those who were born after he was loosed, and who grew up without being converted, it is easy to realize how this part of the prophecy might be fulfilled. And if Satan could triumph over our first parents, when as yet their nature was untainted, what difficulty is there as to his permitted success with those who, confessedly, have the same need of regeneration as ourselves?

The objections as to the camp of the saints — and the beloved city being besieged — as though the inmates of that camp and city were the glorified saints — have been so often answered, that I will not repeat here what has thus been urged. It is easier to call such answers "castle-building," etc., than to present the slightest proof of our maintaining, or being under any necessity to maintain, that the occupants of the beloved city are any other than Israel after the flesh, dwelling in their own city Jerusalem. What more of inconsistency can there be in the idea of an attack by mortal foes on such a city and its mortal inhabitants, even though its name be "Jehovah Shammah," than in the thought of any similar attack in days gone by? Then, besides, the assault is an unsuccessful one; the enemies are permitted to come up; but it is to their own sudden and overwhelming and eternal overthrow.

You say, "the evangelist saw thrones, the symbols of honour and power; not one of them is specified as the throne of Christ. He is not here placed in front, nor as the principal figure, but named as an adjunct at the close of the verse, 'they lived and reigned with Christ.' 'I saw thrones and they sat on them;' they sat on them. Could it be the mind of the Spirit to point out, in such a form, the great coming of the Judge of all the earth, literally to fix His throne, with those of glorified saints, amongst or above all the potentates of the earth?" "What would we think," you enquire, "of the coming, the instalment, etc., of an earthly prince, related after the following fashion: — 'I saw chariots, and persons seated in them, and great honour was paid to them; they entered the city and the palace; they took their seats and were installed in their high and honourable offices with the prince'?"

I have quoted thus largely that I may not be supposed to do injustice to your argument, which has, at first sight, some appearance of strength. This appearance vanishes, however, on a moment's reflection. No one maintains that "the coming of the Judge of the earth" is pointed out in this vision of the millennial thrones and their occupants. All who regard this vision as depicting the personal reign of Christ and His saints, see the prediction of His coming in the latter part of chap. 19; and no one can allege that in the vision there portrayed, the central, conspicuous, and all-commanding place is not occupied by our Lord Himself. I am not at this moment discussing the import of the vision, or whether it be a personal coming of Christ that it sets forth. This you would, of course, dispute. But, in examining the views you controvert, fairness requires that you consider them as a whole. If those on whose tenets you remark see the coming of Christ in Rev. 19, and His reign with His saints in Rev. 20 it will never do to ignore their use of the former chapter, and assume that, in their view, the latter presents a theme which they believe the former alone to handle.

And if, as all millenarians insist, the coming is treated of in chap. 19, and the reign in chap. 20, what is there surprising in the fact that, the descent from heaven of the Lord Jesus Christ in pomp and majesty having been foretold, the saints being mentioned as mere attendants of His train, they should, in the description that follows, be mentioned first, as partaking of the glories of His reign? It is only by the arbitrary and unwarranted severance of the chapters, that this argument has show of plausibility or strength.

But you urge that the same remark applies, and with still greater force, to Dan. 7. In it, you say, we have both prophecy and interpretation. The prophet sees in vision "the Ancient of days" — God the Father. He beholds "one like unto the Son of man," and he "came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." To him, thus brought into the presence of the Ancient of days, all nations are rendered subject. "In the interpretation" of this vision, you say, "we have not so much as a hint of a personal coming of the Son of God to destroy Antichrist: but on the contrary, what forms a powerful argument against it." "In the symbolic part of the chapter everything is consigned over to him. In the interpretative part, what we have as the effect of transactions taking place in the invisible world is simply this, the kingdoms shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whom all dominions shall serve and obey."

In reply to this well put argument, I would, first of all, freely admit, that no coming of Christ to the earth is expressly treated of in Dan. 7. That is, no one could gather from that chapter alone, that the final and universal kingdom would be introduced by the coming of the Son of man to the earth. I lay stress on these words to the earth, for there is a coming treated of, but it is, as you urge, "to the Ancient of days." But though the chapter itself does not expressly teach the coming of Christ to this earth, there is an expression used as to His coming to the Ancient of days, which, when viewed in connexion with numerous quotations of it, and allusions to it, in other parts of scripture, makes it sufficiently evident, that a coming of Christ to the earth is to take place at the crisis of which this chapter treats. "I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Let it be remembered, then, that, when Daniel wrote, Jesus of Nazareth had not come in humiliation, nor was it as yet revealed that he was the "one like unto the Son of man." But there can be no doubt that this title "Son of man" was appropriated by our adorable Lord, and in His lips the phrase "came with the clouds of heaven" received a significance and application, which could scarcely have been inferred from the mere language of the prophecy itself. "And then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." (Matt. 24: 30.) They shall see! True, that in Dan. 7, the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of days might seem to be "a transaction taking place in the invisible world." But in our Lord's quotation of its phraseology, we find that there are to be human spectators, either of this transaction, or of its immediate result. The tribes of the earth are to see the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven. Equally emphatic is our Lord's allusion to this prophecy when before Caiaphas. Adjured by the living God to say whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, the meek and holy Sufferer replies, "Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26: 64.)

Do we object, then, to listen to the angelic interpretation to Daniel, of the vision he had beheld? By no means. We only object to the understanding it in such a sense as to set aside the interpretation of it by a greater than the angel — by the Son of man Himself.

Should it still be asked why there is no mention of the Son of man by the angel, but only repeated mention of "the saints of the Most High," let the following suggestion be weighed. In Daniel's day the question of all-absorbing interest, was not so much as to the Person by whose coming the kingdom and dominion should be wrested from the hands of its Gentile possessors; but as to its transfer by the Most High from these haughty oppressors of His people, to the very saints whom they persecuted and trod under foot. Daniel was a captive; the holy people were in bondage to the Gentiles: the holy city was in their hands, to waste and to destroy; and the vision and interpretation of Dan. 7 were evidently designed to put in relief the assurance, ominous indeed to the Gentiles, but most consolatary to Jewish saints, that the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, would, in His own time, execute judgment on the imperial power of the Gentiles, and transfer to His own down-trodden people the sceptre of the whole earth.

Even this could not be made known without a revelation of the glorious One in and through whom these counsels of God are to be accomplished; and accordingly, in the vision, "in the symbolic part of the chapter," as you say, "everything is consigned over to Him." When the blessed Heir of these dignities was here and rejected by the people — His own earthly people, who are to hold under Him the dominion under the whole heaven — the question of His person and of His coming became the all important one; and He leaves no room for doubt, that His coming in the clouds of heaven will be visible to all; that public as was the humiliation He underwent, the insults heaped upon Him by mankind, so public shall be the display of His glory, the vindication of His outraged dignities and claims. "Behold he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." (Rev. 1: 7.)

In the remarks on John 5: 28, 29, Dan. 12: 2, and on the subject of a premillennial resurrection of the saints as a whole, there is nothing but what has been urged and answered by almost all who have discussed the subject. If the "hour" in which the Son of God quickens dead souls has already lasted 1800 years, why should not the "hour" in which "all that are in the graves shall come forth" be of more than 1000 years duration? And why speak of a "resurrection of life" and a "resurrection of judgment," if there be but one simultaneous resurrection of those who, after being raised, are divided into classes, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats? Why speak of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25 as fulfilled in the resurrection and judgment of all mankind, when there is no mention of resurrection in the passage, and when the term employed is never used in scripture except of living nations?

It is not a gratuitous assumption, a mere begging of the question, that in Matt. 13 συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶυός means "the end of the age," or "present premillennial dispensation." It is, on the contrary, a meaning of the words demonstrated to be correct, by the accustomed force of the words themselves, and by the entire scope of the divine instruction which the chapter contains. The subject of the chapter is "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" — mysteries, which have their existence and development contemporaneously with Israel's rejection of Christ, and the judicial blindness under which, in consequence, that nation lies. To, suppose that these "mysteries" extend beyond the era of Israel's dispersion, and the universal triumph of truth and righteousness with which all scripture associates Israel's restoration, would be to confound things which most widely and obviously differ: and nothing can be plainer than that the transition from "mystery" to "manifestation" — from the period of patience to that of the establishment of righteousness by power is, in this chapter, identical with the harvest, the end of the age. The millennial saints, whom you would have included in "the net," or amongst "the wheat and tares," evidently belong to "the age to come" — the period of manifestation and of power.

You assert that "there is no dispensation but one, that of the gospel, so long as sin and Satan exist, — so long as there may be found in the world deceivable mortals exposed to signal divine visitation, — so long as death, the last enemy, as well as he who had the power of death, are undestroyed." If all you mean by this is, that all saved sinners, from Adam or Abel down to the last that shall be converted, are saved by grace, through faith, saved on the ground of Christ's atoning work, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, most gladly do I concur in all this. But this is no warrant for denying the existence of separate dispensations. When the apostle says, "until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law," does he describe the same dispensation as in another passage where he says "the words spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward?" Is there no change of dispensation indicated by our Lord's words, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil," etc.? Was the "heir differing nothing from a servant, though lord of all," under the same dispensation as he to whom the apostle says, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son: and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ?" (Gal. 4) Can it be all one and the same dispensation in which Jews and Gentiles were separated by a "middle wall of partition," and in which, that wall having been broken down, and peace having been made by the blood of the cross, Jew and Gentile are both one in Christ? It is to differences like these, that the phrase "difference of dispensations" is applied. Call them by what names you please, who can deny their existence, or the stress laid upon them in God's word? And while the proof of this point would require more time and space than would befit my present, communication, proof is not wanting of a future change of dispensation. When suffering is exchanged for triumph, Satan bound, and Christ and His saints filling the place for good which he and his angels have done for evil and misrule, surely a change of dispensation of no small magnitude will have taken place.

Christ sits, you say, "at the right hand of God till his enemies are made his footstool. He therefore sits there all through the millennium." Not so: God's making Christ's enemies His footstool is evidently distinct from Christ's subjugation of His foes by His own power. The effect of Christ's enemies being put as a footstool under His feet is, that Zion becomes the earthly centre of His power in judgment, the rod of His strength being sent out of Zion, while He rules in the midst of His enemies. Once He was crucified through weakness (2 Cor. 13: 4). Now, He waits in patience, "expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." (Heb. 10: 13.) Ere long, His people shall be willing in the day of His power. (Ps. 110: 3.) And He who is now at Jehovah's right hand "shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath." (ver. 5.) "The heavens must receive him until the time of restitution of all things." On this you remark, "from what we have seen of the nature of the millennium, there is then no restitution of all things, though great progress is made towards it. This restitution, if any where, is described in 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 'Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,'" etc. Had Peter said "whom the heaven must receive till all things have been restored," there might have been some force in this argument; but his language was "until the times of restitution of all things." and surely these are millennial times. How all things can be restored when the heavens and the earth flee away, and no place is found for them, it would be difficult to explain.

Having replied at large to Dr. Brown's remarks on Acts 2 and 3 (see Plain Papers, pages 448-454), I must refer you to what is there advanced as my answer to what you give on those chapters, acknowledging your obligations to Dr. B.

No one supposes that the destruction of death is premillennial; but the swallowing up death in victory is decided to be so by Isa. 25 as we have already seen. The fact is, that the whole millennial period, and the little season which succeeds, are characterized by Christ's actively subduing, by His own power, the enemies who are put as a footstool under His feet at the moment He arises from Jehovah's throne. The last of these is death, which is not destroyed till after the judgment of the great white throne.

Nor have I the least idea that the conflagration of 2 Peter 3 is pre-millennial. That "the day of the Lord," "the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men," includes the whole millennial period is sufficiently evident, I think, from many passages. And it is a day "in the which" the universal conflagration will surely take place. But Peter says nothing to decide in what part of the day, whether in its early dawn or at its close, this solemn event occurs. A comparison of his statements with Rev. 20, 21 seems to me to make it plain that it is at the very close of the day. The new heavens and the new earth of Rev. 21: 1 seem to follow at once on the events foretold at the close of the previous chapter: and between these events and some of which Peter treats there is surely a close resemblance, if not absolute identity. But it is the day as a whole, with the succeeding post-millennial state, for which Peter says we wait.

No doubt, "the trump of God" (1 Thess. 4), and the "last trump" (1 Cor. 15), denote one and the same signal of the resurrection and translation of the saints at the coming of the Lord. But we have seen that the Holy Ghost authoritatively associates these events with the fulfilment of a prophecy assuredly premillennial: and unless there be mention made of the sound of a trumpet in some passage undeniably treating of post-millennial events, this declaration of the apostle ought surely to over-rule all objections founded on the expression "the last trump."

"The expression 'the last day' simply conveys to our minds," you observe, "the idea of the termination of time." To this I do not know of any sound objection. But be it remembered that for all of whom Christ says (in John 6 repeating the statement four times) "I will raise him up at the last day," time has terminated, and it is not to another time-state — to natural life — that they are restored, but everlasting life, as to their bodies, as well as their souls. But to assume that time has therefore terminated with all mankind is certainly to beg the question, which in part at least is this, Whether, during the millennium, there be not two departments of blessedness, heaven and earth, the one bearing all the characteristics of a dispensation in time, the other eternal and without change. Scripture does testify, that it is the purpose and counsel of God in the "dispensation of the fulness of times to gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him" (Eph. 1) — Has not "Christ the first-fruits" entered personally on His eternal and unchanging state? And has He no present connexions with the world and time? Why should not the harvest, of which He is "the first-fruits," similarly enter on a state of perfect, unchanging, eternal blessedness and glory, and yet for a thousand years be ministers of light, healing, liberty, and joy, to those who are still in a mundane state?

Believing in no "millennial Adamics" different from all who bear the image of the first Adam, and need to receive, in regeneration and resurrection, the image of the second, I feel myself under no obligation to defend what may have been advanced on such a subject by others.

I know not how to understand your intimation (page 123,) that the Saviour's words "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled" referred to the accomplishment of that entire prophecy, Matt. 24 in the destruction of Jerusalem and its attendant events. You seem so definitely to quote Daniel's prophecy of the time of unequalled trouble, repeated, by our Lord in this chapter, as yet to be fulfilled in the approaching crisis of nations, that I was unprepared for such an interpretation as that now referred to. You do indeed, on this same page, speak of Christ's coming "upon the Jews, and the analogous one upon the Gentile nations, which is generally expected." But the Saviour's words are much too precise to admit of a double interpretation like this. If "this generation" meant the succession of men then living upon earth, and if our Lord thus affirmed that the men then living should not die till everything He had foretold should be accomplished, any application of His words to yet future events, is clearly out of the question. And yet it does appear to me that he must be a bold man, who would undertake to prove that all included by our Lord in "these things" was fulfilled during the life-time of His contemporaries on earth. But this is a subject too wide to enter upon here.

As to Luke 17 if the heavenly saints who are, at, Christ's coming, to be caught up to meet Him, and so he for ever with Him, were the only persons recognized as His people; if there were to be no Jewish saints spared throughout the unequalled tribulation; no elect for whose sakes those days are to be shortened; I could understand your argument drawn from the directions not to flee, etc. These are evidently designed for Christ's earthly Jewish disciples, the Jewish remnant in the approaching crisis, not for the Church, which at a previous stage of his descent, will have been caught up to meet Him in the air. "One of the days of the Son of man" will doubtless be the object of intense, longing desire, to that deeply tried remnant; and for a while their desire will be unfulfilled, drawing forth from them the well-known prophetic utterance, "Lord, how long?"

Millenarians do not question the sufficiency of God's word and Spirit for the conversion of any; nor do they suppose that any will be converted otherwise than by the Spirit and word of God. But God's government of the world is something entirely distinct from His gracious operations in converting souls. Souls have been converted through all the changing forms of the divine administration, in regard to the government of the world, and will, doubtless, in greater numbers than ever, be converted during the millennial age. All who will then be converted will owe their regeneration to the Holy Spirit, who will then, as now, act by the word.

But the government of the world will not be then by secret providence as it has been ever since the fall. It will not be a theocracy, administered as in Israel heretofore, by mere fallible human agents; much less will it be the imperial Gentile rule which began with the permitted overthrow of the Lord's throne at Jerusalem. It will be the reign of Christ and His heavenly saints, to whom (Satan being bound and all obstinate rebels having been destroyed) will be committed the administration of the world's government for a thousand years. Happy period! Happier still the portion of those, who, having been partakers of Christ's sufferings, shall then be the sharers of His throne, and companions of His joy.

I fear you have greatly misunderstood millenarians, if you suppose that we overlook the spiritual operation involved in Israel's conversion, or that we deem the agency of the Holy Ghost insufficient to effect it. But if there was nothing inconsistent with these foundation truths in the peculiar circumstances attending the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, why should they be thought to be impugned by those who see in scripture (or think they see) that Israel's conversion will be attended by their literally looking on Him whom they have pierced. Will the spiritual view be less efficacious because of His being revealed to their mortal gaze? That their unbelief, like that of Thomas, should demand such proof, is doubtless to their reproach. "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." Such is the superior blessedness to which we have been called by sovereign grace. But how touching the grace, which in convincing Thomas and subduing Saul, by means of that which appealed to the senses, as well as to the conscience and the heart, afforded a type of the mercy yet to be extended to Israel after the flesh.

As to 2 Thess. 2 believing, with many others, that Antichrist is a person, the use of the word παρουσία, as to him, is with me no presumption against its being used personally of our Lord, in every instance of its occurrence as to Him, both in that and in the former epistle. And it does seem to me that the means used to evade the proof afforded by this chapter of Christ's personal, premillennial coming, are such as would not be tolerated in regard to any other book than scripture.

As I once wrote elsewhere — "Suppose a mere human author to write two treatises, the latter intended to throw further light on the subject of the former; suppose that a certain term or phrase occurs more frequently than any other in these writings, and that this phrase is always used in one fixed determinate sense; suppose that it has been thus used twelve or thirteen times without one exception, and that this is acknowledged by all who read the writings in question. There is however, a fourteenth instance in which the phrase occurs. There is no intimation on the part of the writer that he uses it in a different sense. There is nothing in the immediate context to require that it should be understood in a different sense. So far from this, it is employed in the usual sense at the commencement of the paragraph in which it again occurs in the instance supposed. What should we think of any one who would contend, in a case like this, that the phrase is to be understood in a different sense, the fourteenth time of its occurrence, from that in which it is used in all the former instances?" Now this is what you do with Paul's two epistles to the Thessalonians: and it is the only way in which you can evade the demonstration afforded by chap. 2 second epistle, of the pre-millennial personal coming of Christ.

But you urge that Antichrist is said to be "consumed by the breath of his mouth," as well as destroyed by the brightness of His coming! But ἀναλίσκω strictly means "to take away" — "to destroy." Liddell and Scott, though giving the sense "to use up, lavish, squander" when applied to money or substance, say "(ii.) of PERSONS, to kill, to destroy." It is the word used in Luke 9: 54, where the disciples inquire, if they may ask fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan villagers. Its use in 2 Thess. 2 cannot therefore be allowed as an argument for the gradual weakening of antichrist by the truth, or gospel, prior to his complete destruction by the brightness of Christ's coining. Further, "the breath, or spirit of his mouth" does not, as far as I can gather from scripture, mean "the gospel" or the "saving influences of the Spirit." Job 4: 9-15: 30; Isa. 30: 28; also 33: all use the phrase of judgment on the wicked persons, not of converting influences on men's souls.

As to your closing argument from Rev. 19 that the nature of the case forbids the thought of mortal men turning their puny weapons against the Lord, personally revealed from heaven, I answer; First, that it is impossible to say to what amount of hardihood human wickedness, inspired to madness by Satan's utmost power, may extend. Think of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. If after the ten plagues, and the miracle of one person dead in every house of the Egyptians, while not one of the blood-sheltered Israelites fell: if after all this, and the equally miraculous opening of the Red Sea to let the redeemed hosts pass through, they could and did, and that too, in the face of the pillar of cloud and fire, pursue Israel into the bed of the Red Sea, there to meet a watery grave, it is hard to say what human wickedness may not attempt. But, secondly, it is a purely gratuitous assumption, that the heavenly and earthly armies are arrayed in each other's sight, like two mere human hosts; or that the beast, false prophet, and their armies see anything of Christ and His heavenly followers, till the moment they are smitten with destruction by the overwhelming apparition. They are "gathered together to make war against his army;" but surely this language does not imply that they do or that they can carry out their intent after He and His army appear. Was not Saul of Tarsus fighting against Christ — kicking against the pricks — albeit he had not seen Him, and could not bear to behold Him when He appeared? It was in mercy that Christ appeared to him, though even thus he was smitten to the ground, and blinded for three days. It will be in judgment that He appears to the anti-Christian confederacy, the heads of which will be cast alive into the lake of fire, while their followers are slain, not converted, by the sword of Him that sat upon the horse.

From the Old Testament I have no doubt that it is against Christ, in His connexion with Israel and the holy land, that the anti-christian forces will be gathered.

It will assuredly he in ignorance of what awaits them, that for their own purposes of ambition and hatred to God, they will have assembled there. "Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel; FOR HE SHALL GATHER THEM AS THE SHEAVES INTO HIS FLOOR" Micah 4: 11, 12). True, that in the prophet, the daughter of Zion is exhorted to "arise and thresh," and Israel will, doubtless, be used as executioners of the divine vengeance; but the Apocalypse shows, as well as certain Old Testament passages, as Zech. 14, Isa. 66, etc., that the overthrow of the ungodly confederacy will, first of all, be by the sudden, unlooked for, descent of Christ and His heavenly hosts.

Excuse, my dear Sir, this hasty sketch, and believe me, with sincere christian regards. W. T.

Chapter 8 — "PRESENT STATE OF CONTROVERSIES ON APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION."

To the Editor of "The Bible Treasury."

DEAR BROTHER,

The above, as you are doubtless aware, is the title of a Fourth Appendix to the recently published volume of "Warburtonian Lectures" by the Rev. E. B. Elliott. A considerable part of this Appendix is occupied with a review of the Futurist controversy, in reference to which Mr. E. notices, among other works, a volume of mine, the title of which he misquotes, and the authorship of which he attributes to another. May I ask a page in "The Treasury" for the purpose of correcting these mistakes? In doing so, I would further, if I may, make a remark or two on Mr. E.'s quotations from the book referred to, as well as on the general question of Apocalyptic interpretation.

The title of the volume quoted by Mr. Elliott is "Plain Papers on Prophetic and other Subjects." Mr. E. calls it "Plain Tracts on Prophetic Subjects," and attributes it (with the qualifying clause, however, "as I believe") to "Mr. Macintosh." 'The fact is, the volume was published anonymously, without the least desire on my part for its authorship to be known; but as the French translation of it in two volumes, by M. Recordon, was, without my knowledge, published with my name, their remains no motive for longer withholding it in this country. And as I perceive the "London Monthly Review" has attributed the work to my valued friend, the author of "Outlines of Typical Teaching," a series of papers now appearing in that Review, it seems desirable, once for all, to acknowledge that the sole responsibility for the work devolves on your unworthy correspondent, whose name will be found at the close of this letter. I have no complaint to make of any one; I am only ashamed to have occupied so much space with so insignificant a subject.

The subject of Apocalyptic interpretation, however, is far from being insignificant; and whatever may be the amount of present differences of judgment among prayerful, diligent, students of prophecy, we may well rejoice in the amount of attention which is being directed to it, and we may surely trust the great Head of the Church to bless the calm, dispassionate discussion of points on which differences exist, to the gradual clearing up of the subject, so that seeing light in His light, we may see "eye to eye" with one another also. It ought to be easy to us all to consider what may be advanced against those views which may have commended themselves to our own minds; and should such counter-arguments have real weight, it should be equally easy to acknowledge our mistakes, and bow to the truth by which our views are corrected and enlarged.

Mr. E. re-asserts, in the Appendix above-named, the objection urged by him in former works to that which is known as "Futurism" in the exposition of the Book of Revelation, and states his conviction that they have not been answered in any works on the subject which have since appeared. Would it not have been well for him, as he does quote "Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects," and has evidently read the volume, to notice the reply afforded by the following paragraph to one of his chief reasons for the historical mode of interpretation? His omitting to notice what follows is the most remarkable, as he does, for another purpose, quote the very context of the paragraph itself:-

"The weightiest argument urged by those who maintain the exclusively historic application of Rev. 4-19, is, that to interpret them of the future, leaves an interval between the days in which they were written, and the commencement of their application, longer than we can suppose would have been left without any information as to the events by which it should be marked. The whole force of this argument rests on the assumption that it is in chaps. 4-19, alone, that such information is to be sought for or expected. We have the information in Rev. 2 and 3. The argument is, therefore, without value and without force. Nay more, it suggests an argument of real weight in favour of the futurism of chaps. 4-19 Seeing that we have, in chaps. 2 and 3, that which applies to the whole period from the apostles' days to the excision of the professing body, why should we have it repeated in the succeeding chapters? Further, Rev. 9 begins the declaration of 'things which must be after these;' and as the things which are,' exhibited in chaps. 2 and 3 are still in existence, it, is clearly not in the present or past — not in a period contemporaneous with 'the things which are' — that we must look for 'the things which must be after these.'" (Plain Papers, etc., pp. 350, 351).

Now, who that has read the fourth edition of Mr. E.'s Horae, and especially his "Review of the Futurists' Apocalyptic Counter Scheme," in the latter part of vol. 4, does not remember that his first argument is "The supposed instant plunge of the Apocalyptic prophecy into the distant future of the consummation." With such a "plunge" the futurism of "Plain Papers," etc., is not chargeable; and here I must beg the reader to remember that the paragraph just quoted from the volume is merely a statement of the position maintained, not of the reasonings by which it is supported. For these reasonings I must refer to the work itself; especially the paper on "Apocalyptic Interpretation," commencing from page 341.

It is from that paper Mr. E. quotes, in representing me as strongly asserting "the principle that a prayerful scripture student, 'entirely unacquainted with the details of profane history,' or 'the vicissitudes of political and ecclesiastical affairs, during the last eighteen centuries,' may 'equally with the most learned' study and understand prophetic scriptures, in so far as they concern Christ's glory, in His relation to the Church, to Israel, or to the world.'" To his charge of inconsistency with myself on this point, I hope shortly to advert. Had the whole passage been transferred to Mr. E.'s pages, instead of a clause here, and another there, his readers would have seen that I am far from denying that human learning is of any use in prophetic studies, or from affirming that history may never with propriety be referred to in their prosecution. What I maintain is, that the Christian is not necessarily dependent on such resources. These are my words:-

"If the glory of Christ be the object, the things of Christ the subject, and the Holy Ghost Himself the communicator of prophetic instruction, the Christian cannot be dependent for the possession of it on human learning. A man might possess vast stores of erudition, and be able with ease to quote every page of this world's dark history, and not be in the least better prepared for the study of God's prophetic word. The humble Christian, unable to read the scriptures in any language but his own, and entirely unacquainted with the details of profane history, may, nevertheless, prayerfully study the prophetic scriptures. Equally with the most learned, he may count on his Father's faithful love to enable him, by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, to understand and receive what these scriptures unfold of the diverse glories of Christ, the Son, whether in His relation to the Church, which is His body, or to Israel, the world, and creation, over the whole of which His rule is yet to extend. It is in the establishment of this blessed universal sway, and in the dealings of God, whether in judgment or in grace, by which it is immediately preceded, that we have the great subjects of prophecy, and especially of the Apocalypse — not in those vicissitudes of political and ecclesiastical affairs throughout the last eighteen centuries, with which the pages of historians are filled." (Plain Papers, etc., pp. 343, 344).

Mr. E. seeks to prove me inconsistent with myself on this point by adducing instances in which I have referred to well-known historical facts and epochs, in illustration of certain subjects, or in support of certain arguments. Had I maintained that human learning and historical information were absolutely useless or invariably mischievous, his proof of inconsistency would have been complete, and I must have pleaded guilty to the charge. But when all that I have affirmed is, that these qualifications are not indispensable — that "the great subjects of prophecy" are such that the uneducated, but humble and prayerful, student of scripture may become acquainted with them, I see nothing in such a position to interdict my own use of any acquaintance with history I may possess, or to forbid my appealing to well-known historical facts, especially in controverting views which mainly depend on historical evidence. Such a use of history bears no real resemblance to that made of it by Mr. E. in his "Horae," and in his Lectures. The results of historical and antiquarian research, and that on the most gigantic scale, form the staple of his Apocalyptic exposition. These results must either be taken on trust — and this Mr. E. would scarcely desire, — or they must be tested by those competent to judge of their accuracy. The qualifications for this are possessed by few indeed: and can we suppose that it is to such a few that acquaintance with God's revelation of the future is designedly restricted? Mr. E. may seek to identify his principle of historic interpretation with the very occasional and subordinate allusions to history made by writers of futurist views; but there is no more real identity between them than exists between Paul's quotation from a heathen poet, in his address to an Athenian audience, and the sermons of certain preachers of past generations, who made quotations from the Greek and Latin classics the staple of their pulpit ministrations.

Had Mr. Elliot deemed the volume worthy of a fuller notice, or even this single paper on "Apocalyptic Interpretation," his readers would have found that there is a kind of "futurism" held by some, entirely distinct from the Tractarian futurism of Dr. Maitland, and differing in several important aspects from that of Mr. Molyneux. They would have found it supported, moreover, by a class of arguments such as Mr. E. has certainly not met, nor attempted to meet, either in his older or more recent writings on the subject. The distinction between the course of providential events, with which history is concerned, and that solemn final crisis, to which prophecy in general seems to point; our Lord's own threefold division of the book of Revelation, the one part succeeding the other, instead of their being contemporaneous; the possibility of chapters 4-19, being rightly understood, both on a protracted scale, and as having their definite fulfilment in a short future crisis; the difference between the divine names and titles in the Apocalypse and in the other apostolic writings; the judicial character which attaches to heavenly scenes and personages in this book, so strikingly contrasting with the full unmingled grace of the present dispensation; as well as the marked differences between the cries for vengeance which characterize the Apocalyptic sufferers and the prayers for forgiveness of their enemies, by which Christ and christian martyrs are distinguished, are all arguments for the futurity of Apocalyptic scenes, with which it would be well for the esteemed author of the "Horae" and the "Warburtonian Lectures" to grapple, when he again writes a review of the Futurist controversy. On one point, if not trespassing too largely on your space, I should be glad to furnish another extract from the Paper on "Apocalyptic Interpretation." It is in reference to the systems, such as Mede's, Bishop Newton's, and Mr. Elliott's own, "which tie down the Apocalyptic visions to a supposed fulfilment in historic details."

"It would be easy, from the contrariety of these systems to one another, to show that they are mutually destructive of each others' claims definitely to explain the particulars of what they all allege to be fulfilled prophecy. But though this forms no part of our object, it may be well, in adverting to this topic, to point out to the reader a distinction of no small importance. Twenty students of the Apocalypse, agreeing in this, that from chap. 4 it is as yet unfulfilled, may have different interpretations of this unfulfilled prophecy to suggest. Such differences do but prove that the prophecy is as yet far from being understood. The partial or total ignorance of the expositors accounts for such differences. But suppose twenty expositors should agree with each other in maintaining that these chapters, or most of them, are absolutely and finally fulfilled, and yet have twenty conflicting theories of interpreting them, — what do such differences prove? Not only that the expositors are mistaken in their theories, but also that the basis on which they all proceed is a mistake. What claim can a prophecy have to be a fulfilled one, when twenty can suppose it to have been fulfilled in twenty different events? . . . Scripture does contain fulfilled prophecies; but no such obscurity hangs over them. There are not twenty ways in which godly people suppose the prophecies of our Lord's birth, earthly parentage, miracles, betrayal, and crucifixion, to have been fulfilled. And had the Apocalyptic seals, trumpets, and vials been actually accomplished, there would not have been among expositors so many conflicting methods of explaining them." (Plain Papers, etc., pp. 352, 353.)

The writer of "Plain Papers" has never represented Antichrist as "both enthroned within the city (of Jerusalem) and besieging the city from without at one and the same time." The truth seems to be that Antichrist, in league with the apostate portion of the Jews who will have returned to their own land, will be in possession of Jerusalem, and himself besieged thereby "the king of the North," (Dan. 11: 40, 41) when the Lord appears, to the destruction of the wicked both among besiegers and besieged.

Mr. E. notices, as a peculiarity in "Plain Papers, etc.," that they "make the two sackcloth-robed witnesses' three and a half years of witnessing to precede, instead of being identical with, Antichrist's three and a half years of supremacy in Jerusalem, the one being the first half, the other the second half, of Daniel's last hebdomad." "But," objects Mr. E., "unfortunately Apoc. 11: 2 expressly defines the two witnesses' three and a half years as the three and a half years of the Gentiles treading down the holy city." I have turned, since reading this, to Rev. 11: 2, and can find no mention in it of the two witnesses. They are not named before the 3rd verse; and it certainly seems to me open to serious question whether the "thousand two hundred and threescore days" of verse 3 are the same period as the forty and two months of the previous verse. But the question of Daniel's last hebdomad, and its connexions with the Apocalyse, is much too wide for a communication like the present.

The Lord give to all His people humbly and prayerfully to search His word, and vouchsafe to us a good understanding in all things.

Believe me, my dear brother,

Yours faithfully,

Wm. TROTTER.

THE PREMILLENNIAL CONTROVERSY.*

[*The above paper, from the pen of a respected and venerable brother in Christ, we insert, though attaching much less weight than he does to the formularies of the fourth and following centuries, when the Church had fallen low indeed. Neither do we think that the English reformers had any light to speak of on "that blessed hope." — ED.]

PLAIN men are apt to think that if the premillennial advent of our Lord be the true doctrine, it ought to be made as plain as possible to the whole body of the Church. That is reasonable. But the objection that the majority of the Church at present are against the doctrine is no good reason against it. The majority, perhaps, may not give heed to the light of prophecy; they may not humbly invoke the Spirit of prophecy to their aid. "Do not interpretations belong to God?" Balaam, a bad man, was a true prophet; and a good man may be a false interpreter of prophecy: a good man may not be good in all respects. In these benevolent but bustling times, a minister who has little leisure may be so little learned on this important point, that some of the flock may have the advantage of him. Even with great leisure and application, we find that on this, as on other subjects, a single fundamental error in the premises will vitiate the whole argument. One of the signs of our times ought to arrest the attention of the whole Church, namely, that of the prophecy of scoffers in the last days, saying, Where is the promise of His coming? This implies a prominent preaching of the advent on the very eve of it, and such a preaching is now in progress. It is worse indeed to be a scoffer, but it is not good to be unwise.

There was a time, and that the earliest, when the majority of the Church was not against this doctrine. It was believed and taught by the most eminent fathers of the age, next after the apostles, "that before the end of the world Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years, and that the saints should reign under Him in all holiness and happiness." This doctrine was by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, and therefore it was the catholic doctrine of the Church of that age; it was taught as such, and not as a matter of private opinion. None denied that it was the tradition of the Church, clearly derived and authentically delivered. Up to the middle of the third century this doctrine had prevailed and met with no opposition; but thenceforth it began to decline — principally, says Mosheim, through the authority of Origen, who opposed it because it was incompatible with some of his favourite sentiments. "It was overborne," says Chillingworth, "by imputing to the Millenaries that which they held not; by abrogating the authority of St John's Revelation, as some did; or by derogating from it as others, ascribing it not to St. John the apostle, but to some other John, they knew not whom; by calling it a Judaical opinion, and yet allowing it to be probable by corrupting the authors for it."

It is objected that the creeds drawn up in the early ages of Christianity, the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, show that the Church of those days confessed that Christ would judge all men, both the quick and the dead, at the time of His coming. They did so, grounding that article of their faith on such scriptures as Acts 10: 42; 1 Peter 4: 5; 2 Tim. 4: 1. But as Augustine said truly, speaking of the particulars of eternal judgment, "All these things, it is to be believed, shall come to pass, but in what manner and in what order they may come to pass, experience of the things themselves shall then teach us, rather than the understanding of man can perfectly attain to it at present." The general doctrine of universal judgment was all that was intended to be confessed in the creeds, not the particulars.

I must add one fact connected with this subject, showing the opinion of our Reformers in England. The prophecy, Jer. 23: 5-8, compared with its parallel Jer. 33: 16, all foretells our Lord's reign on earth at the time when the Jews shall be restored to their own land; which reign on earth is elsewhere expressed by His sitting on the throne of David (2 Sam. 7: 12, 13; Ps. 89: 3, 4; Isa. 9: 6; Luke 1: 32, 33; Acts 2: 30). But when He shall sit on that throne, He will give rewards of grace to His servants. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3: 21). Now the Church of England annually anticipates the second advent of our Lord in its advent services, introducing them always by reading that prophecy, Jer. 23 for the epistle, on Sunday next before advent. The collect for that day was taken out of St. Gregory's Sacramentary, but the epistle and gospel were both newly selected by our Reformers in the reign of Edward the sixth.* Surely, then, the objection that the majority of the Church of Christ in the present day are opposed to the doctrine of His premillennial advent is not so formidable as the fact itself is to be regretted. H. G.

See Comber on the Common Prayer, Vol. 1, Part 1, See. 20.

The Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God.

W. Trotter.

BT vol. N2 p. 347 etc.

No. 1.

There is no phrase which it is more important to understand in connection with prophetic inquiries than "the kingdom of God." To ascertain the origin and force of this expression, in the scriptures of truth, is the object of my present communication.

It must be obvious at the outset that our inquiries must commence farther back than the actual use of the phrase in the New Testament. No one can observe the way in which it is used by John the Baptist, as well as by our Lord Himself and His disciples, without perceiving that it was an expression with which their hearers were conversant. It was no new expression, and the mere utterance of it communicated no new thought to the minds of men (that is, among the Jews, of course). It would be of little moment to enquire what their thoughts of this kingdom were. The only source from which they could receive right thoughts on the subject is as open to us as to them; and open to us, blessed be God, with this difference in our favour, that the Holy Spirit, by whom holy men were inspired to write the scriptures of the Old Testament, now dwells in the saints — dwells in us, for this purpose among many others, to open to us fully, as the friends of Christ and members of His body, what was hid from saints in former ages, yea, what was but very obscurely seen by the prophets themselves.

Even the prophets of old are represented as "searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow." Yes, it was not to themselves, but to us, that they ministered those divine communications of which they were made the vehicles; and we are thus in better circumstances for understanding those communications than even the holy men through whom they were made and recorded. And it is this, and this alone, the teaching of the indwelling Spirit, the Comforter, that can enable us to understand those varied testimonies to the grace and glory of Christ. It is not any natural clearness of judgment or any amount of humanly-acquired information, that will make us well instructed scribes in the kingdom of heaven. We are ignorant alike of the "old things" and the "new" which pertain to that kingdom, except as we sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him, Whose voice it is by the Spirit that we hear in the prophets of the Old Testament, as well as in the apostles and prophets of the New. May it be in the spirit of child-like submission to Him and dependence upon Him that we pursue our present inquiry; and may it be, through His grace, fruitful in instruction and blessing to our souls!

There is one point on which there can be no question. God is often spoken of as a King. "Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King and my God; for unto thee will I pray" (Ps. 5: 2). "Jehovah is King for ever and ever" (Ps. 10: 16). "Jehovah sitteth upon the flood; yea, Jehovah sitteth King for ever" (Ps. 29: 10). "Thou art my King, O God" (Ps. 44: 4). "For Jehovah Most High is terrible; He is a great King over all the earth" (Ps. 47: 2). "Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises; for God is the King of all the earth" (Ps. 47: 6, 7).  "They have seen thy goings, O God; even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary" (Ps. 68: 24). "For God is my King of old" (Ps. 74: 12). "For Jehovah is a great God, and a great King above all gods" (Ps. 95: 3). "With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before Jehovah, the King" (Ps. 98: 6).

All these citations are from one book of scripture, and many more might be quoted. See also the following, "Mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts" (Isa. 6: 5). "For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King" (Isa. 38: 22). "I am Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King" (Isa. 43: 15). "Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?" (Jer. 10: 7). "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, Jehovah of hosts" (Zech. 14: 16). We cannot suppose that God would have so largely spoken of Himself as King if it had not been important for us to know Him in this character; and it will be found on examination of some of the above passages, along with many others of like import, that we have very explicit and copious instructions in God's word on this subject. May it be ours to receive it in simplicity of heart and godly subjection to the authority of the written word!

The first point to which I would solicit attention is this, that while God, the everlasting King, unquestionably reigns uncontrolled over all the works of His hands, visible and invisible, overruling by His power even the rage and rebellion of His enemies, it has pleased Him, at various periods for the display of His glory as King, to delegate His authority over a certain sphere, putting those entrusted with it under responsibility to Himself to exercise their delegated power and rule according to His will. Adam, for instance, was made ruler over all the lower parts of creation, as we read (Gen. 1: 26), "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." The fulfilment of this we see in verse 28. The whole passage is referred to in Ps. 8: 4-8, which is again quoted by the apostle in Heb. 2: 6-9 as a prediction of the future dominion of Christ, the Son of man, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.

I dwell not on these passages except just to remark that Adam, failing to exercise his delegated power in obedience to Him Who had entrusted him therewith, God's purpose to put this earth under the dominion of man was not to be set aside. The full remedy for the failure of the first man being found in the obedience unto death of the Second man, the Lord from heaven, He becomes the inheritor of the dominion and glory forfeited by the first. And for Him it waits. We see not yet, as Paul says, all things put under Him; but we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour; also in due time we shall see His dominion established over the whole sphere of Adam's delegated rule, and then will be fulfilled the first verse and the last verse of the eighth Psalm, which treats of these things: "O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!" But more of this anon.

Before this great and final result in the universal blessing of Christ's acknowledged dominion was to be accomplished, further trial was to be made of man in various ways. Not to dwell on intermediate events, we find one nation selected of God to enjoy the blessing of His kingly authority, and it is in connection with this nation that we first find God spoken of as King. But, before pursuing this, I would notice for a moment a remarkable passage, which shows alike the foreknowledge and providence of God, and the exceeding importance of the subject on which we are entering, viz., the connection of God, as King, with the nation of Israel. The passage alluded to is Deut. 32: 8, 9, "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For Jehovah's portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance." Thus it appears that long before the children of Israel existed as a nation, long even before the call of Abraham, God had His eye upon that nation, and made it the centre of all His providential arrangements in dividing the earth amongst the progeny of Noah. The perfect divine wisdom of these arrangements will be manifest in that period of universal blessing of which the eighth Psalm treats, as has been noticed, when, according to another scripture, "they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem" (Jer. 3: 17).

The first passage in which Jehovah's reign is definitely spoken of is in the song of triumph chanted by the victorious hosts of Israel, when they had passed safely through the Red sea, and left Pharaoh and his chariots and horsemen "sunk as lead in the mighty waters." They not only celebrate the triumph already accomplished for them by their mighty captain and deliverer, but they anticipate those further victories pledged to them in the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then they add, "Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Jehovah, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, the sanctuary, O Jehovah, which thy hands have established. Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever" (Ex. 15: 17, 18). Connect this with the passage already quoted from Deut. 32, and you can hardly fail to see how the reign or kingdom of God is connected with the place which He had made for Himself to dwell in, and the nation of which He says, "Jehovah's portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance."

In Exodus 19 and the following chapters, we find God exercising His kingly government over this nation which He had separated to Himself. He gives them laws, and statutes, and judgments to be observed by them, with suited penalties for any breach of those enactments. We do not stop here to consider the character of that covenant of works under which they were thus, with their own full consent and choice, placed. Their immediate failure under that covenant, in Ex. 32, and the renewal of it, with certain modifications, through the intervention of Moses as mediator (typical, no doubt, of the mediation of Christ), are points of extreme importance to any who would understand God's recorded dealings with them.

But I cannot enter into them here further than to notice, that in Ex. 33 nothing less than Jehovah's actual presence with them can satisfy Moses, who pleads on their behalf; and this is pledged to him in verse 17. In consequence we find that when Balaam (inspired as a prophet, though a worthless and wicked man) pronounces a blessing upon Israel, he says, "God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent . . . . . He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath He seen perverseness in Israel; Jehovah his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them" (Num. 23: 19-21).

This then was what distinguished Israel from all the other nations of the earth. These were under the controlling power of God's invisible government in providence; but God was present in Israel as their King. The symbols of the divine presence, the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, went before them from the time when Pharaoh pursued them into the very bed of the Red sea, till they crossed the Jordan at the close of their forty years' wanderings in the desert. Their laws they received direct from His mouth; all their officers and judges were constituted such by His appointment; and in every time of difficulty and danger He was present to be consulted by them, nor did He ever fail, when they were obedient to His voice, to guide and preserve them.

And when they crossed the Jordan, He still accompanied or went before them. The cloud of the divine glory, which had journeyed with them in the wilderness, now rested between the cherubim which overshadowed the mercy-seat; and after their conquest of the land under Joshua, the tabernacle of the congregation, enclosing alike the ark of the covenant, the mercy-seat, and the shekinah and cherubim above, was set up at Shiloh, which from that time became the seat of government. It was there, "before Jehovah," that Joshua "divided the land among the tribes for an inheritance" (Josh. xviii. 1-10). The house of God was there during the period of the Judges,* and up to the time of Eli and Samuel. It was in the days of the latter that the people, wearied of being under the direct government of God Who from time to time appointed judges over them, and desiring to be like the nations which surrounded them, asked Samuel to make them a king over them. This displeased Samuel, and he prayed to Jehovah. What was the answer of Jehovah to him? "And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (1 Sam. 8: 7). This is very plain. Up to this time the government of Israel had been a pure theocracy. God was their King. He might act by Moses at one time, who is himself said in this sense to have been king in Jeshurun, (see Deut. 33: 4), or by Joshua at another, or afterwards by the judges who were successively raised up. Still, God was their King.

*See Judges 18: 31, and other passages.

It would obviously be beyond the limits of a paper like the present to notice all the passages in the prophetic scriptures, which speak of the reign or kingdom of David's Son and Lord. But there are two great divisions of the period during which the prophecies as to it were delivered; the one prior to the incarnation of Christ, the other subsequent to it. Then again, the former of these divisions is subdivided by an event of much greater importance than is generally attached to it; I mean the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the captivity of the Jewish nation. Until this event occurred, God had a nation or kingdom on the earth. In that kingdom the descendants of David's royal line wielded the sceptre and occupied the throne as the anointed ones of God. They held their dominion by virtue of God's gift of it to David and his seed, God Himself having still His dwelling at Jerusalem; and it was by His laws that the royal authority had to be exercised. It was God's kingdom. It is true that many of the kings rebelled against God and set at nought His laws.

And here it was that the ministry of the prophets came in. They testified against the sins of the nation and its kings, foretold the judgments by which those sins were to be punished, and called both kings and people to repentance. Further, for the comfort of any who, either then or afterwards, should hearken to their voice, they foretold the glories of the coming kingdom of the true Son of David, the heir of all the blessings promised to David and his seed. This prophetic ministry in its most definite form began with Isaiah (in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah), and includes his prophecies, with those of Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah.

After the overthrow of Jerusalem and captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, things were entirely changed. It was not that there was any transfer of royal authority from the house of David to some other family in Israel, as there had been from Saul and his house to David and his seed. No; the covenant with David and his seed is not broken; so far from this, the captivity was a part of the chastening promised in the covenant if the children of David should fail to walk in his steps. But there was a transfer of power, a transfer of it from Israel altogether to the Gentiles. Yet this transfer of power to the Gentiles did not constitute them God's kingdom. Israel had ceased to be such.

The city which He had chosen for His habitation was entirely destroyed; His presence was no longer manifested in the magnifical temple which Solomon had built for his glory. Ezekiel had seen that glory remove first from the temple (see Ezek. 10: 18, 19), and then from the city altogether (Ezek. 11: 23); and the temple where that glory had once dwelt was now burned with fire. Israel was given over into the hands of the Babylonish empire. To the king of Babylon it was said, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all" (Dan. 2: 37, 38).

But, large as was this gift of power, it did not constitute Nebuchadnezzar God's anointed, nor did it make his empire the kingdom of God. All that had made Israel such was now removed from the guilty nation, but not bestowed on their Gentile oppressors. There was no shekinah at Babylon; no sacrifices there to the God of heaven; nor was there any divine code of laws to regulate the exercise of the imperial power with which the monarch was invested. One of the first acts of that power was to establish idolatry and punish with death all who refused to worship an idol. And all that is foretold of Gentile dominion is its being used in one act of rebellion against God after another, till it is destroyed at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. But then, we are told, "the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever" (Dan. 2: 44). This is quoted from a prophecy delivered and recorded during the latter subdivision of the period preceding the birth of Jesus.

Again, Ezekiel in a manner belongs to both subdivisions. He was himself a captive in Chaldea, but his prophecy was in part addressed to those who still remained at Jerusalem. Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, belong to the period which succeeds the carrying away captive to Babylon. These last prophesied to a poor feeble remnant who had been permitted to return. Not that the dominion was restored to them, or the kingdom of God again set up. No; they were tributaries and subjects of. the king of Persia; and the chief end for which they seem to have been restored to their own land is, that among them Christ might be born, and that to them He might be presented as their long-expected king; the Seed of Abraham and the Lord of David, as well as the Seed of the woman and the Son of God.

But let us pause at this point, before considering this great crisis in the history of the world as well as of Israel, and let us glance at some of the principal points in the Old Testament prophecies touching Christ's kingdom. In doing this, I can only refer to the passages without quoting them; and let those who may be interested in the inquiry consult them, with their contexts, in God's holy word. There seem to me to be four great leading traits in the prophetic picture of the kingdom so often spoken of. There are, of course, innumerable details: I confine myself to the grand leading features.

He who is to reign as king is the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ps. 2: 69; Ps. 24; Ps. 45; Ps. 72; Ps. 110; Ps. 118: 22-26. Isa. 4: 6, 7; Isa. 11: 1-5, and 10; Isa. 32: 1, 2. Jer. 23: 5, 6; Jer. 33: 14-17. Ezek. 34: 23, 24; Ezek. 37: 22-25. Dan. 7: 13, 14. Micah 5: 2-4. Zech. 6: 12, 13; Zech. 9: 9, 10). All these passages, and many more, under various names and titles, set forth our Lord Jesus Christ as the One who is to reign in Israel and over all the earth.

Jerusalem or Zion is the place of the special display of the glory of Christ on earth in His kingdom. (Isa. 1: 26, 27; Isa. 2: 3; Isa. 12: 6; Isa. 24: 23; Isa. 27: 13; Isa. 38: 20, 23; Isa. 60: 14; Isa. 62: 1-12; Isa. 66: 10-29. Jer. 3: 17; Jer. 33: 10, 11. Joel 3: 16, 17. Micah 4: 7, 8. Zeph. 3: 14-17. Zech. 2: 10-12; Zech. 8: 2-8; Zech. 14: 16-21). I say on earth; because the rejection of Christ by Israel and the putting off, as it were, of His reign, have made way for the unfolding of God's purpose, that His Son should have a heavenly Bride as well as an earthly kingdom; that He Himself should have a family in heaven, as well as a kingdom on the earth. But as to the kingdom of Christ on the earth, it is clear from all the passages cited as well as from others, that in it Jerusalem has the chief place; that it is, so to speak, the centre or the metropolis of Christ's kingdom on the earth — "the city of the great king.

In the kingdom of Christ, the Gentiles are to be subject to Israel; they are to hold a subordinate or inferior place. This is important; for under the present dispensation the great truth is, that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free." For proof that it will not be thus in the kingdom of Christ, as foretold in the Old Testament, see amongst others the following passages: Isa. 11: 10; Isa. 14: 1, 2; Isa. 49: 22-26; Isa. 60: 3-16; Isa. 61: 5-9; Isa. 66: 12. Micah 5: 7, 8. Zech. 8: 22, 23.

The effects of this reign of Christ will be universal righteousness and peace. (See Ps. 72: Isa. 2: 2-4; Isa. 11: 6-9; Isa. 25: 7; Isa. 59: 19; Isa. 60: 1-22. Micah 4: 1-5. Zeph. 3: 9, 10. Zech. 14: 9).

The light shed on this subject by the further revelation of the New Testament may be considered, if the Lord will, in another communication. Meanwhile the Lord grant us, in deep reverence of spirit, and yet in the joy which His own presence alone can inspire, to pursue these meditations on His word, and to be by them more and more separated from all else to Himself! W. T.

The Kingdom of God.

No. 2.

In resuming the consideration of this subject, especially now in the light shed upon it by the New Testament, there are several facts and principles of God's ways which need to be borne in mind by us. In the first place, it was in the counsels of God that Messiah should suffer ere He reigned. Nor was this a truth which had been hid in God, as one of the secret things which belong to Him alone. On the contrary, the sufferings of Messiah form the subject of many a distinct prediction, and the theme of many a holy strain of lamentation; besides being prefigured by a great part of the Mosaic sacrifices and ritual. Thus had the law, the psalms, and the prophets, borne witness to the sufferings of Messiah: so largely indeed, that for any who, like my readers, are accustomed to view them in this light, it is needless to bring forward particular passages in proof of it. But to Jewish minds, prior to the accomplishment of the event, this was the deepest difficulty. It was, besides, a subject most unwelcome to the pride of the natural heart in them, just as it is still in us. Sufferings, which the holiness of God makes requisite on account of our sin, cannot but prove an unwelcome subject to hearts that have not been humbled under the sense of sin. Thus it was with the Jews, yea, even the disciples of our Lord themselves. Notwithstanding the plainest declarations on His part that He must suffer and rise from the dead, they seem not to have entertained a thought of it, until the event came upon them, and found them, despite all previous warnings, unprepared.

Then, further, it was foreseen of God, that the human instruments in effecting Messiah's sufferings and death, would be His own people, the Jews. It was foreseen, yea, and foretold, that instead of receiving their Messiah with open arms, they would reject and crucify (Ps. 22: 16, compared with Zech. 12: 10) their long-promised and long-expected King. It was also foretold that on account of this, instead of the kingdom being immediately introduced, their heaviest sufferings and longest dispersion should ensue on the rejection of Messiah. (See Ps. 69: 19-28. Isa. 5: 5; Isa. 6: 9-12; Isa. 8: 14-17; Isa. 28: 16-22). Other like passages there are, too numerous to be quoted.

Again, notwithstanding the rejection of Messiah by Israel, and the judgments which were to come on them in consequence, it was distinctly and largely foretold in the Old Testament, that eventually Israel shall repent (see Hosea 5: 15; Hosea 6: 1, 2; Ps. 110: 2, 3; Ezek. 20: 43, 44; Joel 2: 15, 18; Zech. 12: 10-14, etc.); that, confessing and bewailing their sins, they shall anxiously look for Him Whom they once rejected, and that then He shall return, forgive their iniquity, deliver them from their Gentile oppressors, on whom judgments the most solemn and terrific shall be executed, and that then the long-foretold and long-expected kingdom of Christ shall be actually set up; His government openly and visibly extending over all the earth. These events form the great burden of prophetic testimony: as the apostle expresses it, summing up the whole in a few words, they "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow."

Thus far all is plain and clear enough. But the question arises, How is the interval between the rejection of Israel's Messiah and His return in glory to be filled up? "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." If Christ be rejected by the earth, a place had been prepared for Him in heaven. "Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." The sovereignty which is hereafter to be openly and publicly exercised on earth, but which could not be thus exercised then, because of Israel's unbelief and sin, was to be exercised by Jesus risen, and ascended, and seated at God's right hand in heaven.* He had, while on earth, manifested the name of His Father to those who had been given Him, and after His ascension the Holy Ghost was to descend to enable them to bear witness to the name of their rejected Lord, and to preach repentance and remission of sins in His name among all nations.

*Hence, as it would appear, the expression "kingdom of heaven" is a phrase generally interchangeable with the other, "kingdom of God," but not always so. The former is used in Matthew only; but in Matthew 2: 28, when the kingdom is spoken of as actually there, it is "the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God was there, for the King was there. It could hardly have been said that "the kingdom of heaven" was there; for Christ had not yet ascended to heaven, and was not exercising in and from heaven the power of His kingdom. So in Matthew 21: 43 it could not have been well said, "the kingdom of heaven" is taken from you; for it was not what properly belonged to them. The kingdom of God was their proper and definite hope; and hence it is said "The kingdom of God is taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The effect of this word, which began to be spoken by Jehovah, and was afterwards confirmed by them that heard Him (God also bearing them witness with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost), was; that then, and ever since, there have been those on earth who own the name, and title, and authority of that Christ Who has been rejected by the earth, and is now actually at the right hand of God in heaven. As a matter of fact, historically, whole kingdoms have thus owned and do own, the name and sovereignty of Christ. It may be, and as to the mass undoubtedly is, true that it is only in word, in profession, that Christ is owned. Still the fact is there, that, as to the effect of Christ's first coming, whole masses of men profess to be Christians, i.e. to be subjects of Christ, recognising His authority and governed by His laws. It is also true that amidst the mass there are many who do really know Him by the Holy Ghost; and it is of the utmost importance to see, as to all such, that there was a far deeper purpose of God than any which has yet been noticed — a purpose which He purposed in Christ before the foundation of the world, even that those who do thus really know Him during the present interval* should be fellow-heirs and of the same body with Christ — His bride, His body — united to Him now by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and to be manifested with Him in glory when He returns. But this, important as it is, is not the subject of our present inquiry, though intimately connected with it. It is referred to thus explicitly here, lest any should suppose it was overlooked, or that, in distinguishing between it and the kingdom of God, its importance was in any way undervalued.

*By this is meant here the interval between the death of Christ and His return to take His saints to Himself, as in 1 Thess. 4. The interval as to the earth is of longer duration, and does not close till Christ returns with all His saints to execute judgment on His enemies, and set up His kingdom in power.

The fact is, that the kingdom of God, which will exist manifestly in the millennial reign of Christ (treated of in No. 1), exists now in mystery, and is found wherever there is the acknowledgement, real or in profession only, of the name and authority of Christ, while He Himself is hid in God on high. It is within this kingdom of course, that the church has its existence at present. Nay, more; it is at present the only thing in the kingdom which is really precious to Christ; and we shall have to look at passages which, on this account, speak of the church, or rather of those who compose the church, as the kingdom. Still, it is not as the church that these passages contemplate it, and the kingdom itself is a much wider thing.

For full instructions as to the special or distinct place and blessedness of "the church," we look in vain, except in the Ephesians and other Epistles of St. Paul. The kingdom of God, one would repeat, exists now in mystery, and comprises the whole sphere in which the name and authority of Christ are recognised, whether nominally or really, during the period of Christ's session at the right hand of God. There is, of course, a wide difference between a sovereignty exercised openly and visibly in the form and character of royalty on the earth (Jerusalem its centre and the whole earth its sphere), and a sovereignty exercised from heaven by invisible agency and moral means, such as Christianity is now. This latter is the kingdom of God in mystery; the former is the kingdom of God as the Jews were taught by ancient prophecy to expect it, and as it will yet surely exist in the millennial age. Modified, however, even then by the introduction and co-heirship with Christ of the heavenly saints, for which room was made by Israel's rejection of their Messiah on the earth. When He takes the kingdom, it will be as the glorified Son of man; and the heavenly body, the church, now forming by the Holy Ghost, will be united with its Head in the administration of that kingdom, so that even then it will have the character of the kingdom of heaven.

As the open establishment of the kingdom is inseparably connected with the repentance of Israel and their reception of the Messiah, it pleased God, by the proclamation that His kingdom was at hand, solemnly to put to the test whether Israel was in a condition, morally and spiritually, to receive it. Accordingly the preaching of John the Baptist, and the earlier preaching of our Lord Himself and His disciples, was simply this, the announcing that the kingdom was at hand, and calling upon Israel to repent and believe the glad tidings. God knew of course, that they would reject the kingdom thus preached to them; and He had arranged everything accordingly. The kingdom they hoped for was to be put off on account of their unbelief; and the kingdom which was actually at hand was the kingdom in mystery, as it has existed from that time until the present.

Though God knew well that they would reject the kingdom, both in the rejection of its royal Heir and in the rejection of His fore-runner — though God knew this, I say — the responsibility of Israel was not thereby diminished in the least. All was ready on God's part; "the Child was born to Israel, the Son given," Whose name was to be called Wonderful, on Whose shoulders the government was to be and Who was to sit on the throne of His father David, executing judgment and justice for ever: He gave full proof that to Him belonged these dignities and glories; and had they received Him, His reign would doubtless have commenced. But God knew that they would not receive Him. He knew they would crucify and slay Him, and He delivered Him into their hands to be thus crucified. But did that make them less guilty? Not in the least. The foreknowledge of God is one thing; man's responsibility is another.

God knew men would break the law; yet He gave it, that what was in man's heart might be manifest. God knew that Israel would, by their sins, forfeit the land of Canaan, and have to be scattered, as at present. He told them that He knew this before He brought them in. (See Deut. 31: 16-21). Still, He brought them in. He knew that they would reject the prophets and messengers by whom He spake to them, and offered them forgiveness and mercy, if they would but repent. (See Ezek. 3: 7-9). Nevertheless, He sent them, rising up betimes and sending. Was their responsibility diminished by God's foreknowledge of the manner in which they would treat the messengers of His mercy? Surely not. So when, last of all, He sent His Son, sent Him as the One born to be King of the Jews, He knew all that they would do unto Him. From the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, to the last taunt that was addressed to the holy Sufferer on the cross, God foreknew all.

Why should this hinder Him from presenting the kingdom to them, and offering them its felicities and its glories on condition of their repentance, any more than the foresight of their failure under any former test should have hindered Him from applying it? God would make manifest what man, what Israel, was, and so appealed to them in the most affecting way, through the medium of the hopes which, for so many generations, had been indulged by them as a nation — hopes based on the prophecies considered in our last. And they understood that Jesus claimed to be the One Whose coming was the object and centre of their natural hopes. The superscription in Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew, placed over the cross by Pilate, told plainly enough that it was as King of the Jews He was rejected by the nation. Thank God, He did foreknow what they in the hatred of their hearts would do. Their sin has thus been overruled to our salvation; their fall has become our riches. In due time, when the church has been formed and perfected, and caught up to meet its Head in the air, when all the "mysteries of the kingdom" have had their accomplishment, Israel, as we have seen, humbled and broken-hearted, shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah; and the kingdom shall be established manifestly and in power. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

Let us look now at some of the passages in the New Testament which relate to this subject. We shall find them ranging themselves under one or other of these classes.

1. The passages which announce the kingdom in such a manner and in such connections as necessarily to awaken in the heart the thought of that kingdom of Christ, which we saw in No. 1 to be the great subject of Old Testament prophecy.

2. The passages which speak of the kingdom as it now exists in mystery, including all on earth that own, whether truly or in mere profession, the sovereignty of Jesus in heaven.

3. The passages in which the expression is limited to that which really and truly owns the name and authority of Jesus; the kernel, so to speak, which alone gives value to the shell. There may be a few others giving the general characteristics of the reign of God apart from circumstances altogether.

"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make his paths straight" (Matt. 3: 1-3). It is by no means certain that the phrase "kingdom of heaven" here would suggest to the mind of John the Baptist himself any other thought than that of Messiah's reign — the kingdom which the God of heaven was to set up. The passage quoted by the evangelist respecting him is one which clearly has not yet received its full accomplishment; nor will it, till "the times of restitution of all things." "Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed; and all flesh shall see it together" (Isa. 40: 4, 5). There can be no mistake as to what kingdom it is that is depicted here. It ensues on the accomplishment of the whole warfare, and travail, and chastisement of Jerusalem (verses 1, 2); and in it Zion and Jerusalem have the office of bringing good tidings, and crying to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God." (verse 9).

Without doubt the kingdom of heaven was really to exist in a very different form before the arrival of this blessed period; but it was Israel's sin which afforded the opportunity, so to speak, for its existence in its present manner; and before it actually took this form, it was to be seen whether there was in them the heart to respond to these joyful tidings; and hence this mission of the Baptist.

After recording the baptism of our blessed Lord, the evangelist tell us that Jesus, having, "heard that John was cast into prison, departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: — the people which sat in darkness saw great light: and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4: 12-17).

There is enough in the quotation here from Isaiah 9 to remind any one of the kingdom to which Christ was born the heir; the well-known passage, "unto us a child is born," etc., being closely connected with the verses here quoted. It was the announcement to Israel that with Him, Immanuel, they had now to do. Still, in the imprisonment of His forerunner there was a dark intimation of Israel's unpreparedness to receive Him; and accordingly He (not unwittingly, as it may be John had done, but in full intelligence of the meaning of the words) calls on them to repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Not simply the kingdom of David's royal Son seated on David's throne, but the kingdom of the heavens: the sovereignty of that same blessed Person in the form it was to take, consequent on His rejection by Israel, and exercised first after its present mode, while He Himself, rejected by the earth, is exalted to the right hand of power in heaven, and then by-and-by exercised openly over all the earth, but even then with a heavenly character and heavenly associations not naturally belonging to the kingdom of the Son of David. It is a kingdom, too, which has to be preached; instead of being at once set up in power, it is proclaimed by preaching.

Still, the preaching of the kingdom was accompanied by every demonstration of power. "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people" (Matt. 4: 23). The result was, that His fame went throughout all Syria, and there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee and Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan.

In the presence of the multitudes thus attracted to Him by His preaching and the fame of His miracles, He addresses to His disciples the sermon on the mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"; and again, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," would apply equally to those who shall enter into and inherit the kingdom in manifestation (see Zeph. 3: 12; Isaiah 66: 2, also 5, with the rest of the chapter), and those who are true members of it now that it exists in mystery. "Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth," would only apply to the former class. Verses 19, 20 (Matt. 5: 19, 20) show what the righteousness is that entitles to either. They do not show us how the righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees is to be obtained, but they declare such a righteousness indispensable for those who would enter the kingdom. In Matt. 6: 10 the disciples are instructed to pray for the coming of God's kingdom; and in verse 33, to seek it in preference to all else. Matthew 7: 21 distinguishes between profession and reality, and declares that to say, Lord, Lord, is not enough.

The whole discourse is a most solemn exhibition of the righteousness requisite for any to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The law of Moses described the righteousness which entitled to the land of Canaan; the sermon on the mount bears the same relation to the kingdom of heaven. Of course, it is in Christ only that either righteousness has been accomplished; and the righteousness He has accomplished in Himself is the gift of grace to poor sinners; we have no righteousness whatever to plead. Such will the poor afflicted remnant of Israel acknowledge themselves to be by-and-by, and they will enter into the kingdom, as it shall exist, in open manifestation; the righteousness of Him who died for them, that the whole nation should not perish, being their title thus to enter. Meanwhile, individuals have been taught by grace to see in themselves the entire contrast to all that the sermon on the mount presents, and have found in Christ the righteousness without which none can enter, even while the kingdom is in mystery; that is to say, viewing the kingdom as it consists of those who really know and own the supremacy of Jesus, and call Him Lord by the Holy Ghost.

In Matthew 8: 11 the faith of the centurion, commended by Jesus as greater than any He had found in Israel, draws from His lips the announcement "that many [such as he] shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This must have been a solemn and startling announcement to Jewish ears. It distinctly foretells the admission of Gentiles to the privileges of the kingdom, while the natural heirs are excluded. And while this passage evidently refers to the yet future millennial kingdom (there being a place in it for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), we have to bear in mind that the kingdom has its heavenly as well as its earthly department. Of this we find scarcely anything in the Old Testament; and it was, in fact, the rejection of Christ by Israel that made way for the development of this purpose of God. It is now, while the kingdom of heaven exists in mystery, that these Gentile strangers are being brought from the east and from the west. But by-and-by, when the great purpose of God is accomplished, and all things both in heaven and earth are gathered together in one, even in Christ, these strangers will be seen sitting down with the patriarchs in the heavenly department of that glorious kingdom; while Israel, pardoned and restored, shall, with the spared nations, occupy the earth. The children of the kingdom who are cast out are, of course, those generations of Israel who have lived during the whole period of their rejection of Jesus.

In Matthew 9: 35 we find Jesus still continuing His blessed labour of preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. In Matthew 10 He associates the twelve apostles with Himself in this work, charging them to go not into the way of the Gentiles, or any city of the Samaritans, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And, as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (verse 7). But while this ministry of grace is thus continued, and even extended, the twelve are distinctly forewarned that they need not expect their testimony to be received. Fearful was to be the responsibility of the rejectors. It was to be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for them. Still, the apostles were to calculate on rejection. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord" (verses 24, 25).

It was to be their comfort amid all this, that whosoever confessed Jesus before men should be confessed by Him before His Father in heaven. "He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (verses 39, 40). For none such were to lose their reward.

I could not doubt that this preaching of the kingdom of heaven by the twelve, interrupted by the definite and utter rejection of Christ on the part of Israel, will be resumed in days yet to come, and that it is to this resumed testimony that much of Matt. 10 has its most definite application. See particularly verses 18, 22, 23, compared with Matt. 24: 6, which evidently speaks of the final sins and sorrows of the house of Jacob. The rejection of Christ by Israel has not only made way for the existence of the kingdom of heaven in mystery, but also for a far deeper mystery, viz. the church and its union with its Head in glory. When this is completed by the rapture of the saints, in order to the marriage of the Lamb in heaven; God will resume His dealings with His earthly people Israel, and with the Gentile as such. Witnesses will be raised up to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles, and scarcely will they have finished. their testimony ere the Son of man shall come. (See Rev. 11; also Rev. 14: 6, 7.) Any who wish to pursue this subject, I would refer to the papers already published in "The Prospect," entitled "The Testimony of the End," and "On the Gospel by St. Matthew" (particularly the remarks at the close), which throw much light on this deeply interesting inquiry.

In Matthew 11: 11 John the Baptist is declared by our Lord to be as great as any that had been born of women. The Saviour affirms, nevertheless, that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. John had but announced its approach. The least of those who actually enjoy the blessedness of that reign of heaven is in a position more blessed than John's. Our Lord then adds, "And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence; and the violent take it by force." Instead of its being an ordered and established system, into which men had been introduced at their birth, and in which all that was required of them was to walk obediently to the laws and ordinances then existing, it was a kingdom preached as at hand, and the question was of entering into it. Such too was the total failure of man under the old system, and the rancorous opposition of his heart to the new kingdom and its accompaniments, that it was only at the risk, or even cost, of every thing that any one could enter in. It was only by bursting asunder every tie, doing violence to all the dictates and interests of nature, that any one could enter in. It was grace undoubtedly, that supplied the energy and fortitude thus to hate father, mother, brother, sister, houses, lands, yea, and a man's own life, for Christ's sake; still, this was the way in which grace led a man to act. And those who did not thus value Christ and the kingdom He proclaimed above every thing besides, so as to abide the loss of all things for His sake, proved themselves unworthy of it, and failed to enter it.

Matt. 12: 28 has been noticed already.

Matt. 13 having been the subject of distinct consideration in a paper proceeding from the pen of one so much better able to expound it (see "The Prospect," vol. i., page 121), it requires the less notice here. It is, however, as any one may see, a chapter of the deepest importance in connection with our present subject. Israel's rejection of Messiah being fully manifested in chapter 12, where we find that His brightest miracles were attributed by the Pharisees to Satanic power, our Lord pronounces on them the solemn sentence which closes His statements respecting the unclean spirit gone out of a man and walking in dry places, who in the end returns with seven others worse than himself, so that the last state of such a man is worse than the first. "Even so," says our Lord, "shall it be also unto this wicked generation." He further disowns all His natural links of relationship with the Jewish people, all the ties of kindred which, as the seed of David according to the flesh, united Him to them. "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" He inquires. "And he stretched forth his hands toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother, and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." It is immediately after this that He speaks the seven parables, which we find in Matthew 13; the whole affording to us full instruction in the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens.

The first parable is not a representation of the kingdom, but of the work by which the kingdom is formed. It is the basis on which all the other parables in the chapter are founded. "Behold, the sower went forth to sow." Israel had been the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant. (See Isa. 5.) But now that all His care in planting and cultivating it was repaid with nothing but wild grapes, He was about to execute the long threatened judgment, and give it up to the destroyer. Hence it is not now the care of a vineyard, but an entirely new beginning. "The sower went forth to sow." The details of the parable are well known. The seed falls on four descriptions of ground; in one only does it bring forth fruit. Striking picture of what the various results of the preaching of the word have been! How futile the hope, that because the gospel testimony was to be everywhere proclaimed, universal blessing would be the result! It is true that the Sower went forth to sow. This was not to be confined within the limits, nor to be occupied with the culture, of the Jewish vineyard. Gentiles as well as Jews were to hear the word of the kingdom. Yea, it was to be preached everywhere. But with what varying results! And how small, when compared with the aggregate, the result in blessing! May we hearken to the admonition: "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

The disciples inquire of our Lord His reason for speaking to the multitudes in parables. His answer is most important. "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." He thus declares the period to have arrived which had been long foretold by the prophet Isaiah. "Sanctify Jehovah of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon Jehovah that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him" (Isa. 8: 13-17).

Surely, Jehovah of hosts was now beginning, in the most definite sense, to hide His face from the house of Jacob, when to the disciples it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, which were hidden from the multitude. "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." Our Lord quotes another prophecy of Isaiah, which was now receiving its accomplishment. "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." These words, quoted from Isa. 6: 9, 10, are connected there with what follows. The prophet says, "Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, and Jehovah have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land." The Saviour's quotation from this passage is significant; it decides that this predicted period of Israel's desolation is the period during which the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven have their existence and development.

To the disciples our blessed Lord explains the parable of the sower, and speaks another — that of the wheat and tares. This He gives as a representation of the kingdom of heaven. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field." I need not quote the parable at length. The Saviour explains it also (after speaking two others in the presence of the people) to His disciples. The field, He says, is the world. He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. The good seed are the children of the kingdom. The tares are the children of the wicked one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age. The reapers are the angels.

Let us consider these things for a moment. We have seen in the first parable that though the sowing is universal, the fruit — the result in blessing — is partial and limited. Here, in this second parable, Satan himself turns sower. The field is indeed the world; but the scene of Satan's operations is not here so much the world at large where the seed has been sown, but part of it where the seed has got root and is growing up. It is the introduction, by Satan, of positive evil, where the Son of man had wrought blessing. The good seed here is not the word. It is explained to be "the children of the kingdom." The tares also are not false doctrines (though it may be by these that Satan works), but evil persons. "The tares are the children of the wicked one." In a word, what we have here is the corruption of Christianity. And we are assured most definitely that when this effect of Satan's enmity and man's supineness ("while men slept the enemy sowed tares") has once been accomplished, it will not be set aside till the harvest at the end of the age. Then the tares are to be gathered together first in bundles to be burnt, and the wheat gathered into the barn.

Then there is another point. When the Lord speaks of the tares and the wheat as thus growing together, as they are doing at present, we must view this as representing the condition of things, as a whole, between His first and last coming, without taking into account the fact that, during that time, generation after generation, both of the righteous and wicked, die off — that there is constant succession — incessant fluctuation, altogether different from that from whence the image is borrowed; seeing that, in the natural world, the very same seed that is sown in one month springs up and is reaped in another. But, on the other hand, when we actually come to the time of harvest, then we must lose sight of the past generations, rising and dying one after another, in constant succession, and look alone at the generation alive at that time.

And these only will be dealt with in that day of Christ's coming. These only, I say, seeing that the wicked of former generations will not then be raised from their graves, but will be reserved for judgment after the thousand years are expired (Rev. 20: 7-15). The risen saints of God, on the other hand, will have been caught up to heaven before the week opens (1 Thess. 4: 16-18). This then, I believe, quite determines who the wheat are at the time of the harvest, namely, the Jewish remnant — the righteous ones on the earth at that time.*

*The reasoning and the deduction in this particular do not appear to be sound. Ed. B. T.

In this parable, and the explanation of it, the term "kingdom of heaven" is evidently used in its widest sense, as including all who nominally own the supremacy of Christ during His absence from the earth, whether they be wheat or tares, false professors or true subjects of Christ. At the time of the end, when the kingdom passes from its present mysterious state to that of open manifestation, all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, shall be gathered out of it. After that, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, the heavenly department of that glorious kingdom as it shall exist after the return of Jesus, when all things shall be gathered together in one (even in Him), both which are in heaven and which are on earth. Blessed prospect! May the brightness of it cast a cloud upon all earthly glory in our eyes, beloved; and may we look for and haste unto the coming of that day of God, in which this heavenly lustre shall crown all those who have been the companions and followers of Jesus in His tribulation.

The two parables of the mustard seed and leaven would seem to represent the kingdom of heaven in the same large and outward aspect as that in which it is viewed in the parable of the wheat and tares. There is no doubt that, to an intelligent or instructed Christian, it must appear evil that Christianity, which, in its earliest and purest days, was the object of universal obloquy and scorn, should come to bear a character and occupy a position in the world represented by the emblem of a great tree — the symbol in prophecy of worldly magnificence and power. (See Dan. 4; Ezek. 31 etc.)

Still, it does not seem as though it was the evil of this which the parable of the mustard seed sets forth, so much as the great external fact that what was at its beginning so small and so despised should eventually become great in the earth, and afford shelter to those who were originally its opposers. (Compare ver. 32 with ver. 4). The parable of the leaven appears to be our Lord's answer to the inquiry which may well arise in the mind: By what sudden convulsion, by what unlooked for event, is this change to be accomplished? The answer is, that it is not by any mighty convulsion or sudden change, but by a process thus represented: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." This wondrous transformation of what was, at its outset, the weakest and most despised thing on earth, to the state in which Christianity now exists around us, associated with everything of earthly power and glory, was to be effected by a slow, gradual, imperceptible process like leaven working in meal.

These four parables, be it remembered, were spoken to the multitude. They all describe great facts which, as such, the natural mind can recognise. The preaching of the word, with its varied results — the corruption of Christianity and the continuance, to the end, of the evil when once introduced, as well as the judgment by which, at the end of the age, it will be purged out — the growth of Christianity from its once despised and feeble condition as respects the earth, to a state of earthly splendour, power, and glory — the silent, gentle, gradual character of the process by which this last result has been brought about — all these are historical facts which are not only capable of being recognised, but which, as far as they have gone, have been recognised by mere natural men. The explanation of the first similitude, and the last three parables themselves, were spoken to the disciples apart from the multitude; thus indicating, as another has taught, that there were secrets in them which it required a spiritual mind — the intelligence and affection of a disciple — to appreciate. How blessedly perfect is God's precious word!

The two unexplained parables — that of the treasure hid in the field, and that of the merchantman seeking goodly pearls — would seem to teach us, that within the external sphere to which the four parables already considered apply themselves, there was something hid which was at once so precious in Christ's estimation and so beautiful in His eyes, that for the joy of possessing Himself of this treasure, this pearl, He could gladly forego for the present all His Messianic rights and glories, and go down into the very dust of death, selling all that He had to buy it. Can we fail to be reminded by this of that wonderful word, "Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it . . . . that He might present it to Himself!" It is true that in the work by which He accomplished the purchase of this jewel of His heart, He also laid the foundation, and the only foundation, for the future glories of His kingdom, when He shall reign in peace over all the earth. He bought the field which contained the treasure; and thus the field is His for all the display of His glory and the accomplishment of all the purposes of God as to it. But His motive — that for the joy of which He, for the present, could forego the assertion of His titles and the revealing of His glory — was the possession of the hidden treasure, the goodly pearl! Oh, what intensity of love, what devotedness and unsparingness of service, become those who are taught of the Holy Ghost that Christ has thus loved and thus given Himself for them! May our hearts better know the overwhelming power of the grace of Christ thus displayed!

The parable of the net presents us with the discrimination, at the close, between all this which has really been the object of Christ's heart and of God's purposes throughout, and that which has been throughout this mysterious period outwardly associated with it. The thought of the beloved brother, whose paper on Matt. 13 has been more than once referred to already, commends itself greatly to my own soul, viz. that this discrimination is of two kinds: first, as on the part of the fishermen who gather the good into vessels and cast the bad away; secondly, as on the part of the angels who do not concern themselves about the good here at all, but sever the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. Might we not gather from this that, in the intention of God, there was to be a separation? first, morally by His Spirit, of those in and by whom He acts — and there the object is to gather the good into vessels (it is separation to God, and according to His mind and heart); then, finally, there is a process of judgment in which the angels are the executioners, and the wicked the objects, who are "cast into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

This closes the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. From the era of this judicial separation, whether viewed as in the parable of the wheat and tares, or as in this parable of the net, all is in open manifestation: the righteous shining forth as the sun in the heavenly kingdom of their Father; the Son of man openly exercising His royal power in His kingdom below, out of which all that offends and them which do iniquity have been gathered.

"Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." The Lord grant that, by the Spirit, these things may occupy our souls; and above all, that He, Himself, Whose grace and glory are so touchingly displayed in every aspect of them, may become more and more the one object of our hearts.

The next mention of the kingdom of heaven is in Matthew 16: 19, where our Lord says to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

There are three remarks which may be made as to the connection in which "kingdom of heaven" here occurs. First, it was clearly what had not then commenced. The kingdom had been preached by all the apostles as at hand, as well as by our Lord and His forerunner. But Peter was to open the kingdom, as we know he did at Pentecost, to the Jews, and in the house of Cornelius to the Gentiles. Secondly, the kingdom, the administration of which was thus entrusted to Peter, is clearly not the millennial kingdom treated of in No. 1, and which is still future. Thirdly, it is distinguished from the church, by our Lord Himself, in the passage before us. He says: "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. Those who by faith entered in, when the kingdom was opened whether to Jews or Gentiles, became members of the church of God; but "the kingdom of heaven," as we have seen in Matthew 13, includes tares as well as wheat; and it is likened to the mustard tree, the leaven, and the net, as well as to the treasure and the pearl.

"Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom (ver. 28). This is plainly another thing. This is the kingdom in which the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father, with His angels, and reward every man according to his works. A specimen, a sample, a foreshadowing of the glory of this kingdom, Peter, James, and John were privileged to behold a few days after these words were spoken. A comparison of the passage with 2 Peter 1: 16-18 will show that this was the sense in which they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. It was a type or pledge, a revelation even to their senses of what the glory of that kingdom will be; not the kingdom as it exists now in mystery, but as it will exist in open display by-and-by.

Instead of taking the kingdom thus and introducing it at once, we have in the close of Matthew 17 an affecting display of the depths of humiliation to which Jesus stooped. In Matthew 18, we find this to be the rule for disciples in the kingdom as it now exists in mystery. The disciples ask, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Jesus answers by calling a little child and setting him in the midst of them, and saying, "Verily, I say to you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Wondrous, blessed lesson! That he who willingly becomes the least is really the greatest in the kingdom of heaven! None so great as the Holy One Whose words we are listening to! And who can stoop so low as He did? As for us, in taking the low place, we do but take our own. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and yet made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant. Oh! that the mind which was in Him might also be in us.

One lesson as to the spirit and conduct befitting this kingdom of heaven we have had already in Matthew 18. The close of it presents us with another. Humility at the beginning; grace and forgiveness of trespass at the end. For another view of the parable at the close of this chapter, see the paper before referred to, page 130, in vol. i. of "The Prospect."

Matt. 19: 12 speaks of an extraordinary measure of separation to God, for the kingdom of heaven's sake, on the part of some. It is, I suppose, the carrying out, through grace, of the principle of Matt. 11: 12 to the utmost possible limits, in certain special cases where there was not grace only, but special gift and power for this end. (See 1 Cor. 7: 26; also verse 17 of the same chapter.)

Matt. 19: 14 would connect itself with the passage already touched upon in Matthew 18: 3. Verses 23 and 24 would show the need of that violence, through grace, which is the subject of Matthew 11: 12. It was a question of forsaking all and following Christ — a Christ Who was not about at once to ascend the throne and wield the sceptre of His father David, but Who was first to be rejected and crucified. The riches and honours of this world were such a hindrance to any one who had them, in thus following a rejected Christ, that nothing could overcome it, or enable any one to overcome it, but the almighty power of God. "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

It is upon this that Peter asks a question, to which our Lord gives a twofold reply, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee: what shall we have therefore?" What Peter states is a fact. He and his fellow-apostles had really forsaken all to follow Christ; and this our Lord in His first answer owns. But evidently there was something of self-importance and self-gratulation at the bottom of Peter's question, "What shall we have therefore?" It was something of the same spirit as had suggested the inquiry in Matthew 18, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Peter's question would intimate that none could ever evince the self-devotion which they had evinced, or have the claim on Christ which they had. It is as though he would make Christ debtor to himself and his fellow-disciples. "What shall we have therefore?" This our Lord meets in the parable which follows. First, however, let us look at His promise to Peter and the rest. "And Jesus said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Peter asks, What shall we have therefore? and our Lord replies, That is what you shall have. But is it not as though He added, Do not suppose that you are the only persons who have forsaken, or who will have forsaken, all for My name's sake, and who shall be rewarded in the kingdom? "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Peter was not to suppose that to sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, was the only reward that the glorified Son of man will distribute at His coming. The fact is, that Peter himself, and the other apostles, as members of Christ's body, of His flesh, and of His bones, co-heirs with Him and with all who are His members thus, will inherit a higher place of glory than the sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Peter would, as it were, have made our compact with our Lord; and had he been excluded from all that is not comprised in the promise here made to him, there are glories in which he would not have shared, which fall to the lot of us poor sinners of the Gentiles. Peter was to understand that there would be others to be rewarded besides the apostles; yea, and he was not to suppose that because the apostles were first in order of time, their reward would necessarily be greater than that of those who came after them. "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder," etc. (Matt. 20: 1-16). If we seek to make the Lord our debtor, we must not complain if we find that He gives us barely what we agree with Him for, and gives quite as much to others who enter the vineyard almost at the close of the day. The "kingdom of heaven" is clearly distinguished here from "the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory." It is in the kingdom of heaven that the service is rendered — the labour accomplished — which meets its reward in "the regeneration," when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory.

The request preferred by the mother of Zebedee's children, in verses 20, 21 of this chapter, is another expression of the same spirit which our Lord had been correcting in the parable of the labourers. The blessed Saviour assures them that they shall drink of His cup and be baptised with His baptism; but the place they shall fill in His kingdom He leaves to His Father's will. He takes occasion from the whole to put in contrast the ways of the Gentiles, of which these disciples so much savoured, and the ways of His kingdom in its present mysterious state. He, the King, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many; and what but to tread in His steps can become those who are the subjects, during His rejection, of the kingdom of heaven.

The beginning of Matthew 21 presents us with a little pledge of that future kingdom which awaits our Lord, when the whole nation shall say, what the multitude of the disciples then said: "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest!" Full proof was given at once, however, that the nation was not ready for that kingdom then. The very cries of the children in the temple who said Hosanna awoke the indignation of the chief priests and scribes: "they were sore displeased." The kingdom could not therefore be then set up in power, and the glory of it be introduced. Nevertheless a kingdom had come nigh to them; and our Lord, by the parable of the two sons, to whom the Father said, "Go, work today in my vineyard," presses on His hearers the solemn truth that the publicans and harlots were more ready to go into the kingdom of God than the most religious people of that day.

In the next parable, verses 33-44, Jesus takes a review of all God's dealings with that nation. He had let out His vineyard to husbandmen, and sent, time after time, to receive the fruits; but of His servants they beat one, and kill another, and are now about to slay the Son and Heir whom the owner of the vineyard had last of all sent, saying, "They will reverence my Son." What can be done to these husbandmen by the Lord of the vineyard? Even they themselves answer: "He will miserably destroy these wicked men, and will let out His vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons." How solemn the reply of Jesus! "Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

All hope of Israel's present reception of the kingdom, as promised to those of old time, being thus cut off, our Lord goes on in Matthew 22 to present another likeness, or comparison, of the "kingdom of heaven" which was to intervene between that crisis and the one yet future, when the Son of man shall be revealed, and sit upon the throne of His glory. A marriage feast made ready by the king in honour of His son, and His servants sent out to invite the guests, is a different thing from a vineyard let out to husbandmen, and the servants sent to require the fruit. But alas! the heart of man has no worthier answer to the grace and goodness of the one than to the just and righteous claims of the other. They make light of the invitation, and spitefully entreat and slay the servants who are the bearers of it. This fills up the measure of their iniquity, and the king sends forth His armies (the Romans) and destroys those murderers, and burns up their city. But is His grace to be disappointed, and His table unfurnished with guests? No: the servants are sent out into the highways to gather together all, as many as they find, good and bad, and in the end the wedding is furnished with guests. Precious testimony of the grace which now gathers us, irrespective of what we are, to share the feast and enjoy the blessedness which God, of His own grace, and for the honour of His Son, has prepared for us! One solemn word there is at the close of this parable (may our hearts deeply and fully learn it!), that, even as the freeness of the invitation is all the warrant we need to enter, so surely, if that has reached our hearts and wrought effectually there, the wedding garment will be worn by us as our only title to sit at the table. Christ will be all our confidence, all our hope. It is this that distinguishes between the real and the fictitious, the true and the false, in the kingdom of heaven.

In Matthew 23: 13 the Lord denounces a fearful woe upon the scribes and Pharisees, because they will not enter this kingdom of heaven themselves, and because they do what they can to hinder others from entering in besides.

The remaining notices of the kingdom, and parables respecting it in Matthew 24, Matthew 25 and Matthew 26, have been already so fully discussed in the paper on the Gospel according to Matthew, page 121, vol. i. of "The Prospect," that I would simply refer the reader to its contents, and here, for the present, close my remarks. It may be that, if the Lord should tarry, opportunity may be afforded of going through the other Gospels also, noticing any points of difference in the light in which they present the kingdom, as compared with this Gospel of Matthew; and touching upon the passages in the Acts and Epistles too. But this is in our Father's hands. May He, of His grace, make all our inquiries into His precious word effectual to the sanctification of our souls, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake! Amen.

Man's will and God's Grace

Man's will and God's Grace.

W. Trotter.

BT vol. 14 p. 362 etc.

My dear Brother. — I have often thought of our last conversation, as we walked on the sands at S-, and as often felt the regret which I then expressed to you, that the subject of the eternal security of God's children should be so generally approached through the medium of texts and considerations which are supposed to be attended with difficulty as to it, instead of the substantive testimony to it with which the Word of God abounds, being fairly considered, and difficulties and objections viewed in the light which is thus afforded us. But in turning to the subject, with the thought of fulfilling your request, that I would present you, in a condensed form, with what I regard as the positive testimony of Holy Writ respecting it, I have been divided in my mind between these two modes of presenting it, namely, that of taking the passages in the order in which one comes at them in reading the New Testament, or that of classifying the passages, arranging them under several heads. I had pretty nearly determined to confine myself to neither; but, commencing in the former mode, to take any opportunity which might arise of acting on the latter also; an enquiry into one passage often naturally suggesting a reference to others of like import, even though they should not follow in exact order of occurrence; when it seemed to me, that, ere commencing either, it was almost indispensable to devote a little attention to the previous inquiry, of how a man becomes a child of God. If it be, as so many suppose, by an act of our own will, choosing to turn to God and believe in Christ, that we become Christians, then it is a doctrine feasible enough, that by another act, or by other acts, of our own will, we should finally cease to be such. But if the sentiment placed at the head of this paper be the truth of God, and can be proved to be such, then it will be manifest, that in order to the utter and final defection of a Christian, it requires not only a change in his will (which is indeed fickle and unsteady as the wind), but a change in the grace of Him by whose will and power it is that he has become a Christian — a child of God. The Lord grant us true simplicity and subjection to His word in looking into these matters.

Two passages would of themselves be sufficient to settle our souls as to the subject before us, if we really read them with unquestioning simplicity of faith — "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1: 13); and "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (James 1: 18). In the former of these, the new birth is expressly declared to be, "not of blood," or natural descent; "not of the will of the flesh," or the natural will or choice of the person who is born again; "nor of the will of man," any agency which other men may choose, or will, or pretend to exercise upon him. In both passages, it is expressly declared to be "of the will of God." Here I might leave this subject; but, knowing how the thought haunts the minds of those who have had the kind of training both you and I had — "Well, but are not life and death set before us in Scripture? And are we not called on to choose life that we may live?" — I would not thus summarily dismiss the inquiry. There are passages such as these in the Old Testament; and there are some of a somewhat similar character in the New; and every word of God is sacred, and true acquaintance with its meaning important. But it does now appear to me, that they who use such passages as those just referred to, to show that the new birth is dependent upon an act of the human will, in the reception of Christ, or of the gospel that sets Him forth, have entirely mistaken the scope and meaning of those passages, and betray their ignorance of the scope and design of a great part of the Word of God.

To you I need hardly say, that all doubtless who have been saved in all ages have been saved by grace through faith; but there is a wide difference between the testimony and dealings of God before the crucifixion of Christ, and since that event. Until that event took place God's dealings with mankind were one continued trial, so to speak, of whether there be in man anything whereby he can, under any circumstances, retrieve himself. Not that such trial was needed for God. He knew from the beginning, yea, from before the foundation of the world, what man's course would be, and how he would demonstrate the utter hopelessness of his condition, if left to his own will, with every possible inducement to act aright. But this was to be demonstrated to man himself, and hence the trial. I would not at present dwell upon man's trial in Eden. He was then tried as to whether he could maintain his innocence, by withstanding temptation from without. There was then no tendency to evil within. But when man had fallen — when the great deceiver had succeeded in poisoning all the springs of moral action in man's nature — God neither summarily cut off the offender, nor at once sent the Saviour. Wrapping up a promise of a Saviour in the curse pronounced upon the enemy, he left man, now driven out of Eden, to multiply and fill the earth, and make manifest, without the restraint of an express law such as Adam had been under, what the bent of his will was, the promise all the while affording a resting-place for faith, wherever there was a heart, (such as Abel's, Enoch's, or Noah's,) opened to receive it.

What was the result of this trial? "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6: 5). "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (ver. 11, 12). The evil rose to such a height, that God could no longer tolerate its existence; so the flood was sent to destroy man from off the face of the earth.

Noah had found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and was, with his family, preserved to people the earth. Man was thus put on trial once more. After the flood, a new element was introduced to restrain the violence which had before filled the earth. The ordinance, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," made man a check and a restraint upon the violence of his fellow-man. But how does man acquit himself under this new principle of human government, thus in its essence introduced? Alas! Noah, the one in whom the authority was naturally invested, debases himself with wine; and when thus degraded, his own offspring take advantage of his state to degrade him further still! Babel too, and the cities of the plain; Egypt, with. its idolatries and oppressions; and the cities of the Amorites (see Deut. 18: 9-12), all form specimens of what man proved himself to be in the interim between the flood and the giving of the law. Rom. 1: 21-32 presents us with a gloomy picture of what man at this period proved the desires of his heart and the bent of his will to be; as well as of the consequences to which God gave up the Gentile world. But when He did thus give up the Gentiles, He made choice of Israel, that in His dealings with that nation, brought outwardly nigh to Himself and favoured with every possible advantage, further trial might be made, within a narrower sphere, of what the heart and will of man would produce. It was to this people that the law was given. And Moses, in recapitulating the dealings of God with this people in the wilderness, states that the object was "to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments or no" (Deut. 8: 2).

It was to Israel that the words, so often quoted to prove that life or death is at our own choice, were spoken: "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, and His statutes, and His judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply," etc. Deut. 30: 15, 16). Again, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (v. 19).

Was it, then, that any were saved by thus choosing life that they might live? This would be to affirm that life could come by keeping the law; and Paul says plainly, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Gal. 3: 21). But then he also says, "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal. 2: 21). This would indeed be a terrible conclusion to come to. And if you should enquire, as some did in the apostle's days, "Wherefore then the law?" let the apostle answer: "It was added, because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3: 19). And if you should still say, Why added because of transgressions? take for answer the same apostle's words in another place, "For by law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3: 20). And again, "Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound" (Rom. 5: 20). And again, "I had not known sin, but by the law" (Rom. 7: 7). And again, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (ver. 13;. Yet once more, "The law worketh wrath" (Rom. 4: 15). Now, it seems to me a serious thing, in the face of all these inspired declarations of what ends the law was designed to answer, to affirm that any were saved by "choosing life" according to the tenor of the words of Moses, which have been quoted. Life was then offered them on condition of obedience to the law; and the Holy Ghost solemnly assures us, that "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3: 20; Gal. 2: 16, 21; Gal. 3: 11); that is, in other words, they could not have life on the terms proposed by Moses.

Of this, Moses was quite aware. In the very next chapter to that from which his words are quoted, we find that the Lord appeared and said unto him, "Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people shall rise up and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them" (Deut. 31: 16). They had already broken one covenant of works, in token of which Moses brake the two tables of the law, which were in his hands, when he came down from the mount (see Ex. 32: 19). With all unchanged nature, and placed under a similar covenant of works, what could be expected now? What but the results which the Lord assures Moses, and Moses assures the people, would actually ensue? "Now therefore, write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel; put it in their mouths that this song maybe a witness for me against the children of Israel. For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed; for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware" (Deut. 31: 19-21).

Can anything be more solemn or decisive than these last words? God declared to Moses, that instead of choosing life that they might live, the people would turn to other gods, provoke Him, and break His covenant; and He speaks of these future acts of evil, as only the display of what He knew to be at the then present time working in their hearts. "I know their imagination" etc. Hence, Moses said to them, "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God." Why? That they might choose life, and live by keeping it? Nay, but "That it may be there for a witness against thee." "For I know thy rebellion," he proceeds, "and thy stiff neck; behold, whilst I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death" (ver. 26, 27)? "For I know," says he again to them, "that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands" (ver. 29). Surely we need no further answer to those who use Moses' words to prove that salvation depends on human will. If it did, who could be saved?

Joshua's words are sometimes quoted for this purpose, as well as those of Moses; and with as little reason or force. After reminding Israel of the condition in which their fathers were, serving other gods, when the Lord took Abraham from the other side of the flood; after rehearsing to them the wonders which God had wrought, and many of which their eyes had beheld; he exhorts them to fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth, and put away other gods; and then he adds, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served, that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24: 15). The fact is, he does not call upon them to choose between the Lord and idols. He says, "If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose ye "whether ye will serve this class of idols, or that. He, through grace, as we know, was resolved on serving the Lord. But when the people, with good intentions perhaps, but in a spirit of self-sufficiency, declare that they too will serve the Lord, how does Joshua receive their protestations? "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you after that he hath done you good" (ver. 19). And when the people still vow and protest "Nay; but we will serve the Lord," Joshua says to them, "Ye are witnesses against yourselves, and ye have chosen you the Lord to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses" (ver. 21, 22). Ah, yes; to have our words witness against us is the only result that can flow from our declaring that we choose the Lord and His service. And, as though to show in what a poor condition they were for taking such vows upon them, Joshua immediately exhorts them: "Now, therefore, put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel" (ver. 23). There were, then, strange gods among them! Their hearts, too, needed inclining to serve the Lord! Plain proof that they were, as we know the human heart is, averse to His service.

Of this we have still further evidence in that part of their history which immediately succeeds. The Book of Judges is but the history of their sins, and of the calamities which these brought upon them, with the Lord's merciful interpositions for their deliverance. Into this I do not now enter. Nor shall I pursue the thread of their history throughout. It would lead me too far. One point, however, must not be omitted; I refer to the ministry of the prophets. It differed materially from the law simply considered. The law left no room for repentance. It demanded obedience; but failing to obtain that, it had nothing to pronounce or bestow but condemnation and the cure. It was obedience, uniform unvarying obedience, which the Lord required; not repentance and a return to obedience.

But the prophets were sent to propose, as it were, new terms. "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55: 7). "Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers: yet return again to me, saith the Lord" (Jer. 3: 1). "Go, and proclaim these words towards the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord, and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep mine anger for ever, O house of Israel. Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live — he shall not die" (Ezek. 18: 25-28). Such was the ministry of the prophets.

But was this, to prove, any more than Moses' or Joshua's language respecting the law, that it was possible for man, of his own will, so to turn from his wickedness and do that which is lawful and right as to live thereby? Surely not. It was a further test — a milder one — to prove whether it was in the heart or will of man to turn to God, and serve and obey Him. It was as though God said, I will not rigorously enforce the claims of My law. It claims uninterrupted and universal obedience. That you have utterly failed to render, and the law knows nothing of repentance, But now I give you an opportunity to begin again. "If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live." It was a fair offer to blot out all the past, and begin again; and this offer was made, be it remembered, to those who were complaining that their destinies were not in their own hands. Could a fairer offer have been made? But need I say to you, my brother, whether it were possible for any fallen man to be saved thus? What! by keeping all God's statutes, and doing for the time to come that which is lawful and right! Surely this would have been for the doer of these to live by them, which Paul declares to be the righteousness which is of the law. It was simply affording, to those who thought they would have done better than their fathers, an opportunity of showing what they could do!

And what was the issue of this trial of man by the new proposals of repentance and amendment of life! "And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy" (2 Chr. 36: 15, 16). These patient dealings of God with Israel were continued after the captivity; and John the Baptist was the last of the long line of those who were thus sent to Israel. "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matt. 11: 13).

Did I say, the last in the line of servants who were thus employed? But there was One greater than all these servants of God, who came after them all on the same errand. Will you turn, my brother, to Matt. 21: 33 - 22: 14, where you will find the summing up of all we have now been considering together, and that from the lips of our blessed Lord Himself? You know the two parables which constituted this passage. A certain householder plants a vineyard, and lets it out to husbandmen. When the time of the fruit draws near, he sends his servants to the husbandman, that they may receive it. The husbandman take the servants, beat one, kill another, and stone another. Again he sends other servants more than the first; and they do to them likewise. Last of all he sends his son, saying, "They will reverence my son." So that one object for which the Son of God was sent was to seek fruit of those to whom the vineyard had been entrusted. How was He received? "But when the husbandman saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him." The meaning of this cannot be mistaken. The Jewish nation were the husbandman. All the privileges God had bestowed upon them were the, vineyard. The obedience He required was the fruit, which they ought to have rendered. The law demanded it, but in vain. Prophet after prophet came seeking it; but maltreatment or death was all they received. Last of all came Jesus, the heir. Him, also, they put to death. What can be done more? What further test of man's heart and will can be applied? There is a further test; and the application of this, with the result, is illustrated in the next parable, at the beginning of Matt. 22.

Jesus came, not only as the last of those whom God sent seeking fruit from man; He came as the messenger and minister of God's grace to man. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding; and they would not come." Here it is not the Lord of the vineyard seeking fruit — God requiring of man the service, the obedience, due to Him. No; it is a king inviting to a wedding feast: God, in His grace, providing everything for man, and inviting him to partake. But he is no more inclined to receive God's bounty than to satisfy God's claims. They would not come. But this is not all; the first refusal is not received as final. "Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage." Christ, as seeking fruit, is rejected and slain. He is equally rejected as inviting Israel, by means of His disciples to partake of the feast which God had provided. But when they have thus rejected Him, grace still lingers over them, and His very death is made the occasion of renewed invitations. "All things are ready" (this could hardly have been said before): "come unto the marriage." "But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise; and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and slew them." Such is the reception with which all God's overtures, as well as His claims, are met on the part of man. He claims obedience, He seeks fruit — man will not render it. He publishes grace, providing a wedding-feast, and inviting guests — "they would not come." He repeats His invitations, descanting on the plenteousness of the provision, and declaring that all things are ready. It is all to no purpose. Some light-heartedly despise His bounty, preferring their merchandise or their farm: others, more cruel in their rejection of grace, spitefully entreat and slay the servants who are sent to invite them. Such is man; and such is man's will with every possible advantage short of that Almighty grace which subdues his opposition, and makes him willing to receive Christ, and the salvation He has brought. Such grace it is, and such grace alone, by which any become the children of God.

The marriage was made by the king for his son. The feast was provided to grace this marriage. Is the king's son to be despoiled of his marriage-feast, because of the perversity and obstinacy of those first invited as guests? These, or many of them, perish for their contempt of God's grace; but other messengers still are sent out — not now to those who might have expected to be invited, but — into the highways, to bid as many as they find. "So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all, as many as they found, both bad and good; and the wedding was furnished with guests." In Luke 14, where we have a similar parable, the servants are told, "Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in thither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." They were to bring them in. It is not an appeal to their will, as to whether they will come; they are to be brought in. When this is done, the servant says, "Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and COMPEL them to come in, that my house may be filled." If we are really guests at Christ's table, it is not that we have of ourselves chosen to come when invited, nor even when urged; but because we have been brought in, or compelled to come. That is, the opposition of our natural will has been overcome by that Almighty grace, which, in thus overcoming our opposition, has made us willing, and brought us in. This is beautifully expressed in the well-known lines: —

"Nay, but I yield, I yield,

I can hold out no more;

I sink, by dying love compell'd,

And own Thee conqueror.

No man becomes a child of God by an act of his own will!

Affectionately yours in Christ, W. T.

The Power, Goodness, and Love of God

The Power, Goodness, and Love of God.

A Poem.

W. Trotter.

Preface.

The following Poem is an attempt to lead the mind to the contemplation of some of the wondrous works of God, as displayed in creation; and also to the consideration of His goodness and tender mercies, which are unceasingly shown to His erring, sinful creatures. It also treats of the manifestation of His love to the world, in the gift of "His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." May He deign to make it instrumental to the bringing of some soul to the knowledge of HIMSELF, "the only true God," and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent.

Part 1. THE POWER OF GOD IN CREATION.

"The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead."

Romans 1: 20.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork."

Psalm 19.

WILT thou, O man, in pride presume to boast

Against thy Maker, and profane His name?

A creature weak as thou! — a worm at most!

Thy primal image lost through sin and shame!

Within thy bosom burns no fervent flame

To Him, thy God, thy being's end and source,

Whose attributes thy deepest homage claim,

Whose mercy guards thee with a gentle force,

And whose rich bounty flows in full, unceasing course?

Lift up thine eyes! His wondrous works behold!

The broad expanse of heaven's ethereal blue

Those million worlds, within their orbits rolled,

That with unwearied speed their course pursue,

Like fiery steeds, with progress swift and true.

Age rolls on age o'er man's brief, fleeting race

Quick generations still his race renew;

But yonder whirling worlds sustain their place,

And nought of mortal change affects their path or pace.

Who dare defy the glorious midday sun,

When he shines forth with bright and dazzling rays?

Of mortal men, oh name him, if there's one

That can, with eagle eye, unflinching gaze

On him when he his majesty displays.

Yet is he but a ball, an orb of light,

A shining atom in this mighty maze,

A speck in the vast universe, a mite,

The fettered slave of Him who dwells beyond our sight.

Sublime beyond expression is the arch

That spans the heavens in the slimmer rain,

Before the sun hath closed his daily march,

To sink in splendour o'er the western main.

To paint its beauties, art attempts in vain.

'Tis God's remembrancer, the shining token

That o'er the hills shall floods ne'er flow again — Genesis 9: 12-17.

The world-wide witness of what He hath spoken,

Whose word, when once declared, can ne'er be changed nor broken.

Terrific is the tempest's rage and force,

As through the sky it sweeps with fearful power,

Pursuing full the current of its course,

Unchecked the anger of its wrathful hour,

When stoutest hearts, without reproach, may cower.

The lightning runs — the clouds are rent asunder;

Surcharged, they burst in one o'erwhelming shower;

While peal on peal of loud and deaf'ning thunder

O'erawe and fill the soul with thoughts of fear and wonder.

To do their Maker's will the storms rejoice,

They but obey His great Almighty word;

The thunders are the echoes of His voice;

The lightnings, the swift arrows of the Lord

His arm of strength that wings them from their cord. Psalm 18: 13, 14.

While all His works His glorious power declare,

And His great name by angels is adored,

Shall man alone, chief object of His care,

His word presume to doubt, His power and greatness dare?

If we descend to this sublunar globe,

What glorious wonders all around we see

There we behold the ocean, like a robe,

Enwrap the earth with waters wild and free,

Yet held in bounds fixed by divine decree. Job 38: 8-11.

When roused by winds, its billows rage and roar,

Its mighty waters fiercely flow; but flee

The instant they approach the shielded shore,

'Gainst which they dash and beat, but dare not venture o'er.

Man builds and launches his leviathan,

The monster vessel made to plough the deep,

And proudly says, "Behold the work of man!

"Safe o'er the billows shall she swiftly sweep,

"While feebler craft along the shore may creep."

With steam and sail, 'mid loud huzzas, she starts;

Her owners look a rich reward to reap

From her choice stores consigned to foreign marts,

And her return with wares and wealth from distant parts.

She speeds her course; soft blows the summer breeze;

The sun looks smiling on; the sea is calm;

The vessel glides with pleasantness and ease,

And all on board are free from fear and qualm;

While souls devout in silence raise a psalm

To God, the Author of all earthly bliss,

Of heavenly love, and soul-refreshing balm.

Sweet, tranquil scene! And, in accord this,

The whole horizon round the sky and ocean kiss.

But oft, alas! a calm forebodes a storm,

The night succeeds the best and brightest days,

And hearts that in the morn with hope were warm,

May clasp despair with sun's declining rays:

And so this ship, man's confidence and praise,

Which left the shore in majesty and pride,

This trite, but oft-forgotten, truth displays

For to her port she did not safely ride,

But in a tempest wrecked, she sunk beneath the tide.

O man, how frail! his utmost skill, how vain

When God lets loose a fierce, tempestuous gale,

To raging wrath bestirs the mighty main,

And bids them some devoted ship assail.

Man's puny strength is then of no avail.

Almighty power he, then, perforce must own,

The proof too plain that human efforts fail;

For, his last struggle o'er, with heavy moan

He sinks beneath the waves, as lifeless as a stone.

The earth itself survey — thy native dust! Genesis 2: 7.

Its hidden depths thou never could'st explore

Thou canst but break, as with a spade, its crust,

With all thine engines, but its surface bore;

Still leaving, all untouched, its central core.

So vain a creature thou! a narrow cell

Beneath its sod is all thy want — no more

When thou upon its face shall cease to dwell,

And friends for thee, perchance, may sound the doleful knell.

Behold the mountains, soaring to the skies,

Their summits crowned with everlasting snow

Alike unmoved by April's weeping eyes,

And fierce July's intense and fervent glow;

Like heavenly peace, untouched by weal or woe.

Yet by His word, who made the mountains tower,

O'er loftiest peaks were waters made to flow,

When heavenly founts poured forth their ceaseless shower,

And depths were all unlocked, by their Creator's power. Genesis 7, 8.

But why these items of His might recount?

For who can all His wondrous works detail,

Or trace each streamlet to its sacred Fount?

At such a task the strongest mind must quail,

And in the attempt angelic hosts would fail.

The world around His power and greatness shows;

His voice is heard in every sighing gale, Psalm 29.

When tempests rage, or fierce tornado blows,

In hot volcanic fire, and earthquake's fearful throes.

The whole creation hangs upon His word;

It breathed not with existence till He spoke

But when His all-commanding voice was heard,

From still, eternal silence it awoke,

And at His bidding into being broke, Gen. 1: 1; Ps. 33: 6; John 1: 3; Heb. 1: 2, 3; 11: 3.

And while the heavens and the earth shall stand,

Shall they be subject to their Maker's yoke,

Make known the power of His mighty hand,

And show how great His name!

His varied works, how grand!

When His Almighty word had formed the earth,

And shed abroad the beaming rays of light,

To grass and fruitful trees had given birth,

The sun decreed for day, the moon for night,

And all was good, and beautiful, and bright;

Then beings breathed at His, their Maker's, call.

First made He fish, — then birds for song and flight:

Majestic beasts; and cattle, great and small;

Yea, all of every kind; and things that creep and crawl.

His last, the chief and greatest work, was man;

Who, God-inspired, became a living soul

In God's own image — thus the race began.

To him He gave dominion and control

O'er creatures all, and earth, from pole to pole. Genesis 1: 26, 27, 28.

Alas! that man, so honoured, and so blessed,

Should thro' the fall so soon have marred the whole

His sin, the tasting of that tree, the test Genesis 3.

To prove if he would keep his Maker's one behest.

Say, Is not life a marvel? Who but He

That ne'er beginning knew, nor end can know,

Who is, who was, and evermore shall be,

Could this surpassing, blessed gift bestow

On hosts above, on beings here below?

To Him alone creative power belongs;

To Him, then, should unceasing praises flow

In joyous strains, in glad and grateful songs,

From hosts above the sky, and earth's unnumbered throngs.

But man, alas! is to his God a traitor,

And falls to own the wonders He has wrought

He gives not glory to the great Creator,

Nor honours Him as he, the creature, ought,

With all his strength of heart, and soul, and thought.

Nay, sadder still; when God His love has proved,

And tidings sends, with richest mercy fraught,

Of full salvation in His well-beloved,

Man's heart is so estranged, he hears it all unmoved.

If thou His grace refuse, His love reject,

His strong beseechings of thy soul withstand,

Will He, who heaven with starry gems hath decked,

Who works His wonders both by sea and land,

Who holds the worlds and guides them with His hand,

Not bring the scorner to His righteous throne?

Then will thy soul be wrecked, like ship a-strand;

And in thine anguish and despairing moan,

The undying worm will be, the fault was all thine own.

Against thy God no longer then rebel.

If glory shines in His great work, creation,

What bright effulgence, and what glories dwell

In His blessed image, Christ, in exaltation;

His power, and wisdom, Son, and great salvation! Heb. 1.

There's mercy, peace, and blessing, Him receiving,

Who bore in love the sinner's condemnation;

And, to His cross and Holy Person cleaving,

Thou wilt around thy soul eternal bliss be weaving.

Part 2. THE GOODNESS OF GOD.

"The Lord is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all His works."

Psalm 145: 9.

"He left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."

Acts 14: 17.

"Despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"

Romans 2: 4.

ALMIGHTY Power, I have essayed to sing,

Though far above me hath its grandeur soared.

I now would seek to strike a gentler string

To that sweet theme, "The Goodness of the Lord!"

Delightful task! His mercies to record.

But who is equal to so blest an aim,

Unless on him abundant grace be poured?

This grace I crave in Jesus' worthy name,

That I my God may praise, and sound abroad His fame.

But where shall I begin? For far and near

So thickly strewed are all His mercies found;

His bounteous blessings everywhere appear;

Such goodness flows throughout this rolling round,

Beyond the creature's puny powers to sound;

That, like a ship without a chart at sea,

I fail to find direction, shore, or bound.

But all bewild'ring doubts that instant flee,

When, Lord, from streams I turn, and find their fount in Thee. James 1: 17.

If pure the source, the currents purely flow

If bright the sun, then brilliant are his rays

By clustering grapes the fruitful vine we know

So God His goodness by His works displays,

And shows His loving-kindness in His ways.

When man He blessed, before his sin and fill,

Then blooming Eden sang aloud His praise

And since that hour His mercies, shown to all,

For hallelujahs full on us His creatures call.

Alas! how few who dwell beneath the skies,

And share the blessings of the sun and rain

Who taste His mercies as each moment flies —

The bounties of the air, the earth, and main —

E'er raise the tribute of a grateful strain.

His gifts they take, but thanks from Him withhold.

Nay, oft will they His providence arraign:

For long forbearance makes the rebel bold,

And hearts by sin estranged are to their Maker cold.

Who gave us being, with its keen delights

Of love and friendship, home and kindling joys?

Who shaped the mind, which soars to starry heights,

Debates with judgement's calm and steady poise,

Or plays with fancy's light and airy toys?

Who formed the frame in which our spirits dwell,

For blessing fit, though sin the bliss alloys,

And set in beauty earth cannot excel?

Whose workmanship art thou, oh, thankless creature, tell? Prov. 22: 2; Job 31: 15; 34: 19.

Man's race, indeed, is fallen and defiled,

For sin its victim could not but abase;

His fruit, once fair, now wanton grows, and wild,

And keenest eye no fruit for God can trace,

Except where dwells the root of heavenly grace.

Yet as the oak, which arrowy lightnings kill,

In ruined grandeur still maintains its place

So man, though far from God in heart and will,

Some outward marks retains of fallen greatness still.

If we the goodness of the Lord would trace,

Let us His mercies to our kind review;

Which wait on us when life begins its race,

And never cease, but sweetly us pursue,

Each day and night, life's lengthened journey through.

Man's wants are many; weakness clings to all;

But loving, tender, mercies, fresh is dew,

At morn and eve, unfailing, gently fall,

The hearts of all to cheer throughout this earthly ball.

A babe is born! A frail and fragile thing,

More helpless far than fledgling in its nest;

To its fond mother does the infant cling,

And lays its head upon her loving breast,

And there finds comfort, nourishment, and rest.

Both sire and she, with true parental pride,

With joy caress their welcome, winsome guest

And, taught by love, with pleasure they provide

For all its rising wants from mercy's flowing tide.

A ceaseless flow of blessings from above

Attends the child, till he a youth is grown.

He thrives beneath a mother's tender love,

Surpassing other love, a mother's own,

Which in her breast a gracious God hath sown.

The father, too, his heedless boy doth lead

Through snares and dangers, to his years unknown

With watchful care he plucks each noxious weed,

And sows the fertile mind with wisdom's fruitful seed.

The child, a youth becomes; the youth, a man

And, as a tree, deep-rooted in the ground,

Extends in height, circumference, and span,

Outspreads its arms and branches all around,

And is with fruit and graceful foliage crowned

So he who gains a parent's honoured name,

Whose labours for his children's sake abound,

Who honours age, and owns the widow's claim,

Has carried his true desert, a crown of honest fame.

'Tis God gives man the blessings of his life;

His health, and strength, prosperity, and friends,

That best of boons, a loving, prudent wife,

Blithe boys and girls, whom she, unceasing, tends.

Yea, every good His thoughtful kindness sends.

For man He cares, regardful of his state,

And constant blessing with his being blends.

His mercies are both manifold and great;

And all His gracious ways, what creature can relate?

Man reaches soon the summer of his days,

Enjoys its sunshine and its genial glow;

Till autumn sheds its calm and sober rays,

And yields its fruits, which in abundance grow,

And o'er his pathway their rich blessings throw;

Then winter comes apace, severe and cold,

And crowns the brow of age with frosted snow.

The closing scene the living next behold

Man yields his fleeting breath, and life's short tale is told.

Compassions comfort us at every stage

Of our existence — from the hour of birth,

Until the body, worn with toil and age,

Lays down its load upon the lap of earth.

God's gifts and goodness banish drought and dearth.

The sun, rejoicing, runs his ancient round,

And fills the earth with gladness, light, and mirth;

Soft dews and rains refresh the thirsty ground;

And earth from year to year is with abundance crowned.

The golden grain behold! the fruitful fields!

And see the cattle on a thousand hills!

The womb of earth her hidden riches yields,

And man with bounties from her bosom fills,

To raise his gladness, and assuage his ills.

The winding currents through their channels flow,

The broad, deep rivers, and the sparkling rills;

All nature strives with earnest zeal to show

The goodness which the Lord doth on us all bestow.

While earth remains, the seasons shall not cease,

And sowing-time and harvest never fail; Gen. 8: 22.

Nor shall the waters of the clouds decrease,

Nor sun forget to shine on hill and dale.

But blessings fall on meadow, field, and vale.

The flowers shall bloom, to cheer us on our ways,

And still shall blow the fresh and fragrant gale;

The blithesome birds pour forth their tuneful lays,

And every thing that breathes proclaim their Maker's praise.

And all these blessings, which we fain would trace,

From God Himself descend, and rest on all. Matt. 5: 45; Job 25: 3.

On those who gaze, adoring, on the face

Of His dear Son, and God their Father call.

And, in His grace, on those as well they fall

Who never bowed before His holy name,

Nor thanked Him for His mercies, great or small;

Regardless of the Fountain whence they came,

His goodness in His gifts, and what His bounties claim.

Yet is He loth to fix the sinner's sentence,

And close the day of lingering love and grace;

His goodness ever leading to repentance,

And He the rebel ready to embrace

Who looks for mercy in the Saviour's face.

His fruitful seasons fill us still with gladness,

Yet is He gracious to our ruined race;

His tender mercies soothe our hearts in sadness,

And still in love He seeks to stay us in our madness.

Oh! worthy He of a sublimer song,

And more exalted strain than we can sing

To whom such pity, love, and grace belong.

Who is of mercy the perennial Spring,

And good to all, yea, every living thing.

Supreme in bliss, Eternal, Infinite,

With whose high praise both heaven and earth shall ring;

Who now is beaming on this world of night

In His full glory, Christ, the Lord, the Life, and Light.

Part 3. THE LOVE OF GOD.

"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3: 16.

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him."

1 John 4: 9.

"God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Romans 5: 8.

THE power of God, displayed in earth and skies,

The varied blessings of His nether springs,

Which He in mercy to our race supplies

These are the themes which have attuned our strings.

But now my eager soul would stretch her wings,

For eagle flight, yet meekly as a dove,

And leaving far behind all lesser things,

Ascend to heavenly heights, and rest above

Upon the throne of Him whose wondrous name is Love.

As stars are veiled before the silver moon,

When she, enrobed, sustains the sway of night;

As she, before the golden sun at noon,

Retires, o'ercome by his resplendent light,

Though moon and stars are both serenely bright:

So, while the ways of God are all divine,

Though sovereign are His majesty and might,

And all His glories in His name combine,

The lustre of His Love surpassingly doth shine.

O Love supreme! Who can its height attain,

Its length and breadth survey, or depth can sound?

It is a vast unfathomable main,

That freely flows, unchecked by shore or bound;

Sin's mighty mountain in its fulness drowned

In God, the blessed God, it has its source;

Where else, indeed, could such deep love be found?

In His dear Son alone it takes its course,

And on the soul is pressed but by the Spirit's force.

And God is Light! Oh, how its glory gleams!

Intense and brilliant are its living rays,

Which stream from Christ, in whom its lustre beams,

The heart to test, and try our works and ways.

Ah! who can bear its bright and burning blaze?

The seraphim, beneath a search so keen,

Cannot, unveiled, endure His holy gaze,

Before whose face the heavens are unclean.

How then can sinful man, whose guilt no shade can screen?

Yet who can from His holy presence flee, Psalm 139.

Though he the wings of morning take, and dwell

Within the secret caverns of the sea,

Or seek retreat in earth's remotest cell,

Or covert crave in heaven or in hell?

O vain desire! To God the night is day;

His searching voice will reach like solemn knell,

And make the sinner tremble with dismay;

Whom yet He seeks to bless, and not to drive away.

Though God pursues in purest love and grace,

Yet man His presence ever seeks to shun,

As though a bear or lion gave him chase,

Or fierce avenger on his footsteps won, Num. 35.

And for his life he from his foe must run.

From thy true Friend, O man! why dost thou flee?

From Him who gave His dear and only Son

In love that has no like and no degree;

And who to save thy soul is still pursuing thee.

Ah! who can tell the ruin that befell

The  human race through Adam's fearful fall?

His sin admitted death, and opened hell,

And, sinners born, his guilt involves us all,

For  all have sinned, and bowed to Satan's thrall.

As God is true and just, and great His name,

His holiness a sinner must appal;

For  who can cleanse himself from sin and shame,

And render unto Him what His requirements claim?

If one should madly ever hope to win

Eternal life through keeping of the law,

Let him reflect, ere he his task begin,

That cursed is he that makes a single flaw: James 2: 10; Gal. 3: 10.

A truth, which known, must strike the soul with awe.

His heart, besides, of evil is the fount,

And man, so weak, he cannot lift a straw.

How can he then present a clean account,

And of unsullied works bring God the full amount?

Can man then find a ransom for his soul,

Or give to God a sacrifice for sin?

Nay, though he search the earth from pole to pole,

And for its treasures dig and dive within,

Or slay his son, or yield his dearest kin. Psalm 49: 7; Micah 6: 6, 7.

So precious is the soul in God's esteem,

The world itself could not His favour win;

Nor all its blood one sinful soul redeem,

Tho' it for ever flowed in one unmeasured stream.

Must man then, hopeless, be for ever lost,

Since works, and wealth, and offerings cannot save?

Must he on hell's fierce, fiery lake be tossed,

Imbibe the torments of its burning wave,

And in his thirst for water vainly crave?

Ah! yes; this woe were his, if Love had slept,

And God His Son had never sent to save;

For nothing man could bring could He accept,

And man must then, undone, in ceaseless woe have wept.

But, oh! when bowed beneath our load of guilt,

We must have sunk in everlasting woe;

When all the hopes on which we vainly built

Had fallen with a fearful overthrow,

And God His righteous claims could ne'er forego;

Then from His bosom He salvation brought,

And let the fountain of His love o'erflow

To sinful man, who ne'er that love had sought,

Of which he ne'er conceived, nor could conceive a thought.

One for his friend perchance may dare to die,

Though such a friendship is extreme and rare

A Damon for a Pythias death defy,

The wrathful vengeance of a tyrant dare,

And bid him strike, that he his friend may spare.

But for a foe to die! The thought's absurd!

The bare idea evaporates in air!

So strange a marvel was there ever heard

In true historic page, or legend's wildest word?

But Love Divine all human thought transcends.

See in the Son how warm its ardour glows!

For 'tis in Him God now His love commends,

Whom once He gave to suffer for His foes, Romans 5: 6, 7, 8.

And taste for them the keenest woe of woes.

Ah! yes, for them, the world, man's guilty race,

This wondrous love so fully, freely flows,

To trait'rous man, who turns away his face

From his Creator-God, the God of love and grace.

But who the worth of God's dear Son can tell,

His greatness measure, or rehearse His ways?

Not angel hosts, though they in might excel,

And ever on His holy presence gaze.

How then can sinful man endure the blaze

Of His effulgence, and His worth record?

The Spirit only can show forth the praise

And boundless glories of the blessed Lord,

Jehovah's fellow, Son, th' Eternal Life, and Word.

In the beginning, ere the worlds were made,

Before the sun, or moon, or stars, were seen,

The waters measured, or the mountains weighed,

Ere hills arose, or vales were clothed with green,

Or aught appeared, celestial or terrene,

There Wisdom was, and Wisdom is the Son,

Abiding e'er with Him, who e'er his been;

His Father's joy, His well-beloved One,

And then His pure delights on sons of men had run. Prov. 8: 22-31.

When by Almighty power the worlds were framed,

And all their wonders into being brought;

When earth stood forth, and day and night were named,

And land and waters were with blessing fraught

'Twas by the Son, the great Creator, wrought. John 1: 1, 2, 3; Col. 1: 15, 16.

He spread the heavens, gave the ambient air,

The waters bound, and hung the earth on nought,

Made man the object of His special care,

Rolled worlds within their spheres; — and still sustains them there.

And He it was, the blest, eternal Son,

Who left the realms of fadeless bliss and bloom;

Took flesh and blood, Himself the Holy One,

And deigned to dwell within the virgin's womb,

And tread this world of sin, and grief, and gloom.

Yea, for our sakes did He His life resign;

The sinless tenant of the sinner's tomb.

What love but His could such extremes combine?

Are not its breadth and length, its depth and height, divine?

What pure obedience to His Father's will

Marked all His path of patience here below!

With what delight did He His work fulfil,

His way pursuing with a holy glow,

Although its issue was a death of woe

Awakened was His willing ear each morning, Isaiah 50.

That wisdom's words might in His bosom flow,

And, learning thus, He bore reproach and scorning,

Gave to the weary rest, and to the wicked warning.

Incarnate Word! With Him was grace and truth

The path in which He trod was holy ground;

Unmingled grace He showed to age and youth;

And, oh! what blessings did He shed around,

Wherever want and wretchedness were found.

The sick He healed, the mourner's tears He dried,

And never on a broken spirit frowned;

Each troubled soul in Him might well confide,

For in His bosom flowed deep love's exhaustless tide.

And in His works behold His power divine!

The storm He stills. He walks upon the waves;

The fainting crowd sustains; makes water wine.

Casts devils out, and souls from Satan saves;

The dead restores, and thwarts the greedy graves

While eager foes, at His Almighty name,

Fall prostrate at His feet, like abject slaves

How bless'd that He, who could this homage claim,

Should yield Himself, in love, to bear our sin and shame!

In Him, the Son, the love of God behold!

For Him, His well-beloved, He did not spare,

But gave Him up to grief and woe untold,

That He the judgment might for sinners bear,

And thus God's own unbounded love declare

To man, who had rebellion's flag unfurled!

Where is the love that can with this compare?

His Son delivered for this guilty world,

Which He to endless doom with justice might have hurled!

When on the cross the Holy Saviour hung,

The mid-day sun withdrew his wonted light,

And o'er the earth a shady veil was flung,

In awe and sadness at so strange a sight

His soul eclipsed by judgement's sunless night

And when His bosom groaned its final ache,

And life He gave in mercy infinite,

The astonished earth did like an aspen shake,

Upheave with terror's throes, and to her centre quake. Matt. 27: 45-51; Mark 15: 33; Luke 23: 44, 45.

When o'er His head had flowed affliction's wave,

And judgment's billows all their force had spent,

Himself He yielded freely to the grave;

The Lamb of God, in love and mercy sent.

Oh, wondrous action! Oh, immense event!

Behold Him, in the lowly guise of man,

The Godhead curtained in a human tent,

Who worlds sustains, and metes them with a span

Enduring, in His grace, of guilt, the dreadful ban! John 10: 17, 18.

How vast the worth and virtue of the blood

Which He for sinners then on Calvary shed!

How freely flowed that rich and crimson flood,

When He, the sinless, suffered in our stead,

And 'neath our judgment bowed His holy head!

For sin He died, and put it clean away; Heb. 9: 26.

The living One was numbered with the dead;

And in the grave did He consent to lay,

And till the appointed morn in its deep silence stay.

The grave received, but Him could not retain

The Holy One could no corruption see.

Himself the Life, He quickly rose again

Death's conqueror, He set the captives free,

Of death and hades holding each the key.

To God's right hand exalted on the throne

To Him all creatures soon shall bow the knee,

The universe His power and greatness own,

And every tongue confess that He is Lord alone.

Not only sin did He thus put away,

And manifest the depth of Love Divine.

For darkness give us light; for night the day,

Whose beaming glories from His presence shine,

And cheer the heart, erst dismal as a mine.

But, by the work which He so fully wrought,

He grace and truth for ever did entwine,

And blessing founded, passing human thought,

While to His Father's name eternal praise He brought.

O mortal man! wilt thou not now confess

That GOD is great, as all His works proclaim;

For heaven and earth alike this truth express,

And spread abroad their great Creator's fame,

And call on us to own His mighty name?

And that He's good, we surely can but see

This truth to tell is still His constant aim

His bounties, gifts, and blessings, wide and free,

On all are daily showered, and prove how good is He.

But, oh, His Love, declared in Christ, His Son,

Canst thou still doubt, or dare to disbelieve,

And still His warnings and beseechings shun,

And by thy unbelief His bosom grieve,

And round thine own a web of anguish weave?

Oh, heed His call, obey His gracious voice,

And Christ, for life, salvation, peace, receive,

E'en now, make Him thy soul's repose and choice;

And then shall God, His Son, and heaven, o'er thee rejoice.

O let this Love, although till now unfelt,

Which God is pressing on thy ruined soul,

Thine heart subdue, thy bosom move and melt,

And all thy being bow to its control.

Like yielding wax before a fire of coal.

His Love believe, as in the Son expressed,

To all proclaimed, to all from pole to pole,

To every weary, willing heart addressed; —

Salvation then is thine, and sweet, eternal rest.

Five Letters on Worship and Ministry in the Spirit

Five Letters on Worship and Ministry in the Spirit.

W. Trotter.

Letter 1.

GOD PRESENT IN THE ASSEMBLY.

Beloved Brethren, — There are several points connected with our position, as gathered together in the name of Jesus, as to which I feel it on my heart to communicate with you. I take this mode of doing so, as affording you better opportunity individually to examine, and maturely to weigh, what is communicated, than you would be likely to have in a free conversation where all were present. I should be very thankful for this latter, should the Lord incline your hearts to it, when you have examined and weighed in His presence the matters I have to put before you.

One word at the outset in acknowledgement of God's mercy to us as gathered in the name of Jesus. I can but bow my head and worship in remembrance of the many seasons of real refreshing and unfeigned joy He has given us together in His presence. The recollection of these seasons, while it bows the heart before God, renders each one with whom such mercies have been enjoyed unspeakably dear. The bond of the Spirit is a real bond; and it is in the confidence which He inspires in my brethren's love, that I would as your brother, and as your servant for Christ's sake, express without reserve what seems to me of deep importance to our continued happiness and associated profit, as well as to what is of far greater moment, the glory of Him in whose name we are gathered.

When in July last we were led of the Lord, as I doubt not, to substitute open meetings for the Lord's day evening gospel preachings, which had been sustained till then, I anticipated all which has since ensued. I may say that the result has not disappointed me in the least. There are lessons as to the practical guidance of the Holy Ghost which can only be learned practically; and much that may now, by the Lord's blessing, commend itself to your spiritual understanding, and to your consciences, would then have been quite unintelligible, from your unacquaintance with the kind of meetings to which such truth applies. It is often said that experience is the best teacher. This may perhaps be questioned, and rightly so; but there can be no question that experience makes us conscious of wants which divine teaching alone supplies. You will believe me, that it is no joy to me in itself to find my brethren mutually dissatisfied with the part taken by each other in the meetings. But if this state of things should be overruled, as I trust it may be, to the opening all our hearts to lessons from God's word, which we could not otherwise so well have learned, this at least will be matter for thankfulness and joy.

The doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in "the body, the church," and as the sure consequence His presence and supremacy in the assemblies of the saints, has for a good many years now appeared to my own soul, if not the great truth of the dispensation, yet surely one of the most momentous truths by which the present period is distinguished. The virtual or actual denial of it constitutes one of the most serious features of the apostasy which has taken place. The sense of this does not abate with me, but rather deepens as time rolls on.

I do freely confess to you, that with the full acknowledgement that there are beloved children of God in all the denominations around, and with every desire to keep my heart open to them all, I could no more have fellowship with any body of professing Christians who substitute clerisy in any of its forms for the sovereign guidance of the Holy Ghost, than as an Israelite I could have had fellowship with the setting up of a golden calf in the place of the living God. That this has been done, and that throughout Christendom, and that for this, along with other sins, judgment is impending over Christendom, one can but sorrowfully own, and take the shame of it before God, as having all had to do with it, and as being one body in Christ with numbers who to this day glory in it. But the difficulties which attend a place of separation from this evil, and which we are all beginning to feel (as we ought surely to have anticipated), have no such effect with me, as to weaken the sense of the evil from which God has in His mercy separated us; and they awaken within me no desire to return to that kind of human, official place and power, the assertion of which for a distinct class characterizes the professing world, and is fast hastening on the judgment by which the professing world will ere long be visited.

But, beloved brethren, while our conviction of the truth and importance of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's presence cannot be too profound, let me beseech you to remember, that the presence of the Holy Ghost in the assemblies of the saints is itself A FACT. It is simple faith in this we need. We are prone to forget this. And forgetfulness of this, or ignorance of it, is the main cause of our ever coming together without profit to our souls. If we did but come together to meet God; if we did but believe when we are assembled that He is really present, what an effect this must have on our souls!

The fact is, that as really as Christ was present with His disciples on the earth, so really is the Holy Ghost now present in the assemblies of the saints. If in any way His presence could be manifested to our senses — if we could see Him as the disciples did see Jesus — how would our souls be solemnized and subdued. What deep stillness, what reverent attention, what solemn waiting on Him, would be the result. How impossible that there could be any haste, or rivalry, or restlessness, if the presence of the Holy Ghost were to be thus revealed to sight and sense. And is the fact of His presence to be less influential because it is a matter of faith instead of sight? Is He any less really present because unseen? It is the poor world that receives Him not, because it does not see Him; and shall we take its place and forsake our own? "And I will pray the Father," says Jesus, "and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14: 16, 17.)

"But ye know him." Would that we did, beloved! More and more am I persuaded that our great lack is that of faith in His personal presence. Have there not been times when His presence has been realized as a fact? and how blessed were such seasons! There might be, and there were, intervals of silence; but how were they occupied? In solemn waiting upon God. Not in restless anxiety as to who was next to speak or pray; not in turning over the leaves of Bibles or hymn books to find something that we thought suitable. No; nor in anxious thoughts about those who were lookers-on, wondering what they would think of the silence that existed. God was there. Each heart was engaged with Him; and for any to have broken silence, for the sake of doing so, would have been felt to be an interruption indeed.

When silence was broken, it was with a prayer that embodied the desires, and expressed the breathings of all present; or a hymn in which all could with fulness of heart unite; or a word which came home to our hearts with power. And though several might be used in such hymns, and prayers, and ministrations, it was as evidently one Spirit who guided and arranged the whole, as though a plan of it had been made beforehand, and each one had had his part assigned. No human wisdom could have made such a plan. The harmony was divine. It was the Holy Ghost acting by the several members, in their several places, to express the worship or to meet the need of all present.

And why should it not be always thus? I would repeat it, beloved brethren, the presence of the Holy Ghost is a fact, not merely a doctrine. And surely if in fact He be present when we are assembled together, no fact can compare in importance with this. It is surely the grand, the all-absorbing fact, from which everything besides in the meeting ought to derive its character. It is not a mere negation. That the Holy Ghost is present, means more than that the meeting is not to be ordered by human and previous arrangement. He must order it if He be present. It means more than that any one is at liberty to take part in it. Nay, it means the opposite of this. True, there must be no human restrictions: but if He be present, no one must take any part but that which He assigns, and for which He qualifies him. Liberty of ministry is liberty for the Holy Ghost to act by whomsoever He will. But we are not the Holy Ghost: and if the usurpation of His place by one person be so intolerable, what shall be said to the usurpation of His place by a number of persons acting because there is liberty to act, not because they know it to be the present mind of the Spirit that they should act as they do?

Real faith in the personal presence of the Holy Ghost would set these things right. It is not that one would desire silence for its own sake, or that any should be restrained from taking part by the mere presence of this or that brother. I would rather myself that there were all sorts of disorder, so as for the real state of things to come out, than have this repressed by the presence of an individual. What one does desire is, that the presence of the Holy Ghost Himself should be so realized as that no one should break silence except by His power, and under His direction; and that the sense of His presence should thus restrain us from all that is unworthy of Him, and of the name of Jesus in which we meet.

Under another dispensation we read such an exhortation as the following: "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." (Ecc. 5: 1, 2.) Surely, if the grace wherein we stand has given us greater freedom of access to God than this, we are not to use such freedom as an excuse for irreverence and haste. The actual presence among us of God the Holy Ghost should certainly be as urgent a motive to reverence and godly fear, as the consideration that God is in heaven, and we upon the earth. "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire." (Heb. 12: 28, 29.)

Hoping to resume the subject, I am, dear brethren,

Your unworthy servant in Christ,

W. Trotter.

Letter 2.

THE CHURCH EDIFIED BY GIFTS.

Beloved Brethren, — In resuming the subject on which I lately wrote to you, I would present you with the following extract from a tract, written at least nine or ten years ago. The author, if I am rightly informed, is one who has been greatly honoured of God amongst us, and who is known personally to most of you. The tract is in the form of a dialogue.

E. I have heard that you assert that every brother is competent to teach in the assembly of the saints.

W. If I did so, I should deny the Holy Ghost. No one is competent to do this who has not received gift from God for this very purpose.

E. Well, but you believe that every brother in the assembly of the saints has a right to speak, if he is able.

W. Indeed I do not. I deny the right to any one, save God the Holy Ghost. A man may in nature be very able to speak, and to speak well, but if he cannot 'please his neighbour for good to edification,' the Holy Ghost has not fitted him to speak, and he is dishonouring God his Father, grieving the Spirit, and undervaluing Christ's church, if he does speak; and is showing, moreover, his own self-will.

E. Well, what is the peculiarity which you do hold?

W. You may think it peculiar to me, perhaps, to believe, that as the church belongs to Christ, He has, in order that its attention may not be wrongly directed and its time misspent in listening to that which is not profitable (pretty as it may be), given gifts to it, by which alone it is to be edified and ruled.

E. No. I admit that, and only wish that there were a little more coveting of such gifts from God, and more caution to put a stop to the use of every other means, however accredited by human power or eloquence.

W. I hold also that the Holy Ghost gives gifts to whom He pleases, and also what gifts He pleases. And that the saints ought so to be united together, as that the gift of one brother should never make the exercise of the real gift of another irregular, and that there should be an open door for the little as well as the great gifts.

E. That is a matter of course.

W. Not so; for neither in the Church of England, nor in Dissent, do I find 1 Corinthians 14 acted upon. Moreover, I assert that no gift from God has to wait for a sanction from the church ere it is used. If it is of God, He will accredit it, and the saints recognize its value.

E. Do you admit a regular ministry?

W. If by a regular ministry you mean a stated ministry (that is, that in every assembly those who are gifted of God to speak to edification will be both limited in number and known to the rest), I do admit it: but if by a regular ministry you mean an exclusive ministry, I dissent. By an exclusive ministry I mean the recognizing certain persons as so exclusively holding the place of teachers, as that the use of a real gift by any one else would be irregular, as, for instance, in the Church of England, and in most dissenting chapels, a service would be felt to be irregular which had been made up by two or three persons really gifted by the Holy Ghost.

E. On what do you build this distinction?

W. From Acts 13: 1, I see that at Antioch there were but five whom the Holy Ghost recognised as teachers: Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul. Doubtless, at all the meetings it was only these five, one or more of them, who were expected by the saints to speak. This was a stated ministry. But it was not an exclusive ministry: for when Judas and Silas came (Acts 15: 32), they were pleased to take their place among the others, and then the recognized teachers were more numerous.

E. And what connection would this have with the giving out of a Psalm, etc., or with praying, or reading a portion of scripture?

W. These would fall like the rest entirely under the Holy Ghost's direction. Alas for the man whose self-will chose to give out a hymn, or to pray, or read a scripture, without the guidance of the Spirit! In doing these things in the assembly of the saints, he is professing to be moved and guided by the Holy Ghost; and to profess this where it is not true is very presumptuous. If the saints know what communion is, they will know how very difficult it is to lead the congregation in prayer and singing. To address God in the name of the assembly, or to suggest to it a hymn as the vehicle for the expression of its real state to God, requires great discernment, or else a most immediate guidance from God.

Such is the light in which this subject was viewed by one known, as I believe, to most of you; one of the earliest labourers among those who, for twenty years and upwards, have been seeking to meet in the name of Jesus. In further confirmation of the main thought in the above extract, namely, that God never designed all saints to take part in the public ministry of the word, or in conducting the worship of the assembly, I would refer you, first, to 1 Corinthians 12: 29, 30. "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" There would be no meaning in these questions if the fact had not been self-evident, that such places in the body were filled by but a few. The apostle had just said, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles," etc. And then he says, "Are all apostles?" and so on. Thus we find in the very portion of scripture which most largely treats of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost, in the bestowal and use of gifts in the body, the church — in the very portion which is always referred to, and justly, in proof that liberty of ministry is what God has established in His church — in this very portion we are told that all were not gifted persons, but that God had set some in the body; enumerating the different orders and kinds of gifts by which they were distinguished.

Will you turn now for a moment to Ephesians 4? Questions have been raised as to 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, whether it be possible to act on the principles there laid down, in the acknowledged absence of so many of the gifts there enumerated. I have no such questions myself, and as to any who have, I should only ask them, What other principles have we in scripture whereon to act? And then, if there be no others, What authority have we to act on principles which are not found in scripture at all? But there can be no such question as to Ephesians 4: 8-13. "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men . . . and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." And you will observe too that they are given until the church is completed. As long as Christ has a body on earth needing the service of such men, He bestows on them the gifts of His love for the nourishing and cherishing of His body, His bride, "Till we all come," etc.

It is thus by the ministry of living men, whose place and calling it is to minister, that Christ cares for and feeds His flock — that the Holy Ghost works in the body which He inhabits. These men, it is true, may work at their trades. Paul was a tentmaker. And they may be very far from any pretensions to clerical, official place and dignity: the further the better. But still they are Christ's provision for the edification of His saints; yea, and for the calling in of souls; and the true wisdom of the saints is to discern such gifts of Christ where they have been bestowed, and to own them in the place which He has assigned them in His body. To own them thus is to own Him; to refuse to do so is both to wrong ourselves and to dishonour Him.

Be it remembered, too, that it is in the body, the whole body, God has set these gifts: it is on the whole body Christ has bestowed them; and we are not the whole body. Suppose the church had still been manifestly one, as it was in the apostles' days; even then. it is quite possible that the church in one place might be without an evangelist, and in another without a pastor or teacher; while in some places there might be more than one of each. But now that the church is so divided and scattered, how much more true is this of the little companies here and there, who have been gathered in the name of Jesus. Has the Lord Jesus ceased to care for His church because of its torn, divided state? God forbid. Has He ceased then to manifest His care by the bestowal of suitable and needed gifts? By no means. But then it is in the unity of the whole body they are found. And we need to remember this. All saints in  - form the church of God in the place; and there may be evangelists, and pastors, and teachers among those members of the body who are still in the Church of England, or among the Methodists or the Dissenters. And what benefit do we derive from their ministry? or what benefit do the saints with them derive from any of Christ's gifts which are amongst us?

Why do I bring this forward? To press upon you this point, beloved brethren, that if among the seventy or eighty who meet in the Lord's name at — there be none who are His gifts according to Ephesians 4, or if there be but two or three such, the circumstance of our meeting as we do will not of itself increase their number. A brother who is not made a pastor or evangelist by Christ Himself, does not become one by beginning to meet where the presence of the Holy Ghost and liberty of ministry are recognised. And if, because there is liberty from all human restrictions, those begin to assume the place, or act in the character of teachers, pastors, or evangelists, who have not been given as such by Christ to His church, will edification be the result? No, but confusion; and "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." If we have not such gifts among us, let us own our poverty: if we have two or three, let us be thankful, own them in the place God has given them, and pray for more and better gifts and ministries. But let us not suppose that the activities of any whom Christ the Lord has not set in such a place will supply the lack of gifts like these. The only effect of such activities is to grieve the Spirit, and hinder His actings by those whom He would otherwise use in service to the saints.

One happy thought arises before me, in drawing this second letter to a close. If we were not in a position answering to what we find in scripture, such questions could hardly arise amongst us. Where all is settled and arranged by some human system; where officers, appointed by a bishop, a conference, or a congregation, attend to the routine of duties prescribed for them by the rules under which they act, questions like these have no existence. The very difficulties of our position prove by their character that the position itself is of God. Yes, and God who has brought us into it by His Spirit through the word is all-sufficient, and will not fail us in the difficulties, but guide us through them, to our profit and His own praise. Only let us be simple, humble, and unassuming. Let us not pretend to more than we have, or to do that for which God has not qualified us. Some points of detail I reserve for another letter.

Meanwhile, I remain,

Affectionately yours in Christ Jesus,

W. Trotter.

Letter 3.

HOW TO DISTINGUISH THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT.

NEGATIVE MARKS.

Beloved Brethren, — There are two points on which I desire to make myself distinctly understood ere entering on the special subject of my present letter. First, as to the difference between ministry and worship. I here use the word worship in its largest sense, of every kind of address from man to God, whether prayer, confession, or what is more properly speaking worship, namely, adoration, thanksgiving, and praise. The essential difference between worship and ministry is, that in the one man speaks to God; in the other God speaks by His servants to men. Our only and all-sufficient title to worship is the all-abounding grace of God, which has brought us nigh by the blood of Jesus; so nigh as to know and worship Him as our Father; so nigh as to be kings and priests to God.

In this all saints are alike. The feeblest and the strongest, the most experienced and the veriest babe are all alike in this. The most gifted servant of Christ has no better title to draw near to God than the weakest saint among those to whom he ministers. To suppose the contrary would be to do what has been so largely done throughout Christendom, namely, to institute an order of priests between the church and God. One great High Priest we have. The only priesthood besides His which exists at present is that which all saints share, and which all share alike. I could not suppose, therefore, that in an assembly of Christians the giving out of hymns, and prayer, thanksgiving, and praise (the expression of these I mean), should be confined, to those who are qualified of God to teach, or to exhort, or to preach the gospel. God the Holy Ghost may use others of the saints to give out a hymn which really expresses the present worship of the hearts of those assembled; or He may use them in prayers which really express the present need and desires of those whose mouth they profess to be. And if God be pleased so to act, what are we that we should say Him nay? Still, while these exercises cannot be confined to gifted persons, they must surely be subject to the present guidance of the Holy Ghost; and they all come within the range of those principles laid down in 1 Corinthians 14 such as that everything must be in order and to edification.

Ministry, that is, ministry of the word — ministry in which God speaks by His servants to men — is the result of a special deposit with the individual of a gift or gifts, for the use of which he is responsible to Christ. Our title to worship is that in which we are all alike. The responsibility to minister flows from that in which we differ. "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us." (Rom. 12: 6.) This of itself establishes the difference I refer to between ministry and worship.

The other point is, as to liberty of ministry. The true, scriptural idea of liberty of ministry not only includes liberty for the exercise of gifts, but also for the development of them. It implies that we so meet in the recognition of the Spirit's presence and supremacy, as to present no hindrance to His acting by whomsoever He will; and it is quite clear that in the first development of gift, it must be His acting by those who have not been previously so used of Him at all. Any principle which would interfere with this would, as it seems to me, be alike subversive of the church's privileges, and of the Holy Spirit's rights.

But then it must at once be obvious, that if saints meet together thus, on ground which leaves scope for the Holy Spirit to lead to a hymn by one, prayer by another, or word of exhortation or doctrine by a third; and if room must be left for the Spirit to develop, as well as to use, gifts for the edifying of the body, this cannot be done without affording opportunity for forwardness and self-sufficiency to act without any guidance of the Spirit at all. Hence the importance of knowing how to distinguish between that which is of the flesh, and that which is of the Spirit. I shrink greatly from the hackneyed use of such terms as "ministry in the flesh," and "ministry in the Spirit;" and yet there is all-important truth embodied in those expressions, soberly used. In each Christian there are two fountains of thought, feeling, motive, word, and action, and these are denominated in scripture flesh, and Spirit. The part we take in the assemblies of the saints may flow from one of these sources, or from the other. It is most important rightly to distinguish between them. It is most important for those who take part in the meetings, whether statedly or occasionally, to judge themselves as to this. It is important for all saints, seeing that we are exhorted to "try the spirits;" and on the assembly must rest eventually the responsibility of owning what is of God, and of discouraging and discountenancing what proceeds from any other source.

It is to some of the broad and principal landmarks, by which we may distinguish the guidance of the Spirit from fleshly counterfeits and pretensions, that I would now solicit your attention. And first, I would mention several things which are not a warrant for our taking part in conducting the meetings of the saints.

The mere circumstance of there being liberty to act is no warrant for acting. This is so self-evident that nothing need be said to prove it; and yet we need to be reminded of it. The fact that there is no formal hindrance to any one taking part in the meeting, renders it possible for those whose only qualification is that they can read, to take up a principal part of the time in reading chapter after chapter, and hymn after hymn. Of course, any child who has been taught to read can do this; and there are few amongst us, indeed, who cannot conduct the meetings, if ability to read hymns and chapters be all the qualification that is requisite. But while it is easy enough to read a chapter, to know which is the right one to read, and which is the right time to read it, is quite another matter. It is easy enough to give out a hymn, but to give out the hymn which really embodies and expresses the worship of the saints, is what only can be done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I confess to you, my brethren, when some time ago (not lately, thank God), we had five or six chapters read, and as many hymns sung, around the Lord's table, and perhaps not more than one prayer or giving of thanks, it did occur to me whether we had met to improve ourselves in reading and singing, or to show forth the Lord's death. I do unfeignedly bless God that there has been improvement in this respect for months back; still, it may be well for us to bear in mind that while there is liberty to take a part in the meetings, the existence of an opportunity to take part is no warrant for so doing.

That no one else is doing anything at the time, is not sufficient warrant for taking part in the meeting. Silence for its own sake cannot be too much deprecated. It may become as complete a form as anything else. But silence is better than what is said or done merely to break the silence. I know well what it is to think of a good many persons present who are not in communion, perhaps not believers, and to feel uneasy at the silence on their account. Where this commonly or often occurs, it may be a call from God for an entirely different kind of meeting; but it can never authorize any one to speak, or pray, or give out a hymn, for the mere sake of something being done.

Again, one's individual state and experiences are no certain guides as to any part we may take in meetings of the saints. A hymn may have been very sweet to my own soul, or I may have been present where it has been sung with great enjoyment of the Lord's presence. I am not to conclude from this that it is my place to give out the hymn at the next meeting I attend. There may be no suitability in it to the present state of the assembly. It may not be the mind of the Spirit that a hymn should be sung at all. "Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms." (James 5: 13.) The hymn must be expressive of what those assembled feel, or there is no sincerity in their joining to sing it. And who but He who knows the actual state of the assembly can guide to a hymn expressive of that state?

Then as to prayer: when one prays in the assembly, it is as the vehicle for the expression of its wants and its requests. I may have burdens of my own to cast on the Lord in prayer, which it would be very improper for me to name in the assembly. The only effect, probably, would be to drag down all my brethren to a level with myself. On the other hand, my own soul may be thoroughly happy with the Lord; if that be not the state of the assembly as such, it is only by identifying myself with the actual state of the assembly that I shall be enabled to present its requests before God. That is to say, if I am led by the Spirit to pray in the assembly, it will not be as in my closet, where none are present but the Lord and myself; and my own wants and my own enjoyments form the proper subjects of prayer and thanksgiving; but I shall be enabled to offer such prayers, and make such confessions, and present such thanksgivings, as are suited to the actual state of those whose mouth I become, in thus addressing God.

There cannot be a much greater mistake than to suppose that self, and what relates to self, is to be our guide in conducting the meetings of the saints. A portion of scripture may have interested my own soul greatly, and I may have profited by it; it does not follow that I am to read it at the Lord's table, or in other meetings of the saints. Some particular subject may be occupying my own attention greatly; and it may be well for my own soul that it should do so; but it may not be at all the subject to which God would have the attention of the saints generally drawn.

You will observe, I am not denying that we may ourselves have been especially occupied and exercised by subjects which God would have us bring before the saints. Perhaps this is often, or even commonly, the case with God's servants; but what I would affirm is, that this, of itself, is no sufficient guidance. We ourselves may have necessities which the saints generally have not; and they may need what would not meet our own case.

Suffer me to add, that the Spirit would never lead me to give out hymns because they are expressive of my own peculiar views. There may be points of interpretation on which saints meeting together do not see eye to eye. If in such a case hymns be chosen by those of one opinion for the purpose of expressing it — however good and true the hymns may be — it is impossible that the others can join to sing them, and discord instead of harmony is produced at once. The hymns to which the Spirit of God leads us in joint worship, will be the expression of that in which all are agreed who unite in the act. At all times, but in the assembly at all events, let us endeavour "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." And let us remember that the way to do this is to walk "with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love."

Here let me recall to your minds that in singing, prayer, or worship of any kind, it is the assembly, whoever may be its mouth or organ, that speaks to God. It therefore can never be truly or sincerely beyond the state of the assembly, but must be expressive of it. True indeed, blessed be God, He may by the Spirit strike a higher note, with which immediately all hearts chord, and so the tone of united worship be raised; and this He often does. But if the assembly be not in a state to respond at once to such a key-note of praise, there can be nothing much more painful than for an individual to go on with exalted strains of thanksgiving and adoration, when all other hearts are sad and cold, wandering and distracted. The one who utters the worship of the assembly must have the hearts of the assembly with him, or there is no reality in what takes place.

On the other hand, ministry, being God's voice to us, may be ever so much in advance of our state. It is an individual speaking as God's mouth, and if it be really so, it will often be to minister truth we have not as yet received, or to recall to us truths which have ceased to act in present power on our souls. How evident that in either case, and in every case, it must be the Spirit of God who guides.

As to what distinguishes the positive guidance of the Spirit, I find I must leave it for still another letter. The negative part alone has been presented in this.

Yours, beloved brethren,

Affectionately in Christ Jesus,

W. Trotter.

Letter 4.

HOW TO DISTINGUISH THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT IN THE ASSEMBLY.

POSITIVE MARKS.

Beloved Brethren, — The man who would attempt to define the Spirit's operations in the quickening or conversion of a soul, would but betray his own ignorance, and be denying, moreover, that sovereignty of the Spirit which is declared in the well-known words, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." And yet scripture abounds with marks whereby it may be discerned who are born of the Spirit and who are not. So as to the subject of this letter. I hope to be kept from so usurping the place of the Holy Spirit as to presume in any way nicely to define the manner of His operations on the souls of those whom He leads to take part in the worship of the assembly, or in ministering to the saints. It may be in some cases much more direct and sensible (to the individual I mean) than in others. But however vain and presumptuous it might be to attempt nicely and accurately to define on such a subject, scripture gives us ample instruction as to what are the marks of true ministry. And it is to some of the plainer and more obvious marks that I wish now to solicit your attention.

Some of them apply to the matter or substance of what is ministered, and others to the motives which induce us to minister, or to take any part in conducting the meetings of the saints. Some will afford a test to those who do thus act, whereby they may judge themselves; others will furnish to all saints criteria whereby to judge what is of the Spirit, and what from other sources. Some will serve to show who are Christ's gifts to His church for the ministry of the word; and others may aid those who really are so, as to the important question when to speak and when to be silent. My soul trembles to think of the responsibility of writing on such a subject. But my comfort is that one's sufficiency is of God, and that "Scripture . . . is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Let all I may write be tested by this all-sufficient standard; and if anything will not bear this test, God grant you, beloved brethren, wisdom and grace to reject it.

The guidance of the Spirit is not by blind impulses and unintelligent impressions, but by filling the spiritual understanding with God's thoughts as revealed in the written word, and by acting on the renewed affections. In early days there were indeed God's gifts which might be in their use unconnected with spiritual intelligence. I refer to the gift of tongues, where there was no interpreter. And it would appear that because this gift seemed more marvellous in men's eyes than the others, the Corinthians were fond of using and displaying it. For this the apostle rebukes them. "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (1 Cor. 14: 18-20.)

The least, then, that can be looked for in those who minister is acquaintance with the scripture, the understanding of God's mind as revealed in the word. There may be this, observe, without any gift of utterance, without any capacity to communicate it to others. But without this, what have we to communicate? God's saints are surely not assembled from time to time in the name of Jesus to have crude and undigested human thoughts presented to them, or to have retailed to them what others have spoken or written. Personal acquaintance with God's word, familiarity with scripture, understanding of its contents, is surely essential to the ministry of the word. "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." (Matt. 13: 51, 52.) When our Lord was about to send out His disciples as His witnesses, it is said, "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24: 45.)

How often we read of Paul, when preaching to the Jews, reasoning with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 18: 4, 19.) If the apostle addresses the Romans as able to admonish one another, it is because he can say of them, "And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." (Rom. 15: 14.) Where the action of the Spirit in the assembly is most definitely treated of, as in 1 Corinthians 12, it is not to the exclusion of the word. "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit." (1 Cor. 12: 8.) Where the apostle enumerates the marks by which he and others approve themselves the ministers of God, we have mentioned in the wondrous catalogue, by knowledge, by the word of truth, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left. (2 Cor. 6: 7.) If you look at what that armour consisted of, you will find truth as a girdle for the loins, and "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Eph. 6: 14-17.) The apostle speaks of what he had afore written to the Ephesians, "whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3: 4.)

Where the same apostle speaks of the admonishing one another, see what he mentions first as an essential prerequisite. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Col. 3: 16.) To Timothy he says, "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." He exhorts him, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. . . . Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Tim. 4: 6, 13, 15, 16.) In the second epistle Timothy is exhorted thus: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (1 Tim. 2: 2.) As to himself we have these words: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (Ver. 15.) Among other qualifications of the bishop, or overseer, as they are given in Titus 1, we have this: "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

From all this it is evident, my brethren, that it is not merely by little scraps of truth, brought out whenever some impulse to that end visits us, that the church is to be edified.* No; they by whom the Holy Ghost acts to feed and nourish and guide the saints of God, are they whose souls are exercised habitually in the word of God; they "who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5: 14.) As has been said, the least that can be expected of those who minister in the church is such acquaintance with the word of God as this.

*God forbid that any should be discouraged from ministering the least word tending to real edification. But such as are used of the Lord thus would be the very last to suppose that theirs was the only ministry, or that by which the need of saints is principally supplied of God.

Knowledge of God's word, however, is not sufficient. There must be its present application to the consciences of the saints, so as to meet their present need. For this, as some one has in substance observed, there must be either acquaintance by intercourse, etc., with their state (and this could never be very perfect or accurate), or else direct guidance from God. This is true of those who are in the fullest sense, and most manifestly, the gifts of Christ to His church, as evangelists, pastors or teachers. It is God only who can guide them to those portions of truth which will reach the conscience and meet the need of souls. It is He only who can enable them to present the truth in such a way as to secure these ends. God the Holy Ghost knows the need of each and all in the assembly; and He can guide those who speak to speak the suited, needed truth, whether they have the knowledge of the state of those addressed or not. How important, then, implicit and unfeigned subjection to Him.

One thing which would always mark ministry in the Spirit would be the promptings of personal affection for Christ. "Lovest thou me?" was the thrice repeated question to Peter, connected with the injunction, as oft repeated, to feed Christ's flock. "For the love of Christ constraineth us,"  - Paul says. How different this from the many motives which might influence us naturally. How important that we should be able each time we minister to say with a good conscience, "My motive for speaking was not a love of prominence, or the force of habit, or the restlessness which could not be content unless something were being done; but love to Christ and to His flock, for His sake who purchased it with His own blood." Surely it was this motive which was wanting in the wicked servant, who hid his Lord's talent in the earth.

Then, further, ministry in the Spirit, or indeed any action in the assembly to which He leads, would always be marked by a deep sense of responsibility to Christ. Let me put it to you, my brethren, and to my own soul as well. Suppose we were questioned at any time after the close of a meeting, Why did you give out such a hymn, or read such a chapter, or offer such a prayer, or speak such a word? Could we with a clear, good conscience reply, My only reason for doing so was the solemn conviction that it was my Master's will? Could we say, I gave out that hymn because I was fully persuaded that it was the mind of the Spirit, that at that juncture in the meeting it should be sung? I read that chapter, or spoke that word, because I felt clear before God that it was the service my Lord and Master assigned me? I offered that prayer because I knew that the Spirit of God led me as the mouth of the assembly to ask those blessings which in it were implored. My brethren, could we answer thus, or is there not often the taking this part or that, without any such sense of responsibility to Christ?

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," says the Apostle Peter. This does not mean, let him speak according to the scriptures, though this be of course true. It means, or rather says, that they who speak, are to speak as oracles of God. If I cannot say in speaking, "This is what I believe I have been taught of God, and what God has given me to speak at this time," I ought to be silent. Of course a man may be mistaken in saying this, and it is for the saints to judge by the word of God all that is spoken. But less ought not to induce any one to speak, or take any part in the meetings, than the solemn conviction before God, that God has given him somewhat to say or do. If our consciences were exercised to act under such responsibility as this, it would doubtless prevent a great deal which does take place; but at the same time it would make way for God to manifest His presence, as we are not wont to witness it.

How strikingly do we behold this sense of direct responsibility to Christ in the Apostle Paul. "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly" (that is, from choice, for any personal object), "I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me." (1 Cor. 9: 16, 17.) How affecting his words to the same people! "I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." (1 Cor. 2: 3.) What a rebuke to the lightness of heart and self-sufficiency with which, alas, we all too often handle God's sacred word! "For we are not as many," he says again, "which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (2 Cor. 2: 17.)

One other point I would touch upon. "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Tim. 1: 7.) "The spirit . . . of a sound mind." A man may have little or no human learning, he may be unable to express himself in any elegant diction, or even with grammatical propriety. All this he may lack, and yet be a good minister of Jesus Christ. But the spirit of a sound mind he must have.

And may I now, while on this topic, mention what in other places, as well as among ourselves, has sometimes made me very sad? I mean the confusion between the Persons in the Godhead, which is often made in prayer. When a brother has commenced by addressing God the Father, and has gone on to speak as though it were He that had died and risen again; or, addressing Jesus, has given thanks to Him for sending His only-begotten Son into the world, I confess to you I have said to myself, Can it be the Spirit of God who leads to such prayers as these? Surely all who conduct the worship of the saints need so much of the spirit of a sound mind as to avoid confusion like this. No one believes that the Father died on Calvary, or that Christ sent His Son into the world. Where, then, is the collectedness of spirit, the soundness of mind, which should characterize those who take the place of being the channels of the saints' worship, when they use language which really expresses what they do not themselves believe — and what it would be shocking for any one to believe!

Still reserving some other points for another letter,

I am, yours affectionately in Christ Jesus,

W. Trotter,

Letter 5.

MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS ON THE MUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF SAINTS, IN MEETINGS FOR MUTUAL EDIFICATION, AND ON OTHER SUBJECTS.

Beloved Brethren, — My remarks in this will be of a more desultory character than in the preceding letters, my object being to gather up several points which could not be so well embraced in the subjects of my former communications.

And first, may I remind you, that whatever takes place in a meeting for mutual edification ought to be the fruit of communion. That is, if I read a chapter of the word, it is not that I have to look through my Bible to find a suitable chapter; but being more or less acquainted with the word, the Spirit of God brings to my mind the portions He would have me read. So if a hymn is to be sung, it is not that I feel the time is come for singing, and so look through the hymn book for a nice hymn to sing. No; but out of the measure of acquaintance with the hymn-book that I have, the Spirit of God reminds me of a hymn, and leads me to give it out. The idea of half a dozen looking through their Bibles and hymnbooks to find chapters and hymns suitable to read or give out, is as subversive of the real character of a meeting for mutual edification, in dependence on the Holy Ghost, as can well be conceived. I may, indeed, have a given chapter laid on my heart, and may need, from imperfect acquaintance with my Bible, to look for it; and so of a hymn; but this is clearly the only object one can rightly have, in turning over the pages of either when assembled on the ground of mutual dependence on the Holy Ghost for mutual edification.

Then, secondly, if this were well understood, it would follow, as a matter of course, that when any one was seen opening his Bible or his hymn-book, it would be known to be with the thought of reading a portion of the word, or giving out a hymn. The word, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another" (1 Cor. 11: 33), would then quite preclude the thought of anyone else taking part in the meeting, till the brother who had evinced his thought of doing so had either carried it into effect or laid it aside. — This brings me fairly to the subject of mutual dependence, on which we may well and properly meditate for a little while.

The question as to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 11, was not as to ministry, but as to eating the Lord's supper. The question of ministry comes on in 1 Corinthians 14. But the moral root of the disorder in both cases was the same. They failed to discern the body of Christ, and so each was occupied with his own individual self. "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper." (1 Cor. 11: 21.) The result was, "And one is hungry, and another is drunken." The principle of self was here permitted to produce fruits so glaring and so monstrous, as to shock one's natural sensibilities. But if I come to the meetings, and sit in the meetings, thinking only of the chapter I am to read, the hymn I am to give out, the part I am to take, self is as entirely in spiritual things the hinge on which my thoughts and solicitudes turn, as though, like the Corinthians in natural things, I having a supper, brought it and ate it, while my poor brother who could not afford this, went away without. It is in the fellowship of the one body of Christ quickened, actuated, taught, and governed by the one Spirit, that we meet together; and surely the thoughts of our hearts in thus assembling should neither be the supper I myself have to eat, or the part I myself have to take, but the wondrous bounty and grace of Him who has committed us to the keeping of the Holy Ghost, who will not fail, if humbly waited on, to assign each his proper place and part, without any restless anxiety in us to know what it is.

In the body of Christ each one is but a member and surely if the Corinthians had discerned and realized this, the one who had a supper would have tarried for those who had none, to share it with them. In like manner, if my soul realizes this precious unity of the body, and my own humble place in it, as but one individual member of it I shall not be in such haste to act in the assembly as to prevent others acting: and if I feel I have a word from the Lord, or a call from Him for some service, I shall still remember that others may have the same, and so leave room for them: and most of all, if I see another with his book open to read a portion or give out a hymn, I shall wait till he has done so, and not be in a hurry to get the opportunity before him. "Tarry ye one for another," will surely apply to this as well as to the breaking of bread. And in the fourteenth chapter we find that when prophets were speaking in the meeting by immediate revelation, there was to be so much deference of one to another, that in the very act of speaking, if anything was revealed to another that sat by, the first was to hold his peace. Besides, the general, moral bearing of such a word as "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak" (James 1: 19) would teach us thus to tarry one for the other.

Then, thirdly, the object of our assembly is edification. This is the point pressed in 1 Corinthians 14. In 1 Corinthians 12 we have the body of Christ in subjection to Him as Lord, and the witness here of His Lordship, by virtue of the indwelling and inworking of the Holy Ghost, who divides to every man severally as He will; closing with the catalogue of gifts, apostles, prophets, etc., set of God in the church in their several places of use, or service, for the whole. To covet earnestly the best gifts is enjoined, but a more excellent way referred to, namely, the charity, or love, of 1 Corinthians 13, without which the most splendid gifts are nothing, and which must regulate the exercise of all gifts if edification is to be the result. This latter is the subject of 1 Corinthians 14. The gift of tongues was what seemed to man the most wonderful, and the Corinthians delighted in displaying it. Instead of love seeking the edification of all, it was vanity seeking to display its gifts. They were real gifts — gifts of the Spirit. And here, beloved brethren, is the solemn thing for us to weigh, that there may be the power of the Spirit for service, without the living guidance of the Spirit in its exercise. The latter there can only be where self is crucified, and Christ everything to the soul. The object of the Holy Spirit is not to glorify the poor earthen vessel which contains His gifts; but by the humble, gracious, self-renouncing use of these gifts to glorify Christ from whom they flow; and this is accomplished in the edification of the whole body.

How beautiful is this self-renunciation in Paul! Possessed of every gift, with what singleness of heart he sought not to exhibit his gifts, but to exalt his Lord, and edify the saints. "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." How forcible from the pen of such an one, those words of the Holy Ghost, "Let all things be done unto edifying." "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

Then again, every servant to be faithful must act under his master's directions. Hence the importance of what was so much pressed in my last, that if I act in the assembly of the saints, it must be on no lower ground than that of a full and solemn persuasion in my own soul before God, that it is my Master's present will I should so act. "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." (Rom. 12: 3.) The measure of what I do is to be the measure of faith God has given me; and God will take care that His servants know thus what He would have them do. Nothing less than a firm and solemn conviction that it is His will, can be a warrant for my acting in the assembly, or indeed anywhere besides, as the servant of God. In the assembly, however, there is a divine check or guard on the abuse of this principle, namely, the provision made in such a word as "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." (1 Cor. 14: 29.) It is for my own soul in the first place to judge, and know whether the Lord calls me to speak or to act in the assembly; but when I have so spoken or acted, it is for my brethren to judge, and in the vast majority of cases it must be by their judgment that I abide. The case is a rare one indeed in which I should be warranted in continuing to take a part in the meetings, if my doing so were disapproved by the brethren.

It is quite evident, that if God has called me to speak or pray in the meetings — if it be really from Him that my conviction of being led to do so proceeds — it is as easy for Him to dispose and prepare the hearts of the saints to receive my ministry, and unite in my prayers, as it is to dispose my own heart for such service. If I am really led of the Spirit thus to act, the same Spirit who leads me and acts by me dwells in the saints; and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the Spirit in the saints, will respond to ministry or worship in the Spirit on the part of any. Ordinarily, therefore, if I found saints burdened and troubled by my taking part in the meetings, instead of being edified thereby, I should be warranted in concluding that I had mistaken my place, and that I was not called thus to act.

In the second place, suppose that what made the ministry of any one for a time unacceptable was to be found in the state of the assembly, not his own state: suppose that he is so much more spiritual than the assembly, that they cannot enter into or appreciate what he ministers to them, what of such a case as this? It is not a very common one, and when it does arise, it may be for such a servant of Christ to enquire whether he has not to learn to be like his Master, and to teach and "to speak the word unto them, as they are able to hear;" whether he does not need a little more of Paul's spirit, who could say, "we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children;" who says, too, in another place, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

If, with such discriminating care and tenderness as this, his ministry is still not received, it must indeed be trying to the faith of such a servant of the Lord; but seeing that edification is the object of all ministry, and that saints cannot be edified by a ministry that does not commend itself to their consciences, there could be no good in forcing it upon the saints, whether they can receive it or not. The general weakness and disease of one's body may produce the dislocation of some particular joint. The body in such a case will not be benefited by forcing the dislocated joint into action. It may be deplorable that it cannot act; but the only way for its use to be restored is to give it perfect rest for the time being, while the general health of the body is sought to be restored by other means. So in the case supposed, continued ministry where it is not received, even if the cause be the low state of the assembly, only adds irritation to the generally bad condition of things, and thus makes it worse. The servant of the Lord in such a case will find that to be silent is his wisdom, or it may be to him the intimation of his Master's will that he should serve elsewhere.

On the other hand, let me earnestly warn you, beloved brethren, against what probably enough Satan may now seek to make a snare to us, the spirit of criticism on what takes place in the meetings. His effort is always to urge us from one extreme to another; and if we have erred on the side of indifference, as though it made no matter what took place if only the time was filled up, it is more than likely we shall now be in danger on the other side. The good Lord in His mercy keep us. Nothing can be more deplorable, as to the state of heart it indicates, and nothing can be a greater hindrance to blessing, than a captious, criticizing spirit. We assemble to worship God and edify one another, not to occupy ourselves in determining who ministers in the flesh, and who prays in the Spirit. Where the flesh does manifest itself, let it be judged. Sorrowful and humiliating work it is to discern and judge it, in place of our own proper, happy privilege of mutually enjoying the fulness of our blessed Saviour and Head. Do let us beware of a spirit of fault-finding. There are lesser gifts, as well as greater ones, and we know who it is that has bestowed more abundant honour on the parts that lacked. The actings of a brother in the assembly are not of necessity all fleshly, because he acts in the flesh to some extent.

On this point, it would be well for us all to ponder the words of one most highly honoured amongst us, "There is great need of this, namely, that we attend first to the nature, and, secondly, to the measure of our gift. While on this last, that is, the measure of the gift, let me say that I do not doubt that many a brother's gift would be recognized, if he did not go beyond his measure in it, 'If he prophesy, let him prophesy according to the proportion of faith.' All beyond that is flesh, and putting himself forward, and this is felt, and his whole gift rejected; and this because he has not known how to confine himself to it; and therefore his flesh acts, and his speaking is attributed to it — and no wonder. It is also true as to the nature of a gift; if a man sets himself to teach, instead of confining himself to exhorting (if he exhorts), he will not, and cannot, edify. I would especially desire the attention of every brother who ministers in the word to this remark, which, from lack of faithfulness in his hearers, may never reach him in any other way."

It is to brethren who minister that these words are addressed, but I quote them to you, beloved brethren, that we may learn not to condemn everything that any one says or does, because something of the flesh is discernible in it. Let us thankfully own what is of the Spirit, distinguishing it from all else even in the ministry or actings of the same individual.

There are still two or three points of minuter detail on which, in the confidence of brotherly love, I would add a word or two. As to the distribution of the bread and wine at the Lord's table. It is, on the one hand, most desirable that this should not be uniformly and exclusively by one or two individuals, as though it were some clerical distinction; while, on the other hand, I can see no warrant in scripture for any one breaking the bread, or giving the cup, without giving thanks. In Matthew 24: 26, 27; Mark 14: 22, 23; Luke 22: 19; and 1 Corinthians 11: 24, we are told that the Lord Jesus gave thanks when He broke the bread and took the cup; while in 1 Corinthians 10: 16, the cup is termed the cup of blessing or of thanksgiving. If, then, scripture is to be our guide, how plain that any one who breaks the bread or takes the cup should at the same time give thanks; and if any of us do not feel power to do this, may we not rightly question whether we are called to distribute the bread and the wine?

Then as to rule or oversight in the church, and indeed as to the qualifications to be looked for in any who act in ostensible service amongst saints, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 ought to be prayerfully studied by all of us. There is one particular in 1 Timothy 3: 6, which it may be well to be reminded of. "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." It is possible for the call of God and the gift of Christ to be found with a young man like Timothy (or if we go back to the Old Testament, with a Jeremiah); and "let no man despise thy youth" would apply to any such in the present day, even as to Timothy of old. But it is to Timothy the words quoted "not a novice," etc., were addressed. His youthfulness was to be no encouragement to those to act who had neither the gift nor the grace which had been bestowed on him. And there is even a natural fitness and beauty in the young taking the place of subjection instead of rule, which seems to me to be sadly overlooked sometimes. "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5: 5.)

The Lord in His mercy, beloved brethren, grant us to walk humbly with Himself, and thus may no hindrance be presented to the working of His blessed Spirit amongst us.

Yours, in unfeigned affection,

W. Trotter.

Bethesda in September 1857

Bethesda in September 1857;

or, An Answer to the Question,

Why do you still stand apart from Bethesda?

by W. Trotter.

Few there are, in any measure cognizant of the questions which have been raised as to communion with Bethesda, Bristol, who have not of late been plied with the argument, that Bethesda's position is not now what it was in 1848 and 1849. "Even if separation were needful then, why continue separate now?" is the enquiry which has been often urged. Not that the leaders of the Bethesda congregation have ever thus spoken: but in other assemblies, which have throughout espoused Bethesda's cause, and which have been identified with Bethesda's course, this is an argument often used. With what degree of truth we shall shortly see.

It was my unfeigned hope, that I had written and printed on this subject for the last time. Often have I been urged to issue a new edition of "The Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda," bringing down the narrative to the present time. This I have hitherto declined; chiefly, because enough seems to me to have been printed long ago, to afford to any patient, candid enquirer, materials on which to form his own judgment; materials, which retain all their weight and validity, until Bethesda does, in some public, unquestionable way, acknowledge the evil of its past course, and renounce the position it assumed in 1848.

No such step having been taken by Bethesda, I had no means of answering enquiries as to its present state, except by instituting enquiries myself. I was satisfied that I had no call from God to do this, and that silence was therefore my only proper course. But within the last few days, an authentic document, signed by Mr. Craik himself, and said by him to have (as he believes) the concurrence of his fellow-labourers was, without any seeking of mine, brought to my house, and put into my hands. This document places Bethesda's present position in the clearest light: and it would now be mere unfaithfulness to Christ, and indifference to the welfare of His people, were I to withhold from my brethren the evidence thus afforded that Bethesda's principles are unchanged. But for the sake of any to whom the subject may be almost or entirely new, it may be well to present it in the following order: First, a brief statement of what led to "the Letter of the Ten;" secondly, the document itself, which has been so designated; thirdly, the endorsement of this document by Mr. Craik and his fellow-labourers in September, 1857.

First, the circumstances which gave occasion for "The Letter of the Ten." In 1847, a doctrine was found to be promulgated by Mr. B. W. Newton, of Plymouth, by which our blessed Lord Jesus Christ was represented as "exposed, because of His relation to Adam, to that sentence of death that had been pronounced on the whole family of man."* He was represented* as "exposed to that curse," and "to the doom of man." It was taught that in consequence of Christ's relation to Adam, His own relation, as a man to God, was such, that for the first thirty years of His life the hand of God was stretched out, rebuking Him in anger, and chastening Him in hot displeasure.† All this was carefully distinguished from Christ's substitutional sufferings on the cross, Mr. N. affirming, that in the Psalm which he thus applied to Christ, "Christ is not at all standing in the place of sacrifice for sin." So far from this, Mr. N. taught, that from these non-substitutional sufferings Christ emerged, either at His baptism by John, or at the cross itself.‡ In short, the doctrine held was such, that one who had been delivered from it, remarks in his printed confession, how it must, if true, have disqualified Christ, "for becoming our surety our sacrifice, our Saviour! for He had to extricate Himself! . . . . . . All that He could render to the last moment of His life — all that He could offer up in death - was needed by Him for Himself, and for His own deliverance! . . . . . . But then, what becomes of the blessed doctrines of grace? What becomes of the glorious gospel of God's salvation? What becomes of the Church? What becomes of us individually? We have lost Christ."

*Observations, etc., by B. W. N., page 9.

†Notes on Psalm 6.

‡See both the Notes, and "Observations" and "Remarks," by B. W. N. For full information, see a pamphlet, entitled, "What are Mr. Newton's present Doctrines?" It may be had of the publisher of this tract.

It is well that the Christian reader should be aware, that the doctrine to which the "Letter of the Ten" alludes, is one of which a once zealous upholder of it thus affirms, when his eyes had been opened to its real character, that if it he true, "we have lost Christ." Mr. Müller of Bethesda, himself declared the doctrine to be, in his judgment, of such a character, that its legitimate consequence would be, "to make the Lord need a Saviour as well as others!"

Secondly, but what is this "Letter of the Ten?" To answer this question intelligibly, it must be explained, that Mr. Newton's doctrine excited, on the discovery of it, great alarm among those Christians with whom He had been associated. Many who till then had adhered to him, renounced his fellowship, confessed their errors, and some, among whom was the writer above cited, issued printed recantations of the doctrine, which, in common with Mr. N., they had held and taught. With all but a portion of his immediate congregation at Plymouth, the repudiation of his doctrine was all but complete. It was at this juncture, that several of Mr. Newton's friends and adherents were admitted to communion at Bethesda, Bristol. This was done, notwithstanding the remonstrances of godly brethren within the congregation, as well as of some resident elsewhere; and it was done, at the cost of forcing out of communion those who could neither participate in such a proceeding, nor wink at it when accomplished. One of these, Mr. Alexander, privately circulated a printed letter to the leading brethren at Bethesda, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons in the congregation then drew up and signed a paper, vindicating their conduct, and stating nine reasons for refusing to investigate the errors with which those friends of Mr. Newton, who had been received at Bethesda, were charged with holding fellowship. This document has since been known as "The Letter of the Ten." The following is a copy:

"DEAR BRETHREN,

Our brother, Mr. George Alexander, having printed and circulated a statement expressive of his reasons for withdrawing from visible fellowship with us at the table of the Lord; and these reasons being grounded on the fact that those who labour among you have not complied with his request relative to the judging of certain errors which have been taught at Plymoth; it becomes needful that those of us who have incurred any responsibility in this matter should lay before you a brief explanation of the way in which we have acted.

And first, it may be well to mention that we had no intimation whatever of our brother's intention to act as he has done; nor any knowledge of his intention to circulate any letter, until it was put into our hands in print.

Some weeks ago, he expressed his determination to bring his views before a meeting of the body, and he was told that he was quite at liberty to do so. He afterwards declared that he would waive this, but never intimated in the slightest way, his intention to act as he has done, without first affording the church an opportunity of bearing his reasons for separation. Under these circumstances we feel it of the deepest importance, for relieving the disquietude of mind naturally occasioned by our brother's letter, explicitly to state that the views relative to the Person of our blessed Lord, held by those who for sixteen years have been occupied in teaching the word amongst you, are unchanged.

The truths relative to the divinity of His person — the sinlessness of His nature — and the perfection of His sacrifice, which have been taught both in public teaching and in writing for these many years past, are, through the grace of God, those which we still maintain. We feel it most important to make this avowal, inasmuch as the letter referred to is calculated, we trust unintentionally, to convey a different impression to the minds of such as cherish a godly jealousy for the faith once delivered to the saints.

We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of His connexion with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was ever well pleased. We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which He endured as the surety for sinners — according to that scripture, 'He was made a curse for us.' We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person; but maintain that while He suffered outwardly the trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite; — still in His feelings and experiences, as well as in His external character, He was entirely 'separate from sinners.'

We now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complying with the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth.

1st. We considered from the beginning, that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here — nor for the glory of God — that we, in Bristol, should get entangled in the controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We did not feel that because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we, as a body, are bound to investigate them.

2nd. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued from Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence, or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings. We did not feel that we should be warranted in taking our impression of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatise written by himself, and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.

3rd. In regard to these writings, Christian brethren, hitherto of unblemished reputation for soundness in the faith, have come to different conclusions as to the actual amount of error contained in them. The tracts, some of us knew to be written in such an ambiguous style, that we greatly shrunk from the responsibility of giving any formal judgment on the matter.

4th. As approved brethren, in different places, have come to such different conclusions in reference to the amount of error contained in these tracts, we could neither desire nor expect that the saints here would be satisfied with the decision of one or two leading brethren. Those who felt desirous to satisfy their own minds, would naturally be led to wish to peruse the writings for themselves. For this, many amongst us have no leisure time; many would not be able to understand what the tracts contain, because of the mode of expression employed; and the result, there is much reason to fear, would be such perverse disputations and strifes of words, as minister questions rather than godly edifying.

5th. Even some of those who now condemn the tracts as containing doctrine essentially unsound, did not so understand them on the first perusal. Those of us who were specially requested to investigate and judge the errors contained in them, felt that, under such circumstances, there was but little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching the nature of the doctrines therein embodied.

6th. Even supposing that those who enquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For, supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation-truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement, disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts.

7th. The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton's tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion. It was demanded of us that, in addition to a sound confession and a corresponding walk, we should, as a body, come to a formal decision about what many of us might be quite unable to understand.

8th. We remembered the word of the Lord, that 'the beginning of strife is as the letting out of water.' We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party. We judged that this controversy had been so carried on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire to be considered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord. At the same time, we wish distinctly to be understood, that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers; and consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus.

9th. We felt that the compliance with Mr. Alexander's request would be the introduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right to demand our examining a work of fifty pages, he may require our investigating error said to be contained in one of much larger dimensions; so that all our time might be wasted in the examination of other people's errors, instead of more important service.

It only remains to notice the three reasons specially assigned by Mr. Alexander in justification of his course of action. To the first, viz., — ' that by our not judging this matter, many of the Lord's people will be excluded from communion with us' — we reply, that unless our brethren can prove, either that error is held and taught amongst us, or that individuals are received into communion who ought not to be admitted, they can have no scripture warrant for withdrawing from our fellowship. We would affectionately entreat such brethren as may be disposed to withdraw from communion for the reason assigned, to consider that except they can prove allowed evil in life or doctrine, they cannot, without violating the principles on which we meet, treat us as if we had renounced the faith of the gospel.

In reply to the second reason, viz., — 'that persons may be received from Plymouth holding evil doctrines' — we are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matter was agitated, we have maintained that persons coming from thence — if suspected of any error — would be liable to be examined on the point; that in the case of one individual, who had fallen under the suspicion of certain brethren amongst us, not only was there private intercourse with him relative to his views, as soon as it was known that he was objected to, but the individual referred to — known to some of us for several years as a consistent Christian — actually came to a meeting of labouring brethren for the very purpose that any question might be asked him by any brother who should have any difficulty on his mind. Mr. Alexander himself was the principal party in declining the presence of the brother referred to, on that occasion, such enquiry being no longer demanded, inasmuch as the difficulties relative to the views of the individual in question had been removed by private intercourse. We leave Mr. Alexander to reconcile this fact, which he cannot have forgotten, with the assertion contained under his second special reason for withdrawing.

In regard to the third ground alleged by Mr. Alexander, viz., that by not judging the matter, we lie under the suspicion of supporting false doctrine, we have only to refer to the statement already made at the commencement of this paper.

In conclusion, we would seek to impress upon all present, the evil of treating the subject of our Lord's humanity as a matter of speculative or angry controversy. One of those who have been ministering among you from the beginning, feels it a matter of deep thankfulness to God, that so long ago as in the year 1835,* he committed to writing, and subsequently printed, what he had learned from the scriptures of truth relative to the meaning of that inspired declaration, 'the Word was made flesh.' He would affectionately refer any whose minds may be now disquieted, to what he then wrote, and was afterwards led to publish. If there be heresy in the simple statements contained in the letters alluded to, let it be pointed out; if not, let all who are interested in the matter know that we continue unto the present day, 'speaking the same things.'

(Signed)

HENRY CRAIK,   EDMUND FELTHAM,

GEORGE MULLER,   JOHN WITHY,

JACOB HENRY HALE, SAMUEL BUTLER,

CHARLES BROWN,  JOHN MEREDITH,

ELIJAH STANLEY,  ROBERT AITCHESON."

*"Pastoral Letters," by H. Craik.

To assign nine reasons for not obeying the divine injunction, "Try the spirits," when the need for its observance was pressed upon them by grave, christian men, whose consciences were already deeply exercised, is of itself a fact sufficiently serious. But passing by this, and all else in this document that might invite remark, I ask the reader's most solemn attention to the passage printed in italics. It really embraces the great question at issue between Bethesda and the assemblies associated therewith, on the one hand, and the assemblies standing apart from these on the other. It declares, in case of a man for years teaching doctrines admitted to be fundamentally heretical, that if members of his congregation apply for communion elsewhere, there is no ground for reviewing them, unless they can be convicted of having "understood and imbibed" the heresy which characterizes both the teacher to whom they adhere, and the assembly with which they persist in holding fellowship! If they be so imbecile as to cleave to the man whom they admire, extol, and commend to others, without understanding what he teaches; or if they be so clever and disingenuous as to disguise their sentiments and baffle those by whom they are examined; in either case they must, according to this document, be received to communion. Their persistence in adhering to the admittedly heretical teacher, and in holding fellowship with him and his congregation, is, according to this document, no barrier to their reception at Bethesda. This is the principle set forth, as plainly as human language can express it, in this "Letter of the Ten."

But how far did the assembly at Bethesda become responsible for this principle, and for the document in which it was embodied? Let the Christian reader judge. No doubt "the ten" were more deeply responsible than the hundreds of whom they were "the guides;" but the facts, when known, leave no room for doubt, that the assembly itself was fully committed to this document, and to every sentiment it contained. It was read to very full meetings of those in communion, on Thursday, June 29th, and Monday, July 3rd, 1848. In the latter, "Mr. Craik stated what would be the order of the meeting, viz., the perusal, first, of Mr. Alexander's letter, then of their reply, after which the church would give judgment upon it. But they (the ten) stated deliberately and advisedly, that they were firmly resolved not to allow any extracts to be read, or any comments made on the tracts, until the meeting had first come to a decision upon their paper." Think of this, dear reader. Ten persons come forward with a paper, committing the Church, if they adopt it, to a neutral course between the author of those tracts and his friends, on the one hand, and those who reject them, as unsound and heretical, on the other; and yet, till this paper is adopted, the Ten, from whom it emanates, will allow no extract to be read from the writings to which it refers! no remarks to be made on the doctrines which these writings propound. When some who were present objected to the congregation thus giving a decision in the dark, Mr. Muller said, "The first thing the Church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that if this was not done, they could not continue to labour among them; that the worse errors were, the more reason they should not brought out." And the majority acquiesced in this. By standing up they declared their approbation of this "Letter of the Ten." Be it that they did this in the dark; it was a darkness they accepted, after having been informed, by Mr. Alexander, that the errors in question were errors affecting the person and work of our blessed Lord. Serious, indeed, was the responsibility assumed by the congregation in their vote of that evening! ten-fold serious the responsibility of those by whom they were influenced to come to such a vote!

One ground alleged in this "Letter" for refusing to investigate the error in question is, that "the beginning of strife is as the letting out of water." But there are objects and interests so divinely precious, that scripture exhorts us to contend for them, and to contend earnestly. "It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3.) And when, for the sake of peace, we shrink from this holy, earnest contending for the faith, God so orders matters oftentimes, that the quiet we desire is beyond our reach, and the strife we shun overtakes us in the very path by which we seek to elude it. From the moment this "Letter of the Ten" was adopted, Bethesda became the watchword of division and strife among numbers who, till then, had been in harmony and peace. Those who, for Christ's sake, had periled everything, in contending against the heresy itself, of which Mr. Newton was the author, could not be expected to identify themselves with the neutral position and latitudinarian principles avowed by Bethesda. On the other hand, it was no wonder that Bethesda should have influence sufficient, in various ways, to secure adhesion to her course, on the part of some; palliation of it, and connivance at it, on the part of others. The issue is but too well known. They who had, till that time, ostensibly gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus only, on the ground of the unity of all saints in one body, became divided; some assemblies holding with Bethesda, and continuing to have intercommunion therewith; others withdrawing from such intercommunion, and declining to receive from Bethesda and its associated gatherings, any who intelligently adhere to the principle of the "Letter of the Ten," and to the fellowship of those by whom it is maintained. This is the great question, at issue. There may have been in the course of events an infinity of details, and faults innumerable on both sides; but the question on which so many stand apart from Bethesda and its friends is this, whether fellowship with admitted heresy be not a sufficient ground on which to refuse communion, even where the applicant is too simple or too subtle to show that he has "understood and imbibed" the heresy itself. Bethesda and her friends say, "Such an applicant must be received." Those who stand apart from Bethesda say "No, a man's religious associations are as much a subject of discipline in the Church of God as any part of his conduct; and such scriptures as "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness," — "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," — "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds," — prohibit our receiving from Bethesda, while Bethesda adheres to the principle laid down in the "Letter of the Ten."

Thirdly, but does Bethesda still adhere to this principle? Many there are who say that she has changed. A letter now lies before me, dated no further back than September 2, 1857, and addressed by an active, zealous promoter of Bethesda's cause, to one who had written him a letter of enquiry. It thus begins: "My beloved brother, make any use you please of my letter. It is a gratuitous falsehood to say Orchard Street does now, or ever has, received persons holding Mr. Newton's doctrines." On the spirit of this exordium I make no remark, save that it is instructive sometimes to observe the spirit of those who talk so much of love, patience, forbearance, and the like. Had these dispositions really swayed the writer of this letter, might not some softer term than "gratuitous falsehood" have been found for an affirmation, which he would have us suppose is made by the confessedly Christian men, who are his opponents on these questions. He can find no fault with my quoting from his letter, seeing that he authorizes his correspondent to make any use of it he pleases. But the remark to which I would beg particular attention is this  - that the question as to Orchard Street is not whether it has received persons holding Mr. Newton's doctrines — it may or it may not have received such persons — but it can have no security that it has not received such, so long as it receives from Bethesda. Bethesda avows that she would receive from under the teaching of a fundamentally heretical teacher, provided the parties applying could not be convicted of having "understood and imbibed" his heresies. How many holders of Mr. Newton's doctrines may, under the shelter of such an avowal, have found their way into Bethesda, and through Bethesda to Orchard Street, it is impossible for any one with truth or certainty to say. It is enough for the simple, who wish to "buy" the truth, and not to "sell" it, that the principle itself which is avowed by Bethesda, and winked at by Orchard Street, opens the door to any who may have the desire and ability to deceive, or, without positive deception, to conceal their sentiments from those who examine them.

But the letter before me, opening with this charge against some of "gratuitous falsehood," proceeds as follows: "As regards the 'Letter of the Ten,' it contained mistaken ecclesiastical principles, but never was promulgated by them, nor imposed as a rule upon any. But all the blame attributable to their faulty statements has long since been removed: for last winter, in a very full assembly of the saints at Bethesda. the Letter was as publicly withdrawn by Mr. Craik, as it had been many years ago read as a justification of their conduct, and denial of the charges made against them; and it was withdrawn because it had, through its circulation, given occasion to mistake and misrepresentation."

Such is the statement of this Orchard Street advocate of Bethesda. According to him the "Letter of the Ten" has been "Publicly withdrawn." I say nothing here as to the worth of a withdrawal, on the ground stated. I confine myself to the question of fact. Has the "Letter" been withdrawn? Who so able to inform us as Mr. Craik himself? The following, then, is his letter, dated, Bristol, September 5, 1857.

"MY DEAR BROTHER,

I have just this morning received yours of yesterday. I am thankful that your enquiries are of such a kind, that they can be very easily answered.

The so-called 'Letter of the Ten' was never intended as a church rule. It was simply a statement of the judgment to which a number of labouring brethren amongst us had come, in reference to the peculiar circumstances in which we were at that time placed as a church. This expression of our judgment was deferred to by the overwhelming majority of the body, and there the matter ended.

Afterwards, for certain party purposes, the above paper was printed and circulated by those who were opposed to our mode of action. It was not printed by any one connected with Bethesda. Those who published it represented it as a statement of church principles. Some time ago we were earnestly requested to withdraw the Letter. We entirely objected to do so, inasmuch as that which never had been enacted could not possibly be repealed. But to take off any occasion of misapprehension, it was clearly stated to a large meeting that the 'Letter of the Ten' had never been intended as a rule; and that, in fact, we had no rules at all, except such as were to be found in the word of God. The judgment expressed in the 'Letter,' has never been repudiated, so far as I am aware, by any of us; and I believe that if we were at the present moment to be placed in such circumstances as those in which we then found ourselves, most of us might probably come to the same judgment as is expressed in the document above referred to. We have, as a body, no code of laws but those contained in the New Testament; and we feel bound to receive all those who give satisfactory evidence of belonging to Christ, and who, maintaining the essential verities of our holy faith, are, at the same time, walking consistently as Christians. We recognize no limited or sectarian bonds of fellowship, and desire to be considered in communion with all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth.

We have no sympathy with any system that would necessitate a sectarian position; nor can we allow ourselves to belong to any other brotherhood, except that which is common to the whole family of God.

To say that the 'Letter of the Ten' had been withdrawn, would be incorrect in expression, and fitted to mislead in its effect. To say that we do not recognize that 'Letter,' nor any other human document, as a substitute for the rule of the word, would be both correct in expression, and fitted to prevent all misapprehension.

I shall esteem it a favour if you kindly keep this note. If you could get it copied, that I might be able to lay it before my fellow-labourers, I should be thankful.

I thought you might be interested in the accompanying paper.

Yours in the faith of Christ,

(Signed) "HENRY CRAIK."

"Wednesday, September 9, 1857.

I wrote the enclosed last Saturday. At a meeting last evening, I showed it to all my fellow-labourers who were present. I have reason to believe that it expresses the sentiments of the other brethren.

(Signed) "H. C."

On the above letter, little need be said. Sad as is its testimony to Bethesda's present state, the letter itself is frank, and in expression unequivocal. It disposes entirely of any alleged changes in Bethesda's position and course down to the date thereof. It flatly contradicts the assertion of the Orchard Street pleader for Bethesda, that "the Letter of the Ten has been publicly withdrawn." Mr. Craik, with the concurrence of his fellow-labourers, assures us it has not been. They were earnestly requested to withdraw it, but they "entirely objected to do so." "To say that the 'Letter of the Ten' had been withdrawn would be incorrect in expression, and fitted to mislead in its effect." The judgment it expresses "has never been repudiated," so far as Mr. Craik is aware, by any of the ten; and so far are they from withdrawing it in the only sense in which its withdrawal would be of any value — that is, so far are they from repenting of it and renouncing its principles, — that Mr. Craik expresses his belief, that if they were again in the same circumstances, they might probably come to the same judgment and pursue the same course. This avowal ought surely to set the question of Bethesda at rest. If brethren approve of the "Letter of the Ten," and agree with its principles, their course is plain — to walk with those who adhere to the one, and continue to avow the other. If brethren deem the principle of this letter, expressed in the words printed in italics, as a matter of comparative indifference, they cannot in that case be expected to make any firm or determined resistance to its spread. But if brethren do care for the difference between truth and error — between "fundamentally heretical" doctrines, and God's holy, blessed truth as to the person and work of His beloved Son; if brethren have any just sense of Satan's craft and cunning, and of their own feebleness and readiness to be deceived; if brethren are not prepared to admit amongst them apologists for heretics, who are themselves not sufficiently intelligent to understand the heresy of those they flatter and commend; if brethren dread "the deceivableness of unrighteousness," and take warning from God's word as to those who "privily bring in" what they would not openly avow; above all, if brethren believe that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," and that he who says "God speed" to the unsound, is partaker of his evil deeds, then they will beware of identifying themselves with the Letter of the Ten, or with the assembly which still avows its adherence to its principles, or with any of those assemblies which are on terms of intercommunion therewith.

One thing is undeniable, that if the "Letter" at any time constituted a valid ground of separation, it still remains as such in full force. It is of little consequence by whom it was printed. It was signed by the ten whose names it bears; it was adopted by the assembly at Bethesda; it is allowed by all who hold fellowship with that assembly, or receive to fellowship those of whom that assembly is composed. The document, moreover, speaks for itself; and after the endorsement of it in the present month by Mr. Craik and his fellow-labourers, I see not how brethren anywhere can avoid either sanctioning it, with their eyes wide open to the nature of the step they take in so doing, or else standing apart from it as that which would subvert all the foundations of true Christian fellowship, and leave us nothing but a human association, where Christ's glory is deemed of less moment than the maintenance of happy relations and pleasant intercourse between man and man.

Suppose this whole question of Plymouth and Bethesda, buried, forgotten, obliterated — suppose that all who were in visible communion in 1844 were in visible communion again; with this principle of the "Letter of the Ten" held by a considerable proportion of them, the first plausible error introduced by the father of lies, would just serve to reproduce all the trial through which we have been and still are passing.

No, communion between those who hold and those who abhor the latitudinarian principle of the "Letter," is simply an impossibility. It is felt to be so by those who understand the question on both sides. Brethren who stand apart from Bethesda are not more rigid in declining the fellowship of her supporters, than the leaders at Bethesda would be in declining communion with those who have separated from her. They have not the opportunity of evincing this in practice; but it should not be forgotten that in 1849, when fourteen brethren in London sought of Bethesda, not communion, but only a meeting for enquiry, in which one should be as open as another to have his proceedings canvassed, the reply of Mr. Muller, on his own behalf and on that of his fellow-labourers, was, "We do not feel warranted in consenting to meet with those who have first judged and condemned us, and now profess to be desirous of making enquiry. We think it well plainly to state that were such brethren even to profess themselves satisfied with us, we could not without hypocrisy accord to them the right hand of brotherly fellowship. If they agree with the course followed by Mr. Wigram and others, then there can be no fellowship between us and them." It is not to complain of this that I quote it — far from it — but to show that it is only in appearance that the exclusion is all on one side. Were any of those who have separated to be so inconsistent as to wish to return, it could only be on the ground of repentance and confession, that Bethesda herself could receive those who have been known as the opponents of her course. On this ground — repentance of her evil, and open confession and renunciation thereof  -  Bethesda herself would be received by those who now stand apart from her; and any individual Christians, who have been associated with Bethesda, are received on this ground by those who have most widely separated from her communion.

Let the Letter of the Ten be seen and owned by Bethesda to have been a slight put upon Christ, and a grievous sin against God, and no barrier would remain to the reunion with her of those who have been obliged by that document to stand apart from her and her supporters. Let it still, as at present, be maintained, and, for one, I can only say, solemnly and deliberately, that precious as is the communion of saints, I should prefer walking alone the remainder of my days on earth, to the taking any step which would imply approbation of that document, acquiescence in it, or indifference to its contents. Who that understands it can be indifferent to it, while he values Christ's glory, cares for the uncorrupted truth of God, or feels any concern for the real welfare of his brethren in Christ?

York, Sep. 17, 1857.

P.S. It has been remarked by one who has read the foregoing pages, that they do not make sufficiently prominent the consideration, that Bethesda's adoption of the "Letter of the Ten," and acting on its principles, places her under the same condemnation as that of those whom she receives; rendering it thus imperative that receivers and received should be dealt with alike. "For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 2.) My endeavour has been to present facts, rather than to reason upon them; but the consideration just suggested is of sufficient weight to demand the attention of all. Evidently, any one who, contrary to the apostle's warning, becomes partaker of the evil deeds of another, ought to be dealt with as he himself ought to have dealt with that other.

What are Mr. Newton's Present Doctrines

What are Mr. Newton's Present Doctrines

as to the Human Nature and Relationships of the Lord Jesus Christ?

by W. Trotter.

Publishers: James Nisbet, London, J. B. Rowe, Plymouth.

1850.

CBA6375

Introduction.

One word of explanation as to the origin of the following papers, is due to the reader. They are no volunteer attack of mine, upon the system against which they are directed. I was unexpectedly brought into contact with it, in the prosecution of my daily service to the Lord, in the sphere in which He has been pleased to place me. Having been led to write certain letters on the subject of Mr. N.'s doctrines, to one whose soul was being exercised respecting them; those letters were forwarded by a third party to him. He wrote a letter in reply, the whole of which is given, with strictures upon each paragraph, in the second part of this pamphlet. Mr. N.'s letter was not printed by him; but he sent a copy of it for the use of a congregation in the west of England; and a glance, moreover, at the contents of the letter, will satisfy the reader, that it is not at all of a private character. It is Mr. N.'s latest defence of, and apology for, his published writings on the subject in debate; and as such I felt it to be the fairest course to him, to give the whole of his letter, rather than extracts from it.

Finding that other souls are exercised on these subjects, and being fully satisfied that many, who are doubtless God's children, are still led away by the doctrines in question, without fully understanding what they are, and what they involve; I have been induced for their sakes, to send the following papers to the press.

May I ask of God's dear people, to implore his blessing on this feeble effort? And may He graciously use it to the deliverance of many souls, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake.

W. Trotter. York, August 17th, 1850.

I would just add, that in the second part of this pamphlet, the successive paragraphs of Mr. N.'s letter, are distinguished from the strictures upon them, as well as from extracts from his other writings, by inverted commas.

What are Mr. Newton's present Doctrines as to the Human Nature and Relationships of the Lord Jesus Christ?

__________________

Circumstances as much unsought as unanticipated by me, having afresh forced upon me the above inquiry, the following sheets exhibit the form in which it has been prosecuted, as well as the results to which it has conducted me. I began by reading again the paper in the second edition of the Christian Witness, in which his unsoundness first appeared. I then re-read his retractation of this doctrine, or of part of it, sent forth in 1847. I next gave a serious perusal to his Letter on the Humanity, in which he details the legitimate results of the doctrine he had retracted, but re-affirms the principles of the two tracts, which, at the date of his retractation, he withdrew for reconsideration. Last of all, I reperused these tracts, to compare their statements with those of the paper in the Witness; Mr. N. having affirmed in the Letter on the Humanity, that these two tracts are free from the unsound doctrine contained in that paper. The inquiry and results are as follow: I have added an examination of Mr. N.'s recent letter to  -,  -, giving throughout, first, his statements; then, my replies. The whole of the letter is thus examined.

God grant to the reader a willingness to know the truth.

_____________________

In the introduction to the paper entitled "Doctrines of the Church in Newman Street considered;" which introduction was prefixed to the original article, in the second edition of the Christian Witness, Mr. N. says, "In order to form a scriptural judgment on these things, it is needful to consider attentively, the state in which we, as the descendants of Adam, are placed before God. There are three particulars which mark our condition as sinners before Him: — First, original, or vicarious guilt, imputed (or reckoned) to us on account of the transgression of our first parents, of which the 5th chapter of the Romans treats. Secondly, original sin, or indwelling corruption. And, thirdly, actual transgression."

The distinction between imputed transgression, and indwelling corruption, Mr. N. proceeds to illustrate as follows: "The children of an exile in Siberia, though innocent of rebellion themselves, might yet be involved in all the penalties of their parent, and be punished for, and on account of him. Even so, the one transgression of Adam in the garden, exposes all his posterity to be treated by God as transgressors, on account of him. The penalty of death would still have impended over them, even though they could have been born pure as angels in themselves."

But instead of being born thus pure, Mr. N. goes on to remark, that all Adam's natural descendants derive from him a corrupted nature; and thirdly, that in such, we have besides, "multiplied personal transgressions, — the foolish thought, and word, and action: and he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all."

Then comes the statement as to our blessed Lord. "The Lord Jesus was as free from indwelling sin, as from actual transgression; yet, nevertheless, He was a member (so to speak) of the exiled family, and was therefore born subject to their penalties. But He was made under the law; and being essentially holy, He was able to fulfil the law, and so to rise above the penalties to which He had become subject on account of Adam's guilt. He was able to enter into life by keeping the commandments; and the very same law which had been death to every other, was unto Him life, even as it is written, "If there could have been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." On account of our sinful flesh, to us the law was weak; but strong unto Him, because He had no sinful flesh, but was essentially the Holy One. He learned obedience in the midst of suffering, and was proved to be the righteous One who might have entered into life by Himself alone, but who preferred to lay down His life that He might take it again, that so, through the knowledge of Him, many might be justified."

Having thus introduced the subject, the writer proceeds. "All that the soul of a saint recognizes as true in the writings of Mr. Irving, respecting Christ being in 'that condition of being and region of existence which is proper to a sinner,' will be found to be altogether comprised in the fact of His being born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred. But He rose out of this 'region' through the power of his own inherent holiness; and therefore never would have come 'into that experience into God's action which is proper for a sinner,' unless He had chosen to abide it for the sake of others."

All this is very plain. The writer attributes neither indwelling corruption, nor actual transgression, to our Lord, but he does attribute to him, "original or vicarious guilt." He says that "He was a member (so to speak) of the exiled family, and was therefore born subject to their penalties." Christ is said by the writer, to have been "in that condition of being and region of existence which is proper to a sinner" in the sense of His having been "born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred;" and it is said that "He rose out of that region through the power of His own inherent holiness." The expression "vicariously incurred" has always, to my own soul, abated the grievousness of this doctrine as then held and taught by Mr. N. But on once more reading the whole paper, it becomes a question with me, whether the words just quoted, "vicariously incurred" mean any thing more than what he defines at the outset, as the first particular in our condition as sinners before God. This, he states to be "original, or vicarious guilt, imputed (or reckoned) to us, on account of the transgression of our first parent, of which the 5th chapter of the Romans treats." If this be the sense in which he afterwards says, Christ was" born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred," it makes his views appear more consistent (in evil, alas!) throughout. But if they be understood in the ordinary sense of the word "vicarious" we shall still see how he alters this in his later publications.

The paper from which the above passages are extracted, was published in 1835, or early in 1836; — and it is important to bear in mind that the doctrine stated in those passages, was the one held by Mr. N., till near the date of is retractation, Nov. 26th, 1847. He says, (page 5 of that document, — "Statement and Acknowledgment, etc.") "Recent circumstances having necessitated a careful review of the whole subject, I have been led, etc." It is clear from this, that during the whole period from 1835 or 6, to 1847, his views as to our blessed Lord, were those above stated; and it was during this period that his ideas respecting the sufferings of Christ, and the interpretation of the Psalms, etc., became matured; and to those views which are still held by him, he gave expression first, in the Lecture on Psalm 6, and further in his two tracts, "Remarks and Observations." Did those views receive no tinge from the doctrine, according to his own confession, held by the writer while they were being formed and matured? Was it possible that on a subject so connected with this doctrine, his views could be uninfluenced by it, during the very period in which it was held by him as the truth of God? Let any one judge whose eyes are not blinded by prejudice, whether those views on the sufferings of Christ were not the genuine fruit of the doctrine, or rather part and parcel of the doctrine, first stated as above, in the second edition of the Christian Witness.

The extracts already given, are from the preface to the article. But in the body of the article itself, we have the following. "But in the treatise above referred to, (one of Irving's, it is stated that these sufferings were not inflicted upon Him because He was considered that which, really He was not, viz., a sinner; in other words, that He was not punished exclusively for our sins, but because of that condition of being into which He had come. Now, (says Mr. N.) it is fully allowed, as has been stated in the preface, that He was born into 'our condition of being,' in the sense of being born out of Paradise. And also, that He exposed Himself to the danger of receiving all the punishment which followed upon the imputation of Adam's offence; but though exposed to it, yet He rose above it all, because He was by birth the Holy One, made under the law; who did not, as we, find it weak through the flesh, but effectually ordained unto life, because His flesh was holy. 'This do, and thou shalt live,' was unto Him, a word of delivering power. So far, therefore, from His having been punished on account of the condition of being into which He had come; He would not have been punished at all, unless He had freely chosen, whilst standing as the 'justified One' to offer atonement to the Father, and to become the substitute and sin-bearer of all who believe in His name." The doctrine, as further stated here, is, (1) That Christ was born into our condition of being. (2) That he exposed himself to the danger* of receiving all the punishment following upon the imputation of Adam's offence. (3) That he rose above it all, because he was by birth, the Holy One, made under the law. (4) That "this do, and thou shalt live," was to him a word of delivering power. (5) That therefore He was not punished at all because of the condition of being into which he had come. And (6) That he would not have been punished at all, unless he had freely chosen, whilst standing as the 'justified One' (by his obedience to the law, as above, I suppose) to offer atonement, and become our substitute. That is, in short, as plainly as words can express it, that Christ had to be justified by his obedience to the law, from the imputation of Adam's offence, under which (according to the writer) He was born, before he could offer himself in atonement for others. The question as to whether any one born under this imputation could justify himself from it, is one that must be considered in its place.

*The italics are Mr. N.'s.

I would take no further notice at present of Mr. N.'s tracts on the sufferings of Christ, than again to call to mind that they were written prior to his renunciation, (at least openly) of any part of the doctrine already stated. The first, as is well known, was not published by Mr. N., but consisted of Notes of a Lecture delivered by him, and published, with strictures on it, by Mr. Harris. The horror which was caused in the souls of many by these Notes, led Mr. N. to publish his two tracts, "Remarks" and "Observations," in the preface to the latter of which, the writer says, "this tract and another which has been already published will, I trust, sufficiently show what my doctrines really are, they will show to what I object, and what I avow in the notes." The date of this is September 1, 1847. It was nearly three months after this, viz., Nov. 26th, 1847, that a short tract was issued, signed by Mr. N., purporting to be a retractation of the doctrine taught in the extracts already given. He first describes the controversy which arose about Irvingism, and how he sought to meet its false doctrines in the paper on Newman-street, in the first edition of the Christian Witness. He then proceeds. "To this it was objected, that we, in a sense, deified the humanity of Jesus, and virtually denied that He was really man. Many passages were quoted by the defenders of Mr. Irving's doctrine, to prove that Jesus was not only man, but man in weakness, that He had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise; and they added that the cause of His body being mortal was, that sin (as they said) inhered in it."

"In order to meet this," he further says, "it was felt to be a solemn duty to endeavour to own, as far as possible, the truth that might be mingled with the error, and to seek to disentangle it from its evil connections. It was on this account that I wrote a preface, and made some additions to the paper above referred to; and in an attempt to meet as far as possible the minds of others, I have gone too far, and myself transgressed by overstepping the bounds of truth."

"In allowing," Mr. N. proceeds, "that the Lord Jesus had a body different from that of Adam in Paradise, I was right. I was right also in saying that inherent corruption is not the originating cause of mortality, but the one sin of Adam, — 'by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;' I was right also in stating that the Lord Jesus partook of certain consequences of Adam's sin, of which the being possessed of a mortal body was one."

"It was this that first introduced Rom. 5 into the controversy, as showing that death of the body resulted from that which one man had done; and if due care had been taken to discriminate between the mode in which the consequences of Adam's transgression reached mankind through federal headship, and the manner in which the Lord Jesus took certain of those consequences upon Himself, but not through federal headship, the error which I now have to confess, would have been avoided."

Further on, the writer says, "my error in this resulted in my holding that the Lord Jesus, while perfectly free from all, even the slightest taint of sin, either original or actual, yet was under Adam, as a federal head, and thus was exposed by his position to the imputation of Adam's guilt, as is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans.

Now what is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans is this; — "that through the offence of one many are dead:" v. 15; that "the judgment was by one to condemnation" v. 16 that "by one man's offence death reigned by one" v. 17 that "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation:" v. 18, that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners;" v. 19. This is what is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans; and it was under this that Mr. N.'s doctrine represented our blessed Lord as being placed.

"Recent circumstances," he goes on to say, "having necessitated a careful review of the whole subject, I have been led, as I have above stated, to see that I was distinctly in error in holding that the Lord came by birth under any imputation of guilt or the consequences of such imputation. I see that results altogether contrary to christian doctrine are involved in, and may fairly be deduced from this error, which I now desire explicitly to renounce; and I desire to acknowledge my error in having thus held and taught on this subject; and I hereby withdraw all statements of mine, whether in print or in any other form, in which this error or any of its fruits may be found."

It will have to be considered anon whether the Notes of the Lecture on Ps. 6, and the two tracts on the sufferings of Christ, are not full of the "fruits" of this error. Suffice it for the present once more to recall the fact that they were written while the author of them held, or at least, a good while before he renounced the error above confessed. All he says of them in his retractation is, "with regard to the two tracts recently published by myself on 'the sufferings of Christ,' I also request that they may be withdrawn for reconsideration." The result of this reconsideration we have in "a Letter on subjects connected with the Lord's humanity." In it the writer says, p. 15, "such then are my principles, and I may add the principles on which my two recent tracts are based;" and he goes on to assert their general soundness; that is, he re-affirms the principles of the two tracts he had withdrawn for reconsideration, and not only does he re-affirm, he vindicates them, and insists upon them. On pages 30, 32, he specifies the results altogether contrary to christian doctrine involved in, and fairly to be deduced from, the error which he had confessed in Nov., 1847. He enumerates them, however, not to confess himself covered with shame, and unable to lift up his head, for having held and taught a doctrine from which such consequences inevitably follow. One might have expected this. But no; he specifies those results of the false doctrine he held, to show that his tracts written while he held it, are clear from any such deductions. Let us look at the results, however, as stated by himself, leaving out for the present, his reasonings to clear his tracts. The tracts I have not yet gone into here at all. All I have done thus far is to give, 1st, the doctrine itself in Mr. N.'s own words; 2nd, his confession of his having held it, and his account of the way in which he was led into it. Hear now, his own statement of the legitimate results of this doctrine that "Christ was under Adam as a federal head." It is as follows:

"Federal imputation of sin places him who is under it in the same relation to God as the person who has originally sinned; and all the consequences of that sin, past, present, and to come, rest on the person under imputation, and cannot be removed except through redemption. He is under a load from which he can never be relieved, even for one moment, either here or hereafter, except through redemption."

"He who is under federal imputation of sin is exposed, and that not by voluntary election, but by involuntary necessity to all the consequences of sin and that for ever. There can in such case be no partial exposure — no exposure to some, and not to others."

"Again, he who is under imputation, must also be in moral distance from God."

"He who is under imputation could never (unless through that capacity of action which God only has through redemption,) be visited by any mercy, or receive any relief from God. If therefore Christ had been under imputation, seeing that there was no redemption through which he could have been regarded, he never could have received one blessing from the hand of God."

"He who is under imputation could have no personal position before God, which God could acknowledge in blessing."

"He who is under imputation could never for one moment occupy a relative position. so as to suffer exclusively because of others; for his own personal position would merit suffering."

"He who is under imputation could never work out a righteousness for others."

Here are Mr. N.'s own words. Now think of any one who had held and taught, that Christ "was under Adam as a federal head;" who, while he held this doctrine, delivered lectures, and published tracts, on subjects closely allied to this, to say the least; who, having been obliged to confess that he had held and taught this doctrine; now publishes a pamphlet in which he details its legitimate results; think, I say, of any one under such circumstances, enumerating seven such conclusions as the above, NOT to take on himself the shame of having held and taught the doctrine which involves them; but to shield his tracts from the charge of having maintained the doctrine, by affirming that they do not contain these seven deductions from it! "The real doctrine of imputation therefore," he says. "is at utter variance with the radical principle of the tracts." "Nor is it possible that the REAL doctrine of imputation could be held by any Christian who understood what it involved." The writer was never charged with holding all the consequences of this doctrine. He was charged with holding the doctrine itself, and this he was obliged, however reluctantly to confess. He was also charged with delivering lectures, and writing tracts in which statements were made involving the same consequences as this doctrine of federal imputation. In the very paper (that on Newman-street) in which he taught the doctrine of federal imputation of Adam's sin to our Lord, he taught the opposite of some of those very deductions which he now says legitimately flow from it. Does this self contradiction prove that he did not hold the doctrine? No such thing. He had to confess, as we have seen, that he did hold it; and if he had never confessed it at all, the proof of the fact is such as cannot be gainsayed. Then as to the tracts. He says of this and that result of the doctrine of imputation, that they are not to be found in the tracts, but that the tracts teach the opposite. This is just as true of the paper on Newman-street, as of the tracts, and yet the former of these confessedly contains the doctrine. Alas! for the writer who could seek to shield himself and his publications from the shame of having taught a doctrine which he confesses no Christian could hold who understood what it involved, and which he confesses to have held himself, by endeavouring to show that he had not followed it out to all its blasphemous consequences, and taught these as well! Enough, one would suppose, to have taught the doctrine that confessedly involves these; enough it surely ought to have been, to have so bowed down the soul of the writer, as to have made a thought of self-vindication the very last thought he could entertain.

____________________

And now as to the tracts. I begin with the Notes of the Lecture on Psalm 6. And when we bear in mind that the Author published two tracts, "Remarks," and "Observations," on purpose to show "to what he objected and what he avowed in the Notes," it will be evident that so long as nothing is quoted which was disclaimed by him in these tracts, it is as fair to quote from the Notes as from any of his own publications. First of all then, what is Psalm 6 itself?

"O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. Have mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak; O Lord heal me; for my bones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed; but thou, O Lord, how long! Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: O save me for thy mercies sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks. I am weary with my groaning: all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity: for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer. Let all mine enemies be ashamed and sore vexed; let them return and be ashamed suddenly."

On this Psalm, Mr. N. is reported in the Notes to have said, (and I know not of his having anywhere disclaimed this) "But another interesting and important question is, the manner in which Christ was personally chastened and afflicted, whilst the servant of God in the earth; for it was not merely the sufferings he had, because his soul entered into the condition of things around him, but there was quite another question (mark this, reader,) the relation of God to him whilst thus suffering. For a person to he suffering here, because he serves God is one thing, but the relation of that person to God, and what he is immediately receiving from his hand while serving him is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm and many others open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure, AND REMEMBER THIS IS NOT THE SCENE ON THE CROSS." Is it not stated here as plainly as possible, (1) that the subject treated of is, God's relation to Christ, and Christ's relation to God? (2) That this is what the sixth Psalm opens to us — that it describes the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger etc. (3) That this is not the scene on the cross. And to impress this upon his hearers, we are told in the same paragraph "in this Psalm Christ is not at all standing in the place of sacrifice for sin."

In the Letter on the humanity, where he is describing the legitimate results of the doctrine of federal imputation, Mr. N. mentions as the first of these, that "federal imputation of sin places him who is under it in the same relation to God as the person who has already sinned." What now is the relation to God in which he represents Christ as placed in the passage just cited? And what is God's relation to Him represented to be? They are both represented to be of such a nature as to expose him to the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure.

So that here, at least, we have, if not the doctrine of Christ's subjection to the federal imputation of Adam's sin, one of its consequences as stated by Mr. N. himself. And here let me ask, if Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, were such as to subject Christ to anger and hot displeasure on the part of God, how was this to be averted? Is God angry except with sin? Does He chasten in hot displeasure except for departure from Himself? And if Christ "not at all as standing in the place of sacrifice for sin" was subject to such inflictions, how was He to be released from His subjection to them? How, save by redemption? And who was to be His redeemer? Alas! alas! the notes bring us to the same point as the paper on Newman-street in the Witness. Nay worse: for while the paper on Newman-street says "vicariously incurred" (whatever that may have been intended to mean) the notes say distinctly, that in this relation of Christ to God, and of God to Christ, he, "Christ, is not at all standing in the place of sacrifice for sin."

But again, it is said, page 11 of the notes. "The next question is, how did he suffer? The moment He came into the world, He was a part of mankind in it; He was born a man: therefore in that sense became a part of the human family. If He had been born in Paradise, He would not have found sorrow by becoming a part of it, but being born out of it, and seeing He was born into the world, under the curse; it brought Him under all the sorrow and affliction which pertain to the human family, as such."

"Supposing," he proceeds, "we belonged to a family which was banished to a distant land, and there subject to every hardship and sorrow, and we were to go and form a part of that family; we must of course drink of the same cup, and partake of their sufferings: this was what Christ did. I do not refer to what were called his vicarious sufferings, but to His partaking of the circumstances of the woe and sorrow of the human family, and not only of the human family generally, but of a particular part of it, of Israel, etc." Here it is distinctly affirmed, (1) that Christ suffered, because the moment He came into the world, He was a part of mankind — a part of the human family. (2) That He was born into the world under the curse, and so brought under all the sorrow and affliction, which pertain to the human family, as such. Besides, we have (3) an illustration of the ground on which Christ suffered, as nearly as possible identical with that employed in the paper in the Witness, to show the distinction between imputed transgression, and indwelling corruption. Then (4) the speaker distinctly avows here, that he does not refer to what are called the vicarious sufferings of Christ.

Again, page 15 of the notes, we are told, that "He heard (John the Baptist's word) with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptized, because He was one with Israel; was in their condition, one of wrath from God."

I am aware that in chap. 2 of "Observations" as also on page 11 of "Remarks," the writer seeks to distinguish between "the wrath of God," as it might fall on such a person as Jehoshaphat, to whom it was said, (2 Chr. 19: 2.) "therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord," and the same expression as used elsewhere of the doom of the finally impenitent. In the Remarks, page 11, he tells us that "on the cross, He (Christ) endured wrath, infinite wrath; not wrath in chastisement, but wrath in vengeance." But then, I would remark in the first place — that in the notes we have a distinction made, quite opposite in its bearing. "We are chastened, but not in displeasure. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten;" there is SOMETHING DISSIMILAR in that; it comes to us as under the dealing of LOVE, and THAT makes a wide difference." Notes, p. 19. But even if the full benefit of the distinction between "wrath in chastisement" and "wrath in vengeance," be allowed to the writer, of what avail is it? Does wrath of either kind come on any except for sin? Can wrath of either kind be averted, except through redemption? Was Jesus under wrath of either kind, save as our substitute? If so, how could he save by redemption, and that the writer allows would have been impossible for him, be freed therefrom? Let it be borne in mind that according to Mr. N., it is Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, which subjected him to chastening in wrath, to anger, and to hot displeasure.

And then as to the question of how he is represented to have come into this place of suffering under the hand of God, in wrath and hot displeasure; turn to page 9 of Observations. "And is it a new doctrine that Jesus by His birth became obnoxious, that is, exposed to all the sinless penalties of fallen man? I do not say that they all fell upon Him. Some did not. He was exposed, for example, because of His relation to Adam, to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. Relatively, He was exposed to that curse; personally, He evidenced His title to freedom from it, and His title to life, by keeping that law of which it had been said, 'this do, and thou shalt live.' And if He was exposed to the doom of man, was He not equally exposed to all the sinless penalties that had fallen upon Israel, as dwelling under Sinai? I do not say that they all fell upon Him. Some did, others did not. But He was not on this account accursed." No, nor did you say that he was accursed, when you distinctly held and taught, that he was under the federal headship of Adam, and so exposed to the imputation of his guilt. Your denying then, that personally he was accursed, did not prevent you holding a principle, from which this inevitably flowed. Nor does your disclaiming such a thought, in the passage just quoted, clear the passage from the imputation of teaching what involves it. Let us look at the passage more particularly.

It teaches (1) that Jesus by his birth became obnoxious to all the sinless penalties of fallen man. (2) That, as an example, he was exposed, because of his relation to Adam to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. So that, according to the writer, death is one of the sinless penalties. (3) That relatively, (i. e. because of his relation to Adam,) he was exposed to that curse; though, just as is taught in the paper on Newman-street, he evidenced his title to freedom from it, by keeping the law. (4) That if he was exposed to the doom of man, (are sinless penalties the doom of man?) he was equally exposed to all the sinless penalties that had fallen upon Israel. Such is the plain, unmistakeable doctrine of the passage before us.

I am well aware of its being urged that the use of the term "sinless penalties," limits the meaning of such passages. But what is the meaning of the expression? We have no scripture to guide us to the meaning of it, for it is not a scripture expression. It is one of the author's own terms. Turn to a dictionary for the words, and what do you find? The first that comes to my hand gives the sense of the words thus; "Sinless, exempt from sin." "Penalty, punishment, censure, judicial infliction." The phrase "sinless penalties," is therefore, strictly speaking, a paradox. To our blessed Lord, as being himself perfectly sinless, and yet as standing in our stead on the cross, receiving the "punishment, censure, judicial infliction," due to our sins, it might perhaps be applied. Even here however, it would not be strictly proper. Though sinless himself, it was for sin, as standing in the stead of sinners, that he was punished. But it is not to the cross, but to other sufferings of our Lord distinct from the cross, and prior to it, that Mr. N. applies the phrase. I can only conceive of three senses in which the writer can use the term "sinless penalties." First, he may mean that the act of inflicting those penalties is a sinless one. If this be his meaning, I can only say with another, that in this sense "damnation is not a sinful thing, it is very righteous." But, secondly, he may mean that Christ's endurance of these penalties was unattended by any personal sin on his part — that he who suffered was sinless. But this is just as true of the cross; he was personally sinless there, when suffering the full penalty of our sins. Besides, Mr. N. as strongly asserted the personal sinlessness of Christ, when he held the doctrine that Adam's guilt was imputed to him, as now. Thirdly, the only other use he can intend to make of the expression is to distinguish between the sufferings of Christ on the cross, where, though absolutely sinless in himself, he took our place and endured what was due to our sins, and those sufferings which he is said by the writer to have endured during his life, because of his relation to Adam, But what can be the effect of this, except to delude? Does God inflict any penalties, except on account of sin? Are not the curse upon the ground and the death of the body as truly on account of sin as eternal damnation? The writer distinctly includes the death of the body among those "sinless penalties," and gives it as an example of what he means by the phrase. "He was exposed for example, because of His relation to Adam to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man." And was it as a "sinless penalty" that sentence of death came upon all men. So far from this, the apostle proves the universality of sin by the universality of death. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all for that all have sinned." This is what Mr. N. used to put our Lord under, in plain terms applying it to him. And where the difference is between this and the doctrine of the passage I am considering, (page 9, Observations) I am utterly at a loss to perceive.

I am quite aware that in the Letter on the humanity, page 29, Mr. N. says, "the tracts speak of relation to Adam, but they do not speak of federal relation to Adam." Here let me say, the word "federal" no more occurs in scripture than the phrase "sinless penalties." But the writer allows that the subject of federal relationship between Adam and his offspring is treated of in the fifth of Romans. This is the chapter to which he used to refer as illustrative of our Lord's position under Adam. He refers to it in the paper on Newman-street. But now what does the fifth of Romans teach as to what the writer terms "federal relation to Adam" I will exhibit for facility of comparison, the teaching of the fifth of Romans as to all the rest of Adam's offspring, and Mr. N.'s teaching on page 9, Observations, as to our blessed Lord.

FIFTH of ROMANS.

"By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin,

and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.

"He (Jesus) was exposed, for example, because of His relation to Adam

to that sentence of death that had been pronounced on the whole family of man."

FIFTH of ROMANS.

"By one man's offence death reigned by one."

Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.

"Relatively, He (Jesus) was exposed to that curse."

FIFTH of ROMANS.

"By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."

Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.

"And if He (Jesus) was exposed to the doom of man,

was He not equally exposed etc.?"

I am not ignorant of the fact that there is a further statement in Rom. 5, which the writer used to apply to our blessed Lord, and which I suppose he would not now: viz., "as by one man's disobedience many were made (or constituted, as he used to render it) sinners." This, he would not now say of Jesus. But let me ask, what is death, as a penalty but the wages of sin? How can there be liability to death where there is no sin either actual, indwelling, or imputed? What relation to Adam is there spoken of in scripture which could make any one "because of" it, exposed to the sentence of death, save the federal relation? Where is the scripture to show that a person might be in such a relation to Adam as to be "because of" it, exposed to the sentence of death pronounced on the whole family of man — exposed to that curse — exposed to the doom of man, — and yet not be in federal relation to Adam? The distinction is a pure invention of the writer to screen his character, and at the same time maintain his doctrine —  between which, and that of federal imputation which he has repudiated, there is not any distinction supported by a single passage of scripture, or by a single consideration to commend it to the unbiassed spiritual judgment of any one. A relation to Adam which exposes a person to the sentence of death — to that curse — to the doom of man, is what christians have always understood by federal relationship, and is the relationship treated of in the fifth of Romans.

_____________________

The several pleas urged by the writer of these tracts to show that they cannot contain any thing subversive of the faith; or, in other words, that the doctrine they teach on the above subject is accompanied by such other statements as to make the whole innoxious, have been already examined by others. A passing notice of the principal points may still not be out of place here.

1. The writer maintains that he cannot be unsound in the faith, because he teaches among other doctrines, that of atonement, of substitution. Now I am not aware that he has ever been charged with denying this. He was charged with holding a doctrine, which, could it have been true, would have shown our Lord to be incapable of making atonement. He confesses now that he did hold such a doctrine, but that he did not draw this deduction from it: and it is well known that he taught the doctrine of atonement in the very paper on Newman-street, which contains the heresy I refer to. His entertaining the doctrine of atonement then did not hinder him from holding a view completely subversive of it, if followed out to its consequences. Neither can his maintaining the doctrine of atonement now disprove the charge still brought against him, that he still holds what, if true, would show the blessed Lord Jesus to have been unfit for the great work of atonement.

2. His strong and oft repeated assertions of the personal sinlessness of Christ, no more prove that the writer is sound in the faith than what I have just considered. He made the same assertions when he did hold what he now confesses to be untrue, and if carried out to its consequences, blasphemous and heretical.

3. His distinctions between the personal and relative positions of Christ, are really worth no more than the pleas already noticed. Page 23 of the Letter on the Humanity, — he says, and that, too, where he is specially labouring to make this point clear: "The personal position of the Lord Jesus, and that which was due thereunto, may perhaps be best judged of, by considering His relation to the Father before the world was. It was a relation of unchanging and unchangeable perfectness. As God and as the Eternal Son of the Father, He had an unalterable title to all blessing — a title which neither incarnation, nor the cross could change." Thus far all is true, and what all christians agree in. There has never been any question, that I am aware of, between the writer and others as to this. But he proceeds.

"In heaven the circumstances or position* of the Son, had been in accordance with that which was due to Him. He was there seen standing in all the excellency of his personal position, and until He took flesh He was receiving all that was due to that position." Now the whole question between the writer and orthodox Christians, is, as to the position assumed when he took flesh. The asserted excellency and perfectness of his personal position, before the world was, or, after his incarnation, — says nothing to the question. This, he says, and rightly, did not change, even at the cross. He would have said all this when he held the imputation to Christ of Adam's guilt. The question is, as to the new position assumed, when he took flesh. As to this, the writer goes on to say, "But when it pleased Him to assume flesh, instead of assuming it under circumstances, which would have been in accordance with that which was due to His personal position; He assumed it in a condition of weakness etc., which was not in accordance with the blessedness due to His personal position. This, therefore may be said to be the assumption of a relative position; because He voluntarily forewent that which was due to His personal position, and placed Himself under circumstances of weakness and sorrow; which only pertained to Him so long as He was pleased to continue in a certain relation to those, with whom He had chosen thus to associate Himself."

*Another has noticed the confusion here in the use of the word "position." Let the reader inquire each time it is used, — in what sense?

But here let us pause a little, and inquire, (1) Who were those with whom he chose thus to associate himself? According to the writer's oft-repeated statements, — the family of man, and the nation of Israel. (2) What was that relation to these parties, which he was pleased to assume? It was such a relation to Adam, as exposed him to that sentence of death that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. (3) What was the relation to God, which he then entered on? His personal position was that of the Eternal Son, with an unalterable title to all blessing. But we are told, he forewent that which was due to his personal position, and at his incarnation assumed a relative position. Relative to whom? Not Adam merely, nor man, nor Israel. What was the relation to God, which then commenced? "For a person to be suffering here, because He serves God, (says the writer) is one thing, but the relation of that person to God, and what he immediately receives from His hand while serving Him, is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm an many others open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure." Notes, page 7. (4) These then, are the "circumstances of weakness and sorrow, which only pertained to Him so long as He was pleased to continue in a certain relation to those, with whom He had thus chosen to associate Himself," But how could this be? If the relations to Adam, man, and Israel, which Christ assumed at his incarnation, had the effect of placing him in a relation to God, and God in a relation to him, which subjected him to "the sentence of death" — "the curse" "the doom of man," and which brought him under "rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure" from the hand of God himself; how could it be matter of choice with him, whether he would continue in this relative position he had assumed? If the position he had assumed, call it relative or what else you may please, was one of being under "sentence of death" exposed to that "curse"  - "exposed to the doom of man," and that not substitutionally; it was one in which he could not but continue. God suspends the "sentence of death" — "the curse" — and "the doom of man," unjustly over no one. If this was Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, "because of His relation to Adam," then there must have been in his relation to Adam, that which justly exposed him to the sentence of death — the curse — the doom of man. And does it need to be proved to any one, that a person justly exposed to the sentence of death, the curse, the doom of man; and that not in the stead of others; can neither deliver himself from these inflictions, or endure them in the place of others?

There is a passage in the Letter on the Humanity, pages 27 and 28, which I must be excused for saying, does produce the worst fears in my mind, that the writer knew when he wrote it, that he was misrepresenting the facts of the case. It begins thus, "It has also been said, that the tracts teach that it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to free Himself from this relative position, or to extricate Himself from its circumstances, before He was fit to be the Lamb slain. But the tracts teach no such thing. They expressly teach that He was always fit to be the sacrifice, and therefore, seeing there was always fitness, there could be no unfitness to be delivered from. What they state, is, that He 'evidenced' His title to life, by His keeping the Law; and they teach that this was necessary by the appointment of God, — not essentially necessary. They state also that the relative position of suffering which he held, was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate, and from which He 'proved' that he could extricate Himself by His own perfect obedience."

Now as to this passage, I do not deny that the writer's later tracts teach, as he says, that Christ was always fit to be a sacrifice; and that when certain statements in the earlier tracts were objected to, he explained them in the later ones, (as he here says) to mean that certain things were necessary by the appointment of God, not essentially. But what I would solemnly urge is this, that both in the earlier and later tracts there are passages which teach that Christ had to extricate himself from the relative position in question and from its circumstances ere he made atonement for others. The original statement was (and I do not refer to it here as proof of what I say, but that it may be compared with the subsequent statements,) that though Christ was exposed to the danger of receiving all the punishment which followed upon the imputation of Adam's offence, that "though exposed to it, yet he rose above it all," — not that he was able to do it — or evidenced that he could — but that actually "he rose above it all;" that "this do, and thou shalt live, was to him a word of delivering power." In short, that being born under the curse of the exiled family "He rose out of this, region through the power of his own inherent holiness, and therefore (mark that word) never would have come into that experience of God's action which is proper for a sinner, unless he had chosen to abide it for the sake of others." Paper on Newman-street. Now what is the doctrine of the Notes? They define the period at which he did, according to the writer, rise out of this region. Speaking of the ministry of John the Baptist, he says, "Here was a door opened to Israel at once, they might come and be forgiven; so He was glad to hear that word; He heard it with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptised because He was one with Israel, was in their condition, one of wrath from God; consequently, when He was baptised, He took new ground; but Israel would not take it, He stood alone nearly, and the moment He took that ground, the Holy Spirit was sent down, God's seal was set upon Him, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

All this is fully repeated and defended in the "Remarks etc." It is more carefully worded indeed, but the doctrine is all there. Let it be remembered that the question is whether the writer teaches in these tracts, that "it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to free Himself from the relative position" He had assumed, and "from its circumstances" ere He became the sacrifice for sin! Also, whether they only teach that "the relative position of suffering which He held was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate Himself, and from which He 'proved' that He could extricate Himself, by His own perfect obedience?" or, on the other hand, that he did actually, as originally taught, rise out of this region and its circumstances. Now turn to "Remarks" page 18 to 24. On page 18, the writer is distinguishing between the personal and relative position of our Lord. "The bosom of the Father was essentially His place as the Eternal Son; yet He was not hereby delivered from the most bitter experiences of human anguish. His being that which we read of in the first of John did not prevent Him from feeling and saying, I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up; while I suffer thy terrors I am distracted; thy fierce wrath goeth over me, thy terrors have cut me off. They came round about me daily like water; they compassed me about together, (Ps. 88: 15, 17.") This, according to the writer, was Christ's relative position, and these were his circumstances.

"It was, (he proceeds) as I believe, after many years of sorrowful experience in the midst of transgressing Israel, had thus (observe this) passed over the head of the Lord Jesus, that a great intervention of Divine mercy on behalf of that people occurred. This was by the mission of John the Baptist, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It opened an opportunity for Israel to confess; to quit the place in which they had been standing; a place already visited, and yet more severely threatened by the curse of the broken law, and to take new ground before their God. The Lord Jesus welcomed that message; He heard it with a wise and understanding ear. He had, indeed, no sins of His own to confess: (no that is not the question,) but the sins of the nation in the midst of which He had placed Himself, and of which He formed a part, were countless as the sand upon the sea shore. He did, therefore, what Israel ought to have done, but which they would not do, (i.e., He quitted the place in which He, with them, had been standing, and took new ground before God:) He confessed and humbled Himself before heaven and before men, and received the baptism of repentance, not as the substitute of Israel, for it was on the cross alone He took the vicarious place; but as one of them, and doing as a righteous Israelite though alone, what they ought nationally and individually to have done; and God owned His obedience in thus fulfilling all righteousness. The heavens were opened over His head; Himself owned as the beloved Son, and anointed as the servant of God with the Holy Ghost and with power."

Such is the statement of the writer. Until then, Christ's being what we read of in the first of John did not hinder him from feeling and saying, I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up, thy fierce wrath goeth over me. Until his baptism, that was his relative position — his relation to God — not indeed because of his own sins, for it is admitted that he had none — but because "he formed a part of" Israel, whose sins were countless as the sand. The ministry of John opened to Israel a door by which they might "quit the place in which they" — and Christ as a part of them — "had been standing," and "take new ground before their God." They would not do this, but he, Christ, did not as their substitute, "but as one of them;" and so instead of the continuance of wrath and terror from God, such as he had endured till then, the heavens were opened over his head, and he was owned and anointed of God. But the writer proceeds.

"This was indeed, a separate and a peculiar place." He had quitted, as Israel might have done, the place in which he had been standing, and had taken new ground before God. What is this but the old doctrine of rising out of the region of being into which He was born? And see what follows; "doubtless, he might have retained, if He had so pleased, that separate place for ever; but how then could the scriptures have been fulfilled? He might have left Israel in their iniquities, and stood for ever separate in his own integrity; but then Israel would have been lost, etc., and this could not be. He had come to be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now let any one compare this with the paper on Newman-street, and remember that when the above was written, the author had not renounced any part of the doctrines of the paper on Newman-street, and let him say whether the drift of the one be not identical with that of the other. Is there not in both (1) exposure to wrath, (2) a rising out of, or deliverance from this by virtue of His obedience: and (3) instead of the "retaining this separate place," the going again under wrath — now substitutionally — in the stead of others? And now what shall be said to the author's disclaiming of any such doctrine as taught in the tracts, in the passage already quoted from page 27 of the Letter on the humanity

The writer proceeds, in the passage under consideration, Remarks, page 20, to describe the joy to our Lord which ensued on the transition from wrath and terror to being owned and anointed of God. Then, on page 21, he carefully distinguishes between substitution, which he rightly limits to the cross, and the identification with Israel which he says was expressed in the act of His being baptised. He then observes, page 22, "the period of His baptism may be considered the great turning point in the life of the Lord Jesus," and proceeds to illustrate the difference between the preceding and succeeding periods by the "difference between Sinai, the mount of blackness, and Zion, the mountain of light, and grace, and blessing." We then get the following, statement, "And as if in token of this great change in His dispensational relations, for I anxiously repeat, that there was no change in Him personally, heaven which had not before been opened over Him, was opened over His head, and the Holy Ghost descended and abode upon Him. He stood in a new position, etc." Now the whole question is as to those very relations. Mr. N. affirms in the passage, page 27, of the Letter on the humanity, that "they — the tracts state also that the relative position of suffering, which He held, was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate Himself, and from which He 'proved' that He could extricate Himself by His perfect obedience." But the passage we have been examining in one of these tracts states a great deal more. It states that a transition actually took place. That he quitted the place in which He had been standing, and took new ground before God. That He had stood in a place where wrath and terror were what He received from God, and this position the writer illustrates by Sinai, the mountain of fire, and blackness, and tempest. The new ground he took at his baptism, he compares to Zion, the mountain of light, and grace, and blessing, and says that "in token of this great change in His dispensational "relations" though there was no change personally, "heaven was opened over His head," and "He stood in a new position." This "new position" — this "separate and peculiar place" we are told, "He might have retained" — but "then, how could the scriptures have been fulfilled? He had come to be obedient to death, even the death of the cross." Where the difference is in principle, between this and the doctrine as originally propounded in the paper on Newman-street, I am at a loss to understand.

Should it be alleged that though this passage does affirm that a great change took place in the relations to God, of the Lord Jesus, at his baptism; yet there is no statement that such a change was needed, that it is not said, He had to undergo this transition, — I admit it, at once, as to this passage. But I turn to another in the same tract, where the necessity of such a transition is affirmed, though inconsistently enough, it is there said to be, not at his baptism, but at his death. I have myself supposed, that in writing the passage I am about to quote, — the truth must have flashed upon the mind of the author, that really nothing less than death could extricate any one from such a position as that in which he represents our Lord to have been placed for the first thirty years of his life; and so he passes over his baptism, and fixes the moment of this mighty transition at his death, forgetting, however, that if his death were needed for this, it is impossible it could avail for others. Forgetting also, that even the death of one standing in such relations to God as he describes, could not avail; no, not for himself. I refer to pages 31, 32, of "Remarks," etc., We have the first distinction "between the person and the dispensational, or relative positions of our Lord." The former, as in passages already quoted is his sonship and Godhead. "But yet," the writer says, "during his ministry on earth, He stood in a place dispensationally lower than that into which He has now brought us His church. Man was yet in his distance from God. There was as yet no glorified humanity on the right hand of the throne of God. The mighty power whereby God raised Jesus from the dead, and set Him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, was not yet put forth. The Spirit had not yet become the present unfolder and seal, (though He might be the prophetic testifier) of these things." All this, I suppose, beginning at "There was as yet, etc.," is intended to distinguish our place, — the place of the church. But Christ's place, the writer says, was lower than this. What was his place? "Man was yet in his distance from God." Now proceed. "And Jesus, as man, was associated with this place of distance in which man in the flesh was; and He had through obedience, to find His way to that point where God could meet Him, as having finished His appointed work, — glorify Him and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places; and that point was death, — death on the cross, death under the wrath of God Was it then Christ's association as man, with man's place of distance from God, which made it needful for him, through obedience to find his way to that point where God could meet him, viz. death under wrath? Where then is substitution? And what can we think of a writer, who, having penned and never recalled a passage like the above, could still coolly write the exculpatory passage quoted from pages 27, 28, of the Letter on the Humanity?

There is but one passage more I would notice in this part of my observations. It occurs in Mr. N.'s recantation of his error, as to placing Christ under the federal headship of Adam. "Many passages were quoted," he says, by the Irvingites, "to prove that Jesus was not only man, but man in weakness; that he had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise; and they added that the cause of his body being mortal, was that sin (as they said) inhered in it."

Now before proceeding to the words on which I am wishful to comment, let us understand the meaning of the words we use. Mr. N. says here, that the Irvingites affirmed that Christ had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise. Adam had a body, I suppose, in Paradise nor am I aware that any one has imagined that he brought any other body out of Paradise, than that which was originally formed out of the dust of the earth, and placed in Paradise. His body was not immortal before he fell, if by immortal be meant, incapable of death. It did actually die. So that in the sense of its being capable of death, — of its being possible that it should die, — Adam's body was mortal before he fell. In what other sense was it mortal afterwards? In what sense are our bodies mortal? Clearly in this sense, that they are under the necessity of dying, Sentence of death was pronounced on Adam's body when he had sinned, and it was that sentence, under which we are all born, that placed his and our bodies not in a capacity of dying merely, (that was the state of his before) but under the necessity of dying. There can but be these two senses of the word mortal. In the one sense, that of capacity of dying, both Christ's body, and Adam's in innocence, were mortal. Both did die, thus proving that they could. But Adam's body was under no necessity of dying before he fell. Nor was Christ's. Else, how could he say, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No one (see the Greek) taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." But now mark Mr. N.'s words. "In allowing that the Lord Jesus had a body different from that of Adam in Paradise, I was right. I was right also in stating that the Lord Jesus partook of certain consequences of Adam's sin, of which the being possessed of a mortal body was one."

Now if there be one thing more plainly revealed in scripture than another, it is that "the wages of sin is death." "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Exposure to death, the being under the necessity of dying, mortality in that sense, there cannot be, apart from sin either inherent or imputed. To say that there could, would be to impute to God the injustice of placing the party concerned under a sentence which had not been deserved. Besides, who is it that is spoken of as having had "the power of death?" "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage." Now what does our Lord say? "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." Could he have said this, had Satan, who had the power of death been able to find in him mortality in the sense of being under the necessity of dying, as we are. It avails nothing to say that his personal glory as the Son, and the appointment and power of God his Father, infallibly preserved his life till he was made sin and thus died as a sacrifice. The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. In me. It is not he hath nothing in my Divinity — nothing in my character — nothing in my soul. If Satan could have found in the body of our Lord what Mr. N. asserts was there, our Lord could not have said "findeth nothing in me." Nay, Satan, in that case, would have found all that he could desire. He would have found in the body of our Lord a necessity for dying, which would have effectually hindered his voluntarily laying down a life on which Satan had no claim, over which death had no power — it being "impossible that he should be holden of it;" thus setting aside all the power of the enemy, destroying him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivering from their bondage, them who through fear of death had been all their life time subject thereunto.

Remarks on Mr. Newton's Letter to --.

[July 11th 1850.]

"If it could be of any real service to you for me to toil through the long letters of accusation, I trust I would not refuse; but I cannot see that any advantage could result from doing it. Any definite question on any of my own authorised statements, or on scripture, or any interrogation as to what I do or do not believe, I am quite willing to answer; but I assure you all my days would be spent in "perverse disputings," if I were to follow out from time to time, the crooked reasonings of my enemies, who seem to have no greater pleasure than "to strive to entangle me in my words, or prove me to be in any thing wrong, showing certainly very little disposition to "hope all things."

"There are some subjects, which from their very nature, do not admit of being treated of in language, which the ingenuity of the caviller cannot instantly misrepresent and pervert. If I had said, "that hour knoweth not the Son" my enemies would instantly have declared that I denied Christ to be God, because God must know every thing. If I had said that the Lord submitted to the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, they would immediately have declared that I represented him as a sinner who needed remission of sins. If I had said that Christ was "in the likeness of sinful flesh," they would have insisted on attaching a moral instead of a physical sense to the expression, and would have declared that I ascribed sin to the Lord Jesus."

Ans. I do not doubt that whatever the writer says on these subjects is viewed with more suspicion than the statements of others, and with more than at one time attached to his own. But whence has this arisen? Has he not assuredly taught what he himself confesses to be erroneous, and if followed out to its consequences, blasphemous and heretical? And have not his confession of this, and his subsequent writings, been characterised by such a jealousy over his own reputation, as to beget a well grounded fear that he is much more inclined to spare his errors than to sacrifice his reputation by confessing them? Can he wonder that all he says should be rigorously examined? Had he made full and open confession of his error in such sort as to satisfy his brethren that his soul was really humbled before God on account of it, he would not have had to utter such complainings as the above.

"If I had said that the Lord submitted to the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins." — Who has said this? Not scripture. We are told in scripture that he submitted to what was in the case of all others the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. But in his case, it is explained that it was the fulfilling of righteousness. "John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? and Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he suffered him.

"There are therefore many reasons why the controversy must be given up as hopeless. Even if my opponents did not wrest my words from their context, and pervert their meaning; yet it is very evident that they do not receive the primary declarations of Scripture as to the person and work of the Son of God. Some deny that he had a body of flesh like ours, sin excepted; — others disbelieve that he had strictly a human soul; — others declare that it is heresy to say that his human nature was as distinct from the Divine as the gold was from the wood in the boards of the tabernacle — others regret the statements of Bishop Pearson as heresy, because they secretly believe that something divine commingled with the human nature of the Lord — others reject the thought of vicarious suffering even on the cross; — others virtually deny it by representing Christ as "becoming sin" or brought into the actual condition of the sinner on the Cross, instead of being judicially treated as if sin on our account."

Ans. It is no new thing for a person charged with unsoundness in the faith, to endeavour to create a diversion in his own favour by retorting the charge on his accusers. Still, considering who Mr. N.'s opponents have been, and the well known sentiments of the principal of them, it goes far to stamp unsoundness on Mr. N.'s views to hear him say of them as above — "they do not receive the primary declarations of Scripture as to the person and work of the Son of God." As to what he charges on his opponents, Mr. N. gives no names, quotes no words. As to the two first charges, I have never heard of any who hold any such thoughts. With regard to the third, we may well ask, where is the scripture which distinctly authorises the statement as to the wood and gold in the boards of the tabernacle? "No one knoweth the Son but the Father," ought, as it appears to me to repress such thoughts. Bishop Pearson's thought has been already weighed, and saints must judge. Great names add nothing to the force of truth, and can give no real sanction to error. As for any who reject the doctrine of vicarious suffering on the cross, woe to them! Gal. 1: 8, 9. The statement that some virtually deny it, is directed against Mr. Harris and others, myself included, and will be weighed anon.

"How could any one who rejects the primary truths of prophecy, expect to understand the Revelation? much less can any who are heretical on the primary truths which concern the Lord, understand any thing revealed in the Psalms respecting Him. He, for example, who believes that Christ was in unfallen Adamic humanity, and not "in the likeness of sinful flesh," can surely understand nothing in the Psalms aright. Therefore it is worse than useless to argue about them, until the previous points are settled. He who is unable to explain the reason of Christ's baptism, will be equally unable to comprehend the Psalms."

Ans. Then was Christ in fallen humanity? Is this what the writer understands by the scripture statement, that he was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh?" Christ himself explains the reason of his own baptism. Not as the writer, who says that in it he quitted the place in which he had been standing — one of wrath from God — and took new ground before God, in token of which heaven was opened over his head; but simply "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Would that his words contented us,

I do not doubt that it would be much more agreeable to the writer to engage those whom he calls his opponents in abstract discussions on what he terms "the previous points," than to have his own printed statements on the Psalms, compared with each other and compared with scripture. But the question is not so much whether his opponents understand the Psalms — we all have need to learn; — as, whether he has not so interpreted many of the Psalms as to teach deadly heresy? But then he says;

"Moreover any one who makes this a question of heresy as regards me, must be incapacitated either by prejudice or by ignorance from entering on the consideration of the question — because I have always in the most unequivocal language averred that ALL the sufferings of the Lord, from the cradle to the tomb, were sacrificial, and fell on Him entirely because He was working out, in the appointed way, the redemption of His people."

Ans. I suppose ninety-nine persons out of a hundred reading this, would understand the writer to say that he had always averred in the most unequivocal language that ALL the sufferings of Christ were vicarious or expiatory. i.e., they would understand the word sacrificial which he uses, in this sense. But is this the sense in which he uses it? If it was, I don't know how many passages of his tracts might be brought in flat contradiction to the above statement. But this is just a specimen of the sort of "unequivocal language" employed by the writer. The word "sacrificial" may be understood in the sense in which we speak of the death of Christ as a sacrifice — "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" — or it may be understood in the way in which his whole life, all his active obedience, was a sacrifice; and in which sense though in a subordinate way, we are exhorted to present our bodies "a living sacrifice." The writer does not hold that ALL the sufferings which Christ received direct from the hand of God, were sacrificial in the sense of atoning or substitutional. He maintains that at least until Christ was thirty years of age, he was enduring from the hand of God "rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure," not substitutionally, but as the result of his relation to God, and God's relation to him, because of his relation to Adam and to Israel. Now the whole question is this — if Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, because of his (Christ's) relation to Adam and to Israel were such as to expose him (Christ) to rebuking in wrath, and chastening in hot displeasure, — if they were such as to expose him to the sentence of death — to that curse — to the doom of man — to the inflictions that had fallen on Israel — how could he either in life or death present any sacrifice acceptable to God?

"If my statements had been ambiguous on this point — if I did not distinctly assert that ALL His sufferings were solely on behalf of His people, and none on His own account in any sort whatsoever — there might have been some excuse for the charge of heresy; but to say of sufferings that He incurred of His own voluntary will, as the Redeemer, that such sufferings could unfit Him to be the Redeemer, is a contradiction in terms. How could He be at the same moment, by the Father's appointment engaged in the work of redemption — and be unfitted by what He was so doing or suffering, for the work of redemption?"

Ans. When the writer held the doctrine that Christ was "under Adam as a federal head," did he not aver in the same sense as he now does that all Christ suffered was sacrificial? Did he not believe that of his own voluntary will, Christ entered on that relationship to Adam, and that all the while he stood in that relationship to Adam, he was working out in the appointed way, the redemption of his people? And yet is it not now the writer's judgment that if any such relationship to Adam had really existed, it would have rendered Christ unfit to be a sacrifice — that it would have unfitted him to be the Redeemer? Why then should it be impossible for others to perceive the same inconsistency in the writer still? What impossibility is there in Mr. N. holding that certain relations existed between God and Christ, because of Christ's relation to Adam and Israel, which, if they had really existed, would have as surely unfitted him for the work of redemption, is the federal relation which Mr. N. once held was sustained by Christ to Adam, and which he now admits would have unfitted our Lord to be a sacrifice? The writer's inconsistency in maintaining all the while, that in the very sufferings which he says flowed from these relations, he (Christ) was engaged in the work of redemption, cannot in any wise affect the conclusion that these relations and their consequent sufferings did unfit him for that work.

"I must repeat, therefore, that any one, who overlooking the heretical statements of my opponents, consents to raise a charge of heresy on a question of this kind, is morally incapacitated from entering into the question at all. Such an one is trebly guilty — under the profession of being zealous for the truth, he refuses to recognize heresy where it really is — he strives to make an accusation of heresy out of statements which by their very nature should have rendered such a charge impossible — and lastly by false accusation, he divides and scatters the church of God."

Ans. The modesty of this statement in view of all that the author has written, renders remark upon it superfluous.

"The first of this series of letters contains I suppose the substance of all the others. The writer maintains that Christ did not suffer any thing under the hand of God, until the cross. In that case, He never suffered sweat of the brow — weakness of body — the scorching of the sun — the biting of the cold — the fury of the storm — the cravings of hunger — the oppression of the Gentiles — in a word, He received from God's hand, only what Adam received in Paradise. Am I asked to believe this? or am I to believe, that although all these things did fall on Christ, yet that none of them were the result of the operation of the hand of God? Am I to believe that God had left the world to itself, and that He had introduced no governmental arrangements into it? Am I asked to believe this — in other words, to become a deist?

Ans. No, you are not, and you know you are not. As to what the real difference is between your thoughts on these things and the doctrine of the letter you are commenting on, we shall see what it is ere long. First, let us hear your next paragraph.

"Indeed all this is wicked trifling, not only with the word of God, but with facts plain and palpable to the eyes of men. Was not Christ in unparadisiacal circumstances? Did not those unparadisiacal circumstances come from God? And were they not the consequence of Adam's having sinned? Will any one really dare to say that Christ did not suffer under governmental arrangements of God — which governmental arrangements were the consequence of Adam's sin?"

Ans. All this indignation, real or assumed, is, as any one may perceive, against a phantom of the writer's imagination. It is not directed against any thing that his opponents have said, but only against certain deductions of his own from what they have said. Because his doctrine that Christ was suffering under the hand of God for the first thirty years of his life, not hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. — as you would suppose from the above — but wrath, indignation, and hot displeasure; — because this doctrine of the author's is objected to, he would have it understood that those who object to it deny that Christ suffered from hunger, thirst, weariness and the like. But is there no alternative save these two conclusions? The paragraph last quoted would seem to imply this; and it is in fact so constructed as to induce the unsuspecting reader quietly to acquiesce in the whole of Mr. N.'s doctrine, while he supposes that he is only giving his assent to self-evident truths; the real question being silently assumed instead of being stated as the point at issue. Separately, each question has to be answered in the affirmative; but for want of a fourth, when an affirmative answer has been obtained to these three, Mr. N. assumes that his point is proved, and intends his reader to conclude so too. But let us look at this. Mr. N. asks;

1. "Was not Christ in unparadisiacal circumstances?" Ans. Yes, in unparadisiacal circumstances he was; but not in any relationship to God less acceptable than was that of Adam in paradise, before he fell. Adam by creation was the son of God. See Luke 3: 38. Jesus, as man, by miraculous, divine conception, was the Son of God also. See Luke 1: 35. His relation to God, therefore, as man, was not unparadisiacal, though his circumstances were.

2. "Did not those unparadisiacal circumstances come from God?" Undoubtedly they did. To Adam and all his natural descendants, they came from God as the expression of his holy, righteous displeasure against sin. "So he (God) drove out the man." To Christ, because of the entirely different relation existing between him as man and God, these circumstances came from God's hands to be by him endured, as a part of that service of love, in which it was his meat and drink to do his Father's will, and glorify him on the earth; besides being his appointed path to that blessed office he now fills as "a merciful and faithful high priest; for in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Heb. 2: 10-17.

3. "And were they not the consequence of Adam's having sinned?" Undoubtedly they were; and all men save Christ, endured them as such. To him they only came as the consequence of Adam's sin, in the sense in which his whole mission and work were occasioned by it. The grace of God took occasion from the foreseen sin of Adam, and its results, to prepare from before the foundation of the world, the whole work of redemption; and in consequence, Christ came and suffered both in life, and to death. In no other way did "unparadisiacal circumstances" come on Christ, as the consequence of Adam's having sinned. They come on us as expressive of God's displeasure against Adam's sin, under the imputation of which we are all born.

4. There is a fourth question which it is well to consider. Was there any thing in Christ's relation to Adam, to bring him into such a relation to God, and God into such a relation to him, — as to make these "unparadisiacal circumstances" the necessary result of these relations? This is what the writer holds, and has taught plainly enough in all his tracts on these subjects; and he would have the reader, in giving an affirmative answer to the three questions he proposes, quietly to acquiesce in an affirmative answer to this fourth question as well.

I would notice here, a letter from one of Mr. N.'s fellow-labourers, Mr. Offord, in which the same stratagem is used. In employing the word stratagem, I do not mean that the writer consciously seeks to deceive. But the reader must judge of the fallacy involved, when he sees his words. They are as follow:

"The Scriptures teach various things as to man's condition, or rather conditions.

1st. — Moral, as depraved.

2nd — Physical, as marred by the fall.

3rd. — Circumstantial, as placed in a groaning creation.

In each and all differing from man in Paradise, as

1st. — Undepraved.

2nd. — Unmarred.

3rd. — Untroubled.

Or in Paradise, it was,

1st. — Innocence.

2nd. — Physical Beauty.

3rd. — Pleasantness of circumstances.

Now it is,

1st. — Depravity.

2nd — Infirmity.

3rd — Thorns and thistles."

Now in all this laboured statement of the contrast between fallen and unfallen man, the point on which this whole controversy hinges, is left out. That is, man's relationship to God. Mr. Newton's original statement as to this was sound. "There are three particulars," he says, "which mark our condition as sinners before God. First, original, or vicarious guilt, imputed, (or reckoned) to us on account of the transgression of our first parent. Secondly, original sin, or indwelling corruption. And, thirdly, actual transgression." Now the first of these is left out, in Mr. Offords statement. Depravity, infirmity, thorns, and thistles, are given as the opposites of innocence, beauty, and pleasantness of circumstances; but the whole question of relationship to him, who first placed man in Paradise, and then because of sin, drove him out, is omitted and passed by. The reason is obvious. The imputation of Adam's guilt to Christ, once held by Mr. N., is now repudiated by him. But he still holds that Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, because of Christ's relation to Adam, brought Christ into the place of enduring the consequences of Adam's sin; liability, or exposure to death, at any rate, included. He and his disciples, however, find it much easier to press what is self-evident; viz., that Christ endured the common sorrows of human life; and that these come from God's hand, and (as to all others, I should say,) were the fruits or consequences of Adam's sin, than openly to discuss the question of what Christ's relations to God, and to Adam were; which, as they say, subjected him to these sufferings. But that, is the real question, however it may be kept out of sight.

To return, however, to Mr. Newton's letter.

"Besides, did not Christ suffer in Gethsemane? Will any one say that the sorrowfulness unto death, that there fell upon Christ, was not appointed of God. These letters say, that He never suffered, or could suffer any thing under the hand of God, except on the cross. They had better say at once, that God erred when He commanded the meat-offering to be scorched first, before it was burned on the altar."

Ans. There was not a step in all the lifetime of our blessed Lord, on earth, which had not been appointed of God. Neither was there a single pang which he endured, that came not upon him by the permission of his Father; but all this touches not the question of relationship to God; and whether prior to the cross, he ever stood in any relationship to God, which involved him in penal necessity of suffering. The meat-offering was a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour.

"And when we examine the ground on which this rejection of the living sufferings of Christ is based, what is it? It is this  -  that one so suffering must be "as" those for whom he suffers. This would be heresy indeed."

Ans. This is a very important statement, — incorrect indeed, as a representation of what the letters contain, on which the writer is remarking; but still most important in its bearing, on what the writer has himself said. This I shall point out, ere long. For the present I content myself with saying, that the letters in question, oppose Mr. Newton's doctrine as to the living sufferings of Christ, because that doctrine is, that Christ endured those sufferings, not "for" man, and "for" Israel, in the sense of substitution or atonement, but with man, and with Israel, in a common relationship with them to God.

Be it remembered, however, that the writer here declares, that to say, Christ was "as" those for whom He suffered, "would be heresy indeed."

"If that were so, then Christ when suffering in the place of others on the cross, must have become, "as" they, i.e. — His relation to God would have become altogether the same as their relation to God. If it be true, that one who suffers under the governmental arrangements of God, because of His voluntary association with those who are under those governmental arrangements, does thereby necessarily become "as" they; then much more must One, who stands strictly in the place of others, in order to receive what is due to their sins, become "as" they. In one of my earliest tracts, I pointed out this, as being in reality the doctrine of my opponents; though I then thought it was confusion of mind merely. They hold that Christ on the cross, was "as" those for whom He suffered — in other words, that He "became sin," or was found "in the actual condition of the sinner" — and when one of them was recently asked whether Christ had on the cross, the experiences of a sinner, a hesitating answer was returned. The scripture says that Christ became flesh, but it does not say that He became sin. It says that God made Him who knew no sin, sin for us; that is, that He judicially treated Him, as if He were sin: but to say, that He was "as" sin, or "as" those for whom He suffered, is to place Him in the actual condition of a sinner. In that case He must have been when on the cross in moral distance from God, — and must have been hateful to God. Consequently, He never could have made atonement, — He would have become sin; He would have become "as" those for whom He suffered; instead of being treated as if sin, for us." "Christ neither on the cross, nor in life, became "as" those for whom He suffered. It is the utterly false view of the cross held by my opponents, which leads them to their wrong conclusion, as to His sufferings in life. A holy one retaining his holiness, but becoming a substitute, and bearing wrath due to the unholy; is a very different thing from the holy one becoming "as" the unholy. In the latter case there could be no substitution."

Ans. One single remark upsets this whole train of reasoning, as also that in one of his earlier tracts here referred to by Mr. Newton. The passage he refers to, is in Observations, pages 50-52; where he represents Mr. Harris, as having used words which imply that there (on the cross,) His personal relation to God changed." Mr. N. as though very jealous for the glory of Christ, exclaims, "Surely the personal relation of Jesus to God never changed." Of course not; and Mr. N. well knows that neither Mr. Harris, nor the letters commented on, in his letter to  -, affirm any such thing. The one remark which shows the fallacy of his whole reasoning, is this. The saying that it was as our substitute — in our stead — that Christ suffered the wrath of God upon the cross, does of itself sufficiently and entirely distinguish between his own individual, essential relations to God, and that relation to him, which he, as our Substitute, there assumed. But to say, as Mr. Newton does, — that Christ endured wrath and vengeance from God, through a great part of his life here not as substituted for, but  - as associated with us, - identifies his condition before God, and his relation to God, with ours, instead of distinguishing between the one and the other. It would be very convenient for Mr. N., I have no doubt, to get his readers to place Christ's suffering for us in substitution on the cross in one category with his alleged suffering for us as identified with us through life; but he himself has too carefully taught us the difference, when he felt at liberty to speak out on those subjects, for us to confound them now. "So different is the place of a substitute for sinners, — from the place of suffering amongst sinners." These are Mr. N.'s words, "Remarks," page 11; and the italics are his own as well.

To the two following paragraphs in Mr. N.'s letter, I would call especial attention. He says

"I wish you to observe that the word "as" which I have used so frequently, throughout these observations, is taken from the first of the letters you have sent me, where the writer is pleased to say — "That according to Mr. Newton's views, Christ was Himself as one of the human family and as an Israelite in the condition of the human family, and of Israel, — in that condition before God." Mr. Newton begs to say that the whole argument of his tracts from beginning to end, — is to that Christ was not as one of the human family, and not as an Israelite.

"It is not I who say that Christ was "as" others before God, either in life or in death; it is my opponents who say, that He became "as" others in death and arguing backwards from the cross say that because His suffering under the hand of God there made Him "as" others, that therefore His suffering under the hand of God, previously must have made Him "AS" others. Consequently, they continue, He never suffered under the hand of God before the cross, — for if He did, He must have been "as" a sinner before the cross, and therefore unfit for a sacrifice. Why if He had become "as" a sinner on the cross, He could not have been a sacrifice."

The sentence of which Mr. N. has here copied a part from my letter is as follows. I give it, with the underlined words, just as they stand in my letter. "That, in Mr. N.'s views, which if true, would have disqualified our Lord for making atonement, — is, that according to those views, he was himself, as one of the human family, and as an Israelite, in the condition of the human family, and of Israel. In that condition before God; not substitutionally; that we all agree He was on the cross." These are my words, and those immediately following are. "Mr. N. says, He was in it by association, not substitution, all his life." Any one may see, that by omitting the first part of the sentence, not giving the underlining of certain words, and laying all the stress upon the word "as" which is not underlined at all, Mr. N. represents me as making that word the hinge of the controversy. I have not much reason to complain of this, as we shall see, I simply notice it as an inaccuracy of the writer. I had used the word "as" in an explanatory way; Mr. N. represents me as using it affirmatively. Strictly speaking, the words "as one of the human family and as an Israelite" in my letter form a parenthesis, though not enclosed in brackets. The sense is complete without them. In affirming that Mr. N. represents our Lord to be in a certain condition, I introduce, by way of explanation, that it is of him "as a man and an Israelite" that he affirms this. Any one may see the difference between this, and representing Mr. N. as affirming of Christ, that he was "as a man, and as an Israelite." But this only by the way.

On Mr. N.'s own ground, what does he say to the following passages? He quotes my words, that "according to Mr. Newton's views, Christ was himself, as one of the human family and as an Israelite, in the condition of the human family and of Israel, — in that condition before God" — and then says, "Mr. Newton begs to say, that the whole argument of his tracts, from beginning to end, is to show that Christ was not as one of the human family and not "an Israelite." Now, Mr. Newton, what say you to the following statements? Whose are they?

"The moment He (Christ,) came into the world, He was a part of mankind, in it, — He was born a man; therefore in that sense became a part of the human family. If He had been born in Paradise, He would not have found sorrow, by becoming a part of it; but being born out of it, and seeing He was born into the world under the curse; it brought Him under all the sorrow and affliction which pertain to the human family "as" such." Notes, p. 11.

"So Jesus became obnoxious to the wrath of God, the moment He came into the world; accordingly, we find many of the Psalms speaking of this, — 'From my youth up, I suffer thy terrors with a troubled mind, etc.' Psalms which do not apply to the cross, or to the period of His manifested service. but which speak of Him "AS" a man living amongst other men, with the terrors of God compassing Him about." Notes, p. 12.

"And if these and similar passages in the word of God, were less distinct than they are, — yet, surely, the same reasons that would lead us to admit, that He suffered under certain inflictions, which the hand of God had laid on Man "AS" man; would go far to show that if there were any analogous inflictions on Israel, He would be exposed to those inflictions as well." Remarks, page 8.

"And if it be asked, — was then the Lord Jesus subjected during His life, to all the inflictions that were due to man "AS" man, and to Israel "AS" Israel? I answer, no! To be obnoxious, that is, — exposed to certain things, is a different thing from actually enduring them." Remarks, p. 8. (Note here, — He was obnoxious, i.e., exposed to all, though He did not actually endure all, for reasons assigned.)

"And, secondly, when we remember that Jesus had no feeble or imperfect estimate of the place in which Israel stood; that He indeed truly saw it standing with all the terrors of that mountain arrayed against it, where there which man had sunk, and yet more into which Israel had sunk in His sight." Remarks, pp. 1, 2.

"Labour, sorrow, etc., were not circumstances fortuitously connected with the human family; they were inflictions in displeasure, from the hand of God, and under these inflictions, because He was a man, Jesus was found." Rem. p. 4.

"To be obnoxious, that is, — exposed to certain things, is a different thing from actually enduring them. His faith, His prayer, His obedience, — all contributed to preserve Him from many things, to which He was by His relative position exposed, and by which He was threatened. This I do maintain, that He lived long after the Lamentations of Jeremiah had marked the condition, into which Israel had begun to sink; and were still more deeply sinking every day: and that therefore He suffered, suffered under inflictions from God." Rem. pp. 8, 9.

Observe here, that as another has remarked, this cannot be Christ's appreciation of the state of others — He is, Himself represented as exposed by His relative position to a great deal which does not come upon Him; but that still He therefore suffered — suffered under inflictions from God.

"Since He was not until the cross punished substitutionally, why was it that He was chastened at all? How could it be but because He was made experimentally to prove the reality of that condition into which others but more especially Israel, had sunk themselves, by their disobedience; a condition out of which He was able to extricate Himself, etc.," Rem. p. 12. Mr. N. says in this letter to  -   -  "appreciation of soul is the sense in which I have used the word 'experience."' Can any one credit this in view of the passage just considered? By His relative position He was exposed, it is said, to much that He did not suffer. Was that exposure, appreciation of soul too? Did not His "experience" of what He did suffer and His exposure to what He did not, both flow, according to Mr. N., from the same source, viz., His relative position? How then could he use the word experience in the sense of appreciation?

"And is it a new doctrine that Jesus by his birth became obnoxious, that is, exposed to all the sinless penalties of fallen man? And if he was exposed to the doom of man, was he not equally exposed to all the sinless penalties that had fallen upon Israel as dwelling under Sinai?" Observations, p. 9.

But I forbear. To quote all, would be to transcribe the greater part of the tracts. Enough has been given to show (1) that if my use of the word "AS" will bear the construction Mr. Newton puts upon it, he is by the evidence of fourteen distinct passages from his writings convicted of "heresy." "This," he says, "would be heresy indeed." (2.) By the evidence of these fourteen passages and a number more, I have fully proved that Mr. N. teaches, that "Christ was Himself as one of the human family and as an Israelite, in the condition of the human family and of Israel. In that condition before God." I have not inferred, as he says I do, that one suffering for others must be "AS" they. I have given fourteen passages in which he, Mr. Newton, SAYS Christ was "AS" a man and "AS" an Israelite; i. e., if my words quoted by him have any such force. In all these passages he uses the word "AS" in the same way in which it is used in the passage he quotes from my letter. But what is more important, I have proved my account of his doctrine correct by a number of other statements, some of them giving it in terms, and none of them depending for their sense  - on the word "AS" to which Mr. N. attaches so much force.

I must now proceed with his letter to --

"When God judicially visited Christ with damnatory wrath upon the cross, as if He had been sin — the personal relation of Christ to Him, was that of the obedient One fulfilling His Father's will. He was even on the cross, the offering of a sweet smelling savour; and God loved Him and delighted in Him whilst He was, (because vindicating the holiness of His law) bruising Him."

Ans. "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again," does indeed give us one view of the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" gives us another. Could he have used this latter cry, except as standing in our stead? Yet in what does it differ from Ps. 88: 14, "Lord, why castest thou of my soul, why hidest thou thy face from me?" Yet this is a Psalm which Mr. N. says he believes should be taken as a whole to refer to a period previous to the cross. Obs. p. 73.

"When the Lord had placed Himself under the earthly governmental arrangements of God which were bearing afflictively on Israel and on men; He was neither "AS" other men in God's sight: nor was He treated by God as if He were in their condition. For example, He had sustainments which they knew not of — heaven was opened over His head — and He was continually visited with proofs that He was the One in whom the Father delighted. So far therefore from being "as" others, He was not even treated as if He were in the condition of others until the cross. Nevertheless there was not a sinless suffering to which He was not exposed even as they."

Ans. If he was neither "as" others nor treated "as if" in others' condition when the eighty-eighth Psalm applied to him, what was he? "Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves." Were these "sinless sufferings?" Then besides, be it remembered, that "the sentence of death" is not only included by Mr. N. in "sinless penalties," or "sufferings," as he has it here, but is given by him as an. example of what those penalties are, (Obs. p. 9.) and in the light of this, let the above statement be pondered — "Nevertheless there was not a sinless suffering to which he was not exposed even "AS they." How were they exposed to the sentence of death?" Even "AS" they, the writer says, so was Christ, in the very letter, yea, in the very paragraph, in which he is disclaiming the doctrine that Christ was "AS" they either in life or death. Alas!

"A legislature may appoint laws for a house in which lepers are immured; but the legislature would not regard him as a leper who went voluntarily to dwell with the lepers and to serve them, though he might be subjected "to the same rigorous laws."

"The legislature might confine convicts to dark mines, and appoint to them many hardships. If I choose to go and dwell in these mines and submit to these hardships, I should of course suffer under the appointment of the legislature; — but the legislature would not regard me "as" one of those with whom I was associated. It would fully recognise my distinctness, and might, if it pleased, openly prove that it recognised that distinctness. Sufferings in association, do not make us "as" those with whom we suffer."

Ans. Do they not? Then what means the following statement? "If we suppose an evil and rebellious family banished by an emperor to some distant and inclement region, and there subjected by law to many hardships and privations, and threatened, unless reclaimed, with yet severer sufferings, we should easily understand that this family was not only banished, but under inflictions also from the law of him who banished them. And if the son of the emperor in pity and because it pleased him to fulfil a known desire of his father, were to banish himself for an appointed season into that distant land and become one of that exiled family, so as even to bear their name, and were to drink of their cup of misery, we should regard him not only "AS" one of the banished, but "AS" one suffering also under the penalties which the law of his father had imposed on the banished ones, with whom he had thus placed himself in association." Obs. page 8. What are we to think when conflicting statements and counter illustrations meet us at every turn? How can one avoid the conclusion that the tracts were written under the influence of a doctrine which had been held by the writer for ten or twelve years then, at all events; that this doctrine gave its own colouring to the statements in the tracts; but that now the doctrine being given up and yet the tracts maintained, the writer is involved in this inextricable confusion and endless self-contradiction by his anxiety to maintain his character and consistency. Would that at last he might be led earnestly to carry out his own words as to the doctrine referred to, — "I hereby withdraw all statements of mine, whether in print or in any other form, in which this error or any of its fruits may be found." Statement, page 5.

"Again, suppose I were to place twenty lamps side by side — one of them having an inextinguishable flame, fed by peculiar oil — and suppose I were to pour upon them all such a blaze of heavenly light as should extinguish all save the one that had the inextinguishable flame — should I say it was "as" the other lamps, because placed in the same circumstances, and subjected to the same trial. Or suppose I were to bring on these lamps mists of darkness, in which no earthly light would burn — but the one lamp which had the unquenchable flame, continued to burn on in its brightness, should I say it was "as" the other lamps, though placed in the same circumstances."

"The whole argument of my tracts, I repeat, has been to show this — to show that the Lord Jesus was never 'as' others in the sight of God — that although He brought Himself as near as a sinless One could into the very circumstances in which men and Israel stood, yet that He was not "as" they, nor regarded by God "as" they. Although this is the whole argument of my tracts I am now deliberately told that I teach that the Lord Jesus was "as" others.

Ans. Yes, and you have now been furnished with fourteen verbatim extracts from your writings in which you do teach this — in which you use the word "as" in the very, way, in which it is used in the passage you so vehemently complain of. But let me entreat your attention, if this should ever meet your eye, to another passage, in which, you do indeed assert Christ's distinctness from others in these his alleged sufferings; but assert it — how? As in the illustration above — of the twenty lamps? No, but to show that besides suffering as a man, and as an Israelite, he suffered as neither man nor Israel has done, or can do in this world. The words are as follow.

"But we should, form a very inadequate conception of the living experiences of the Lord Jesus, if in addition to the sufferings which flowed spontaneously as it were, from the condition of man and of Israel, we did not also recognise a yet more close and searching dealing of God with His servant, whereby His sensitive and perfect soul was made to feel in a manner inconceivable to us, the reality of the circumstances around Him. How should we feel, imperfect as our sensibilities are, if God, according to the power of His own holiness, were to, press upon the apprehensions of our souls a truthful sense, of the present and future condition of ruined man? And what relations were there, either of Israel or of man, that Jesus was not caused to estimate thus, And here it is that all illustration fails. We may say, that a king's son, a beloved son, goes to share the cup of a banished family. We may use this and similar illustrations, which are true and serviceable so far as they go, but they fall short in this that they do not exhibit that personal (mark this) exercise from God which constituted, one great distinctive feature in the living sufferings of Jesus. His servants, such for example as St. Paul, may follow their master in drinking in their more feeble measure of the cup of others' woe, they may suffer much with others and for the sake of others, they may also have exercises of spirit; but no one excepting Jesus ever had his soul exercised in the same manner (for the dispensation was one of law) nor with the same intensity — the intensity of truth. The Lord Jesus was as much alone in His living estimate under God's hand of the circumstances of human life here, as in enduring wrath upon the cross. He who before He was made flesh had known all the heights of uncreated and eternal glory, was also, when here, made to estimate according to the sensibilities of that nature which He had taken, the (to us) inconceivable distance, of humanity from God. And when thus exercised, though personally holy and beloved, He was made to feel that His association with those thus standing in the fearfulness of their distance from God was a real thing, and that it was so regarded by God. His was no mere pretended, imaginary association." Obs. p. p. 31, 36.

So that all these illustrations as to lepers and convicts and lamps, exiled families and Emperor's sons, as well as all the references to Elijah, Daniel, Jeremiah and others, as associated with Israel's condition, fail to bring out fully the author's thought. There was one point which could not be illustrated; "the rebuking in wrath and chastening in hot displeasure" from the hand of God himself — God pressing these things on the apprehensions of his soul according to his own power and holiness, and causing him to feel as a part of that which was exposed to the judgments of his heavy hand — God's fierce wrath going over him, and his terrors cutting him off — for this no illustration could be found. But this is the writer's idea of what Christ received direct from God's hand for the first thirty years of his life — not without intermission indeed, but still so as to give its character to that period of his life. Any one therefore, who supposes that in the diluted statements of the Letter on the humanity, and the illustrations used in this letter to — he has got an adequate view of what the writer holds on these subjects, is utterly mistaken. There is one point according to his own avowal which baffles all attempts at illustration: and that one, as any one may perceive who reads the Notes, Remarks, and Observations, is the point on which Mr. N. most strenuously insists, for the interpretation of the Psalms. It is not only that because of his relation to Adam and Israel, Christ stood in such a relation to God and God in such a relation to Christ as to expose him to the doom of man and the doom of Israel, but also that God dealt with him according to these relations, causing him to feel what is expressed in Psalms 6, 38, 88, 102 etc., and that mark, not substitutionally — not in our stead — but as by birth associated with us. This is the doctrine of the tracts.

"I do not therefore feel it requisite to read all the letters, because I am quite sure that what I have said meets the point of the question. If there be any question which you would like to put to me definitely, — I should be happy to answer it."

"Christ had a human, sensitive, though sinless body; He had also a human, sensitive, though sinless soul; — in both He was exercised in life, and in death. His bodily trials were greater than those of others, for He had not where to lay His head: the inward trial was unequalled, because He had to consider and appreciate in His soul, the condition of men and of His is people before God. 'Appreciation of soul' is the sense in which, I have used the word 'experience.'"

"In these appreciations of soul, He was not "as" others. The presence of evil they could not appreciate as He, because they had a tendency toward it, and because they lacked His sensitiveness and His knowledge of God; the absence of good, they could not appreciate for the same reasons. Therefore in the experiences of His soul, as well as in the ways of His steps, He was utterly unlike other men."

Ans. All this has been already met. One only question would I ask further here. If appreciation of soul be the sense in which the author uses the word "experience" — how would he distinguish that from "His soul entering into the condition of things around Him?" I should have supposed that was His "appreciation of soul." But he carefully distinguishes this from the sufferings of which he specially treats in the tracts. "It was not merely the sufferings He had, because His soul entered into the condition of things around Him, — but there was quite another question; the relation of God to Him, whilst thus suffering." Notes, p. 7. So also in the Observations, p. 42. "It has not been my object to speak much of those sufferings, which flowed spontaneously, as it were, from His own sensitive and perfect nature. I have desired chiefly to consider His sufferings, and His exercises under the hand of God, — arising from His association with man, and with Israel; whilst drinking of their living cup of woe." Surely there is more than 'appreciation of soul' meant here.

"You will find also, that they who are now my adversaries, did not even while my friends, distinguish between the nature of the Lord and His character. They were always confusing between the two, and I have no doubt, thought and said therefore, many things that were erroneous. The character of our Lord always had divine traits blended with it. He thought, spoke, and acted, as one who was divine as well as human. In His natures, there was distinctness; in His character, combination."

Ans. God grant us rather to bow our heads, and worship in the presence of Him, who is the object of heaven's homage, as well as the centre of heaven's joy, than to be nicely and accurately defining what appertains to his natures, and what to his character. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father," — is surely a word of deep and solemn significance.

"It should be remembered too, that though it was not competent for the Holy One on the cross, to ask that the stroke might be removed; (for it was necessary that He should suffer to the full) yet whilst under the governmental arrangements of God in life, — it was quite competent to Him to ask, indeed it was God's will that He should ask that many a sorrow should be averted. Whenever it was right to ask that they should be averted, — He did ask, and they were averted. This explains many of the Psalms."

Ans. Undoubtedly, while on the cross it was not competent for Christ to ask that the stroke might be averted. But was it not that this stroke might be averted, that this cup might pass, — that he besought his Father, (yet in perfect, unqualified submission,) while in the garden? And are we told of any other cup, from which he prayed that he might be delivered? It has been one's deep joy to think of Jesus, as the One who never thought of himself, or asked to be spared a single pang, — but went, and that voluntarily, into all the depths of our sorrows, in holy sympathy; until he came, indeed, to the closing scene; and then, because He was the Holy One, he could not but shrink (yet without the least exercise of his own will,) from that forsaking of God, and hiding of his face, and enduring of his wrath, — which he had to endure. Yes, had to endure! The cup could not pass; and, oh! to see him as he meekly asks, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" Blessed Jesus! It was the cup charged with what was due to our sins. May our souls know more of that love of thine, which truly passeth knowledge!

"There is no greater sign of our advancing into darkness, than when we consent to blot out part of the word of God, because we cannot comprehend it."

Ans. No; but there are other dark signs, as well as this. "Intruding into those things which he hath not seen," and "professing themselves to be wise" were both indications of departure from God, — the sorrowful sequel of which, we are but too well aware of. The dark ages of Christendom followed on the one, — even as all the abominations of heathenism flowed from the other. The Lord keep us, however, from shutting our eyes to any part of his word.

"If what these letters say, is true, — the 102nd Psalm is false. That Psalm is quoted of Christ, and declares that He did suffer from God during life."

Ans. This is indeed a heavy charge. The Lord is witness, — I would neither hear nor answer it lightly. Still, after looking to Him, and reading, and re-reading, Ps. 102, I can see no ground for the charge; I can see in it no proof that the indignation and wrath there spoken of came upon our Lord, till he hung on the cross. That he was always a sufferer, — the sufferer, — I have never questioned. And, that amongst the many causes of his sorrows, there was one burden which pressed heavily upon him, — perhaps more so than any other; I mean the anticipation of the closing scene, — I have never doubted this either. We have several intimations that this was so in the New Testament. We are there told also that "in the days of His flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, he was heard in that he feared." V. 24, of this Psalm is obviously a cry of this description, — as analogous to "If it be possible, let this cup pass," as can well be conceived. Nor do I see either inconsistency, or irreverence, in supposing that this was his utterance, after the sorrowfulness unto death had come upon him. We know that that hour was preceded by the brightest foreshadowings of his glory. The feast at Bethany, where Lazarus risen from the dead, was seated with him at table; the hosannas which rung the air as he entered Jerusalem, — and then the inquiring of the Greeks after him, —  drew from him, as we find in John 12, the exclamation, "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified." But even there, in the gospel which reveals him specially in the fulness of his divine, essential glory, as God, and as the Son of the Father; this anticipation of the given, official glory, which awaited him, — immediately yields to the thought of what intervened. "Now is my soul troubled" is almost his next utterance to that already cited. And can we see nothing here to shed light on such a verse as the 10th verse, in the Psalm we are considering. "Thou hast lifted me up, and cast me down," seems to be but the expression of that sense of the glory that was his portion, and which we find him dwelling upon, in John 12, but dwelling upon only, to turn from it, — to that unutterable depth to which he must descend, ere that glory be reached. While in all the former part of this Psalm, he retraces his path of sorrow, — a path rendered in great measure what it was, by the continual anticipation of this hour, and of its close. "For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping; because of thine indignation and wrath: for thou hast lifted me up, and cast me down," bears thus a simple and unforced meaning, — a meaning which brings its own tale of the sorrow and love of Jesus to our hearts; and which involves no such consequences as the idea, that all His lifetime, or for the greater part, he was actually withering under the manifested and inflicted wrath, and indignation of God; and that, too, not as our substitute, enduring it in our stead, — but by association with us, who were its suited and guilty objects.

I give not the above, however, as feeling that I have certainly the mind of the Lord. I should be thankful for light, either to confirm or correct the thought, as to the precise era of this precious utterance of the heart of our Beloved. The principle of interpretation I could not doubt for a moment is the correct one; the application of it I leave to the spiritual judgment of those more taught in the word. This much, at least, I feel; that I have neither any desire, nor any motive for desiring, to "blot out" this precious portion of God's holy word. Nor is there a word in it, that I cannot look full in the face on the principles of the Letter Mr. N. comments upon and of this, which I must now hasten to draw to a close. Mr. N. says, however —

"When persons thus begin to sacrifice truth, they feel happier, lighter, and more free from perplexity, just because they are receiving what they do understand and rejecting what they do not understand. Faith, which has to combine truths, and often to receive apparent inconsistencies, ceases to be in action; and it becomes merely an act of the mind, taking one part of truth, and rejecting the other. No doubt the path seems one of clearer light, more peaceful and more smooth; and Satan strives to make it appear so. Nor is it these Psalms only, that are thus virtually cancelled. The same difficulty is felt respecting the baptism of the Lord, — His suffering in Gethsemane, — His being made perfect through sufferings, (not suffering.) The type also of the scorched meat-offering, and various other scriptures are equally rejected."

Ans. Faith receives all the truths which God has revealed in his word. Combining truths, however, is far oftener the work of man's mind. The circumstance of those who renounce Mr. N.'s doctrines, and return to the simple faith of Christ, "feeling happier, lighter, and more free from perplexity," may be accounted for, in a widely different way from the above. But such generally need no witness to them, of whence their joy comes.

"We have to receive not a Christ, whom our own imaginations have formed, but the Christ described in the scriptures. What has one of the most marked features of apostate christianity been? Why, a deification of the humanity of Christ, especially in life. Look at every picture of Him you ever saw. Is He represented, as having His visage more marred than any man, — and His form more than the sons of men? As one in whom there was no form or comeliness, — or is He represented in a kind of superhuman humanity? What title have they, who reject the description of the 102nd Psalm, and who say it did not beseem Christ to suffer any thing under God's hand before the cross; what title have such to think, that they would not be stumbled at Him, — if they now saw Him in the flesh; suffering under the many influences, which are now bearing afflictively on human life? Their consciences would tell them, that such influences are not fortuitous, but from God, — they would say, or be disposed to say He, therefore, who is plainly suffering under them, cannot be the Holy One of God. This was where Israel stumbled. To confess "Jesus Christ come in the flesh" is a different thing from what some imagine."

"But I would not say more at present. If you have any definite question, further to put, it will give me much pleasure to reply. I retain the letters till then."

Ans. This closes the communication. On the last paragraph but one, I have a remark or two to make. A few years ago, Mr. N. wrote and published to the world, a volume containing the following statement. "But there is yet another character of power, which the Church is to exercise in the glory. Admission into the counsels of God, is represented by the throned elders, — omniscient power of superintendence, by the seven spirits; but the execution of the will of God, and the omnipotent power, necessary to such execution, is also committed to the redeemed." Thoughts on the Apocalypse, p. 51. Now think of the person who wrote this, — speaking of "the deification of the humanity of Jesus," as one of the most marked features of the apostacy. Nothing to my own soul, so marks the power and delusion of the enemy, as this degrading of the humanity of Christ, along with what is really the "deification" of the saints. It is not a thought of man's unassisted reason; and assuredly it is not what God has taught. The source of it, however solemn the reflection, is obvious enough.

Then as to Israel. Israel's thought of Christ, was just that of the writer; viz., that he was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, — yet not substitutionally. Isa. 53, shows us plainly enough, that the remembrance of this will break the hearts of the repenting remnant of Israel, by and bye. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows": they have learned the secret of his suffering now: but "yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted." That is what overwhelms their hearts with grief. They have learned now, how it was, He suffered. "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him: and with His stripes we are healed."

Popish pictures of the blessed One are sad enough; but who that has a spirit-taught estimate of Jesus, could think of representing him, "as one in whom there was no form or comeliness?" That is, the estimate of him, formed by unbelieving Jews. Sad as are the popish pictures of him which we commonly see, there is in the very halo with which they surround his head, — the witness that he is owned as possessor of a glory, which could not otherwise be represented to the eye. It is not that I would justify these things at all. I have no doubt, they mislead. But how a believer could represent Him as without form and comeliness, — who is to all believers, "the chiefest among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely," I cannot understand. The very marring of his visage, is beauty in the eye of the believer; but to represent it would be the last thought of his heart.

I have done. I simply close by recalling to mind, that the question between Mr. N., and orthodox Christians, is this. Whether Christ because of his relation to Adam, and to Israel, stood in such a relation to God, and God to him, — as placed him under sentence of death, — that curse, — the doom of man, — and the inflictions of God's displeasure which had fallen on Israel. Mr. N. has affirmed this, and used the most subtle reasonings in palliation and support of it. He may seek to explain away his statements, and put the fairest construction upon them; but that will never satisfy the conscience that cares for Christ and his glory. "He that covereth his sins, shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh, shall have mercy." Had Mr. N.'s retractation of the expression, "federal headship," as applied to the relation of Adam to Christ, been the genuine fruit of the Spirit, — he would have seen his tracts to be full of doctrine which had sprung from this, or formed part and parcel of it; and he would have wished nothing as to his tracts, but that they might be destroyed and buried in everlasting oblivion; and instead of still assuming to be a guardian of the faith, and able to draw nice distinctions on abstract, difficult subjects, he would not have known where to hide his head. The Lord grant that he may yet know what it is to humble himself, under the mighty hand of God.

The Origin of (so-called) Open-Brethrenism

The Origin of (so-called) Open-Brethrenism.

giving the whole case of Plymouth and Bethesda

A letter by W. Trotter

Otley, July 15th, 1849.

Beloved Brother,

In your favour of the 26th ult., you say you have received Mr. Juke's printed letter to the Leeds and Otley gatherings, from which you learn that something has occurred at Bethesda, rendering it in your judgment needful for us to separate therefrom, and you wish me to furnish you with all that has been printed on all sides. The fact is however, that the present question arises out of others which have exercised the souls of brethren for years; and it would be impossible for you to understand the one without some acquaintance with the others. My object, therefore, is to give you a brief and general statement of the whole case, referring you throughout to such of the principal publications on all sides as may enable you to form a judgment for yourself as to whether or not my statements are borne out by the facts. All I desire is that with the facts fairly before them, brethren should seek light and grace from God to judge of them in His presence. Were He thus simply sought, with nothing to desire or maintain but His glory, I doubt not He would make a plain path before His people (indeed I believe He has done so) however difficult and intricate it may appear to anything but the eye of faith.

It is now nearly twenty years since it pleased God to awaken many of His children to the importance, and solemnity, as well as to the exceeding blessedness of what He has revealed in His word respecting HIS CHURCH. Its union with Christ as one body (of which He is the glorified Head) quickened, indwelt, and governed by the Holy Ghost come down from Heaven, along with the proper hope of the Church, which is the coming of God's Son from Heaven, formed the substance of what the Christians I speak of, were led to discern as the teachings of God's word on this subject. I speak not of God's previous dealings with the souls of many of them. They held of course the common faith of Christians with regard to foundation truths, and there was doubtless a great measure of personal devotedness, self-denial, and separation from the world, before they received clear light from God's word as to what the calling, glory, position, and hopes of the Church are. What I speak of is the effect this light from God's word had upon their souls, and how it manifested itself in their course.

The first effect was necessarily a deep sense of the entire contrast between all that man and the world calls "the Church," and what "the Church" really is as seen in the light of God's thoughts. Deep humiliation and sorrow of heart, with unfeigned confession of the Church's low and sorrowful estate were the fruit of this. Then came the exercise of conscience as to whether they could maintain their individual connections with the great professing body in any of its several sections  - whether, in short, this was not the practical denial of what the Church is, as the one Holy Elect Bride of Christ separated from the world to wait on Him as her only hope, and knowing now the presence of the Comforter as her only joy.

Many and painful and deep were the searchings of heart through which these brethren passed; issuing, however, in the secession of many individuals from the various bodies of professing Christians, and in their coming together for worship and communion on ground entirely distinct from that taken by any of the denominations around. It was not that they attempted to reconstitute the Church as God (not man) had constituted it at first. To attempt this they (at least most of them) saw would be presumption, and end in something worse than that from which they had withdrawn. Having got a higher standard than before by which to judge themselves and things around, I mean God's own thoughts concerning "His Church," they had been forced by the contrariety to these thoughts of everything which bore the name of "the Church" to go "outside the camp." just as Moses went outside God's camp of Israel because a calf was worshipped there instead of God, so did these brethren go outside the camp of the professing Church, because of the virtual and practical denial there of the holiness, the unity, and the heavenly calling and hopes of the Church; and finding one another thus outside, they were cast upon the living God for His guidance how to act.

They formed no system, they made no plan. Their hope was the speedy return of Jesus, and they desired to be found of Him, yea, and that as many of His saints as possible might be found of Him in such a position that they might not "be ashamed before Him at His coming." The will of God and the end for which Christ died they saw to be "that He might gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad." The very instincts of the divine life too, made them desire and feel their need of the fellowship of saints. And it pleased God to show them that they neither needed to re-constitute the Church themselves (which was plainly impossible), nor wait till He should re-constitute it upon earth (which He has nowhere promised to do), but that at once they had the warrant of His word for meeting together for worship and communion, with the assurance of the Lord's presence to bless them and guide them onward in their path. "Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." In the faith of this they began to meet together, and they found the Lord faithful to His word. His presence was manifested among them, and His strength made perfect in their felt and acknowledged weakness.

There were two things clearly involved in the ground on which they were thus gathered together. The name of Christ being the centre of their union, that which they looked for in any who sought their fellowship was the saving knowledge of that name by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost. But then, as it was really the perception God had given them of His holiness and the holiness that became His house, which had separated them individually from the bodies with which they had been connected, so was there full provision in the blessed promise of our Lord above cited for maintaining that holiness even where but two or three are gathered together in His name. "There am I in the midst of them." More effectual provision for godly discipline there could not be, and solemn indeed is the sanction declared in the context as attaching to any act of discipline flowing thus from the presence of the Holy One in the midst of His twos or threes. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The following extract from the Christian Witness of April, 1835, pp. 137-8, will show what were brethren's views on this subject then.

"Thus, in the worst possible circumstances, two things are secured to the Lord's people, their strength and comfort in His presence, and their right to regard as a heathen man and a publican, any one who brings a scandal on his profession, and blasphemes that holy name by which he is called. The people of the Lord can always act; if they be His, they have His spirit, and in that spirit can meet together, and with that spirit they can judge and withdraw themselves from any brother, who, after remonstrance, still continues to walk disorderly. So that the comfort of His worshippers, and the purity of His worship, is secured, by this charter of the ever gracious and loving Lord, to His very feeble remnant. The simple principle is, that the Lord would never oblige His people to sin."

I feel this extract to be an important testimony at this moment, as many are denying that brethren ever acknowledged any power or capacity for the exercise of discipline in the position they occupy.

For a length of time the blessing of God evidently rested on the brethren who thus began to meet together. Evangelizing testimony went forth, and many in different places were brought to know the Lord. The attention of christians too was awakened very widely, and in both ways the number of those meeting together in the name of Jesus was greatly increased. Much opposition was made by leading men in the several denominations but this seemed only to increase the attention of christians to what God was doing, and to confirm in their position of separateness to Him and simple dependence upon Him, those who had been brought there by His grace.

But in process of time it became very evident that many had been attracted to the position by other motives than those which swayed the brethren who originally took it. Attracted by the manifestation of love and union which they witnessed, or finding more joy and refreshment under the ministry which God raised up among brethren than elsewhere, they assumed a position outwardly the grounds and nature of which they had never really understood by the teaching of God's Spirit. They preferred to be among brethren, not because they had gone through the exercises of soul which originally brought brethren out of the different sects to meet simply in the name of Jesus, and in dependence upon the Spirit of God alone, but just as people would prefer one denomination to another, choosing that one where all were happy and united, and the ministry such as they approved, never troubling themselves about other matters. Besides, as at the first introduction of the Kingdom of Heaven, "when men slept the enemy sowed tares" where the good seed had been deposited, so in the case before us.

It now appears that almost from the very first there were elements of evil introduced by the enemy, very slowly and gradually manifesting themselves for a time, but in the end assuming a distinctness and working with an energy which left no room for doubt as to whence they came and to what they tended. One person, Mr. Newton, of Plymouth, who if not one of the earliest labourers there, was there soon after the commencement, began at a very early period to pursue a course distinct from that of the other brethren. This you may see traced from the beginning in "The narrative of Facts," by J. N. Darby. Suffice it to say here that Mr. N's course was such as issued in all the other brethren who laboured there at the first leaving Plymouth to work elsewhere. Mr. Darby went abroad, Captain Hall to Hereford, Mr. Wigram to London, and Mr. N. was left almost alone at Plymouth. A beloved brother, Mr. Harris, who was not identified with the movement at first, became associated in labour with Mr. N. at Plymouth, and his presence there for several years was the only hope that brethren elsewhere had of any check being put to Mr. N.'s course. He, however, at a very early period of the present trouble withdrew from association with Mr. N. and those identified with him. The system introduced by Mr. N., and most speciously disguised for a time, was directed to the undermining all the truth by which God had acted on the souls of brethren, and thus to the setting up afresh in another form of all that had been renounced.

The coming of the Lord as an object of present hope or expectation was denied, and there was substituted for it the expectation of a train of events, many of them nowhere foretold in scripture, and only existing in Mr. N.'s imagination. The real unity of the church as one body indwelt and governed by the Holy Ghost was denied; and instead of it the doctrine was asserted of a kind of independent churches — so independent indeed, that when division took place at Plymouth, and godly experienced brethren from Exeter, London, and elsewhere went down to aid by their prayers and counsel, Mr. N. and his party peremptorily rejected their aid on the ground that they were not of Plymouth, and had no right to interfere. For the presence and sovereign rule of the Holy Ghost in the church was substituted the authority of teachers and the authority claimed for them and by them was so absolute, that when Mr. Newton was charged with untruthfulness, and it was sought by one and another that the charge should be investigated before the whole body of believers, this was steadily refused on the ground that he could not be tried but by those who with him were the teachers and rulers there, and as they acquitted him there was no further appeal and no remedy. Besides this there was the steady systematic absorbing of all ministry in, the word or even participation audibly in public worship into the hands of one or two, with the effectual exclusion by one means or another of all others. See as to this Mr. Hill's letter, entitled "Remarks," etc. There was also the zealous unwearied endeavour to form a party distinguished by Mr. Newton's views of prophecy and church order to which the appellation, "the truth," was arrogated, and means were found to keep away from Plymouth any brethren whose views were known to be adverse to those.

Such were the leading features of the system which silently grew up at Plymouth, and I was quite aware of its existence and of the concern felt by many brethren respecting it from the time that I became acquainted with the brethren between six and seven years ago. There were worse features to be developed than any of those, but the time did not arrive for their manifestation "till the energy of the Spirit of God was introduced into the scene in the ministry of Mr. Darby." Long had he and others watched the progress of things at Plymouth with sorrow and apprehension; still no hand was lifted to arrest the progress of the evil. At last Mr. D. came over from the continent, and after spending several months in Plymouth, labouring within the gathering there, and using what means he could to awaken the consciences of brethren, he was obliged, in order to keep a clear conscience himself, to withdraw from the assembly. He did so on the ground that God was practically displaced and man set up in His stead, and also that there was evil allowed in the assembly without any means of bringing it before the saints for judgment. Being called upon by many to explain the grounds upon which he had seceded, he consented, and in doing so he charged Mr. Newton in two distinct instances with having acted untruthfully.

The result of all this was, that a number of brethren from different parts went down to Plymouth some of them zealous partizans of Mr. N. and others with no judgment formed on the matters they went to inquire into. As already stated their interference was sternly refused by Mr. N. and his friends, and he would consent to no investigation of the charges against him except on the worldly principle of arbitration, he appointing four of his friends and Mr. Darby four of his. This Mr. D. felt would be taking the case out of the hands of God and His Church, as well as making himself the head of a party. This proposal he accordingly refused, offering at the same time to meet Mr. N. before the whole assembly, or, if it was preferred, before a number of the most grave and experienced brethren, or before certain brethren, fifteen in number, who had met together previously, and in whose presence that had occurred on which two of the charges were founded. To none of these would Mr. Newton consent. His fellow-rulers at Plymouth acquitted him, though one of them was distinctly implicated in one of the charges, and they were all identified with him and zealously aiding him in the course he pursued. To no other tribunal would he or they allow the case to be referred (the proposal to arbitration having been, of course, rejected by Mr. Darby) and hence a separation became unavoidable. Mr. Harris had ceased ministering among them for some time, and he eventually withdrew from communion. Some hundreds withdrew and began to break bread in Raleigh-street, and thus the division was completed at Plymouth.

At first Mr. Darby's act was judged by brethren almost everywhere to be rash and premature. They had not been inside the scene, and so knew but little of the system that had been introduced. Several of those who went down to Plymouth to inquire, found things so much worse than they had any conception of, that they also separated from Mr. Newton and his party. One thing which seems to have weighed greatly with these brethren was the corruption of moral integrity, and the system of intrigue and deception which attended the evil. In April, 1846, a meeting of brethren from all parts was held in London for common humiliation and prayer, where the tokens of the Lord's presence were graciously vouchsafed to us, and from that time the eyes of brethren seemed to open to the evil. Mr. Newton and his friends were invited to that meeting but refused to attend. They printed their reasons for refusing, which were widely circulated.

Mr. Darby's Narrative of Facts was printed soon after, and in the autumn of that year a series of meetings was held in Rawstorne-street, London, very important in their origin, character, and results. They originated in a visit of Mr. N.'s to certain brethren in the neighbourhood of Rawstorne-street and breaking bread there. He held some scripture readings at the house of one of them, after which he stated that his errand to town partly was to meet any brethren who were wishful of information as to the charges brought against him in the Narrative of Facts. Most providentially Mr. Darby was at the time in London. He had come to town on his way to France and had got his passports, changed his money, and was ready to depart, when brethren waited on him to detain him till efforts were made to bring about an open investigation of the whole case, with accused and accuser face to face. The brethren to whom Mr. Newton had offered to give information, proposed to him this open investigation. It was proposed to him again and again by others, but steadily and invariably refused. The brethren meeting at Rawstorne-street then assembled, and after united prayer and consultation concluded that Mr. Newton could not be admitted to the Lord's Table there, so long as he refused to satisfy their consciences as to the grave charges alleged against him.

In connection with these events there were three documents issued by Mr. Newton and his party. One a paper by Mr. Newton himself in answer to the charges of untruthfulness. Another by his four co-rulers at Plymouth assigning reasons for his non-attendance at Rawstorne-street to satisfy the consciences of the saints meeting there. Also a remonstrance addressed by the Plymouth rulers to the brethren meeting at Rawstorne-street on their exclusion of Mr. N. from the Lord's Table. All these were examined at large in four tracts entitled "Accounts of the proceedings at Rawstorne-street in November and December 1846." These four tracts are very important as showing the dishonesty connected with the system of which the three papers before named were a defence. The proceedings at Rawstorne-street, and the publications growing out of them, cleared the souls of many; and in February, 1847, a meeting was held in the same place, attended by many brethren from the country, in which nearly all those who had been at all looked up to amongst brethren gave their solemn testimony as to the evil system which had grown up at Plymouth, and as to the need of absolute and entire separation from it. The testimonies of Messrs. M'Adam, Harris, Lean, Hall, Young and others, were most solemn and decisive. There was scarcely a brother, whose name was well-known amongst brethren as labouring in the word and watching for souls, who did not at that time acquiesce in the sorrowful necessity for separation from this evil and demoralizing system.

And now we come to a new era in this mournful history. Thus far the evil had been confined to the undermining all the truths of which there had been a special revival, through the Lord's mercy, among brethren — the setting up of clerical power and pretension to an alarming extent, and the effort to form a party for these purposes, by means indicating the total loss of integrity on the part of those who used them, and most corrupting in their effects on others. Now we are to find the foundations of the faith assailed by the introduction of false doctrines concerning the blessed Lord Himself. Strange things were known to have been taught previously. In his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," Mr. N. had taught the astounding doctrine that in the future glory the saints will participate in the omniscience and omnipresent power of the Lord Himself. Other statements, equally strange, had been made on other subjects; but it was not till after the London meeting, in February, 1847, that there was brought to light a systematic and diligent inculcation of doctrines which undermine all that is essential to Christianity. These doctrines were first brought to light by Mr. Harris. He published a tract, entitled, "The Sufferings of Christ, as set forth in a Lecture on Psalm 6 considered, by J. L. Harris." The lecture, notes of which were thus printed and examined by Mr. H., was by Mr. Newton. The following is Mr. Harris's account of the way in which he became possessed of those notes, and of what induced him to publish them, with his remarks upon them:-

"I desire explicitly to state how the MS. came under my notice. About three weeks since one of our sisters in Exeter very kindly lent the notes to my wife, as being Mr. Newton's teaching, from which she had found much interest and profit. When my wife first told me what she had brought home, I did not pay much attention to it; but shortly after I felt it was not right in me to sanction in my house this system of private circulation, and I determined to return the MS. unread. Accordingly I wrote a note to the sister who had lent the MS., thanking her for her kindness, and explaining my reason for returning it unread. It was late at night when I had finished writing, and I found in the meantime my wife had looked into the MS. so as to get an outline of its contents, which she mentioned to me, especially the expression that 'the cross was only the closing incident in the life of Christ.' She thought she did not understand the meaning of the author, and referred to me for explanation. I then looked into the MS. myself, and on perusing it felt surprised and shocked at finding such unscriptural statements and doctrine, which appeared to me to touch the integrity of the doctrine of the cross . . . . .

"In the law of the land there is such a thing as misprision of treason, involving heavy penalties when any one who has been acquainted with treasonable practices does not give information. In this case I believe the doctrines taught to undermine the glory of the cross of Christ, and to subvert souls; and it seems to me a duty to Christ and to His saints to make the doctrine openly known. The MS. professes to be notes of a lecture — I suppose a public lecture. With these notes on Psalm 6 there was given, as accompanying it, notes on Isaiah 13, 14, if I recollect aright, with this notice, 'This to go with Psalm 6,' or something to that effect; so that it appears from this title that these MSS. are as regularly circulated among a select few, in various parts of England, as books in a reading society," etc.

The doctrines of this lecture on Psalm 6 by Mr. N., it will be best to state in his own words. Speaking of Christ, he says, page 7, "For a person to be suffering here because he serves God, is one thing; but the relation of that person to God, and what he is immediately receiving from His hand while serving Him, is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm, and many others, open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out, as rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure; and remember, this is not the scene on the cross." He says, on the same page, that this — the scene on the cross — "was only one incident in the life of Christ. . . . . It was only the closing incident of His long life of suffering and sorrow; so that to fix our eye simply on that would be to know little what the character of His real sufferings were."

After saying, "I do not refer to what were called His vicarious sufferings, but to His partaking of the circumstances of the woe and sorrow of the human family; and not only of the human family generally, but of a particular part of it, of Israel," he goes on to speak of the curse having fallen on them; and then adds, "So Jesus became part of an accursed people — a people who had earned God's wrath by transgression after transgression." Again: "So Jesus became obnoxious to the wrath of God the moment he came into the world." Again: "Observe, this is chastening in displeasure; not that which comes now on the child of God, which is never in wrath, but this rebuking in wrath, to which He was amenable, because He was part of an accursed people; so the hand of God was continually stretched out against Him in various ways." From this dreadful condition he represents our Lord as getting partially delivered at His baptism by John. I say partially; for elsewhere he distinctly affirms that He only emerged from it entirely by death: "His life, through all the thirty years, was made up, more or less, of experiences of this kind; so it must have been a great relief to Him to hear the voice of John the Baptist, saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Here was a door opened to Israel at once. They might come, and be forgiven; so He was glad to hear that word. He heard it with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptised, because He was one with Israel — was in their condition, one of wrath from God; consequently, When He was baptised, He took new ground; but Israel would not take it," etc. Such were the doctrines promulgated by Mr. Newton.

The exposure of them by Mr. Harris excited general alarm among those who had been associated with their author; and he, finding it needful that something should be done, issued two pamphlets, in neither of which did he disclaim the lecture, or the doctrines asserted in it; but first stated it more at large, though in a less palpable and offensive form, and then defended and supported it.

It appears that, long before this, a paper of his containing the germ of this doctrine, had been inserted in the Christian Witness. This was pleaded by Mr. N. and others in palliation of his subsequent course. It was said that he had avowed the doctrine openly in a publication read by brethren generally, and edited by Mr. Harris, and that neither he nor they had detected in it any error, till altered circumstances made them adopt a different standard of judgment. But the facts, alas! while quite showing how long Mr. N. had held, or been inclined to hold, his present views, formed no real palliation of the evil. In the first place, he had carefully guarded what he said in the Witness against what constitutes the chief evil of his present views. In the Witness he strongly asserts that the sufferings of Christ he speaks of were "vicariously incurred;" in his tract — "Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus" — he defines the sufferings he specially writes of to be "sufferings which pertained to Him, because He was a man, and because He was an Israelite; sufferings therefore which cannot be restricted to the years of His public service, but which must be extended over the whole of that period during which He was made sensible, under the hand of God, of the condition into which man had sunk, and yet more into which Israel had sunk in His sight."* These sufferings he carefully distinguishes in a note (page 2) from "those which were vicarious," and "which latter," he says, "began at the cross." Now this makes all the difference possible. I should regret to hear any one say that our blessed Lord endured God's displeasure, even vicariously, all His lifetime. It would be an error, and a serious one, to assert even this. Still, it does not so entirely overturn the foundations of our faith. But to assert that the hot displeasure of God, rested on Jesus throughout His life, not vicariously, but "because He was a man, and, because He was an Israelite," does subvert the faith; because if as a man and as an Israelite He was obnoxious to this, how could He voluntarily endure it on the cross instead of others? But, secondly, the remarks in question were not inserted in the first edition of the Christian Witness, edited by Mr. Harris, and generally read by brethren, but added to the paper in a second edition, issued from the tract depot at Plymouth, under Mr. N.'s control. But I must proceed with my narrative.

*The italics in the above sentence are Mr. Newton's own.

The two tracts issued by Mr. N. were answered by Mr. Darby. His pamphlet entitled "Observations, by J.N.D., on a tract entitled 'Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus'" is most valuable, and well deserving the study of any one anxious to know the bearings of this solemn question. He printed another, likewise presenting proofs in copious extracts from Mr. N.'s writings, of what his doctrines on this subject really are. The effect of all this, through God's great mercy, was, that many of Mr. N.'s friends, who had adhered to him till now, began to have their eyes opened to the frightful precipice to the brink of which they had followed him. By them Mr. N. was pressed to make confession of his error, and he so far consented to this as to put forth a paper, dated "Plymouth, Nov. 26th, 1847," entitled "A Statement and Acknowledgement respecting certain Doctrinal Errors."

I well remember the effect produced on my mind by an extract from this paper, which was sent me, and which was as follows:-

"I would not wish it to be supposed that what I have now said is intended to extenuate the error which I have confessed. I desire to acknowledge it fully, and to acknowledge it as sin; it is my desire thus to confess it before God and His Church; and I desire that this may be considered as an expression of my deep and unfeigned grief and sorrow, especially by those who may have been grieved or injured by the false statement, or by any consequences thence resulting. I trust the Lord will not only pardon, but will graciously counteract any evil effects which may have arisen to any therefrom. B. W. Newton."

Supposing, of course, that the error confessed was the error contained in his recent tracts, my soul was bowed before God in thanksgiving for such evidence as this extract seemed to afford of a humbled and penitent state of soul in the writer. Judge of my surprise and sorrow, when I received the paper itself, to find that the above is almost the only word of confession contained in the seven pages of which the paper consists. And the error confessed is not that of the doctrine already described, the doctrine taught in the notes of his Lectures and in the two subsequent pamphlets. No; he only withdraws these for reconsideration; and the error he confesses is one contained in his paper in the Christian Witness, viz., the attributing our Lord's endurance of the sufferings in question to His connection with Adam as federal head. This is the error retracted, and except the paragraph above cited, the tract is little but extenuation and excuse.

Those of Mr. N.'s friends, however, whose consciences were really awakened by the Spirit of God, could not be content with such confession as this. A meeting was held in Ebrington-street, in which Messrs. Soltau and Batten made full confession, and as many were more disposed for self-justification than confession, they withdrew from the assembly, and shortly after issued printed confessions, which now lie before me; and I am sure these beloved brethren will excuse me in giving extracts from those papers to show, what none could show like those who have been involved in them, what the doctrines in question are. The following are Mr. Batten's words:-

These doctrines, or this system of teaching, may be stated as comprising:

I. That the Lord Jesus at his birth, and because born of a woman, partook of certain consequences of the fall — mortality being one, — and because of this association by nature, He became an heir of death — born under death as a penalty.

II. That the Lord Jesus at His birth stood in such relation to Adam as a federal head; that guilt was imputed to Him; and that He was exposed to certain consequences of such imputation, as stated in Romans 5.

III. That the Lord Jesus was also born as a Jew under the broken law, and was regarded by God as standing in that relation to Him; and that God pressed upon His soul the terrors of Sinai, as due to one in that relation.

IV. That the Lord Jesus took the place of distance from God, which such a person so born and so related must take; and that He had to find His way back to God by some path in which God might at last own and meet Him.

V. That so fearful was the distance, and so real were these relations by birth, and so actual were their attendant penalties of death, wrath, and the curse, that until His deliverance God is said to have rebuked Him, to have chastened Him, and that in anger and hot displeasure.

VI. That because of these dealings from God, and Christ's sufferings under them, the language of Lamentations 3, and Psalms 6, 38 and 88, etc., has been stated to be the utterance of the Lord Jesus while under this heavy pressure from God's hand.

VII. That the Lord Jesus extricated Himself from these inflictions by keeping the law; and that at John's baptism the consequent difference in Christ's feelings and experience was so great, as to have been illustrated by a comparison of the difference between Mount Sinai and Mount Sion, or between law and grace.

VIII. That beside all these relations which Christ took by birth, and their attendant penalties and inflictions, and His sufferings under the heavy hand of God, it has been further stated that He had the experience of an unconverted, though elect Jew.

After giving this summary of the doctrines which had been held and taught by himself and others, Mr. B. thus proceeds: "I feel, beloved brethren and sisters, whilst writing this outline of doctrine, that it ought to be enough of itself to arouse and alarm you; that it ought to give you at once a sufficient insight into this system of teaching to lead you to ask what spell could have been so firmly bound around us as to make all contented under it; to induce many not only to feed upon it themselves, but to circulate and commend it to others; and to lead some to defend and re-affirm it whenever assailed or threatened. This, I repeat, might be a very proper question for each to put to his own conscience before God; and I do not doubt that a ready answer would be supplied, according to our individual faith and acquaintance with God; at all events, I do not hesitate to declare that my own mind is satisfied to say -delusion, and that I am as free to own my conviction as to the source of this delusive power, however painful and humbling to me to do so."

The evil effects of the system of doctrine from which he had thus been graciously delivered, Mr. B. solemnly points out in the following paragraphs:

"I would say, then — I. That if Christ took at birth, and by birth, certain consequences of Adam's sin, such as mortality; and that if He stood by birth in the relation to God of Israel under the broken law; and that if He took correspondingly the place of distance from God, and had the experiences of an unconverted man, there was surely need enough that He should work His way back to God, and find some point where God could meet Him. II. That if the accompanying inflictions, rebukes, and chastisements from God, due to a person in that position, were really allowed to fall upon Christ, and were moreover pressed upon His soul according to God's power and holiness, there was surely need enough that He should seek to extricate Himself, and find the door of deliverance."

"This summary of Christ's standing before God at birth, and the awful experiences and sufferings of His soul and body under God's inflictions on this account, I solemnly present to you as containing Christ's disqualifications for becoming our surety our sacrifice, our Saviour! For He had to extricate Himself! He had to be delivered Himself out of this horrible distance, and from these fearful judgments. However free from taint His person might be, and is declared to have been, yet because of these relations, which, it has been said, He took at birth, it was even a question, as to fact, whether He could deliver Himself and be owned of God. This was, however, settled as regards His own acceptance by His keeping the law, and by His obedience unto death; but then, alas! all this was due from Him to God — due to the law, as having been born under its curse — due for Himself and for His own extrication: all that He could render to the last moment of His life, all that He could offer up in death, was needed by Him for Himself, and for His own deliverance! . . . But then what becomes of the blessed doctrines of grace? What becomes of the glorious gospel of God's salvation? What becomes of the Church? What becomes of us individually? We have lost Christ."

Mr. Soltau's printed confession was more brief, but equally explicit and humble. So was Mr. Dyer's: and it would be well for any one anxious to understand fully the nature of the question now before brethren, to read and ponder seriously and prayerfully those remarkable documents. They were not without their effect at the time, as a number more withdrew from Ebrington-street, and were in a while received afresh to communion with brethren at Raleigh-street and elsewhere; and some time after Ebrington-street ceased to be occupied by Mr. Newton and his party, a smaller room in Compton-street being the place in which they have since assembled.

Some months after the withdrawal by Mr. N. of his heretical tracts for reconsideration, he published another, entitled, "A Letter on Subjects connected with the Lord's Humanity." This tract re-affirms the doctrines of those which he had withdrawn, and all the confession now made is of "carelessness," and "a wrong use of theological terms." Brethren must excuse me when I say, that to refer to this tract as an adequate exposition of Mr. N.'s doctrines seems to me either the height of folly, or something worse. First of all, notes of a lecture appear, in which the doctrine flows out freely from the author's lips without reserve and without disguise. Finding the indignation excited by it so very great, he publishes one tract expository of his views, more carefully worded than the lecture, but still plain enough; and another, vindicating those views against the charges of his opponents. Finding his own friends ready to desert him, he confesses his error on one point, and withdraws the tracts for re-consideration. The fruit of this reconsideration is a republication of the doctrine; but, after months of study bestowed on the subject, who can wonder that the form in which it appears is made as unobjectionable as possible? An acute mind, spending months of study on the stating of the obnoxious doctrine in as harmless and apparently unobjectionable terms as possible, while it is still maintained and asserted as firmly as ever, might be expected to produce just such a tract as this of Mr. N.'s. But who would trust it? Does he hold the doctrines he did when he wrote his former tracts? Yes, unquestionably. Then let us look to them to know what those doctrines are; or rather to the notes of his lecture prior to any of them, in which, without a thought of reservation or disguise, he speaks out what was in his soul.

But there is another point I must advert to before Bethesda's connection with all this comes in view. In the month of May, 1848, a meeting was held at Bath, attended by about 100 brethren from all parts, the leading features of which were (1), That in it the brethren who had been rescued from the doctrinal errors of Mr. N., and whose confessions have been noticed, made further confession, full and ample, as to their implication in the charges made against the untruthful, immoral system of Ebrington-street, as brought to light in the "Narrative of Facts," and "Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne-street." They acknowledged that these charges were just. One, at least, of those who signed their names to "the Plymouth documents," referred to on page 8, confessed that these documents were justly chargeable with trickery and falsehood.* It is not as delighting in evil, or feeling any pleasure in publishing my brethren's sins, the Lord knoweth, that I mention this. I am only astonished at the grace bestowed on them thus humbly to acknowledge wherein they had fallen; but I mention it because it is of all importance to remember that the false doctrine is not the only thing in question. There was a separation, and solemn necessity for it, before the evil doctrine came to light. And what was made clear to the simplest by the confessions of beloved brethren at the Bath meeting was this, not only that the doctrines must be repudiated, but the system of trickery and deceit guarded against, which preceded the open avowal of the doctrines. Both system and doctrines, however, blessed be God, were distinctly confessed, and as distinctly renounced, by beloved brethren who had been most deeply entangled in both. Let this triumph of the restoring grace of our God and Father be our comfort now, and our encouragement to look for further displays of His almighty arm of love.

*My authority for this statement is Mr. Robert Howard, who was present at the meeting, and assured me of what is above stated.

(2) The other remarkable feature of the Bath meeting was this, that the "Narrative of Facts," and other publications of Mr. Darby on these mournful occurrences, were subjected at that meeting to the strictest scrutiny; Lord Congleton endeavouring for five hours to prove them false, and Mr. Nelson, of Edinburgh, aiding him in his efforts. The result was, that the statements contained in these pamphlets were so fully established that some, who had always mistrusted them till then, exclaimed that they never knew anything so demonstrated. Mr. Robert Howard, of Tottenham, and Mr. Jukes, of Hull, who were present at the meeting, both assured me that nothing could exceed the triumphant manner in which these publications were vindicated from every attempt to call their statements in question; every endeavour to shake their testimony recoiling on the heads of those who made them.

It was immediately after this that the rulers at Bethesda admitted to communion there several of Mr. Newton's devoted friends and partizans, and this in spite of all the remonstrances of godly brethren among themselves, and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views of the persons in question. The brethren on the spot who had protested against this step were now obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to he soul-defiling and Christ-dishonouring doctrines and ways, to withdraw from fellowship with Bethesda. This they did; one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading brethren there, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons at Bethesda then drew up and signed a paper vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. N.'s followers, and rejected all the warnings and remonstrances which had been addressed to them.* This paper you may see at full length in "The Present Question, 1848-9, by G. V. Wigram." As to this document, I have only a remark or two to make. You may see it fully examined in the pamphlet just named.

*See Appendix.

1. The object of the paper is to vindicate the conduct of those who signed it in taking a neutral position with regard to the solemn questions which have now been hastily reviewed. They say, "We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party."

2. They do, nevertheless, at the beginning of the paper disclaim the doctrines taught by Mr. N. They do not mention his name; but say, "We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was ever well pleased.

"We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which He endured as the surety for sinners — according to that Scripture, 'He was made a curse for us.'

"We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person; but maintain, that while He suffered outwardly the trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite, still, in His feelings and experience, as well as in His external character, He was entirely separate from sinners." That is, they severally and jointly disclaim Mr. Newton's published views on these subjects. And yet it is well known that one of those who signed the paper agrees with Mr. Newton on these points; and in the very last tract I have seen, written by Mr. Groves, brother-in-law to Mr. Müller, and an active agent and zealous advocate of Bethesda, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison are named as among the known friends of Mr. Newton, and Mr. Aitchison is one of the ten who signed the paper. The simplest saint can see the want of uprightness in a course like this. Ten men sign a paper, in which they disclaim views held, and known to be held, by at least one of those who signed it.

3. The reasons assigned in this paper of the ten for not judging the error in question are most unsatisfactory, some of them being, in fact, the strongest possible reasons for their investigating it thoroughly. Hear their words: — "The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued from Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence (rather, who had already come), or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to, could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings . . . Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his." So, because the author of a heresy is inconsistent with himself, and knows how to puzzle and confuse his readers by apparently contradictory statements, the poor of the flock are to have his disciples let in among them, to scatter the poison of his sentiments, and the pastors plead as their vindication that very tortuousness of error which makes it doubly dangerous, and the necessity for a barrier against it doubly imperative!

4. There is a most dangerous principle asserted in this document. "Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January put forth a statement disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts." That is, a man may for years teach doctrines admitted to be fundamentally heretical (say Socinian); the congregation which allows him thus to teach (say Socinianism), puts forth a statement disclaiming the doctrines which are still, nevertheless, known to be taught amongst them, and thus accredited by them; members of the congregation apply for communion elsewhere, and unless they can be individually convicted of having "understood and imbibed" Socinian doctrines, this Bethesda principle would require their reception. They are members of a congregation which allows amongst them a Socinian preacher, and boasts of him as deeply taught in the Word, etc.; but unless we can prove that they themselves have intelligently embraced Socinian errors, we have no warrant, Bethesda says, for rejecting them. Do saints need more than this to open their eyes as to the ground Bethesda has taken? And this is no "fable," no "exaggeration!" it is Bethesda's recorded judgment of what the fellowship of God's house is. The words above cited, to which "the ten" subscribed their names, and which were adopted by the vote of the congregation, tell a louder and more solemn tale in the ear of conscience than anything which has been advanced by those whom Bethesda looks upon as her adversaries.

5. The manner in which the congregation at Bethesda were ensnared into the adoption of this paper of "the ten " is what no one could approve whose judgment was not previously warped. "Mr. Craik stated," at the meeting held July 3rd, 1848, "what would be the order of the meeting, viz., the perusal, first, of Mr. Alexander's letter, then of their reply. After which the church would give judgment upon it. But that they (the ten, I suppose) stated deliberately and advisedly, that they were firmly resolved not to allow any extracts to be read, or any comments made on the tracts, until the meeting had first come to a decision upon their paper."* Think of this: ten persons come forward with a paper committing the church, if they adopt it, to a neutral course between the author of those tracts and his friends on the one hand, and those who reject them entirely as unsound and heretical on the other. If this paper be adopted Bethesda becomes neutral between Mr. Newton and those who have disowned him; and yet, till this paper is adopted the authors of it will not allow any extracts to be read from Mr. N.'s writings, or remarks to be made on Mr. N.'s doctrines. And, when some objected to the congregation thus giving a decision in the dark, Mr. Müller said, "The first thing the Church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that, if this was not done, they could not continue to labour among them; that the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought out," etc. Thus were Bethesda people required, under pain of losing the labours of their beloved and honoured pastors, to assume a position of neutrality with regard to doctrines on which there was not a word to be spoken till they had assumed the position. And the majority acquiesced in this; by standing up they declared their approbation of this paper of "the ten," and assumed the position which they were required to take. But while, on the one hand, the course taken in this matter by the rulers was most sad, let no individual in the congregation think to shift on to their shoulders the responsibility of the body in adopting their paper. Be it that they did it in the dark; be it that they were not allowed to have a ray of light shed on the subject, they did still rise up in approbation of the paper, and they had been informed previously by Mr. A. that the errors in question were errors affecting the person and work of our blessed Lord. Solemn was the responsibility assumed by the congregation in their vote of that evening; tenfold more solemn the responsibility of those who influenced them to come to it.

*See "The Present Question," pages 53-4.

It was soon after Bethesda had thus assumed a professedly neutral position by the reception of Mr. Newton's agents, and the adoption of this paper, explanatory of the ground on which they were received, that Mr. Darby presented the whole case to brethren in a circular, which has been reprinted in W. H. Dorman's "Review of certain Questions and Evils," etc. Soon after the circular was issued Mr. Darby went abroad. All the notice that was taken of it was in a hostile letter from Mr. Wakefield of Kendal, of the spirit of which I will not trust myself to speak, and all the arguments of which you have seen in Mr. Jukes's letter to the Leeds and Otley gatherings. It was by local circumstances that our Brother Willans and myself were led, reluctantly enough on our part, to take any share in these proceedings. You must understand that by means of Mr. Müller's Orphan houses, Bethesda has links of connection with almost every gathering throughout the country. With one in Yorkshire we knew that there was a link of great strength. Two other gatherings in Yorkshire we knew to have very strong and tender ties to a brother who had been greatly blessed to them in former days, but who, alas! had been instrumental in part in placing Bethesda in the position she now occupies, and we knew that his policy had always been to keep the saints in ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and that he had been on a visit to those gatherings since these troubles began.

A brother had removed from Otley to Bethesda, and by returning, or even coming on a visit, might at any time have forced the question on saints here. Efforts had been made, moreover, by some to prejudice the minds of saints here and at Leeds by altogether inaccurate representations of Bethesda's position, and of Mr. Darby's conduct towards it; and what weighed with us more than all the rest, Mr. Jukes, of Hull, came down from Bath, where he had been in intercourse with the friends of Bethesda's neutral position, resolved to take part with it himself, and this he could not of course do without either the silent acquiescence of brethren everywhere in these parts, or, on the other hand, the consideration by brethren of the whole case. We had anxiously looked for some persons of note amongst brethren to summon a general meeting to take Bethesda's case and Mr. Darby's circular into consideration. A step of this magnitude it was clearly out of the question for us to take. The question for our consciences was whether to stand by and see the Yorkshire gatherings quietly drawn into a neutral position between the Newtonian heresy and the receivers of it on the one side, and those who had faithfully protested against it and separated from it on the other, — these gatherings all the while, save a few brethren in Leeds and Otley, being profoundly ignorant of what the questions were on which they were to be thus neutral. This we could not with a clear conscience allow. We looked to the Lord, and had, I believe, His guidance in sending out the circular which you have seen. It makes known what the evil is; how by Bethesda's reception of it all the gatherings were threatened; and then states the course which, as we believed, the word of God required of us in these circumstances, leaving it, of course, to brethren everywhere to form their own judgment of the whole in the fear of God. I have no doubt that very many of God's dear people would have acted in the case better than we did, had they acted at all. But when none would act, and the evil was at our doors, we had no choice left us but to act as the Lord might enable us. He knows whether we sought His guidance, and what our motives were in the step we took. Results, too, have shown whether there was not the most imperative need for some such step. Sorrowful and humbling indeed was the state of things which made it needful; but God never fails His people in the worst of times; and I suppose there are very many now who feel that His blessing can be expected on no course in the present emergency but one of unyielding firmness and uncompromising decision.

It has been alleged, however, that Bethesda has cleared itself of all charges of fellowship with Mr. Newton's false doctrines, or the holders of them; and it may be well first to state what has been done at Bethesda, and then to examine whether by all this it is really cleared, so as to be again entitled to the confidence of saints.

A meeting was held in Bethesda, October 31st, 1848, in which Mr. Müller gave his own individual judgment of Mr. Newton's tracts, stating that they contained a system of insidious error, not here and there, but throughout; and that if the doctrines taught in them were followed out to their legitimate consequences, they would destroy the foundations of the gospel, and overthrow the Christian faith. The legitimate consequences of these doctrines he stated to be "to make the Lord need a saviour as well as others." Still, while recording so strong an individual judgment as this, Mr. Müller said that he could not say Mr. N. was a heretic, that he could not refuse to call him brother. And he was most careful in maintaining that what he said was not the judgment of the church, but his own individual judgment, for which he and he alone was responsible. As to the paper of "the ten," and all the steps connected with it, he justified them entirely, and said that were they again in the circumstances they would pursue the same course. And what, I ask is the natural effect of such a proceeding as this? On the one hand the individual judgment against the evil lulls to sleep consciences that are beginning to awake. People say, surely there can be no danger of unsoundness where such a judgment against evil is recorded as this. While on the other hand the door is left as wide open to the evil as ever; and Satan is quite satisfied if you will only let it in, whatever strong things you may say against it.

But it is now asserted that there has been a public investigation at Bethesda, issuing in a united judgment of the whole body there on the subject. This is said to have taken place in November and December, 1848; but the first word of it that has openly seen the light is in a tract which has only reached me since I began to write this letter, and which bears date June 16th, 1849. Before examining it, I would solemnly put to the consciences of brethren this question, When Bethesda knew that her conduct had stumbled so many, and was giving occasion to so much division and controversy, — if she looked on the decision come to last December as one that ought to satisfy the consciences of godly brethren who complain of her Previous course, where was her regard for Christ's glory, the love of the brethren, or the Peace of the church, in keeping this decision a secret from December to June? But such as it is, now that it is out, let it be examined, and the Lord give to saints everywhere to weigh it in His fear.

It is presented to the saints in a tract by Mr. A. N. Groves, in which he publishes a letter from Mr. J. E. Howard to Mr. Dorman. In this letter Mr. Howard says, the following statement was given me on the authority of Lord Congleton:-

"Seven church meetings were held at Bethesda between November 27th and December 11th, 1848. Mr. Newton's tracts were considered.

"CONCLUSION — That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton's views or tracts should be received into communion.

"Written down by Lord Congleton from Mr. Müller's lips, in Mr. Müller's presence, Mr. Wakefield, of Kendal, being also present. January 30th, 1849.

"Result — By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda had sent in resignations — Capt. Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers and two Miss Percivals. (Signed,) "C — ."

Before noticing the statements contained in this remarkable document, one word may be allowed as to its author. It was Lord Congleton who for five hours endeavoured at the Bath meeting, in May, 1849, to fix the charge of falsehood on the Narrative of Facts. Mr. Robert Howard assured me that his efforts were so weak and so absurd, that the only effect of them was to make the charge recoil on his own head. His conduct at that meeting was so sad, that when he afterwards sought admission to Rawstorne-street the brethren there declined receiving him until satisfied of his contrition for the course which he there pursued. And this is the brother whose name and testimony are put forward by Mr. J. E. Howard to satisfy the consciences of saints that Bethesda has purged itself from the evil!

It is with reference to the meetings Lord C. speaks of that Mr. Groves indignantly asks, "What! six weeks' anxious enquiry, during which every other meeting and business was suspended, to consider the question, and inform every member of Bethesda, in order to obtain a right and instructed judgment on this difficult and perplexing question — doing nothing! What! disallowing Mr. Newton as a teacher, and refusing communion to all who defended, maintained, or upheld his doctrine or his tracts, after the most prolonged deliberation and prayerful enquiries — doing nothing!" It is a sorrowful thing when the only answer one can give to such an appeal as this is, "Nothing to satisfy the consciences of any who value the honour of Christ, and the purity of the fellowship of His house, more than the saving appearances and propping up the interest of a party." But let us turn to the document itself, and examine its allegations.

(1.) Seven church meetings were held, and Mr. Newton's tracts were considered. The refusal to do this before had forced out from Bethesda some 50 or 60 godly brethren, and plunged numbers elsewhere into sorrow and strife, and is there no word of confession now that seven meetings are held to consider what might not be considered at all but a short time before? In the paper of "the ten " I read, "We considered from the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here — nor for the glory of God — that we in Bristol should get entangled in controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we as a body are bound to investigate and judge them." Again, I read, "The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton's tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion." Now, how is it that what was so wrong in June and July has become right and needful in November and December? How is it that what is refused in summer, at the cost of forcing out a number of godly, conscientious brethren on the spot, and plunging brethren everywhere into sorrow and division, is done in autumn without a word of acknowledgement that wrong had been done before! Nay, if we are to believe Mr. Groves himself, they still think they did quite right.

(2.) The conclusion come to was, "That no one defending, maintaining or upholding Mr. Newton's views or tracts, should be received into communion. Now this to a person who knew nothing of the controversy, and nothing of the tracts, would sound very fair and straightforward, and it is intensely painful to have at every step to call in question whether documents and declarations do really mean what at first glance a stranger would suppose they mean. But what are the facts of the case before us? First, there is no judgment given as to those who had already been received, received too at the solemn cost of the division which immediately ensued at Bristol, as well as all the rest which have followed elsewhere. It is a judgment as to who "should be received into communion," not as to what should be done with those who had already been received. Secondly, the conclusion arrived at still leaves the door quite open to those who are in avowed fellowship with Mr. Newton, provided they do not "defend, maintain, or uphold his views or tracts." There is nothing here that goes beyond the principle laid down in the paper of "the ten." "For, supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation-truth." If a person comes from Compton-street, and has frankness to say, I understand and hold, and am resolved to propagate as I can, Mr. Newton's views on the points now in question, he would not be received by Bethesda. But a dozen persons might come at once from Compton-street and be admitted into the heart of the assembly at Bethesda, provided they were so far under the influence of the immoral, deceitful system of the place they came from as to conceal the fact that they sympathize with Mr. Newton's views. They must "defend, maintain, or uphold " Mr. Newton's views or tracts to be excluded by this conclusion arrived at in Bethesda. Should they say that they do not understand Mr. Newton to teach what others attribute to him, and they themselves entirely repudiate the doctrines charged upon him, there is no hindrance here to their admission at Bethesda. And when admitted, they may speak highly of Mr. N., they may express their sympathy for him as an injured, calumniated, and mercilessly treated man, and so enlist the sympathies of Bethesda people in his favour. And is not all this doing Satan's work, and paving the way for their reception of the doctrines of the tracts themselves, when in some other way these fall into their hands? Nor are the means for this far distant. This we shall now see.

(3.) The result of this judgment of Bethesda is said to be that "By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda had sent in their resignations — Captain Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers, and two Miss Percivals." And this is clearly put forth in Bethesda's defence by one of Bethesda's chief leaders! From the time that these questions arose, the uniform and oft reiterated defence put forth by Bethesda and her advocates was that there were none in Bethesda who held Mr. Newton's views, or promoted his designs. Now we are assured by Lord C. in a tract put forth by Mr. Groves, that all Mr. Newton's friends at Bethesda have sent in resignations! A list of their names is given us, consisting of the very persons who had been received by Bethesda in spite of every warning and remonstrance from within and from without; including also one name which was appended to the paper of "the ten." So that one of "the ten" who committed Bethesda to a neutral course is now ranked by Bethesda herself and her zealous advocates, amongst Mr. Newton's friends. And is there no confession on Bethesda's part of having despised the warnings and counsels of grave and sober brethren, whose testimony they have at last found but too true? Is there no expression of sorrow for having forced out from her fellowship those whose conduct has thus been justified in the sight of all? No, not the least. Bethesda, by her own account, has done right from first to last. Right, in assuming a neutral position, right in abandoning it, if indeed she had abandoned it. Right in receiving Mr. Newton's friends; and right in pursuing a line of conduct, the "result" of which she states to be the retirement of them all! Right in maintaining she had none within her pale tinctured with the Newtonian heresy; and right in proving herself clear by alleging that all such have resigned! But it is not a course of self-justification like this that either meets with the approval of God or commends itself to the consciences of saints.

The worst, however, remains to be told. So far from the six weeks' meetings, and the conclusion arrived at, and the result of both, having cleared Bethesda of the evil, or made it more worthy of the confidence of brethren, its actual present position is such as to be less entitled to confidence than before. We are not left to learn the value and grounds of the resignations of Mr. Newton's friends from Lord C.'s statement, as two of them, Captain and Mr. Woodfall, have circulated a paper in which the grounds of their resignation are plainly stated. Two sentences from that paper are enough to make manifest the character of the Whole proceeding. "This step of ours," they say, "has been finally determined on from a conversation with one of your pastors, who seems to think this would relieve them from some of their difficulties."

"In taking this step we do not at all waive our claim, as brethren in Christ, to a seat at the Lord's Table here."

Only think of an amicable arrangement between one of the pastors of Bethesda and two of Mr. Newton's friends who are in communion there, the issue of which is the withdrawal of the latter, to relieve the former from some of their difficulties, these voluntary seceders maintaining meanwhile their right to communion whenever they may think proper to return! And this is set forth as a proof that Bethesda has cleared herself of the evil, and as enough to satisfy the consciences of brethren that there is nothing now requiring separation from Bethesda.

The fact is, if I am correctly informed, and the truthfulness and accuracy of my informant I have every reason to trust, that there is an open communication between those "friends of Mr. Newton" who have withdrawn from Bethesda, and others remaining in Bethesda still. Bethesda has not professed to shut the door against those who are in avowed fellowship with Mr. N. and his adherents, unless they uphold, defend, or maintain his doctrines or his tracts. Sympathizers with him there are unquestionably in Bethesda still. They have the work to do inside; while those who have withdrawn can do work of another kind outside more effectually than they could have done it within. I say not that Messrs. Groves and Müller intended it should be so; far from it; but when expediency becomes our guide, and to maintain our own consistency our object, we become the dupes and tools of an unseen agent, who seeks to accomplish his own purposes by means of us and our ways. I state it subject to correction; and the moment there is a fair and open meeting, where everything can be gone into, I am willing to give up my author, and have the following statement, with every other I have made, thoroughly sifted and weighed. I have been assured of the fact, that one person remaining in Bethesda claimed his right, or stated his determination, not to forego fellowship with Mr. Newton's friends who have withdrawn. And I have been credibly informed again and again that the meetings held by Mr. Newton's friends have been attended by several still in Bethesda. If these things are not so, let the matter be investigated openly and fairly; and if they should be proved untrue, I know who would be one of the first, by God's grace, to confess the wrong done to Bethesda brethren, and to entreat their forgiveness. But if these things be true, let no saints be persuaded that mutual arrangements, as matters of expediency, for some to withdraw while others remain, can clear Bethesda of that wherewith she stands charged, or vindicate the holiness of God's house, which has been practically denied by her doctrines and her deeds.

Were I asked my reasons as an individual for being entirely separate from Compton-street congregation, Plymouth, my answer would be twofold:

1. The sectarian, clerical, and demoralizing system there set up, as unfolded in the Narrative of Facts and account of proceedings in Rawstorne-street.

2. The awful doctrines since promulgated by Mr. Newton on the subject of the sufferings of our blessed Lord.

Were I asked the same question with regard to Bethesda, my answer would be:

1. The declared assumption of a neutral position towards the evil system and evil doctrines of Mr. Newton.

2. The latitudinarian principle laid down in the paper of "the ten," and adopted by the body that those who are in avowed fellowship with heretics cannot be refused admission to the Lord's Table, unless they themselves have understood and imbibed heretical sentiments.

3. The attempt to make the impression on people's minds that the neutral position has been exchanged for one of separation from Mr. Newton and his tracts, without any confession of error or sin in having taken a neutral position at first.

4. That the neutral position has not really been abandoned; that sympathizers with the heresy are yet allowed to be within, and no barrier presented to their free communication with avowed adherents of the heresy without.

5. The statements made by Mr. H. Craik in his letter to T. M., in answer to G. V. Wigram's Appeal. What he says there of the Lord's humanity, leaves no room for doubt that he does to a great extent sympathize with Mr. N.'s unsound views.

A number of brethren at Rawstorne-street, London, and elsewhere, have addressed to Bethesda the following appeal:

June, 1849.

To Saints who meet in Bethesda, Salem, etc., Bristol.

"In consequence of the late republication of J. N. Darby's letter of last autumn (by W. H. Dorman), and of the ten co-labouring brethren of Bethesda, with extracts subjoined from G. Alexander's letters, etc. (by G. V. Wigram) our souls have been exercised before the Lord in humiliation and prayer. This has led to the conviction that without compromising the holiness becoming the house of God, we could have no further interchange of communion with saints of Bethesda, under existing circumstances. Under this sad conviction, as we most anxiously desire to stand in fellowship with all saints, we earnestly wish to remove the apparent hindrances. We therefore, as separate individuals do earnestly entreat and beseech that the only thing which seems to us as a means to this end (viz., a meeting open to all parties concerned, who plead conscience as the reason for being present), may be accorded by you either in Bristol or elsewhere.

Let any evil which has to be corrected in any be shown there. If it be in brethren meeting in York-street, Bristol — in G. Alexander, J. N. Darby, G. V. Wigram, or W. H. Dorman — we desire in no sense to screen them any more than to condemn any among yourselves. Let the Lord's honour and the unity and holiness of the church only be thought of.

Our hope is, that if such a meeting were held, the Lord Jesus Christ would, for His name sake, so overrule by His spirit, that some results in common humiliation and blessing from His hand would follow.

Misunderstandings might be corrected, evil judged, while holiness and brotherly fellowship were still preserved to His glory and the comfort of our hearts.

This step is also urged on us more especially by 1st, Certain public acts of Tottenham, viz., its publication of the memorandum and reception from Bethesda, and 2nd, A secession of brethren from Orchard-street on the grounds connected therewith.

The answer is requested to be sent (for us) addressed to M. N., at 1, Angel Terrace, St. Peter's-street, Islington, London.

For the congregation of Bethesda, etc., to the care of G. Müller, J. H. Hale and C. Brown."*

*The above was signed by fourteen brethren, and copies of it by several others. Mr. Müller's reply is as follows: "Bristol, July 18th, 1849. In reply to a communication addressed to the care of Mr. Hale, Mr. C. H. Brown, and myself, requesting a meeting of brethren to consider certain charges that have been made against Bethesda, I have to state on the part of myself and my fellow-labourers, that we are ready to afford full explanation of the course that has been adopted at Bethesda to any godly enquirers who have not committed themselves as partizans of Mr. Darby and Mr. Wigram, but that we do not feel warranted in consenting to meet with those who have first judged and condemned us, and now profess to be desirous of making enquiry. We think it well plainly to state, that were such brethren even to profess themselves satisfied with us, we could not without hypocrisy accord to them the right hand of brotherly fellowship. If they agree with the course followed by Mr. Wigram and others, then there can be no fellowship between us and them; if they disapprove of that course, we feel that they are bound first to call to account those who have been manifestly guilty of following a course tending to division, and of grossly slandering their brethren. Should, however, any godly persons who have not committed themselves to the upholding of such persons desire explanation of the course we have pursued, we are not only most ready to answer their enquiries (either by verbal intercourse in private, or by means of a meeting called for that purpose) but it would also give us real joy to satisfy the minds of such.

(Signed) "GEORGE MULLER."

I pray brethren to ponder this letter. The glory of Christ may be assailed, and the foundations of the faith, as well as the moral integrity of the saints, be sapped and undermined; Bethesda stands quietly by, and assumes a neutral place. George Müller, Henry Craik, and others, are in their own estimation roughly and badly used; but there can be no neutrality as to that. Brethren propose to them a general meeting, as much to investigate their charges against J. N. Darby, G. V. Wigram, and others, as to investigate the charges these brethren made against Bethesda. They wish to screen none, to condemn none, but to hear all in each other's presence, and in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ; but no — Mr. Müller and his co-labourers will consent to nothing of the kind. They would admit to the Lord's Table the friends and partizans of those who had slandered the blessed Lord; but they will not meet for enquiry even with those who approve of the course pursued by brethren supposed to have slandered them. Surely this may safely be left for the judgment of the saints.

It only remains for me to notice two or three points much urged by those who object to a decided course of action in this solemn matter. It is often said that in declining fellowship with those who come from Bethesda in its present state, we treat them worse than we do Christians in the denominations generally. It has been asked again and again, whether we would not receive a godly clergyman remaining in the Church of England, where all indiscriminately are received to communion. I answer, unhesitatingly, yes, we should, as always, receive a brother in the Lord who is in the Establishment or among the Dissenters, without requiring him beforehand to separate from the body of which he is a member. But what has this to say to the case in hand? Does a clergyman's reception of unconverted people at the table of the Establishment accredit them to us as Christians? Not in the least. But is this the case with Bethesda? The profession is, that none but Christians are received there; and any one coming thence heretofore, has come fully accredited as a Christian. If, then, Bethesda admits those who are unsound in the faith, the result is, that all confidence is destroyed, and we should never know, in admitting persons thence, whether we were not receiving under the guise of a "dear brother or sister" an enemy of the faith, and a subverter of souls. This is the position in which Bethesda has placed itself; a position altogether unlike that of the Establishment, or of any evangelical Dissenting body. If I knew of a Dissenting congregation which, on principle, and to maintain a neutral place, received Socinians as well as Orthodox believers to communion, I should no more receive persons from that congregation than from Bethesda. I should have no confidence in their confessions of faith, however sound, till they had renounced their unholy association with the deniers of the Lord that bought them. And I regard Mr. Newton's doctrine as a more dangerous, because more insidious and artfully disguised heresy than Socinianism itself.

Men may subvert the faith without denying in terms the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. The Judaizing teachers in Galatia had not laid aside the name of Christ, or ceased to acknowledge Him in word as the Saviour. But they taught doctrines which, if true, made His death unnecessary and vain. And both Peter and Barnabas were for a little season drawn into the snare. But what said Paul of those subverters of the faith? "I would they were cut off that trouble you . . . . . Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." The assertion that "the resurrection is passed already " was not the denial in terms of what our faith rests upon; but it was the assertion of that which, if believed, took away from the soul the only resting place for faith. "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ is not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." Paul knew nothing of the false charity of the present day. He delivered Hymeneus to Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme. And though there may be no one in the present day to exercise discipline in that form, the obligation of saints to be separate from such blasphemy, and from all those who practise and allow it, is as solemn now as then. Indeed, separation from evil is not a question of power, but of obligation. A saint always has power to keep a clean conscience. It is not to a large and ordered church, but to "the elect Lady and her children " that John writes, "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

But are you not introducing a fresh test of communion, and so setting up a sect? is a question that is often asked. Let us look at Scripture for the answer. All must allow that in the earliest days of the church it was as Christians that God's people met together. They received one another as the Lord Jesus Christ had received them; to the glory of God the Father. But when Satan has sown his tares and they began to grow up, when grievous wolves had entered in, not sparing the sheep, and when from among themselves men had arisen speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them; when for instance, the doctrine was taught that "the resurrection was past already," and Paul had delivered the teachers of it to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme; was such an act of holy discipline setting up some new term of communion? Suppose a thousand people, and among them many Christians, had sympathized with those heretics and refused to renounce their fellowship, thereby taking sides with them against the Apostle and against the Holy Spirit by whose power the Apostle acted, can we suppose that such persons would have been received to communion by the Apostle, or by any who regarded the Apostles authority? And would the rejection of such be setting up any new term of communion? Did the beloved disciple set up a new term of communion in warning the elect Lady not to receive the false teachers of that day? Suppose some one who had received these deniers of the faith had come to the elect Lady and her children expecting to be received as before; and suppose she, feeble sister as she was, had said, meekly, but firmly — No: the Holy Ghost by the Apostle says that he who biddeth them God-speed is partaker of their evil deeds. You have received those enemies of the faith, and have thus become partakers of their evil deeds. You now stand in the same place as they do, I dare not receive you lest I become partaker with you of your and their evil deeds. Would such a testimony have been setting up some new term of communion? Multiply the receptions ad infinitum, the principle remains the same. Many a plea of ignorance and unguardedness may come in and have to be considered, and such pleas would be more admissible the further off the case was removed from the origin of the evil. But rejecting heretics and the receivers of them is not setting up any new term of communion; it was not in the Apostle's days, nor is it now.

If any ask then, Do you not meet as Christians, and if so, how can you think of refusing so many who are undoubtedly such? My answer is, Assuredly we meet as Christians, and it is because we do that we can receive none among us who either by their sentiments or their conduct undermine the foundations of Christianity.

I would not close this communication without expressing my deep and unfeigned sorrow that any necessity should have arisen for speaking as I have had to do of brethren at whose feet I feel unworthy to sit. With brethren Müller and Craik

I have never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance; but often have I had to thank God for the refreshment ministered to my soul through the writings of the one, and often have I been humbled at the thought of the faith and devotedness of both the one and the other. However, I may have had in faithfulness to our common Master and love to His sheep, to canvass the course pursued in this matter by these beloved brethren, and however sorrowful my impressions as to the line of conduct into which they have been betrayed, I know of no unkindly feeling towards them in my heart, much less could I think of despising their "grey hairs," or forget the injunction, "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder." But where God's glory and the honour of His Christ is the question at issue, all lesser considerations must stand aside. The Lord look upon us and pity us, and send us restoration and blessing, as, if He tarries, He assuredly will in His own time and way. May we have grace to bow to His hand who smites us in love! In patience may we possess our souls; and may the chastenings of His love work in us by the power of the Holy Ghost all that repentance, that vehement desire, that revenge upon ourselves, that will prove us at least clear in this matter. The Lord grant it, and send health and healing, for His blessed name's sake!

Ever, dear brother,

Affectionately yours,

W. TROTTER

To Thomas Grundy.

APPENDIX.

LETTER OF THE TEN

DEAR BRETHREN,

"Our brother, Mr. George Alexander, having printed and circulated a statement expressive of his reasons for withdrawing from visible fellowship with us at the table of the Lord: and these reasons being grounded on the fact that those who labour among you have not complied with his request relative to the judging of certain errors which have been taught at Plymouth; it becomes needful that those of us who have incurred any responsibility in this matter should lay before you a brief explanation of the way in which we have acted.

And first, it may be well to mention, that we had no intimation whatever of our brother's intention to act as he has done, nor any knowledge of his intention to circulate any letter, until it was put into our hands in print.

Some weeks ago, he expressed his determination to bring his views before a meeting of the body, and he was told that he was quite at liberty to do so. He afterwards declared that he would waive this, but never intimated, in the slightest way, his intention to act as he has done without first affording the church an opportunity of hearing his reasons for separation. Under these circumstances, we feel it of the deepest importance, for relieving the disquietude of mind naturally occasioned by our brother's letter, explicitly to state that the views relative to the person of our blessed Lord, held by those who for sixteen years have been occupied in teaching the word among you, are unchanged.

The truths relative to the divinity of His person  - the sinlessness of His nature — and the perfection of His sacrifice, which have been taught both in public teaching and in writing for these many years past, are, through the grace of God, those which we still maintain. We feel it most important to make this avowal, inasmuch as the letter referred to is calculated, we trust unintentionally, to convey a different impression to the minds of such as cherish a godly jealousy for the faith once delivered to the saints.

We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father was ever well pleased. We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except that which he endured as the surety for sinners — according to that Scripture, ' He was made a curse for us.' We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person; but maintain that while He suffered outwardly the trials connected with His being a man and an Israelite — still in His feelings and experiences, as well as in His external character. He was entirely 'separate from sinners.'

We now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complying with the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth.

1st. We considered from the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here — nor for the glory of God — that we, in Bristol, should get entangled in the controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that, because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we, as a body, are bound to investigate them.

2nd. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation of certain tracts issued at Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit us from thence, or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views of the writer alluded to could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own acknowledged writings. We did not feel that we should be warranted in taking our impression of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatise written by himself and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.

3rd. In regard to these writings, christian brethren, hitherto of unblemished reputation for soundness in the faith, have come to different conclusions as to the actual amount of error contained in them. The tracts some of us knew to be written in such an ambiguous style, that we greatly shrunk from the responsibility of giving any formal judgment on the matter.

4th. As approved brethren, in different places, have come to such different conclusions in reference to the amount of error contained in these tracts, we could neither desire nor expect that the saints here would be satisfied with the decision of one or two leading brethren. Those who felt desirous to satisfy their own minds, would naturally be led to wish to peruse the writings for themselves. For this, many among us have no leisure time; many would not be able to understand what the tracts contained, because of the mode of expression employed; and the result, there is much reason to fear, would be such perverse disputations and strifes of words, as minister questions rather than godly edifying.

5th. Even some of those who now condemn the tracts as containing doctrine essentially unsound, did not so understand them on the first perusal. Those of us who were specially requested to investigate and judge the errors contained in them, felt that, under such circumstances, there was but little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching the nature of the doctrines therein embodied.

6th. Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement, disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts.

7th. The requirements that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton's tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion. It was demanded of us that, in addition to a sound confession and a corresponding walk, we should, as a body, come to a formal decision about what many of us might be quite unable to understand.

8th. We remembered the word of the Lord, that 'the beginning of strife is as the letting out of water.' We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party. We judge that this controversy had been so carried on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire to be considered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord. At the same time we wish distinctly to be understood that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers, and consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus.

9th. We felt that the compliance with Mr. Alexander's request would be the introduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right to demand our examining a work of fifty Pages, he may require our investigating error said to be contained in one of much larger dimensions; so that all our time might be wasted in the examination of other people's errors, instead of more important service.

It only remains to notice the three reasons specially assigned by Mr. Alexander in justification of his course of action. To the first, viz., 'that by our not judging this matter, many of the Lord's people will be excluded from communion with us' — we reply, that unless our brethren can prove, either that error is held and taught amongst us, or that individuals are received into communion who ought not to be admitted, they can have no scriptural warrant for withdrawing from our fellowship. We would affectionately entreat such brethren as may be disposed to withdraw from communion for the reason assigned, to consider that, except they can prove allowed evil in life or doctrine, they cannot, without violating the principles on which we meet, treat us as if we had renounced the faith of the Gospel.

In reply to the second reason, viz., 'that persons may be received from Plymouth holding evil doctrines' — we are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matter was agitated, we have maintained that persons coming from thence — if suspected of any error — would be liable to be examined on the point; that in the case of one individual who had fallen under the suspicion of certain brethren amongst us, not only was there private intercourse with him relative to his views, as soon as it was known that he was objected to, but the individual referred to — known to some of us for several years as a consistent Christian — actually came to a meeting of labouring brethren for the very purpose that any question might be asked him by any brother who should have any difficulty on his mind. Mr. Alexander himself was the principal party in declining the presence of the brother referred to, on that occasion, such inquiry being no longer demanded, inasmuch as the difficulties relative to the views of the individual in question, had been removed by private intercourse. We leave Mr. Alexander to reconcile this fact, which he cannot have forgotten, with the assertion contained under his second special reason for withdrawing.

In regard to the third ground alleged by Mr. Alexander, viz., that by not judging the matter, we lie under the suspicion of supporting false doctrine, we have only to refer to the statement already made at the commencement of this paper.

In conclusion, we would seek to impress upon all present the evil of treating the subject of our Lord's humanity as a matter of speculative or angry controversy. One of those who have been ministering among you from the beginning, feels it a matter of deep thankfulness to God, that so long ago as in the year 1835,* he committed to writing, and subsequently printed, what he had learned from the Scriptures of truth relative to the meaning of that inspired declaration, 'The Word was made flesh.' He would affectionately refer any whose minds may be now disquieted, to what he then wrote, and was afterwards led to publish. If there be heresy in the simple statements contained in the letters alluded to, let it be pointed out; if not, let all who are interested in the matter know that we continue unto the present day, 'speaking the same things.' (Signed)

HENRY CRAIK, EDMUND FELTHAM, GEORGE MULLER, JOHN WITHY, JACOB HENRY HALE, SAMUEL BUTLER, CHARLES BROWN, JOHN MEREDITH, ELIJAH STANLEY, ROBERT AITCHISON."

*"Pastoral Letters " by H. Craik.

The above paper was read at meetings of brethren at Bethesda Chapel, on Thursday, June 29th, and on Monday, July 3rd, 1848.