'The Brethren': (commonly so-called)
A Brief Sketch of their Origin, Progress
and Testimony: Part Two – Andrew Miller

Such an exposure, as may easily be supposed, produced a great alarm among Brethren in all parts, and naturally brought a reply from Mr. Newton.

• Two pamphlets speedily appeared, in neither of which did he disclaim the doctrine asserted in the lecture thus reviewed, but stated it more at large, though in a less offensive form, and then defended and supported it.

• The doctrines of this lecture on Psalm 6 by Mr. Newton, and published in a tract entitled, 'The sufferings of Christ, as set forth in a lecture on Psalm 6, considered by J. L. Harris', are no doubt the most truthful expression we have of the author's mind.

• It was delivered in the presence of his friends, calmly and deliberately for the benefit of note-takers, so that we may fairly infer that the real sentiments of his soul flowed out freely without disguise and without reservation.

• But finding something like universal indignation excited by his blasphemous doctrines, and even his own friends ready to desert him, he agreed to withdraw his offensive tracts for reconsideration, and confessed he was in error on one point relating to Christ's connection with Adam as federal head.

Were it not that even this brief sketch might be considered incomplete if we did not say something of the heresy, we would gladly pass it over in profound and perpetual silence.

• We shrink from transferring to our pages the subtle and mystical expressions in which the deadly error was taught.

• The blessed Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us, was represented as born at a distance from God, involved in the guilt of the first Adam, because He was born of a woman, and under the curse of the broken law, because of His association with Israel.

Thus, alas! according to these doctrines, we are bereaved of the true Christ of God – the Christ of the New Testament. There is no need to enter into details.

• If born at a distance from God, under the curse, and an heir of death, He is utterly disqualified for becoming the Saviour of others. He had Himself to deliver from those relations in which He stood from His birth; and this, it is said, He did.

• It was admitted that He was free from taint in His person, and by His perfect obedience to the law and in all things even unto death, having delivered Himself, was owned of God and accepted by Him.

• But all this being due from Him to God, where is the sinner's substitute, the sinner's surety, the sinner's sacrifice, the sinner's gospel, the sinner's Saviour?

• And where are the doctrines of grace, and where is the church of the living God, and where are we individually? and what of the finished work of Christ, or what means the conqueror's cry – "It is finished"?

The folly of this theory is as glaring as its blasphemy, though characterised by the depths of Satan.

• In result it is as ruinous as Arianism or Socinianism, though less logical. It is self-contradictory and savours more of the author's vanity and love of distinction than of honest conviction.

• It had only to be brought in to the light to be seen and detected. This was the great mercy of God to Brethren and to the church at large: it was not allowed to go on.
  • For most assuredly, a false Christ was preached at Plymouth, and the presence of the Holy Ghost was denied.

• But, with the exception of a small party, chiefly Mr. Newton's personal friends, the great body of the Brethren were agreed, after due investigation and prayer, that the doctrines which Mr. Newton had been teaching and privately circulating, were fundamentally heretical, as to Christ, and utterly subversive of all that is essential to Christianity.

• The false doctrine was almost universally condemned; but they were not of one mind as to the principle of dealing with it and of separation from it.

In the year 1848, while Brethren from all parts were holding meetings in different places for prayer and humiliation because of the sad work of the enemy, the rulers of Bethesda received to the Lord's table several of Mr. Newton's devoted friends and partisans who were known to hold his heresy.

• This rash and most unhappy step on the part of these rulers, and their deliberate defence of it, proved most disastrous; it rent the Brethren asunder, entailed indescribable sorrow and trouble on individuals and families, many of which are not healed even unto this day, besides the great damage done to the cause of truth and dishonour to the name of the blessed Lord Jesus.

• This is the real source of all the strife, divisions, misrepresentations, heart-burnings, and evil surmisings, which many Brethren still feel, and which has put so many weapons in the hands of their enemies. Mr. Newton and his followers might have been easily disposed of; but the complication of Bethesda was hopeless.

• And this act, apparently so regardless of the christian feelings of others, was not the result of accident or of ignorance, but was done deliberately in spite of 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.

Seeing things had taken such a decided form, a few faithful brethren on the spot, members of the Bethesda meeting, protested, and entreated that such doctrine should be examined and judged, and its teachers put out of communion.

• But, their remonstrances being unheeded, they were obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to be evil, to withdraw from the communion at Bethesda. This they did; one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading Brethren, explanatory of his reasons for seceding.

• This brought forth a paper, signed by ten chief persons at Bethesda, vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. Newton's followers, and in rejecting all the warning and remonstrances which had been addressed to them.*
  [* 'The Present Question, 1848-9', by G. V. Wigram. The paper is given at full length in this tract, thoroughly examined and commented upon.]

As the question of fellowship was first raised at Bristol, and from thence extended to almost every place on the face of the earth where there happens to be an assembly of Brethren, it may be well to look for a moment at the antecedents of this meeting.

• It was simply what is known as a Baptist congregation, presided over by Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, and meeting for worship in a chapel called 'Bethesda' in Bristol. Some years previous to this testing time, this entire congregation was received into fellowship with Brethren – received as a body.

  "The whole assembly", says Mr. Mackintosh, "professedly and ostensibly, took the ground occupied by Brethren. I do not mention names or descend into minute details; I merely give the great leading fact, because it illustrates a most important principle. "It has been my conviction for many years, that this reception of a congregation was a fatal mistake on the part of Brethren. Even admitting, as I most heartily do, that all the members and ministers may have been most excellent people taken individually; yet I am persuaded that it is a mistake in any case to receive a whole body as such. There is no such thing as a corporate conscience. Conscience is an individual thing; and, unless we act individually before God, there will be no stability in our course. A whole body of people, led by their teachers, may profess to take certain ground, and to adopt certain principles; but what security is there that each member of that body is acting in the energy of personal faith, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and on the authority of the word of God? It is of the very last importance that, in every step we take, we should act in simple faith, in communion with God, and with an exercised conscience … "The fact is, Bethesda ought never to have been acknowledged as an assembly gathered on divine ground; and this is proved by the fact that, when called to act on the truth of the unity of the body, it completely broke down".* * 'Things New and Old', 18: 318.

• While the signers of the letter, severally and jointly, disclaimed the doctrines taught by Mr. Newton, they strangely say, with reference to communion,

• "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".

• The only ground of rejection is thus plainly stated "That no one defending, maintaining or upholding Mr. Newton's views or tracts, should be received into communion".

Such was the ground taken by the most intelligent men in Bethesda, according to this remarkable document, and that before the error in question had been judged. They refused to judge it.

• "What", they said, "have we at Bristol to do with errors taught at Plymouth?" Nor would they agree to any extracts being read to the congregation from Mr. Newton's writings, or remarks made on his doctrines, until the letter had been adopted by the church.

• A meeting of the church was called for this purpose in July, 1848; but, as some of the members objected to the congregation sanctioning a paper which had not been explained and was not understood, Mr. Müller rose and said,

• "The first thing the church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that if this were not done, they could not continue to labour among them; and the worse the errors were, the more reason they should not be brought out".

• Thus were the people required, under pain of losing the labours of their pastors, to assume a position of neutrality between the author of the tracts and his adherents, and those who utterly rejected them as unsound and heretical.

• The majority acquiesced: by standing up they declared their approbation of this paper of 'the ten', and assumed a neutral position as to the great question which then agitated the minds of all Brethren both at home and abroad.

About fifty or sixty of the congregation, rather than sanction such a loose principle of communion, withdrew from Bethesda. A positive division now existed.

• The question was now fairly raised as to whether Brethren were really gathered on the ground of the unity of the church, or merely as independent congregations. Bethesda had deliberately given up the ground she professedly occupied in fellowship with Brethren, had adopted independence, and openly avowed it.

• All who adhered to the principle of the "one body", as the only true ground of christian fellowship, were directly opposed to it. Several meetings throughout the country followed the example of Bethesda, while others firmly maintained the position they had previously occupied.

• Brethren everywhere had now to face the question. It had to be looked at straight in the face. The testing, time was come, and there was no backing out of it. To all who had not taken in the true idea of the church of God, it proved a terrible stumbling-block. Personal feelings, and affection for favourite teachers and friends, misled numbers.

• In many instances the abstract question was listened to and seemed right; but the moment the principle was applied to some particular person, the arguments were set aside by the hasty conclusion, 'Oh! that principle of fellowship can never be right that would exclude such a dear godly man from the table'.

• It was difficult, with feelings so fresh and strong, to take an unprejudiced view of the question: unless the soul was delivered from persons and their influence, and steadily fixed on Christ alone and on what is due to Him, no divine decision could be reached.

• When things merely natural were allowed to operate, the spiritual vision became clouded, the mind more perplexed than ever, and most likely yielded to the pressure of circumstances.

As it was then, so it is now. When we think of what is due to persons, we come to a wrong conclusion.

• When we think only of what is due to Christ, all is clear and simple as the elements of truth itself.

• When the blessed Lord takes His place in the church of Philadelphia, He reveals Himself in the character which is to form the standard of reception to the table and of the public walk of those received. He says, "I am he that is holy, he that is true". What could be more simple than this?

• Christ is there in His moral glory as the Holy One and the True; and we must look for more than intelligence – or cleverness in answering questions; we must look for holiness and truth in those whom we receive to the Lord's table.

• Nothing short of separation from all known evil, and soundness in the faith will suit His presence. We have ever to remember that He says, "there am I".

At first sight, and to many minds, it does seem more gracious, more loving, to receive to the table those that we believe to be true Christians though they come from an assembly where some of the members hold false doctrine, while they themselves are sound.

• Is it right, such will say, to cut off a whole meeting because of two or three unsound members? The answer is, None should be cut off but 'wicked persons'; but the scripture also says,
  • "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity".

• This is not cutting people off, but departing from them; having nothing to say to them so long as they are mixed up with iniquity. Surely the heresy of Mr. Newton is iniquity; it would leave us without Christ, the only foundation and centre of union. It is worthless to talk of communion at all unless we have the true Christ of God.

• But let such true Christians as you refer to judge themselves of the known evil in God's sight, wash their hands completely of the defilement, and then they will be received with open heart and arms to the table of the Lord.

• Our first thought in reference to the table must always be, not what suits this brother or that brother, or what seems more loving and charitable, but what suits Christ as the Holy One and the True. When the eye is single, the whole body is full of light; there is no darkness or perplexity in the path.

It is also said, we know, that the Exclusive Brethren – as the protesters against Bethesda's course were now called – will receive persons to the Lord's table from the church of England where much error is held, but refuse the most godly saint from a Bethesda gathering.

As the pressure from without became greater, and Bethesda began to discover that her conduct had stumbled thousands of God's saints, and was giving occasion to so much division and controversy, a meeting was held in that chapel, October, 1848, for the purpose of clearing the assembly of all charges of fellowship with Mr. Newton's false doctrines or the holders of them.

Having made these charges the Brethren could not consistently receive to the Lord's table from the Bethesda gatherings without being satisfied as to repentance on these points.

• But much grace and compassion are needed in dealing with such applications now, as many are honestly ignorant of what took place thirty years ago. The paper of 'The Ten', however, on which the charges were founded, has never been withdrawn.

• Hard terms were used on both sides; but the designation, 'The Brethren', justly and only belongs to those who remained faithful to their principles, or rather, who maintained the truth of God, as they had hitherto preached and published it, at all cost.

• Still, the cry of exclusivism was raised against them. While this term was no doubt meant as one of reproach, and intended, or used, to frighten the timid, as it is to this day, it is unquestionably in accordance with the word of God.

• In 1 Corinthians 5 we learn that the assembly must be exclusive if it would maintain a wholesome discipline, and keep the house of God clean enough for His presence.

• Surely the church is solemnly responsible to judge the doctrine and ways of all who present themselves for communion, and to refuse those who would bring evil into the assembly; and to put away those who have fallen into error or immorality, though their faith in Christ may not be doubted. This is exclusivism.

This was the principle on which the Brethren acted from the beginning; so that they were not more exclusive after the division than before it. The change was all on the other side.

• The new motto on the standard of the Open Brethren was, 'The blood of the Lamb is the union of the saints'.

• Certainly there could be no union without the precious blood of God's spotless Lamb, but scripture teaches that the blood is the ground of peace, not the centre of union:
  • the roasted Lamb, the Christ that had passed through the holy fire of divine justice for us, now risen and glorified, is the centre of union. Exodus 12.

• And are there not many who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb that are unfit for the Lord's table from their evil associations and ways?

• But were this motto to be thoroughly carried out, then, on no ground, and for no reason whatsoever, could anyone be excluded from the Lord's table who is believed to be a child of God and washed in the blood of Christ.

• Discipline would be at an end, and, as it was in Israel when there was no king, every man doing that which was right in his own eyes.

• Because of this wide and open door to the Lord's table, the Bethesda gatherings have been called 'The Open Brethren'. So that for the sake of distinction, and to give the least possible offence, we will adhere to the terms, 'The Brethren', and 'The Open Brethren'.

From this time the path of each has been perfectly distinct and widely apart.

• The Open Brethren have fraternised with the denominations and in many things come so near to them that they have escaped persecution. Indeed the bitterest attacks against the Brethren have come from them, so that in this they are one with the denominations, and have helped them on in their opposition.

• Comparatively little in the way of a written testimony has issued from the press of the Open Brethren; but, thank God, they have been zealous in the work of the gospel; and by this means many of their meetings have been increased by simple believers who know nothing of the past troubles, or the present ground of fellowship.

• May their hearts in simplicity be nourished with Christ and with the truth as it is in Him!

But while the division seems to have silenced nearly all spiritual testimony from one side of Brethren, it increased the ministry of the other tenfold.

• Their books and tracts on the most important and vital truths of scripture were widely spread over this country, and indeed, over all Christendom, carrying divine light and blessing to thousands of precious souls.

• It was also observed that there was more clearness, fulness, and definiteness in their teaching after the division than before it, especially as to the heavenly relations of the church, the union of Christians with Christ in the glory, the rapture of the saints before the tribulation, etc.,
  • for although the Brethren may have held all these truths in principle, they had never been preached with the same freshness and power as now.

The effect of this testimony was felt everywhere. Many earnest Christians in various places, feeling the dead state of things around them, were led to read these books and to search the scriptures as to whether the new doctrines were in accordance with the word of God.

• Numbers were convinced of their soundness, left their different denominations, and united with the Brethren. And as it was generally the most spiritual, earnest, and intelligent members who did so, their secession was the more conspicuous, and the more irritating to their ministers.

• This has been the real source of so many bitter attacks against the Brethren from that day even until now. They were publicly denounced from the pulpit as a most dangerous people, and as holding and teaching the most erroneous doctrines.

• Pamphlets were also written and widely circulated in which the Brethren are grossly misrepresented. These we have before us, and they speak for themselves. It is quite evident in calmly reading these attacks, that they were written in haste, in anger, and without due information on the subjects which are referred to.

• Nearly all that we have seen are most incorrect as to mere dates and facts, and even as to persons and authors. What should we think of an historian who attributed the 'Babylonish Captivity' by Luther to the pen of Melancthon, or the sermons of John Wesley to George Whitfield?

• And we have read a lengthy paragraph in one of these attacks, exposing a well-known preacher of the gospel to the ridicule of the truly orthodox, on account of the way he conducted his meetings, supposing him to belong to the Brethren: whereas he is a member of the Church of England, and never even occasionally broke bread with the Brethren.

But all these mistakes are of very little consequence, provided the Brethren are thoroughly abused, and the people prevented from going to hear them.

• The ministers were alarmed. An interest in the truth had been awakened, which they could not meet:
  • rest of soul was found with Brethren, not because they were better than others, but because the Holy Ghost was owned as working sovereignly in their midst;

• members dropped off from the old congregations, and Brethren's meetings sprang up in their immediate neighbourhood.

To all who are in any measure acquainted with the Brethren, such pamphlets and books, and similar articles in magazines, have no weight whatever.

• To designate a respectable community of Christians living amongst us by the most unseemly names – such as we should be ashamed to repeat here – to heap upon them unmeasured abuse, and to denounce them as the worst of heretics,
  • can have no moral weight with any unprejudiced mind, and generally defeats its own object by awakening a spirit of inquiry and increasing the number of seceders.

• And we know that all such unworthy efforts to arrest inquiry have utterly failed, from the steady and marvellous increase of Brethren in nearly all parts of the world. The work is of God and vain is man's puny arm stretched out against it.

• It is His own special testimony in these last and evil days notwithstanding the failure of those who carry it; and we deeply grieve for Christians who speak against it, knowing certainly thereby that they do not understand it, and are not in the enjoyment of it.

But amongst the many assailants of Brethren during the last thirty years, there have no doubt been some who were honest in their convictions and earnestly contended for what they believed to be the truth of God.

• We refer to those who have disputed with Brethren on such subjects as an ordained ministry, on what is the church, on the Holy Ghost in the assembly as distinct from being in the individual Christian;
  • whether there is a first and a second resurrection with a judgment of the quick and the dead, or only one general resurrection and one general judgment;

  • whether as Christians we are under the law as a rule of life; the nature and object of the law; and the difference between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of God.

• On all these subjects the Brethren have met their opponents in the most fair and scriptural way. And no one can read their writings with a desire to know the mind of God without being deeply edified.*

  [* Most of the tracts in question may still be had. Many of them will be found in the Collected Writings of J.N.D.]

Another accusation which has often been brought against Brethren is their want of zeal for the conversion of sinners. This charge may be brought against any community of Christians if we estimate their zeal by the Saviour's love and the value of immortal souls.

• But we cannot admit that they are at all behind other Christians in this blessed work. They have been spoken of from an early period as open-air preachers, when that practice was more rare than now.

• We have heard of their preaching on the race-course, and near the grand stand, and in fairs, and markets, in streets, lanes, and courtyards, or wherever they could reach the people.

• But the charge has generally been made by those who know nothing of the operations of Brethren, except that some of their members had left and united with them.

• It might be well for Brethren, however, to accept the reproof, and seek to be still more zealous for the salvation of precious souls.

For several years after the division, the Brethren seem to have been more occupied with practical truth for Christians than with the gospel for lost souls outside. This, we believe, was of God. Like the apostle who

Mr. Marsden, incumbent of St. Peter's, Birmingham, in his 'Dictionary of Christian Churches and Sects', says, of the Brethren,

"The influence which the Plymouth Brethren undoubtedly possess upon English Christianity, is to be ascribed rather to their position in society, their zeal and earnestness, than to their numbers. Still, their principles are adopted by a considerable body of our countrymen in India and the Colonies, and we believe they have made some progress in America.* [* This article was written not later than 1854.] "There is some difficulty in laying before the reader in a simple form the principles of this body. It puts forth no standards of faith, nor publishes any forms of worship or discipline. It professes to practise Christianity as Christianity was taught by the Lord and the apostles in the New Testament. It regards all churches as either corrupt in practice, or partial and exclusive. The tracts, which are issued in great numbers by the Brethren, are either of a practical nature, or they consist mainly of attacks upon the constitution and church government of other bodies … Professing neither to teach nor practise anything but the religion of the gospel in its primitive simplicity and purity, their aim is, naturally, to show that other churches are more or less in error, trusting chiefly for the defence of their own peculiarities to the letter of the New Testament. "The Brethren equally object to the national church, and to all forms of dissent. Of national churches one and all of them, they say, 'that the opening of the door to receive the whole population of a country into the most solemn acts of worship and christian fellowship, is a latitudinarian error. Dissenters, on the other hand, are sectarian, because they close the door on real Christians who cannot utter the Shibboleth of their party. In a word, the characteristic evil of the latter is, that they do not treat as Christians many who are known to be such, whereas the equally characteristic evil of the former is, that they do treat as Christians many who are known not to be such at all'. The one system, they affirm, makes the church wider, the other narrower than God's limits; thus, in either way, the proper scriptural idea of the church is practically destroyed, dissent virtually affirming that it is not one body but many, while nationalism virtually affirms that this one body is the body of Christ. Scripture, say the Brethren, never prescribes a human commission as necessary for the christian minister. Doctrine, not ordination, is the divine test of rejecting or receiving those who profess to be ministers of Christ: and every christian man who can do so is not only at liberty, but is bound to preach the gospel. The parable of the talents, in Matthew 25, teaches the danger of waiting for other warrant than the possession of the necessary gift; 'and to doubt the grace of the Master, or to fear because one has not the authentication of those who presumptuously claim and trifle with this right is to bury his talent in the earth, and to act the part of the wicked and slothful servant.' For the Lord of the harvest alone has the title to send forth labourers. "We have only to add that the doctrines held by the Plymouth Brethren agree in all essentials with the Church of England and other churches of the Reformation. Their worship is conducted in the simplest manner. Circumstances apart, any brother is competent to baptise or to 'break the bread', that is, administer the Lord's supper. They deny, however, that all Christians are ministers of the word, or that they undervalue a christian ministry. 'So far', say they, 'from supposing there is no such thing as ministry, Brethren hold, and have always held, from Ephesians 4: 12-13, that Christ cannot fail to maintain and perpetuate a ministry so long as His body is here below'. Their printed books and tracts, their teachings in private and in public affirm this as a certain settled truth; insomuch that it is as absurd to charge them with denying the permanent and divine place of ministry in the church on earth, as it would be to charge Charles I with denying the divine right of kings. Wherever it has pleased God to raise up pastors after His own heart, they gladly, thankfully own His grace, and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. "We infer, that a minister is received as such when the Brethren are satisfied of his fitness for the office; but that he then obtains no other distinction or authority than that of a teacher or exhorter. It has been recently said that they neither pray for the pardon of sin, nor for the presence and influence of the Spirit, and carefully exclude such petitions from their hymns; but this statement, which we transcribe from a recent account of 'Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century,' is extremely unjust. It is only true, so far as this: the Brethren, regarding themselves as, in theological language, in a state of grace, do not ask for blessings they have already received, but rather for an increase of the gifts of which they have already a portion".

The reader will do well to put himself in possession of a tract, entitled, 'One Body and one Spirit', by W.K. It is from this paper that Mr. Marsden has gathered all his thoughts and information respecting the Brethren.

• And though we may not agree with all he says in the article as a whole, we cannot fail to notice the great contrast between his account of the Brethren, and the false statements and envenomed style which have characterised the papers of his brethren in the Establishment, but more especially of dissenters.

• It stands as a witness against them all, and as a testimony to the fairness, candour, and sobriety of Mr. Marsden as an ecclesiastical writer.

We marvel at men of education and high status in society, yea the ministers of the meek and lowly Jesus, hazarding their own reputation and the honour of Him of whom they are the professed ambassadors,

• by an unrelenting persecution of their Brethren in Christ for a difference of judgment! May we not forget the divine exhortation,
  • "Let brotherly love continue" and,

  • "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth", Hebrews 13: 1; Romans 14: 4.

• If the judgment of Brethren be sound and scriptural, where is the discernment, where the love of their adversaries?

We will now glance at an article on "Plymouth Brethrenism", in The Southern Review, Baltimore, by the editor, Dr. Bledsoe, an Episcopalian Methodist.

"The Society, or Order of Christian Men", he says, "usually styled the Plymouth Brethren, has already, and almost without observation, spread over the face of the civilised world. It seems, in fact, to have stolen a march on Christendom, and must now, whether for good or for evil, be acknowledged as a power in the present awful crisis in the world's history, or tremendous conflict between the powers of light and of darkness. That it is felt to be such a power, is evident from the fact of the controversy about Plymouth Brethren coming up all over the Protestant world just now, and by the innumerable articles, pamphlets, and volumes which this wide spread controversy has called forth. We have placed at the head of this article only three references to the literature connected with the controversy; but, if we had so chosen, we might easily have embraced in our list the titles of more than a hundred volumes of the same literature. Meagre as it is, however, it is sufficient to answer our present purpose; which is merely to discuss the following question: Who are the Plymouth Brethren? and what is the character of their theology and religion? … "It is the duty, as it has seemed to us, of every watchman on the watch-towers of Zion, to qualify himself to return true answers to these questions. We have endeavoured to discharge this duty as honestly as possible, by going to the fountain-head for information, instead of catching up and repeating, as so many have done, the hasty, unfair, and false assertions of unscrupulous sectarians. While engaged in this study, we have encountered many statements, even in religious journals, which, for unscrupulous and reckless mendacity, can vie with the most shameless assertions of a corrupt secular and partisan press. This has filled us with an inexpressible sadness; for alas! what chance has justice in this little world of ours, when our religions guides and teachers can so far forget the sacred claims of truth, as to allow carelessness, or indifference, or prejudice, or malignity, to preside over the formation and publication of their opinions?"

In speaking of the rashness of Brethren's critics, he discusses at some length a most unfortunate mistake which was made by Dr. Dabney of the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia; and as it illustrates the mistakes of the Brethren's reviewers in general, we will briefly notice it.

Dr. Dabney supposing that a periodical, published in New York, and entitled, 'Waymarks in the Wilderness', was conducted by a Plymouth brother, and its papers supplied by his brethren, wrote what was called at the time a most powerful article against "The theology of the Brethren".

• It appeared in The Southern Presbyterian Review, for July, 1872. It is characterised as "bitter and hasty", and by "his well-known ability in hurling fierce polemics against books of which he knows next to nothing".

• He speaks of Mr. James Inglis, the editor of Waymarks, as "the chief doctrinal representative of the Brethren in the United States". The calm and meek reply, of Mr. Inglis, who was a well-known Baptist minister, ought to have covered the doctor with shame – shame for his utter carelessness, to say nothing of his groundless malice.

• "In the personalities of the Review", says Mr. Inglis, "there are mistakes which are the result of misinformation regarding the editor of Waymarks … But in justice to our contributors on the one hand, and to the Plymouth Brethren on the other, it is proper to say that no one connected with that sect ever wrote a line for our pages.

• "Our contributors are chiefly pastors of our Reformed Churches; most of them well known, though they do not claim consideration for what they write on ecclesiastical grounds".

Dr. Dabney, it appears, had never read the writings of the Brethren, but having read 'Waymarks in the Wilderness', and

• "taking it for granted that it was the organ of the Brethren, he gives them the benefit of his most particular thunder.

• "But, as it turns out, all this hot and heavy thunder of his falls, not on the Brethren at all, but only on the very pastors of our Reformed Churches, in whose defence he entered upon his crusade against the Brethren.

• "It falls, in other words, not on the adversaries whom he had marked for destruction, but upon the very friends he had undertaken to defend against these adversaries".

We will only notice Dr. Dabney's accusations against the theology of the Brethren, as it calls forth a just remark from the editor of the Review, and a most edifying extract from one of the Brethren's books on the subject.

• It is difficult, we confess, to account for the head of a theological seminary of the present day publicly asserting that "the teaching of the Brethren depreciates the dispensation of the Holy Ghost"

• Dr. Bledsoe affirms that all who have read their books must know that, "their appreciation of the Holy Spirit's presence, power, and guidance, is the grand and distinctive peculiarity of their theology, whereas, it is the peculiar deficiency in the teaching of all our theological seminaries, as well as in the theological literature of the christian world".

The following impeachment of that literature, by Mr. Kelly, appears to us as true as it is terrible, as sad as it is solemn. He says:

"This at once leads me to feel how solemn is the sight which everywhere meets our eyes in Christendom. If there be one truth more than another that has been abandoned, it is the personal presence of the Holy Ghost. There is no adequate testimony to it whatever; and this is not said unadvisedly. I say it not merely of that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth, but of smaller cities which kings have built for themselves to reign over, or those yet smaller cities their subjects love to reign over as rivals and an improvement on both. I say it of the Protestant bodies, no matter what, no matter where, national or dissenting. It is a remarkable fact, that if you look at their confessions of faith, many of which were drawn up when men, no doubt, were far more simple and thorough-going than they are now – at the time of the Reformation, or at any subsequent great crisis – if there be any truth more especially absent from every one of these confessions that has come under my own observation, it is the testimony to this truth. You will find other truths; the necessity of being born again, the value of the work of Christ, the glory of His person as God and Man. Not that they deny that the Holy Ghost is a divine person – surely they do not. But I am not speaking of His personality, or deity either, but of His personal mission to the earth, and of His presence now with Christians both individually and collectively – the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Is it to be found anywhere acted on or confessed? Where is it set forth? I have never met with any approach to it even in my reading; and of course I do not wish to give anyone the impression that I have not read a good deal upon the subject. I have searched diligently for it, and I have desired to learn what is really held by Christians universally; but never, in any one confession, creed, article of faith, or rule, have I discovered the smallest expression of that which is evidently the great characteristic truth of Christianity – that truth which ought to be continually sounding out, and continually in practice within the church. Is it not, then, a solemn consideration, that this, the glory of the Christian, the strength of the church of God, and the essential privilege for which it was expedient that even Christ should go away, is never attested in any one system of Christendom known to us?"* [* 'Lectures on The New Testament Doctrine of the Holy Spirit', pages 97-99. See also Mr. Darby's work on 'The Operations of the Spirit', one of his early books which has been greatly blessed to many.]

In this way the editor of the Review exposes several of the unfair critics of the Brethren.

• He gives his own independent judgment, having read their books, and then quotes from them in refutation of the false assertions made against their authors.

• But of all such writers, he speaks most strongly and severely of Dr. Reid, a Presbyterian minister in Edinburgh.

"There is a class of critics", he says, "who have examined, more or less extensively, the voluminous literature of the Brethren, but not with a view to form a fair and just estimate of its value, or of the theology therein set forth. The worst of this class have, indeed, searched their writings only to draw thence, by means of great perversions and misrepresentations, the weapons of their destruction. At the head of this class of venomous critics Dr. Reid deserves to be placed; for no one, perhaps, who has ever pretended to write an account of a religious society, has exhibited greater unfairness, or perpetrated greater injustice, than has this learned doctor of divinity in his attack on the Plymouth Brethren. His work is entitled 'Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted', but it is, in fact, Plymouth Brethrenism veiled in misrepresentation, as gross as pestilential damps and dark as night, and then beaten with his theological club. We know of nothing worse of the same kind connected with the early history of Methodism".

Several pages are occupied with the discussion of Dr. Reid's charges against the Brethren, but it would be out of our line to follow them.

• We would only add, that, having read the book when it appeared, we then thought that the doctor could have taken no pains to look into the Brethren's books before he wrote his own.

• We were deeply grieved to see such gross misrepresentations published by a christian minister against his Brethren in Christ whom he had never seen.

• We were also disposed to think it had been written hastily, without proper information, under strong prejudices, but with a measure of honest conviction that the Brethren were not safe religious guides; therefore he felt that it was his duty to raise his warning voice and acquaint his people with the dangerous character of their new neighbours.

But such productions, generally speaking, defeat their intended object; and none ever more so than Dr. Reid's.

• Brethren's meetings have sprung up in Scotland, "like the grass, and as willows by the water-courses".

• Twenty years ago there were only two or three small meetings in private houses, and now there are something like eighty; and nowhere throughout the country has the Spirit of God been more manifestly at work than in the immediate neighbourhood of Dr. Reid's congregation.

• Many have been gathered out from the world by the preaching of the gospel in-doors and out-doors, and not a few have been emancipated from the bondage of a legal system.

Notwithstanding the decided opposition of most of the denominations to what they call "lay" preaching, the Brethren have advocated the practice from the first, and nobly set the example to the blessing of many souls and their own rapid increase.

• A curious distinction is made by some between speaking and preaching out of the church. According to scripture, we speak in the church, and preach out of it.

• An actual instance of this distinction came before the writer many years ago, when a member of a large Presbyterian church, a young man who had been appointed a scripture reader in a low part of the city, was expected to visit from house to house, read the word, and speak to the people as he had opportunity.

• But on some occasions he found it convenient to collect a few of the neighbours into one kitchen, and address them standing. He was reported to the managers of the church as assuming the functions of a preacher.

• When brought before them he was rebuked and warned not to repeat the like again as it was out of order; 'your place is to speak to the people not to preach to them'. Our spiritual instincts, we well remember, were greatly offended with this decision, and we felt that it was the kirk session that was out of order and not the young man.

"The question is not", says Mr. Darby, "whether all laymen are individually qualified; but, whether as laymen they are disqualified, unless they are what is commonly called ordained … But I confine myself to a simple question – the assertion that laymen ought not to preach without episcopal or other analogous appointment. My assertion is, that they are entitled; that they did so in scripture – were justified in doing so, God blessing them therein; and that the principles of scripture require it, assuming, of course, here, that they are qualified of God; for the question is not competency to act, but title to act if competent. "Let us see what scripture says upon the subject. The question can only arise as to their speaking in the church or out of the church. This admitted, all anomalous cases will readily be agreed in. And first, in the church. And here I remark that the directions in 1 Corinthians 14 are entirely inconsistent with the necessity of ordination to speak. There is a line drawn there, but it is not 'if ordained or unordained'. "Let your women keep silence in the churches" – a direction which never could have had place, were the speaking confined to a definitely ordained person, but takes quite another ground; and which implies directly, not that it is right for every man to speak, but that there was preclusion of none because of their character as laymen. Women were the precluded class; there the line was drawn. If men had not the gift of speaking of course they would be silent, if they followed the directions there given. The apostle says, 'Every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation'. Does he say none ought to speak but one ordained? No; let all things be done unto edifying! that is the grand secret, the grand rule … "We have then a distinction, not of ordained and unordained, but of those who from their character – women – are not permitted to speak, and the rest are; and directed in what order to do so, and the ground of distinction stated. And this is God's plan of decency and order. For the rest they were all to speak, that all might learn, and all be comforted; not all to speak at once, not all to speak every day, but all as God led them, according to the order there laid down, and as God was pleased to give them ability, for the edifying of the church. I apply all this simply and exclusively to lay preaching; and I assert that there was no such principle recognised as that they should not, but the contrary. "It will be said, I know, that these were the times of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit … But the case was not one of the prerogative of spiritual gifts, but of order; for women had spiritual gifts, as we read elsewhere, and directions are given for their exercise; but they were not to use them in the church, because it was out of order – not comely. "The first general preaching of the gospel, which the Lord blessed beyond the walls of Jerusalem, was by laymen; or, however, the church knew no such distinction. It had not entered into their minds then, that they who knew the glory of Christ were not to speak of it, where and how God enabled them. There all the Christians preached – they went everywhere preaching the word. Acts 8: 4. And 'the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord'. Paul preached – without any other mission than seeing the glory of the Lord and His word – in a synagogue, too, and boasts of it. And he gives his reasons for Christians preaching elsewhere – 'as it is written; I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe and therefore speak'. Apollos preached, knowing only the baptism of John. At Rome many of the brethren, waxing bold by Paul's bonds, preached the word without fear. Nor is there such a thing mentioned in scripture as ordaining to preach the gospel. I call upon any one to produce any scripture positively, or on principle, forbidding laymen to preach, or requiring episcopal or other analogous ordination for the purpose … "The times call for decision; and the only thing which will withstand evil and error is truth, and truth wielded as a common cause against error and self-will by the saints under the Spirit; and then God can be wholly with them, instead of being obliged to withdraw His countenance from them when they are opposed to their brethren and rejecting them, when He must justify them, when it is the order of His glory, and all their blessing to do so. May He by His Spirit guide us into all truth!"* [*The Collected Writings, Ecclesiastical, vol. 1, of J.N.D.]

Much of the bitterness which the clergy have manifested towards the Brethren has sprung from the question of ordination.

• It is the great pillar on which the whole system of clericalism rests; therefore, it must be jealously guarded. Do away with ordination and the clergy become as other men. Then they could only rise to their own moral level.

• But there is a charm in the fiat of ordination which gives them to feel that they are a different caste, that they are superior to all other men. They must not be spoken to, questioned, or dictated to as other men are. Their dignity must be maintained at all cost.

• And so real is this charm over the human heart that it rarely loses its effects even after the office is given up as unscriptural. The gown, it has been said, may be rolled up and put into the pocket, but some corner of it is often visible.

The question is a vital one as it deeply affects the operations of the Spirit, the sovereignty of God, and the ministry of the word, which is the food and refreshment of the divine life in the soul.

• To insist on a certain ceremony through which a man must pass before he can be recognised as properly a minister of Christ, is the crowning sin of Christendom. It places human authority above the call and gifts of the ascended Lord and Head of the church.

"If a man possessed all the gifts of the apostle Paul himself, he dared not teach or preach Jesus Christ, unless he were licensed or authorised by man; whereas, on the contrary, though destitute altogether of spiritual gifts, nay, even of spiritual life itself, yet, if authorised, ordained, licensed or approved by man, he might teach and preach in that which professed to be the church of God. Man's authority, without Christ's gift, was quite sufficient. Christ's gift without man's authority was not".* [* 'Things New and Old', 18: 262, C.H.M.]

Surely we cannot, as Christians, be too deeply impressed with the importance of the servant's individual responsibility to the Master Himself.

• It must be a very serious thing for a servant of the Lord who has been entrusted by Him with the gift of preaching or teaching if he refrain from exercising that gift until he be authorised to do so by man. We nowhere read in scripture that such gifts ever needed man's sanction.

• May the Lord awaken His people more generally to their responsibility in this matter, lest they should hide their talent in the earth during His absence, and have a sorry account to give of their trading at His return.

The apostle Paul, who is in many things the model man of the christian dispensation, is especially so in the matter of ordination.

• There were those in his day who sought to discredit his apostleship because he had not been with the Lord Jesus when He was down here. This leads him to vindicate his divine call without human appointment in the most energetic way. Writing to the Galatians, he says,
  • "'Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead".

• It was not of men as a source, nor by man as a medium in any way, "but by Jesus Christ and God the Father".

"Nothing could have been more easy than for God to have converted the apostle in Jerusalem; it was there that his first violence against the Christians broke out. But when God met Him, he was away from Jerusalem, carrying on his hot persecution of the saints; and there, outside Damascus, in broad daylight, the Lord from heaven, unseen by others, reveals Himself to the astonished Saul of Tarsus. He was called not only a saint, but an apostle; and to make it the more striking, when he was baptised, whom did the Lord choose to make the instrument of his baptism? A disciple who is only this once brought before us as a godly old man, residing at Damascus. God took special care to show that the apostle, appointed to a signally important place, the most momentous function of any man that ever was called to serve the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel – that Paul was thus called without the intervention, authorisation, or recognition of man in any shape or form. His baptism had nothing to do with his being an apostle. He immediately goes into Arabia, he preaches the gospel, and God at once owns him as Christ's minister in the gospel, without any human interference. Such, indeed, is the true principle of ministry, fully illustrated in the call and work of Saul of Tarsus, henceforth the bondman of Christ. "It may be objected, however, by some that we do read of human setting aside and laying on of hands in the New Testament. We own it fully. But in some cases it is a person who had already shown qualifications for the work, set apart in a formal manner by apostolic authority to a local charge, and clothed, with a certain dignity in the eyes of the saints, perhaps because there was not much gift. For the elder, it will be observed, is not said to be a 'teacher,' but simply 'apt to teach'. In Acts 14: 23 we read, 'And when they had ordained elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed'. This proves not that the church, but that they – Paul and Barnabas – chose and ordained the elders. It seems that an apostle, or an apostolic delegate, was the only one who chose or appointed elders in the churches. In no case is the church invited to select them. The fact is, people confound eldership with ministry. Elders were appointed by those who themselves had a higher authority direct from Christ; but there never was such a thing as ordaining a man to preach the gospel. In scripture, the Lord, and the Lord only, calls men to preach the gospel. As He says, 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit'. And of Paul he says, 'He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel', John 15: 16; Acts 9: 15. "In apostolic days there never was such a thing as a person appointed a teacher any more than a prophet. But among the elders there might be, some of them, evangelists, teachers, etc. Therefore it is said, 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine'. The presbyters, or elders, whose business it was to rule, even if they were not teachers, were in danger of being despised. They were to be honoured as a class, and especially they who laboured in the word and doctrine. The case of Timothy is, no doubt, peculiar. He was designated by prophecy to a certain very peculiar work – that of guarding doctrine. And the apostle and the presbyters laid their hands upon him, by which a spiritual gift was communicated to him which he did not possess before. It is evident that there is no man now living who has been similarly endowed and called to such a work. See 1 Tim. 1: 18; 1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 6. "It may also be said that, in the case of the apostle Paul, there was the putting on of hands, which we have in Acts 13. What does this show? Not, certainly, that he was an apostle chosen by man; for the Holy Ghost declares that he was 'an apostle, not of men, neither by man'. That which took place at Antioch was in no sense ordaining him to be an apostle. It is evident from many scriptures that for several years before hands were laid on him, he had been preaching, and was one of the recognised prophets and teachers at Antioch. I believe that the point there was the setting him and Barnabas apart for the special mission on which they were just about to go out – to plant the gospel in new countries. It was purely and simply a recommendation to the grace of God, for the new work on which they were about to enter. Some such thing might be done at the present day. Supposing a man, who had been preaching the gospel in England, felt it much laid on his heart to go and visit the United States of America, and his brethren felt that he was just the man for that work, they might, in order to show their concurrence and sympathy, meet together with prayer and fasting, to lay their hands upon the brother who was going thither. This, in my opinion, would be quite scriptural; but it is not ordaining. What I believe to be unscriptural, and indeed positively sinful, is accrediting a number of men who are not ministers of Christ, and discrediting a number of men who are His ministers, because they do not go through this traditional innovation".* [*See 'Lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians', pages 5-11; also 'One Body and One Spirit', by W.K.]

Though the subject of ministry has already been noticed, it seems to claim a passing glance in connection with the kindred subjects of 'Lay-preaching' and 'Ordination'.

• Besides, it was one of the earliest subjects of controversy with the Brethren. They were accused by the clergy of denying ministry altogether, because they denied the validity of episcopal orders.

• This exposed them to many bitter attacks, but the Lord overruled these accusations to bring out an amount of truth on the subject of ministry which seems to have been overlooked since the days of the apostles.

• The Brethren, we believe, were the first to point out clearly the difference between priesthood and ministry. Hitherto they had been confounded in men's minds; but when the distinction was made plain, a flood of light was thrown on the interesting subject of christian ministry.

"The consequence of the position of the Jewish nation was very simple. A law, to direct the conduct of a people already existing as such before God; and a priesthood, to maintain the relations which existed between this people and their God – relations which were not of a character to enable them to draw nigh to Him without mediation. The question was not, how to seek and call those without; but to order the intercourse with God of a people already recognised as such. "As we have already seen, Christianity has an entirely different character. It considers mankind as universally lost, proves them in reality to be so, and seeks, through the power of a new life, worshippers in spirit and in truth. In like manner does it introduce the worshippers themselves into the presence of God who there reveals Himself as their Father – a Father who has sought and saved them. And this is done, not by means of an intermediate priestly class who represent the worshippers, because of the inability of the latter to approach a terrible and imperfectly known God; but it introduces them in full confidence to a God known and loved, because He has loved them, sought, and washed them from all their sins, that they might be before Him without fear. "The consequence of this marked difference between the relations in which Jews and Christians stand as toward God is, that the Jews had a priesthood – and not a ministry – which acted outside the people; while Christianity has a ministry which finds its exercise in the active revelation of what God is – whether within the church or without – there being no intermediate priesthood between God and His people, save the Great High Priest Himself. The christian priesthood is composed of all true Christians, who equally enjoy the right of entering into the holy places by the new and living way which has been consecrated for them – a priesthood, moreover, whose relations are essentially heavenly. "Ministry, then, is essential to Christianity, which is the activity of the love of God in delivering souls from ruin and from sin, and in drawing them to Himself". Continued …

" 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation'. These are the three things which flow from the coming of God in Christ. 'Reconciling', 'not imputing', and 'committing unto us the word of reconciliation'. Without this last, the work of grace would have remained imperfect in its application; and the crowning of this glorious work of the grace of God was to commit to man 'the word of reconciliation', according to His own power and good pleasure. There were thus two elements contained in ministry: first, deep conviction and powerful sense of the love displayed in this work of reconciliation; secondly, gifts to declare to men, according to their necessities, the riches of this grace which animated the hearts of those who bore witness of it … "As the mainsprings and sources, then, of all ministry, there are these two things: the love produced in the heart by grace, the love which impels to activity; and the sovereignty of God, who communicates gifts as seems good to Him, and calls to this or that service – a call, which renders ministry a matter of faithfulness and duty on the part of him who is called. It is to be observed, that these two principles both suppose an entire freedom from man, who cannot interfere, as either the source or the authorisation of ministry, without, on the one hand, neutralising love as the source of activity, or, on the other, infringing on the sovereignty of God, who calls and sends, and whose call constitutes duty. There is no christian source of activity but the love of Christ and the call of God. "This ministry of Jesus, this active energy of the love of God in seeking the lost, the testifying to the work and victory of the Saviour, who alone is worthy to be thus glorified, receives all its power, and has its only source in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. It is the ministry of the Holy Ghost in the choice, and employment of His servants. In all this God is sovereign. The exercise of the gifts bestowed by Him is regulated by the Holy Spirit, who acts sovereignly in the church. The proofs and examples of this are found in the word. As a source of ministry, or as authority for its exercise, man interferes only to sin".* [* See a most valuable tract, by J.N D., on the nature, source, power, and responsibility of ministry: The Collected Writings, Ecclesiastical, vol. 1.] It might be well for those who are in any bondage as to the details of their public service, to consult this bold and free unfolding of the truth here, on the liberty and responsibility of the servant.  AM

In an article to which our attention was directed some time ago, on 'Plymouth Brethrenism', in a highly respectable journal,* the writer speaks as if nothing could be more painful than controversy with fellow-Christians but adds, that if we would be followers of Him who is "the faithul and true", we must not seal our lips where serious error is taught.

• The writer also laments the "outbursts of irritable feeling", which have sometimes characterised the reviewers of Brethren, and proposes to meet them calmly, quietly, and deliberately.
  [*See 'The Christian Observer and Advocate' for November and December, 1876.]

The article, though written in a christian spirit, and, we doubt not, true to the writer, who judges of Brethren's views by The Received Doctrines of the Reformed Churches, in place of a close comparison with the word of God, is like all such that we have read, most inaccurate and untrue.

• A long list of ecclesiastical and doctrinal peculiarities and errors are stated, as held and taught by the Brethren.

• Their views, however, are incorrectly stated, and what is given as the truth to correct the error is not in accordance with the word. It may compare well with the theology of certain schools of the Reformed Churches, but not with the holy scriptures, which should ever be our only standard.

• We have thought that it might serve the cause of truth, and be for edification, were what Brethren really hold on these heads plainly stated and proved from scripture; but this would be outside of our present sketch.

• We select one, 'The Forgiveness of Sins', as it is practical, and may be useful to some readers.

• It will also show what we have said of the inaccuracy of the writer, who says, that one of the doctrinal points with the Brethren is,"That it is not lawful to pray for the pardon of our sins, because, if we are real Christians, they were forgiven eighteen hundred years ago upon the cross".

• No authority is given for this statement; therefore we cannot compare. But this is the usual style of accusing Brethren – strong statements of error without proof.

• The cross, we all believe, is the only ground of pardon, but it is never said to the sinner who believes in Jesus, 'Thy sins were all forgiven when Christ shed His blood on the cross'. The divine order seems to be, that Christ put away sin on the cross, and that we are pardoned when we believe, not "eighteen hundred years ago".
  • "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself".

• And to the chief of sinners penitent at His feet, the blessed Lord says, "Thy sins are forgiven".

• Thus we learn that sin was put away on the cross according to the claims of the divine glory, so that the Father is free to run and meet the returning prodigal, embrace him with the kiss of reconciliation, invest him with the best robe, and seal him with the ring of His eternal love.

• At the same time, if we want to see our sins put away, we must look back to the cross; it is nowhere said that the Lord puts them away from our hearts; only on the cross. Those who look to their hearts in place of the cross, to see their sins put away, will be bitterly disappointed.

• We only know that our sins were "put away", "made an end of", on the cross, and forgiven when we believe. The word of the Lord is the only ground of the full assurance of faith.

• However correct our experience may be, we cannot build upon it; the word of God is the soul's only resting place. The words of the hymn sweetly express this truth:

"My soul looks back [not, within] to see
The burden Thou didst bear,
When hanging on th' accursed tree,
For all my guilt was there".

As to the other part of the alleged doctrine of the Brethren – "That it is not lawful to pray for the pardon of our sins" – we are well aware that much has been made of this report by the opponents of Brethren.

• It has been used in the pulpits and by the press to turn them to ridicule. This, we believe, is more from ignorance of what Brethren do hold, than from malice.

• But, alas! it is the sacred truth of God that is turned into ridicule; they cannot hurt the Brethren.

• On nothing do their reviewers show more incompetency to revise and correct their writings than on the elementary subject of forgiveness. They have evidently no proper thought of the completeness of redemption, or the privileges of relationship.

• Hence they teach that Christians must pray to God daily for the pardon of their sins, and come to be cleansed afresh by the blood of Jesus, as if we might be lost and saved every day.

• "The words of the apostle John", says the Christian Observer, "are evidently meant for believers", 1 John 1: 7. "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth" [not has cleansed, but is actually cleansing] "us from all sin".

• This is the doctrine of the Observer – a staunch Church of England journal – but which the Brethren as a body would pronounce most unsound and inconsistent with the context and all scripture, especially the gospel.

• The apostle is speaking of believers walking in the light as God is in the light, not even according to it, but in it. How could this be, if their sins were not cleansed away by the blood of Jesus?

• He is not speaking of a continuous, but of an absolute cleansing from all sin, suitable to the unsullied light of God's presence. But to return.

The Brethren, certainly, are not in the habit, at least in public, of praying to God for the pardon of their sins. Not because they think it "unlawful", or because they were pardoned eighteen hundred years ago, or because they do not sin,

• but because it would be unbelief, as they are not in the position of sinners before God, but of children before the Father.

• When a sinner is converted – born again – he changes ground; he leaves, and leaves for ever, the ground of the natural man, and is henceforth on the new ground of eternal life and salvation; so that it would be unbelief, in the most inexcusable way, to go back to the old ground and ignore the gracious work of God in the new birth.
  • "Verily, verily", says the blessed Lord, "I say unto you, He that heareth my word, 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.

  • "For ye are all the children of God", says the apostle, "by faith in Christ Jesus", Galatians 3: 26.

• But if they do not pray as sinners to be pardoned, they confess their faults as children according to the mind of the Lord.
  • "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness", 1 John 1: 9.

• Here, it is not said that God will be gracious and merciful to forgive if we pray to Him, but that He will be faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. That is, He is faithful and just to Christ, who died for us, put away our sins on the cross, and whose blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat; ever, as it were, before the eye of God.

• Surely, in the light of this text, we could not pray to God to be "faithful and just", that we know He must ever be to the finished work of Christ;
  • but we could not too fully or freely confess our sins, and this in the deep sense of what they are in the sight of that blood which was shed for them, and in the presence of His holiness, whose children, though unworthy, we ever are.

• It is a thousand times more searching for a child to confess the details of his failure, than merely to ask – it may he mechanically – to be pardoned.

Thus we see that the word of God is more consistent than the theology of men, and thrice happy the Christian who is content to walk in the light of that truth, though he should be misunderstood and misrepresented.

• The day is coming when the Lord will vindicate those, who, though having but little strength, kept His word, and denied not His name.

The following quotation may be accepted as the testimony of Brethren in general on 1 John 1: 7.

"If sin-cleansing by the blood of Jesus, in 1 John 1: 7, is assumed to be only going on, it would falsify the same apostle's language in Revelation 1: 5, where we are said to be already washed by His blood, and this comes out more strikingly in any exact rendering, like Dean Alford's version: "Unto him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood". His love is constant, but the washing, or loosing, us from our sins is set forth by a participle of that tense which expresses an action simply past, excluding duration. John could have used no such form, if we had to come before God for daily cleansing by the blood of Jesus; for in this case it would be correct to employ, not the aorist, but the imperfect tense, which precisely expresses a continued or repeated action. "How, then, did the apostle use the present? Was there laxity in his expression, when he said, 'The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from every sin'? On the contrary, the tense is just as exact in 1 John 1: 7, as his use of distinctive participles in Revelation 1: 5. A little learning is proverbially dangerous; and in the exegesis of scripture, voluminous commentators are apt to go astray, no less than their followers. But to give an opinion on such a question hardly becomes people ignorant of the fact, that the present in Greek, as in most languages is in no way limited to an incomplete action yet in course of performance; for it no less correctly expresses an absolute present, as in general propositions, doctrinal statements, apothegms, and descriptions of manners, customs, or matters of frequent occurrence. Just so, in English we say, 'Food nourishes the human body; poison kills'. The idea intended is not the continuance of the act, but the quality of each material, or their opposite effects on man. Almost every chapter in the epistles furnishes instances. Take a plain and kindred statement from 1 John 2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins'. Does the present here mean that He is actually now atoning for our sins? Clearly not; such an interpretation of the present would incontrovertibly overthrow the atonement. It is here evidently used in its absolute sense, without reference to any definite moment, for expressing the great and blessed truth of His propitiation. Just so in our text the notion of continuous cleansing would distinctly contradict the grand doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the gospel in general. It is therefore the gravest error … "We have seen, then, that continuous cleansing by blood cannot be meant, not merely because it has no just sense in itself, but because it opposes other scriptures which treat the effect on the Christian as complete. Scripture cannot be broken. Repeated application of Christ's blood the word does not countenance anywhere else, even if the word here implied it, which it does not. It remains, therefore, that we must fall back on the only possible sense of the present here open to us, namely, that the apostle states, in an absolute way, the cleansing of believers by the blood of Jesus, expressed – as it regularly is in such propositions – in the present, but abstractedly, without reference to time past, present, or future, as one of the main characteristics of their place or standing. Hence it is no question of this or that sin, when confessed: His blood cleanseth from every sin. Details are not before us, nor restoration after failure. It is the proper and divine value of His blood. Consequently, if it were the design of the Holy Spirit to reveal this absolutely, the present tense was the one exactly suited to the apostle's hand, as we see it now before us. The effort to limit, or even apply the expression 'cleanseth', to the continuous force of the present, is therefore mere ignorance, or worse. The doctrine of the clause, the context, and scripture in general, declare unitedly and unequivocally for the absolute usage of the present in the closing verb of 1 John 1: 7". 'Bible Treasury', March, 1879.

Much of the darkness, confusion, and uncertainty, which prevail throughout Christendom on the subject of pardon and the assurance of salvation,

• can only be accounted for – strange as it may appear – by the rejection of the truth which Brethren hold, and for which they are denounced by their reviewers as heretical.

• The leading teachers of the various Protestant schools seem to have overlooked entirely the perfect provision of God in the economy of grace, for every need of the whole family of faith. This provision is plainly revealed by the blessed Lord in John 13.

Jesus had now taken His position with His disciples as one going away.

• He "knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father".

• But His entrance into glory would not take His heart away from them, nor even from attending to their wants. In illustration of this, He girds Himself for service, and takes water to wash their feet.

• The effect of this service is, that the Holy Spirit, by the Word, takes away practically, all the defilement that we gather in walking through this sinful world. They had been regenerated – born again: that could never be repeated;
  • but they must be maintained in a condition of spotless purity befitting the presence of God, and the relationships into which they have been brought by their oneness with Christ in heaven.

• The priests who served God in the tabernacle were washed all over at their consecration. This washing never was repeated. They washed their hands and feet every time they drew near to God in service. The Christian having been washed, or bathed,
  • "needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit".

• What a word from the lips of eternal truth and holiness!
  • "Ye are clean, clean every whit, but not all, for He knew who should betray Him".

• The feeblest believer, or the youngest lamb in His flock is kept spotless in the presence of God – where His finished work has set them – by His own gracious ministry on high, and by the power of the Holy Spirit who abides with His people here.

• Thus the Lord looks after their interests in heaven, and the Holy Ghost on earth, so that they are well cared for, well provided for.
  • "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins".

• This advocacy is based on righteousness and propitiation, and the Holy Spirit ever acts in harmony with the mind and work of Christ. 1 John 2: 1-2.

This line of truth, so liberating and elevating to the soul, abounds in nearly all the Brethren's writings, especially in the writings of the elder Brethren, so that it has been taught in public and in private, and widely spread by their books for many years.

• We cannot help thinking that those who have endeavoured to bring them into ridicule in the eyes of the christian public for not praying for the pardon of their sins, "because they were forgiven eighteen hundred years ago on the cross", are guilty of the veriest trifling, if not positively sinning, in the holy things of God.

• Take the following extract as a sample from one of their monthly magazines.

"Jesus occupies Himself with a new service, the removal of the defilements of His own in their walk as saints through the world. This is the meaning of what follows. 'Then he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded'. Be it carefully observed, that it is the question here of water, not of blood. The reader of John's Gospel will not have overlooked that he makes much of 'water' as well as 'blood'. So did the Lord in presenting the truth to His own, and no one shows this more than John. His first epistle also characterises the Lord as 'He that came by water and by blood; not by water only, but by water and blood'. He purifies us as well as atones for our sins. He employs the word to cleanse those who are washed from their sins in His blood. The apostles, Paul, Peter, and James, insist on the power of the word, as John does. It is disastrous and dangerous in the highest degree to overlook purification by the washing of water by the word. If 'the blood' is Godward, though for us, 'the water' is saintward to remove impurity in practice, as well as to give a new nature, which judges evil according to God and His word, of which it is the sign, adding to it the death of Christ, which gives its measure and force. Out of His pierced side came blood and water. John 19. "As to this grave and blessed truth, Christendom remains, I fear, as dark as Peter, when he declined the gracious action of the Lord. Nor did Peter enter into the truth conveyed by that most significant dealing till afterwards, that is, when the Holy Spirit came to show them the things of Christ. On the occasion itself he was wrong throughout. And so are men apt to be now, even though light divine has been fully afforded. They still perversely limit its extent to teaching humility. This only Peter saw, and hence his mistake; for he thought it stooping down excessively, that the Lord should wash his feet; and, when alarmed by the Lord's warning, he fell into an opposite error. We are only safe when subject to His word in distrust of ourselves … 'He that is washed [bathed] needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit'. The Lord suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. By His one offering we are not only sanctified but perfected in perpetuity. Is there no failure in the saint afterwards? Alas, there may be. What then is the provision for such? It is the washing of water by the word which the Spirit applies in answer to the Son's advocacy with the Father".* [* Bible Treasury, January, 1878.]