H^l__
^BlStiil
\ STU
THE LIBRARY
of VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
€7
PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
EDINBURGH AND l.ONDOH
THE HERESIES
THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN
JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D.
JFiftecntl)
LONDON : H O II L S T O X & SONS.
BX
88C& C37
EMMANUa
4-S09+&53
//
PREFACE.
MANY parties imagine, because the Plymouth* havi- no professed Confession of Faith, that they have no regular system of belief, but this is a great mistake. They not only have a very complete system, but they are as tyrannical as Rome in keeping their followers to it. Although the Christian public cannot divine what their system is, it is all perfectly understood by those who are thoroughly initiated into it. The great diffi culty of getting at it, arises from the fact that it is always put forth in a completely Jesuitical form. It is entirely to this it owes its success. It is so thoroughly "guarded," that Mr. Darby seems to be surprised I was able to unfold it, as he says, " the in criminated language, not one in a thousand would luw noticed as anything particular." In place of trying to make everything plain and specific to the eye of the ( 'hristian public, the Darbyites have managed to cloak their opinions by using language in a Jesuitical sense, and the consequence is, that few of the parties who have hitherto tilted with them, seem to have been able to discover the peculiarities of the sect, or yet thoroughly to expose and overturn their obnoxiou*
VI PREFACE.
.sentiments. They have been frequently met in such a powerless way, by men who were not naturally fitted for the task, or who were not thoroughly up to their system, that the opposition they have encountered has only added strength to their cause. Unless a person makes himself properly acquainted with the opinions he controverts, keeps closely and strictly to Bible prin ciples, argues carefully, accurately, and with the utmost precision on every point, and hits home without fear or dread, it is impossible to manage such wily and slippery customers.
It has been supposed that Plymouthism should be spared on account of some good people who have en tered its fold. It is unfortunately true that simple- minded Christians have, in many instances, given in their adhesion to the sect. They have been deceived by the plausible sanctimoniousness of the Plymouth leaders. In place of making this a reason, however, for sparing the hypocrisy of the system, it is only a greater argument for its radical exposure, as a proper warning to the unsuspicious and unwary. Moreover, Plymouthism is not now what it was in the beginning. At its commencement, its aim appeared to be good, and many excellent men were attracted towards it ; but it has now run into the wildest extremes imagin able ; has become as entirely Jesuitical as the system of Loyola itself ; and by the denial of the moral law as the rule of life, has led, in many instances, to the most disastrous consequences.
COLERAINE, IRELAND, 1883.
CONTENTS.
I'M. I
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST . . I
SOCINIANISM . . ... . . -3°
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST .... 40
MACKINTOSH VALOUR .76
THE PASTORAL OFFICE 79
THE PRESIDENCY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT . .137
THE LAW A RULE OF LIFE 1 59
VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM . . . .172 MORALITY OF PLYMOUTHISM . . . .229 MR. MACKINTOSH'S RECANTATION. . . .257 MR. DARBY'S REPLIES 265
PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST.
THE Editor of the Coleraine Chronicle, in his paper for the 22(1 of February 1862, found fault with the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy for charging Mr. Mackintosh with denying that " Christ's body was of the substance of the Virgin ; " and he expressed his belief that the charge could not be sustained, and therefore should not have been put forth by a respect able journal. As I understood that Mr. Mackintosh and his followers held heretical views regarding the person of Christ, I was surprised at the editor's state ment, and therefore I took the trouble of examining Mr. Mackintosh's " Notes on Leviticus," where I found, Paoe 35» tne following expression : — " The first Adam, even in his unfallen condition, was * of the earth ; ' but the second Man was, as to His manhood, ' the Lord from heaven.'" This surely puts Mr. Mackin tosh's opinion beyond the slightest doubt He em phatically asserts that Christ, "a* to His manhood"
2 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
was the Lord from heaven. There can be no mistake here. If, as to His manhood, He was the Lord from heaven, He could not by any possibility whatever be of the substance of the Virgin. To speak of His being the Lord as to His manhood seems a strange contra diction in terms. He was perfect man and perfect God ; but He could not be God in His humanity, nor man in His Godhead : such a thing is simply impos sible. As Mr. Mackintosh, however, expressly and intentionally applies the term Lord to the humanity of Christ, he should openly join the Socinians and Unitarians in denying that the expression Lord is a proof of the divinity of Christ. This would make him appear consistent with himself, no matter how derogatory it might be to his profession of Chris tianity. " The zeal," says the Journal of Prophecy, " with which the party are now propagating the Socinian view of the sacrifices is remarkable, and it shows the direction in which Plymouthism is moving." I am not aware of any passage of Scripture which con tains Mr. Mackintosh's words, and says that Christ, as to His manhood, is the Lord from heaven. The ex pression, as to His manhood, has been added cau tiously and intentionally. The Scripture says, " The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second Man is the Lord from heaven ; " but it nowhere asserts that the soul of Adam was earthy, and the body of Christ the Lord from heaven ; and this makes all the differ-
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 3
ence in the world. Regarding the divinity of Christ, there are plenty of proofs that He is the Lord from heaven ; but regarding His manhood, we are expressly told He " was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. . . . God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. ... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
In this enlightened age, and in this free country, every man has a right to promulgate his own views, provided he puts them fairly, plainly, and openly before the community, and can persuade '.the people to listen or read. But no man is justified in catching the unwary by small distillations of truth, whilst the opportunity is taken of gradually and almost imper ceptibly slipping in the deadly poison. " The doctrine of reserve," says Mr. Spurgeon, " so detestable in the mouths of Jesuits, is not one whit the less villan- ous when accepted by Protestants." The Plymouth Brethren come amongst us, as they say, to preach the " gospel of the grace of God." In their public addresses they produce very little beyond what the people already believe. In this way they gain a hearing and a position which they could not possibly attain to, if they would plainly and openly declare all their sentiments in the ears of the people. The public get the choice things, whilst the peculiarities are kept for the benefit of those who are gradually drawn into the mysteries of this most decided sect of
4 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
all the sects. I ask, Is this fair ? Is it honest 1 Are they ashamed of their peculiarities 1 or are they well convinced that, if these peculiarities were fully known, the hair of their hearers' heads would almost be made to stand upon end, and the preachers would soon be left alone in their glory 1 It is very easy to find out the real sentiments of a straightforward man ; but the double-dealing of the Plymouths makes it difficult to get at their opinions. A Plymouth writer, signing himself W. K., in his review of Mr. Eees, says, " Doubtless the difficulty [of ascertaining their opinions] is great for an outsider. Not one Christian in a thousand can understand till he is bona fide in fellow ship, though he may know enough to attract him, and more than enough to condemn denominationalism in every form." Just think of the system when one of the leaders is obliged to make such a confession ! The outside Christian must get enough to attract him ; but he must be really in fellowship before the genuine opinions of the Plymouths can be placed before him in a form capable of being understood. If the senti ments were put in language which was meant to be interpreted on honest principles, any man of ordinary understanding could comprehend them ; but in order that the uninitiated may not be frightened from the system by the terrible opinions which they are after wards obliged to imbibe, a thorough plan of double- dealing must be adopted. If such a course would
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 5
disgrace men of the world, it is surely nothing short of disgusting when used by men calling themselves Christians.
The success of Plymouthism is owing entirely to the Jesuitical conduct of its adherents. Its peculi arities are either shrouded in a sort of mystery, or it is pretended that the sentiments held are different from what they really are. Mrs. Grattan Guinness has lent a helping hand in this direction. After professing to be intimately acquainted with the Ply- mouths, and to "approve of most of their distinctive views," she says "that on the fundamental truths of the gospel they are at one with all evangelical deno minations ; " whereas, the real state of the fact is, that there are very few of the great fundamental doctrines on which they are at one with evangelical Christians. The truth of this assertion of mine shall be made abundantly evident before this work is finished. Mrs. Guinness has a right, if she pleases, to be a Plymouth, and to "approve of most of the distinctive view! * of that sect ; but she has no right to gloss matters over for the purpose of making it appear that the Plymouth views agree with those held by evangelical Christians on the great fundamental doctrines of the gospel. " Strange and exaggerated statements," says she, " have been made with regard to them, and an erroneous impression seems to prevail that their views are sadly heterodox, and their practices some-
6 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
what fanatical." In place of thus merely asserting that it was an error to charge their views with hetero doxy, and their practices with fanaticism, it would have been well if Mrs. Guinness had quoted and criti cised the statements which she stigmatises as exagge rated. Her readers would then have been able to judge how far her assertions were to be depended on. By all means let her be what she is, a Plymouth ; but let her not try to make us believe that the Ply- mouths hold the orthodox views on the great funda mentals of Christianity. There is something peculiarly distressing and lamentable in the fact of a person making a high profession of religion, and at the same time advocating one of the most thoroughly Jesuitical systems the world has ever produced ; — a system which, in an insidious form, undermines nearly every one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as held by our evangelical churches. I am extremely sorry that I must also pass an adverse opinion on the course adopted by Mr. H. Grattan Guinness. In his Letter to the Plymouths on the Pastoral Office, he says, "From the first of my acquaintance with you as a body of Christians, my heart was drawn towards you. ... I should have heartily cast in my lot with you, and taken my place among you, but for one thing — I never could persuade myself that your views and practices as regards the questions of pastor ship and mini.-itry were scriptural." Now, to say
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 7
the least of it, I think it is much to be regretted that Mr. Guinness, in place of occupying for some years, under the appearance of orthodox sentiments, the Dissenting pulpits of England, Ireland, and Scotland, did not announce, in a fair and straight forward manner, at the very first, that he was at one with the Plymouths on every point, with the single exception of pastorship and ministry. Although such an announcement would have closed the pulpits against him, it would have placed his conduct in a very different position from that in which it must now be viewed. No man can really help on genuine Christianity by passing with the public for one thing when in reality he is another. There can be no excuse for his hiding the fact of his Plymouthism until the 8th of October 1863.
In the first edition of his " Notes on Leviticus," Mr. Mackintosh says, pages 29 and 30, " There is one con sideration which should weigh heavily in the estima tion of every Christian, and that is, the vital nature of the doctrine of Christ's humanity. It lies at the very foundation of Christianity. . . . While I feel ; upon to warn the reader against strange sounds, in reference to the divine mystery of Christ's humanity, I do not deem it needful to discuss such sounds." Does the quotation I have made not plainly show that Mr. Mackintosh is about to pro pound some doctrine, regarding the humanity "1
PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Christ, which has not been generally received by the Christian Church? Observe, it is not a doctrine regarding the Godhead of Christ ; but a doctrine regarding His humanity. It is not the mystery of the union of His Godhead with His humanity, but the "mystery of Christ's humanity" alone. We are not warned against " strange sounds " in reference to His divinity, but only in regard to His humanity. Is there a man in Christendom could read his obser vations without being convinced that Mr. Mackintosh holds some ideas regarding the humanity of Christ different from those entertained by the great body of professing Christians? I rather think not. But the question is put beyond the possibility of dis pute in other parts of the very same chapter from which I have already quoted. At page 31 he calls Christ a " divine man." Now, if He be a divine man, He cannot possibly possess our humanity, because a divine man must of necessity be God in what is thus called, however improperly, His humanity. Christ is both God and man ; but He is neither a divine man nor a man-God. Again, page 35, he says, "The first Adam, even in his unfallen condition, was 'of the earth,' but the second Man was, as to His manhood, 'the Lord from heaven.'" No words in the English language could make his meaning plainer than this. His statement is specific, unmistakable, and to the point If, as to His manhood, He was "the Lord from
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 9
heaven," He did not partake of the substance of the Virgin ; He did not possess a particle of our humanity ; He was God in His very body, and had no real hu manity. Further, page 56, it is stated that "the in telligent interpretation of it (the meat-offering) must ever guard, with holy jealousy, the precious truth of Christ's heavenly humanity." If His humanity be heavenly, it cannot be in any sense the substance of the Virgin ; if it was sent from heaven, it was not formed upon earth. Such is Mr. Mackintosh's Christ ; but he is not the Christ of Scripture, which says, " Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. . . . God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. . . . Which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." The Christ described by Mr. Mack intosh is not the Christ of revelation, and conse quently cannot be the saviour of sinners.
The quotations I have given are amply sufficient to demonstrate the heterodoxy of Mr. Mackintosh's views. His words are so plain that it is quite impossible to misunderstand them. I would not dare to insult any of my readers, as Mr. Mackintosh has lately done his, by supposing that the language could, under any cir cumstances, be misunderstood by them. Misunder standing here is quite impossible by any person who is one degree removed from simplicity. To suppose the words used could mean any other thing than that
10 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
which I have taken out of them, would be to suppose that Mr. Mackintosh had no idea of the meaning of language, and was utterly incapable of writing in telligibly on any subject. If he does not understand the fair import of the language he uses, he should at once cease from attempting to instruct the people either in writing or speaking. For my part, however, I am convinced, when he penned those words, he understood them in the very same sense as I under stand them.
Having fully established the nature of the views which were maintained by Mr. Mackintosh at the time he wrote his " Notes on Leviticus," I shall now turn to his letter in the Coleraine Chronicle in reply to me. I am certain many parties imagine he has re canted the objectionable doctrine ; or perhaps some think he has denied ever holding it. We shall see. Mr. Mackintosh says it is strange I should have singled out one passage [the second Man was, as to His manhood, the Lord from heaven] from 351 pages to prove the heresy against him. He does not dare to deny, because he could not, that the heresy is contained in that passage, from his 35th page, as plainly as words can make it ; but still he argues that a statement on another page proves my charge regarding this one to be groundless. This is logic with a vengeance ! The principle seems to be almost universally acted on, that any imaginable sort of
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. II
argument will do in religious affairs, no matter whether it has sense to rest on or not. Let us just apply Mr. Mackintosh's principle to some of the affairs of this life, on which, if not on religion, common-sense is usually allowed to have free action. The law officers of the Crown, we may suppose, bring a man up to be tried for murder. The culprit acknowledges in open court that he did knowingly and wilfully murder a man on Friday last ; but, inasmuch as he murdered no other person for the previous 351 Fridays, but rather made a sort of an attempt on one occasion to save a life, he submits that he not only has no right to be found guilty of the murder he committed on the Friday, but he has a right to be very indignant at being put on his trial at all. To use Mr. Mack intosh's language about me, "any candid person would see that." What, I ask, would be thought of the advocate who would defend a case on such principles? Would he not be hissed out of court ? And yet this is exactly Mr. Mackintosh's position. He cannot possibly deny that the quotation I have made, from his 35th page, contains the identical meaning, and no other meaning, than the one which I have taken out of it ; but inasmuch as the sentence occurs only once in 351 pages, and inasmuch as there is one other passage, on the 37th page, which seems to contradict it, he maintains he is entirely innocent, and I am to for want of candour in putting him on his
12 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
trial at all ! Alas ! how Christianity suffers by the shuffling of those who call themselves its advocates !
But after all, what is there in this passage referred to by Mr. Mackintosh, on the 37th page? Nothing at all to the purpose. I never charged Mr. Mackintosh with denying that Christ was born of the Virgin, was composed of flesh and blood, and had a human body ; but I did charge him, that he calls this flesh and blood, this human body, "the Lord from heaven," the "divine man," and the "heavenly humanity;" and, consequently, that he makes this flesh and blood, this human body, to be really and truly God. Hence, if this human body was truly God, although it was born of the Virgin, it was not made of her substance. This is my charge ; and a reference to the preceding pages will show that I have thoroughly proved it. In one place, Mr. Mackintosh says, Christ was "of the seed of the woman," but in other places he tells us He was " a divine man," " a heavenly man," and " in his man hood was the Lord from heaven." Now, these state ments directly contradict each other, and therefore cannot possibly both be true. Which of them are we to believe 1 Which is true, and which is false I This is a case of Mackintosh versus Mackintosh.
" As to the sentence," continues Mr. Mackintosh, " to which the Doctor calls your attention [the second Man was, as to His manhood, the Lord from heaven], it means nothing more or less than what the apostle
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 13
states in i Cor. xv. 47." In place of recanting, Mr. M. here reiterates the original sentiment. His words mean exactly what the apostle says, and the apostle said what Mr. M. means ; or, in other words, accord ing to him, the apostle meant that Christ was, as to His manhood, the Lord from heaven. Certainly, Mr Mackintosh recants after a novel fashion !
"I grant you that had I anticipated controversy," says Mr. Mackintosh, "I would have guarded the sentence of which the Doctor makes such a moun tain." Just think of this ! What an expression for a man calling himself a Christian ! Would the greatest heathen that ever lived make such a statement ? He does not say he would have expunged every shred of the deadly doctrine from his book, but, in the face of controversy, he would have guarded it ! Like some other expressions in his writings, it would then have been so thoroughly after the fashion of the oracles of ancient days, that a person might read it in any way he pleased. For example, when Mr. Mackintosh speaks, in a multitude of instances, of " the Glorious Person of Christ," and of " the birth of this Glorious Person," what does he mean ? How are we to inter pret him ? One man may say he means the glory flf the union of the Godhead with the humanity of Christ ; but another has ample room and verge enough to argue that the words apply alone to the glory of His manhood, to what is called, in the Valentiuian style of
14 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
the second century, the " heavenly humanity ; " in short, that it might correspond with the ideas which were stoutly maintained by a poor member of Mr. Mackintosh's congregation in Coleraine, that the Virgin had no more to do with Christ than the pump has with the water which runs through it. This is an uncommonly apt illustration of the views promulgated in the "Notes on Leviticus," and I would like to know where this poor illiterate man got the doctrine, if he did not learn it from Mr. Mackintosh. If Mr. M. never taught it, where did this man find it ? Can it be supposed he got it in the writings of the Valen- tinians, or the Monophysites of the second and fifth centuries ? I am certain he never saw, or heard of, their works.
Mr. Mackintosh forbears to animadvert on my speaking of his followers. To a certain extent, I must confess my fault here. No doubt, he has many followers ; but there are a few crusty exceptions. I have it on indisputable authority that some of his disciples have advanced so far towards perfection, that they can not only differ with Mr. Mackintosh, but they can actually find fault with some things done by the apostle Paul. I believe some of the scholars have already become the masters, the rulers, the dictators, and the announcers of the judgments of the Almighty upon those who dispute their opinions. They can very nearly wield the thunderbolts of heaven.
THE Ht'MAMTY OF CHRIST. 15
There is just one sentence in Mr. Mackintosh's letter to the Chronicle, which surprises me beyond measure. " I believe," says he, " our blessed Lord was really of the substance of the Virgin — as really a man as you or I, sin excepted." This is exactly ray own creed on the subject. But 1 am at a loss to know how Mr. Mackin tosh can make such a statement, seeing it is in direct contradiction to what he has said in other places. If this be really his opinion, it is unaccountable how he could have written so much as he has done on tin- humanity of Christ, without ever expressing hiniM-if in similar language. I have examined one thousand pages of his writings, and I have failed in finding the exact same expression of belief in any of them ; but I have found plenty on the opposite side. I have already shown that he asserts Christ was " a divine man," that He had a "heavenly humanity," and that "in His manhood " He was " the Lord from heaven." These statements are in direct opposition to the one sentence in the Chronicle. Now, which of the Mackintoshes are we to believe ? They cannot both be true. Which are we to follow ? On different occasions, Mr. Mack intosh has given opposite and directly contradictory testimony. Which of his statements will he stick to ? His present position forcibly reminds me of the witness who, on his second examination, contradicted the state - iiH-iits of the first. When the counsel reminded him that his evidence of to-day contradicted his affidavit of
I 6 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
yesterday, lie said, " Did I swear that yesterday ? " On being assured he had done so, he replied, with an oath, if he had he would stand to it. Mr. Mackintosh cannot hold to both sides. Which will he stand to ?
Does Mr. Mackintosh use the expressions I am just now considering, in the Chronicle, in the ordinary acceptation of the words, or has he, after Plymouth fashion, a private meaning of his own attached to the language ? I shall try this point in two ways. First of all, I ask him to tell us plainly, yes or no, does he now believe Christ appeared in our humanity ? Does he now deny that Christ, "as to Jlis manhood, was the Lord from heaven ? " Does he now deny that Christ was "a divine man ?" Does he now deny that Christ had a " heavenly humanity ? " I must absolutely in sist on an explicit answer to all these questions. They are fair, plain, and to the point. I am prepared to answer them all to Mr. Mackintosh ; and if he really means his statement in the Chronicle to be understood according to the fair construction of the English lan guage, he cannot have the least difficulty in answering them to me. One week will tell the result. He has so thoroughly "guarded" his remarks in the paper, that he has nowhere said his belief is now different from what it was when he first published that Christ, " as to His manhood, was the Lord from heaven." This is a most significant fact ; and I am determined to sift it to the bottom. I will have no evasion of the
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 17
I- -int. I must wait the next issue of the paper for the reply ; but, in the meantime, I shall try his opinion
>econd method.
Mr. Mackintosh has not denied, and he cannot, and dare not, deny, that in the first edition of his " Notes on Leviticus" he has published statements which, if his one sentence in the CJironicle be correct, are thoroughly and unmistakably heterodox, on a funda mental and completely vital point of Christianity. Like every other man, he has a perfect right to change his opinions ; and if he has changed them, and publicly announced the change, lie has a right to be respected by every honourable man. Has he announced the change ? Has he given us sufficient evidence of the change ? I rather think not. He has told us in the Chronicle that if he had " anticipated controversy," he would have "guarded" the expressions; but he has nowhere said that the opinions he formerly announced are false. He has carefully avoided this. He has " guarded " it. Until he makes a recantation in plain and unmistakable language, I must persist in believ ing that lie holds to the original doctrine, which runs, in a " guarded " vein, through much of his writings, and which appears openly and boldly in some of them. If Mr. Mackintosh had really changed his opinions, and had found that he had published statements in the first edition of his "Notes on Leviticus" which contained a deadly and soul-destroying heresy, what
B
1 8 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
course of conduct, would you, my readers, have ex pected him to pursue 1 Would you not have been certain that he would have burned every copy of the book he could lay his hands on, which either directly or indirectly contained the" heresy ; and that he would also have written to every paper, journal, and magazine in the empire, to which he could find access, in order to warn all parties against the heresy he had unfor tunately published? This would have been a plain and effectual way of counteracting the baneful influ ence of his teaching. Has he done this ? Did he ever say one word to that effect till I called him out in the public press ] Never, so far as I am aware. Hence I feel certain he has in no way changed his opinions. In the second edition of the " Notes on Leviticus " he has omitted a few words, and only a few words, but has sounded no alarm whatever, and taken no means to counteract the deadly poison he has administered. What would be thought of me, if I were to order poison to be mixed up with medicine for a patient, and, after having given a good and effectual dose, I were to stand by till the patient expired, without making the slightest effort to overcome the effects of the poison I had administered? Would it be any excuse for my conduct to say, I will let this case go as it is, but the next time I order medicine I will " guard " it so that few people will be aware it con tains the poison ? If I " guarded " it so that the
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 19
poison would be less capable of being discovered by the patient till its deadly effects would be insured, wou^d my villany not be immensely increased ? To be sure it would. Hence, if Mr. Mackintosh, in place of expunging, has only "guarded " the poison, his sin is tenfold greater.
Let us now see how Mr. Mackintosh stands in rela tion to the second edition of his "Notes on Leviticus," which I have just received from London. In the pre face, he blesses God that the sale of a large issue of the first edition has proved the great interest taken in the subject. He blesses God that a large edition has been circulated, although it contains the most per nicious doctrine regarding the humanity of Christ ! And, wonderful to relate, he never in the slightest degree alludes to any heresy in the previous edition ; he never points it out ; he never mentions what it is ; he never warns those who had read it of its dreadful consequences ; but contents himself with the following words, which I presume are intended to apply to this point :— " An expression, here and there, which seemed likely to be misunderstood, I have slightly touched. I have also added a brief note or two. These trilling mattew excepted, the second edition is a reprint of the first" This is the only warning he has given. Is it any warning at all 1 Observe, he calls this a trifling matter ! A fundamental error regarding the humanity of Christ, a trifling matter ! ! Could any sane man
20 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
believe he has really changed his opinions ? I do not. He has slightly touched a few expressions which seemed likely to be "misunderstood" Now, I seriously ask Mr. Mackintosh, will he risk his reputation as a writer, a speaker, and an expounder of Scripture, on this statement 1 Is it true ? Will he affirm that any man, who is not a simpleton, could misunderstand his language, when he says, Christ as to His manhood was the Lord from heaven ? If so, will he be kind enough to point out any plainer or more intelligible language in Johnson's Dictionary 1 He ought to be ashamed of himself for saying any man could misunderstand such language.
So much for the preface. Now for the body of the book. Mr. Mackintosh spoke as true as the Gospel, when he called this a "guarded" edition. In place of leaving out the doctrine, he has " guarded :' it so that a careless reader would imbibe the poison without being well aware he had done so. Hence the danger is the greater. If he had wished to leave out the doctrine, he would have expunged, at the very least, the whole of the second chapter ; but in place of this, he has retained it all, except the following eight words : — " as to His manhood," " divine 1tnan," " heavenly man." When these words are omitted, the doctrine does not so readily catch the attention ; but it is in no way altered. For example, pages 29 and 30, he says, " One consideration should weigh heavily iu
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 21
the estimation of every Christian, and that is the vital nature of the doctrine of Christ's humanity ; it lies at the very foundation of Christianity ; and, for this reason, Satan has diligently sought, from the begin ning, to lead people astray in reference to it. Almost all the leading errors which have found their way into the professing Church disclose the Satanic pur pose to undermine the truth as to the person of Christ. ... 1 feel called upon to warn the reader against strange sounds, in reference to the divine mystery of Christ's humanity. ... It is to be feared that great looseness prevails in reference to this holy mystery." Is it not plain there is some special doctrine under lying this ? Recollect, it is not the divinity of Christ, but His humanity, he is speaking of. The humanity is the burden of this whole chapter. The question of His Godhead is not in discussion. It is all about the humanity. We are not warned against strange sounds concerning the divinity of Christ ; it all relates to His humanity. Now, what are the strange sounds on the humanity of Christ which have crept into the profess ing Church ? What is the doctrine on this point which Satan has been so active in introducing? Where has the professing Christian Church gone astray on the humanity of Christ ? Where does the great looseness on this point prevail ? Is it not as plain as the light of Heaven that Mr. Mackintosh holds opinions regarding the humanity of Christ
22 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
different from those which are held by the professing Church 1 Is it not evident his views are not the same as those which he thinks Satan is diligently inculcat ing on professing Christians ? No person can doubt this without charging Mr. Mackintosh with the high crime of wilfully misrepresenting the views of the professing Church. The Church is either going aside from the views it has been supposed honestly to en tertain, or else Mr. Mackintosh thinks those views so erroneous that they are the inventions of Satan. I ask Christians, are they dishonest on this point? Do they really hold views on the humanity of Christ different from those they have hitherto professed ? If not, Mr. Mackintosh must be falsely accusing them, or else he considers the ordinarily received opinions to be the invention of Satan. There cannot be the shadow of doubt that Mr. Mackintosh holds views entirely different from the generality of professing Christians on this point. Why then does he not state them in unmistakable terms ? Why does he not honestly tell us the exact view which he says Satan is introducing 1 Why does he leave any possibility of doubt on such a momentous subject? Why has he "guarded" his present edition ? If he wanted the truth to be known, there would be no need of guarding. He stated his views in the plainest possible language in the first edition of his book. Why has he altered it so now that his real opinions are more difficult to discover ?
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 23
Why has he " guarded" in place of expunging ? Why has he retained all the obnoxious views under a far more insidious, and, therefore, more dangerous form ? If he has not changed his views, he should not have changed his words ; and if he has changed his views, he should honestly tell us 80. He should recant all his former sayings, and tell us plainly where he was wrong. As he has never done this, we are bound to suppose his views have undergone no change. He may think it prudent to render them somewhat am biguous, or to hide them, but he has never recanted them.
It is also evident, from the extract I have given, that when Mr. Mackintosh speaks of the " person of Christ," he means the humanity, because it is on the humanity of Christ, or the person of Christ, that he says Satan is introducing the false doctrine. If this be kept distinctly in view in reading his works, it will be seen that he deifies the humanity in an immense number of instances. As I cannot find space to criticise the whole chapter, I will just take the para graph from which I previously quoted, and from which Mr. Mackintosh has now omitted the words " as to His manhood." "As to the materials," says he, "the * fine flour ' may be regarded as the basis of the offering ; and in it we have a type of Christ's humanity." Observe here, the question in the paragraph is the humanity, not the divinity, of Christ. " The Holy
24 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Ghost," he continues, "delights to unfold the glories of Christ's person. ... He contrasts Him with Adam, even in his very best and highest state. . . . The first Adam, even in his uiif alien condition, was ' of the earth,' but the second Man was 'the Lord from heaven.'" We here see that when Mr. Mackintosh speaks of the glorious person of Christ, he means His humanity. The sense of the paragraph also demon strates that it is the humanity of Christ Mr. M. is contrasting with Adam. There would be no sense at all in the paragraph if he meant the Godhead of Christ, because his whole argument relates to the humanity of Christ Consequently, he must mean the " manhood " of Christ when he says He is "the Lord from heaven." No Christian will deny that, in His Godhead, Christ is the Lord from heaven. This point is not in dispute amongst Christians. Hence it cannot be the point which Mr. Mackintosh is labouring to set us right on. It is not on the divinity of Christ, but on "the vital nature of the doctrine of Christ's humanity," that he says professing Christians are so led away by Satan ft is this affair of the humanity he is trying to incul cate on his readers. It is, therefore, indisputable that ie means the humanity of Christ when he calls Him 'the Lord from heaven." He has made it more lifficult for ordinary readers to unravel his meaning, but he has in no way altered the sense, by omittin-' m the second edition, the expression "as to His man-
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 25
hood ; " and for that reason he should have allowed it to remain as he originally published it, " The second Man is, as to His manhood, the Lord from heaven." When he holds the opinion, in place of truckling about it, he should stand manfully up for it.
Again, at page 36 of the guarded edition, we have the words, " The conception of Christ's humanity, by the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin." The doctrine creeps out here also. The Scripture says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive ;" and again, "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb ; " but Mr. Mackintosh improves upon this, and says the conception, in place of being by the Virgin, was by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost conceived in her womb, it was not the Virgin herself that conceived. According to this view, the Virgin had no more to do with the con ception than, as Valentine said, the conduit has with the water which runs through it. Some have tried, in writing to me, to get Mr. Mackintosh out of his diffi culty by saying that both statements are true, namely, that the Holy Ghost conceived, and the Virgin con ceived also ; but this idea is too absurd for any person of the least sense to entertain. It would make two conceptions — a double beginning, which is impossible. Besides, Mr. Mackintosh's opinion derives no support from Scripture. He says the conception of the humanity was by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, whereas the first chapter of Matthew says,
26 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
"That which is conceived in her is o/ the Holy Ghost." These two statements are not the same ; and we can have no difficulty whatever in understanding the meaning of the expression, " Of the Holy Ghost," in Matthew, if we only look at the context. It is per fectly plain there that it was not the Holy Ghost conceived, and that the passage in no way contradicts the other Scriptures, which say that it was the Virgin herself conceived. " When Mary was espoused to Joseph, hefore they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." So soon as Joseph knew she was with child, he determined to put her away, because he thought she was with child by whoredom ; but the angel put him right on this point, and assured him that, in place of being in child by man, she was in child by the power of the Most High—" for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." That which she conceived was not of man, but of the Holy Ghost. There can be no difficulty here. The passage gives no support to Mr. Mackintosh's idea of the Holy Ghost conceiving, nor does it in any way contradict those Scriptures which say that the Virgin conceived. She was not found with child of man, but " she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. . . . That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost "-not of man, because she knew not man. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thin-
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 27
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Further, Mr. Mackintosh's views regarding the con ception by the Holy Ghost are carried to their legiti mate result, as we find him, page 40 of the guarded edition, saying, "Such was the humanity of Christ, that He could at any moment, as far as He was per sonally concerned, have returned to ' heaven, from whence He had come and to which He belonged." "What is the meaning of this, reader ? Does he mean that the humanity of Christ was such that the divinity could separate from it and return to heaven, whence it had come and to which it belonged ? This cannot possibly be his meaning. He just means that Christ's humanity was such that He, humanity and divinity combined, could return to heaven, whence He had come and to which He belonged. Of course, if the humanity could return to heaven, as a matter of necessity it must have been there before : so that here again we have the heavenly humanity theory cropping up. Further, at page 42, he says, " Between humanity as seen in the Lord Jesus Christ, and humanity as seen in us, there could be no union. . . . The spiritual and the carnal, the heavenly and the earthly, could never combine. . . At this side of death there could be no union between Christ and His people." Surely the heavenly humanity doctrine i« plain enough here. Between humanity as seen in
28 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Christ, and humanity as seen in us, there could be no union. His spiritual humanity could not unite with our carnal humanity ; His heavenly humanity could not unite with our earthly humanity ; His humanity which was conceived by the Holy Ghost — which was spiritual — could not unite with our humanity which was conceived by the daughters of Eve, and which consequently was not spiritual and heavenly, but carnal and earthly. I really feel it would be a waste of time to dwell much longer on this point. There is scarcely a page in his second chapter in which the doctrine of " the heavenly humanity " is not taught either directly or indirectly, either openly or "guardedly."
Having traced the pernicious doctrine through the first and second editions of "Notes on Leviticus," I must now see if it is to be found in the second revised edition of " Notes on Exodus." On page 276, Christ is called "a heavenly man ; " and on page 278, we are told the angel informed Mary that " divine power was about to form a real man—' the second Man, the Lord from heaven.'" Here the real man — the body which was to be formed in Mary — is directly called the Lord from heaven. The sentence I have quoted also ex plicitly states that the Lord from heaven was about to be formed by divine power. This is rank Socinian- ism. At pages 281, 280, and 265, he says, Christ was " entirely heavenly," was " a heavenly stranger," and
THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 2Q
" travelled from the eternal throne of God in heaven down to the depths of Calvary's cross." There are many other points, but I cannot now dwell on them.
There is a third, and revised edition of his " Notes on Genesis." What does it say ? Preface, page 9, " There is no blessing outside of, or apart from, the person of Christ — the heavenly Man." Surely this needs to be "guarded." But there is one remarkable sentence on the i gth page, which needs to be doubly "guarded." It runs thus :— " Yes, my reader, the Lord Christ, God manifest in the flesh, the Lord of the Sabbath, the maker and sustainer of heaven and earth, spent the seventh day in the dark and silent tomb." If there be any meaning in language at all, Mr. Mackintosh here makes the body of Christ — the only part which lay in the tomb — completely God ; and this is in per fect accordance with the idea of the "conception by the Holy Ghost," the "divine man," the "heavenly humanity," the "manhood" which was "the Lord from heaven." If Mr. Mackintosh, in the words I have quoted, did not mean that the bod// of Christ, which lay in the grave, was really and truly God, or else that the humanity and the Godhead (impious thought !) both lay in the dark and silent tomb, he is as incapable: of writing intelligibly as the new-born child.
30 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
SOCINIANISM.
THE great danger to be feared from the Plymouth Brethren arises from the fact, that they have ingeni ously mixed up some very important truths with the most pernicious and fatal errors. This is often done in such a " guarded " manner that ordinary readers are not very likely to discover the combination till they have actually imbibed the poison. Hence the vast importance of discovering the errors and laying them open to the gaze of the Christian world. " In most of these combinations of scriptural truth with error (of which the apostles were very jealous)," says a foreign correspondent of the London Record, "instead of the good compensating for the evil, by neutralising it, as is often erroneously supposed, it rather increases the evil by helping to give it currency ; many proofs of which could be supplied from the history of the Christian Church."
" Greater zeal," says my father, in the fifth volume of his Works, "for the salvation of sinners, and the amelioration of the condition of human kind, never was manifested than at present. This is ground of rejoicing to all the friends of the Gospel. But there is one unhappy symptom of the present times, with respect to Christianity. Zeal for the purity of divine truth has not kept pace with zeal for the salvation of sinners. . . . Where now are the friends of ancient
SOCINIANISM. 31
orthodoxy? Are there not still multitudes who ad here to the strong views of truth professed by the Re formers ? Will they quietly suffer a spurious liberality to rob them of the truth ? Are they afraid to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints I la it more important to propagate the Gospel, than to preserve its purity 1 Paul thought it of more importance to contend for the purity of the Gospel than to extend its reception by his personal ministry. He never laid down his weapons. He was unceasingly employed in combating the corruptions of the Gospel. All the zeal at present manifested by the Man of Sin, all the efforts of Atheism, are not so much to be dreaded as the present apathy among Christians re garding the integrity and purity of divine truth. If judgment shall be executed upon the house of God, this base acquiescence in the subversion of the Gospel, by false philosophy and false charity, will be the bitterest ingredient in the cup of suffering."
In the previous chapter, I quoted an extract from the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, which stated that the Plymouth Brethren were propagating the Socinian view of some of the sacrifices. As this point is in discussion between Mr. Darby and the Editor of the Journal, I shall not dwell upon it. But still, I find so many things in Mr. Mackintosh's book which, to my judgment, smell strongly of Socinian doctrine, that I cannot altogether pass on without pointing out some
32 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
of them to my readers. Let us look at Mr. Mackin tosh's view of the burnt-offering ; and to give him full fair play, I shall quote from his "guarded " edition of " Notes on Leviticus."
At page 6, he says, " The primary aspect of Christ's work was to God- ward. It was an ineffable delight to Him to accomplish the will of God on earth." In my early days I came greatly in contact with Unitarians and Socinians, and I almost think I can yet hear them uttering similar words to these. The work was to obey and please God — not to obey and make atone ment in the room and stead of the sinner. Again, page 7, " In all this self-emptied devotedness to God, there was truly a sweet savour. A perfect Man on the earth accomplishing the will of God even in death, was an object of amazing interest to the mind of Heaven." Unitarianism and Socinianism are not yet dead. The perfect Man accomplished the will of God, and obeyed Him as the antitype of the burnt-offering, but not in the room and stead of the sinner ! Further, page 10, "Christ, in the burnt-offering, was exclusively for the eye and heart of God. This point should be distinctly apprehended." Abraham "took the ram," says the Scripture, "and offered him up for a burnt- offering in the stead of his son." Is there no substitu tion here ? In the stead of his son. Job " offered a burnt-offering according to the number of them all : for Job said, It may be my sons have sinned." The
SOCINIAMSM. 33
inspired penman tells us Job offered the burnt- offering for the sins of his sons ; but Mr. Mackintosh, it is to be presumed under "the presidency of the Spirit," is enabled to tell us that it was not for sin at all, but "exclusively for the eye and heart of God," that Christ appeared in the burnt-offering. The sinner had neither part nor lot in this part of Christ's work. It was merely to please God without any apparent cause. Does it not approach to the borders of blasphemy to suppose God required all this without any relation to the bearing of the sins of His people, as if He were as capricious as one of the gods of the heathen ? " The burnt-offering," continues Mr. M.,page u, "does not foreshadow Christ on the cross bearing sin, but Christ on the cross accomplishing the will of God." Is there a Socinian in the world would refuse to subscribe to this doctrine ? If there is, I never saw one like him. Again, page 17, "The cross, in the burnt-offering, is not the exhibition of the exceeding hatefulness of sin, but of Christ's unshaken and unshakable devotedness to the Father ? " Would the Socinian not join in this, and say it had nothing to do with atonement for sin ; but was to please God and show Christ's devotedness to the Father ? To be sure he would. But to crown all. Mr. Mackintosh says, page 20, "The idea of sin- In -unrig— the imputation of sin— the wrath of God- does not appear in the burnt-offering. True," he con- , "we read, 'It shall be accepted for him to
-,4 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
make atonement for him;' but then it is 'atonement' not according to the depths and enormity of human guilt, but according to the perfection of Christ's sur render of Himself to God, and the intensity of God's delight in Christ." What great sin was there in Christ's surrender of Himself to the Father, and in the Father's delight in the Son, that thus required to be atoned for? Is it not sufficient to terrify any Christian to read such sentiments 1 Just think of the hardihood of the man who will thus deal with Scrip ture. When Revelation says, " He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" Mr. Mackintosh gives a flat contradiction, and informs us it is not an atonement for him at all— it has nothing to do with sin-bearing — nothing to do with the enor mity of human guilt — but is only an atonement, "according to the perfection of Christ's surrender of Himself to God, and the intensity of God's delight in Christ ! " Leaving the awful impiety of this method of handling Scripture out of the question altogether, there is not even one particle of sense in Mr. Mackin tosh's statement. How could Christ make an atone ment for "the perfection of Christ's surrender of Himself to God, and the intensity of God's delight in Christ?" Did any man ever before hear such a jargon of nonsense, with a deep purpose to mystify Scripture ? This is so well " guarded," that I am sure
SOCINIANISM. 35
Mr. Mackintosh himself could not explain it. It is about on a par with the old woman's definition of metaphysics, "which the writer didna understan' himsel', and which nae other body kenned."
Such are the sentiments on the burnt- offering which are taught in the " guarded" edition of the " Notes on Leviticus." They are also to be found at the 2O2d and 203d pages of the first volume of " Things New and Old," where it says, " Christ, as the antitype of the burnt-offering, gave up His life, in order to give full expression to His devotedness. . . . The burnt- offering prefigures Christ on the cross, not as a sin-bearer, but as accomplishing the will of God. ... It does not set forth the hatefulness of sin, but the preciousness and divine excellency of Christ, and His devotedness to God, even unto death,"
I do not wish it to be understood, by anything I have stated, that Mr. Mackintosh denies a full atonement for sin on the cross. What I charge him with is, that he says the part of Christ's work on the cross which was typified by the burnt-offering had no relation to the sinner at all. There can be no mistake about his opinions on this point. He has not yet "guarded" them. He says, "Christ, in the burnt-offering, was exclusively for the eye and heart of God. . . . The burnt-offering does not foreshadow Christ on the cross bearing «n, but Christ on the cross accomplishing the will of God. . . . The idea of sin-bearing— the imputu-
36 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
tion of Bin — the wrath of God — does not appear in the burnt-offering." According to this view, there is one portion, or aspect, of Christ's work on the cross which has nothing at all to do with the sins of His people. It has no relation to His chosen ones. In whose stead, then, is He standing 1 If in every portion of this work He is not standing in the place of the sinner, for \vhom is He atoning ? Job offered the burnt-offering for the sins of his sons ; consequently Christ, as the antitype of that offering, must have been offered for some per son's sins. For whom, then, was He offered 1 For Himself, or for others ? As Mr. Mackintosh utterly denies it was for the sins of His people — that there was any imputation in the matter — he should just go the whole length of saying it was on His own account. He admits it was an atonement. For whom was the atonement effected ? If it was not effected for His people, it must have been for Himself. Mr. M. tells us it was "atonement, not according to the depths and enormity of human guilt, but according to the perfec tion of Christ's surrender of Himself to God." If it was really an atonement, it must have been for sin ; and if it was not for the sins of His people imputed to Him, it must have been on His own account. This is the fair, legitimate, and necessary result of Mr. M.'s representations of Christ as the antitype of the burnt- offering. I am persuaded there is not a Socinian. in the world
SOCINIANISM. 37
would find fault with Mr. Mackintosh's opinions about the burnt-offering. "This attack upon the burnt- offering," says the Journal of Prophecy, " is, perhaps, one of the worst of their errors. For that sacrifice is the great parent of all the other sacrifices — the root from which the others have sprung as branches. If, then, the Sociniau axe be laid to the parent root and stem, the whole tree with all its branches must come down. ... It requires no common amount of prepos session and hardihood to deny a propitiatory character to the burnt-offering. . . . We could not have believed that any but a Socinian or a Rationalist could have so entirely set aside the great features of the burnt- offering. . . . Those who have gone thus far will have no difficulty in going farther. . . . The heresy is a serious one, and strikes at the very root of redemption. It is the theory of Maurice and Socinus in an evan gelical form."
The Socinian tendency of Plymouth ism is further shown by Mr. Darby's new translation of the Scrip tures. As I have not seen that work myself, I take. my authority from an article in "The Sword and Trowel "for December 1872. "Mr. Darby," observes the reviewer, " says in his preface, * I have not a doubt of the justness of the change, and just because, in modern English, worship is used for what is rendered to God only. When the English translation was made, it was not, and the use of it now falsifies the sense in
38 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
three-quarters of the passages it is used in. It is quite certain that in the vast majority of instances of per sons coming to the Lord they had not the lest idea of owning Him as God. And it falsifies the sense in a material point to use the word now.' This," continues the reviewer, " is Mr. Darby's language, and it is clear enough, at all events, nor could anything more decided on the subject be said by the most advanced Unitarian minister in London. He says, 'in modern English worship is used for God only.' This is one statement ; and then, 'in the vast majority of instances, they had not the least idea of owning Christ as God.' This is the next statement ; and further, ' it falsifies the sense on a material point so to use the word now.' This is the third ; and consequently, as worship is for God only, and in the vast majority of cases they had not the least idea of owning Christ as God, Christ did not get worship at all, but only homage, and so Mr. Darby was quite right in putting in his Bible homage and not worship. . . . Verily if Gilbert Wakefield, Priestly, or Belsham were alive, these leading Unitarian ministers would say, « Let us shake hands, brother ! ' Yet these are the grounds on which Mr. Darby thinks proper to sweep the worship of Christ out of the New Testa ment ! . . . . Again, why does Mr. Darby not allow the capital letters to remain as before to the names of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost 1 These words in the common French version begin with capital letters, but
80CINIANISM. 39
Mr. Darby expunges the capitals and puts small letters instead. Thus, in his version, seigneur, Lord, is printed with a small s, and saint esprit, Holy Ghost, with a small s. All this, observe, is done coolly and delibe rately."
We here see a most deliberate attempt to overturn the Deity of Christ In place of being worshipped, He only received homage, because God only is to be worshipped ; and in place of having His title, Lord, written with a capital letter, He must be reduced to the level of a man, and have the title written with a small 1, as in lord. And yet this is the man who calls himself a Christian. This is the man who is able to tell us that the wise men from the East (Matt, ii.), in place of coming to worship Jesus, only came to pay Him homage— that the disciples (Matt, xiv.), when they came and worshipped Him, saying, " Of a truth Thou art the Son of God," did not worship Him at all, but only paid Him homage — that Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, and the eleven disciples (Matt, xxviii.), did not worship Him, but only paid Him homage, for worship is for God only— that the dis ciples, on seeing the Lord go up into heaven (Luke xxiv.), merely paid Him homage, because worship is for God only — and that the blind man who was healed (John ix.), in place of saying, " Lord, I believe ; and lu- worshipped Him," should have said, "lord, worship is due to God only, I will not worship thee, but I will
40 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
pay thee homage." Christian reader, what do you now think of the Socinian tendencies of Darby and Mackintosh ? What do you now think of the truth fulness of Mrs. Grattan Guinness, when she asserts that " on the fundamental truths of the gospel," these Plymouth* "are at one with all evangelical denomina tions ? " Is there a single evangelical denomination in the empire which denies true worship to Jesus in the New Testament ; or that the burnt-offering prefigures Christ on the cross bearing the sins of His people?
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST.
THERE are few questions of more importance than the. one which has reference to the way in which a sinner becomes perfectly righteous before God. If he be not completely righteous, he cannot enter heaven. When man fell from his pristine sinless condition, he could not of himself procure a righteousness. He therefore required a substitute who was able both to keep the law and to suffer the penalty for its breach. It is of the utmost importance to understand the distinction between obeying the law and suffering its penalty. Suffering the penalty can never bring innocence. If a man obeys the laws of his country in every particular, he is innocent ; but if he has committed a breach, and » brought to trial, he must be pronounced guilty. Being once guilty, he can never be made innocent by
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 41
suffering the punishment For example, a man who has committed murder may suffer death as the penalty of his crime, but no person would think of him as innocent Even the royal pardon, which would save him from the punishment, could not make him guilt less. So is it with the sinner. He has broken the laws of God, and cannot save himself. If he is to be saved, it must be by the instrumentality of one who is able to render perfect obedience to every precept of the law, as well as to suffer its penalty. In both these points, the saved sinner has a perfect substitute in Christ. Christ "took not on Him the nature of angels ; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham " — our humanity — and in the room and stead of His people, He lived a life of complete and perfect obedi ence to every possible demand of the law which they were required to keep ; and then, in His death, He paid the full and entire penalty of the law which they had broken. In this way He wrought out a com plete robe of righteousness for His Church. The law was kept, and the penalty paid ; and the saved sinner entered heaven perfectly righteous when viewed by God in His all-sufficient substitute Christ Jesus.
" In the plan of salvation through Christ," says my
father, "the authority of the law is fully vindicated,
and the breach of it fully avenged. Not only so, but
ita demands are fully yielded in the obedience of the
1' the sinner's substitute. Saved sinners have
42 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
given the law what damned sinners will never give it. In the substitute they have rendered full obedience to its precepts and suffered the full penalty of its breach. In stead of trampling on the law, in the salvation of His people from its curse, Christ has magnified the law and made it honourable. Is it possible for God more highly to honour the law than to exact obedience to it from His Sou, and to demand from Him full satis faction for its breach by His people 1 This is more honourable to the law than if it never had been broken. It is more honourable to it than if all its transgressors had suffered for ever in hell. The obedience of the Son of God to its precepts, and His enduring of its curse in His death, are the highest possible honour that the law can receive. . . The law was broken by the first Adam, but it was fulfilled by the second. Its requirements were perfectly yielded by the obedience of the life of Christ, and its penalty was suffered by His death. This, then, is the ground on which rests the character which God gives of Himself to Moses. In Christ only can this character be true. Here the various divine attributes have their perfect operation. Here God is merciful without clearing the guilty. His mercy provides an almighty Saviour to pay the debt in their nature : He does not clear the guilty, because, in acquitting them, they are acquitted as innocent. They have suffered the penalty of the law in Christ : they have fully kept the precepts of the
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 43
l;i\v in Christ. This way of harmonising the divine attributes is perfect wisdom. Yet, so far is it removed from the wisdom of men that human wisdom cannot
<• it on God's testimony. It is always endeavour ing to harmonise the divine attributes by a compro mise, or by giving an ascendancy to mercy. As they stand in Christ, His people are not guilty. They are purer than the heavens. It would be a false judgment that would pronounce them guilty, as they are one with Christ. They do not deserve punishment. Their punishment wpuld be as much opposed to justice as to
. Here the mercy of God looks the law of God in the face, and without a blush it delivers the prisoner. Tli is wonderful plan of harmonising the divine attri- Imt. ~ is here revealed, not as opposed to the law, but as rendering the law complete obedience. Here the divine glory shines in all its lustre." — ("Carson's Works," vol. v. pp. 121, 171.) When Christ obeyed all the precepts of the law in His life, and endured the entire punishment due to our sins in His death, He provided a perfect righteousness of His own, which is imputed to us. As we are one with Christ in His life, in the keeping of the law, and one with Him in His death, in suffering the penalty of the law, we are completely free and perfectly righteous. We have no righteousness of our own. We get it, by imputation,
( 'brisk What saith the Scripture on this point? "And
44 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord. ... He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation ; He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness. . . Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. . . . That righteousness might be imputed unto them also. . . . For the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife [the Church] hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white ; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. . . . But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. ... For if by one man's offence death reigned by one ; much more they which receive abund ance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ. ... For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people is here taught as plainly as words could teach it. Their righteousness is not their own ; it is said to be of the Lord. They are covered with the robe of right eousness. God is said to impute righteousness without works. The Church, the Lamb's bride, is arrayed in fine linen, which is the righteousness of saints. Christ is distinctly said to be unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption ; so that if we have not
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 45
_'hteousness, we have not His redemption. But to place the matter beyond every possibility of dispute, we are informed that, as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were made sinners, so by the obedi ence of the last Adam many shall be made righteous. This doctrine is stated in the words of inspiration as clear as the light of heaven.
Now, what do the Darbyites say on this question ? In order to prevent misunderstanding on the part of my readers, I must here mention that the point be tween them and us is not the long-disputed (question of the imputation of righteousness, but their total denial of the righteousness of Christ as a doctrine of Scripture. The last point is the thing to be con sidered. They admit the imputation of righteousness, but deny that there is such a thing at all as the right eousness of Christ in the whole compass of revelation. This is such a dreadful and soul-destroying heresy, that I would not charge them with holding it if there was the slightest doubt about their opinions on the subject From the thoroughly Jesuitical way in whicli they often speak of righteousness, many parties imagine ii-e quite sound, but their heterodoxy is rendered indisputable by the following proofs. "It is very remarkable," says Mr. C. Stanley, " that the Scriptures never use the expression, ' the imputed righteousness of Christ,' or even 'the righteousness of Christ'; but ;il\\i\3 the 'righteousness of God.' .... The words,
46 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
the 'righteousness of God,' do not mean the 'righteous ness of Christ.'" — ("Imputed Righteousness," pp. i, 6.) It is here very plainly stated that what is called in Scripture "the righteousness of God," is not "the righteousness of Christ." There can be no doubt this is the doctrine asserted. And Mr. Mackintosh says, " I would observe here, that in speaking of the ' impu tation of righteousness,' I by no means desire to be understood as giving any countenance to the prevailing theory of ' the imputed righteousness of Christ.' . . . Of this expression, so much in use in the theology of the present day, it would be sufficient to say that it is nowhere to be found in the oracles of God. I read," he continues, " of ' the righteousness of God ; ' and, moreover, of the imputation of righteousness, but never of the righteousness of Christ.' "— (" Tribe of Levi," third edition, p. 33.) The imputation of the righteous ness of God is here distinctly held, whilst it is most emphatically denied that the oracles of God contain such a thing as the righteousness of Christ. Again, " to the believer now," says Mr. Bell, " righteousness is imputed without works. How? Through the righteousness of Christ ? The Scripture does not say so. . . . You (Mr. Cox) complain of the many points of difference which exist between 'Brethren' and others— all, I own, material points. But whence these differences ? They are all involved in this question of justification."— ("Cease ye from Man," pp. 16, 24.)
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 47
The righteousness which is imputed to the believer is here denied to be the righteousness of Christ ; and it is admitted that justification through the righteousness of Christ is a fundamental point on which the Ply- mouths di.ssent from other sects. It is one of the cardinal questions. And yet Mrs. Grattan Guinness does not hesitate to state that "on the fundamental truths of the gospel " the Plymouths " are at one with all evangelical denominations." If this be not mis leading the public, I know not what is.
What do the Darbyites mean by " the righteousness of God," which they say is imputed to the believer \ They just mean one of the attributes of the Godhead. " The righteousness spoken of here " (Rom. iii.), says Mr. Bell, "is evidently the righteousness of the God head — that essential attribute." — ('* Cease ye from Man," p. 15.) "It is very remarkable," observes Mr. C. Stanley, " that the Scriptures never use the expres sion, * The righteousness of Christ,' but always, as in Rom. iii. 19, 26, 'The righteousness of God.' The Holy Ghost must have an object in this ; and surely it is to direct our attention first of all to God himself, to show His own character and attributes in perfect con sistency and harmony, that He is just in justifying the sinner. ... It is of the first importance that God should be seen to be perfectly consistent with Himself, in the relation in which He stands to all created beings, and this is righteousness. . . . The subject of the first
4 8 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, is the unfolding the righteous character of God in condemning sin, yet justifying the believing sinner."— (" Imputed Righteousness," pp. 1-3.) " It is not the righteousness of God, a fact, an existing thing, which is spoken of," says Mr. Darby, "but righteousness of God— this quality of rifjhteoumess."— (" The Righteousness of God," p. 14.) Righteousness is here made the inherent quality, or attribute, which belongs to the Godhead. Again, pages 18, 10, and 28, Mr. Darby says, "The righteousness of God means, first of all, His own righteousness— that He is just. . . . The righteous ness spoken of is God's being righteous (just is the same word). . . . We have gained an immense point in understanding that God's righteousness is the qua lity or character that is in God Himself. . . . God's righteousness is His perfect consistency with His own perfect and blessed nature." Again, " That in the Old Testament," says Mr. Darby, " the Lord's righteousness means a quality in the character of God, is beyond all question or controversy. Is it different wholly in the New ? I do not believe it."—(" The Pauline Doctrine," p. 1 6.)
These extracts demonstrate beyond question from any rational being, that what the Darbyites call the righteousness of God is a quality inherent in God Himself— is one of the divine attributes. Now, inas much as they hold the imputation of the righteous-
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 49
"f God, if this righteousness be, as Mr. Darby -the quality or character that is in God Him self,"— if it thus be one of the attributes of the Almighty, I demand to know how this attribute of the Godhead is to be imputed to man. Just think of the interpretation of Scripture which compels them to hold that some of the attributes of the Almighty are to be imputed to man ! I demand a rational ex planation of this point. I ask how man is to be clothed with an attribute of the Godhead ? Let them rxpluin this if they can. No doubt God possesses •usne.ss as one of His attributes, but this is not righteousness which is imputed to man. It could be so; the attributes of the Godhead are not ferred on the human race. I call on Mr. 0. Stanley show how his statement could be true, when he asserts that " God's own essential righteousness is com municated to us."— (" JustiBcation," by the Rev. John Harrison, p. 31.) Will God endow us with His own attributes? "Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." This righteousness cannot be the attribute of divinity, because by faith it is unto all ami upon all that believe. Man is not converted into a God after this fashion. As Mr. Haldane has well ob- u The righteousness of God, which is received by fuith, denotes something that becomes the property of the believer. It cannot, then, be here the divine
t no
co
50 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
attribute of justice, but the divine work which God has wrought through His Son. This, therefore, deter mines the phrase, in this place, as referring imme diately, not to the divine attribute, but to the divine work. The former never can become ours."
To those who are really acquainted with the views of these Plymouths, my dwelling so long on the proof of this point may appear superfluous ; and so it would be, were it not that many half-hearted supporters of truth are so fond of cloaking error, that they try to make us believe the Plymouths do not hold " the righteousness of God" as an attribute of the Godhead. They are disposed to argue that the " Brethren " do not believe what they say. If they would only think for a moment, however, they would see it is easy to prove that this must be the opinion of the Darbyites, even although they had been a little more " guarded " in giving ex pression to this peculiar view. For example, Mr. C. Stanley not only tells us, that the words, " the right eousness of God," do not mean the righteousness of Christ ; but he also says, " The thought of Christ having kept the law for me, and that this is imputed to me for righteousness, even supposing I had been a Jew under law, would be utterly wrong. . . . Nor does the Scripture anywhere teach the whole life of Christ as keeping the law, imputed to, or put upon the law breaker, to enable him to stand in law-kept righteous ness before God." — (" Imputed Righteousness," p. 6.)
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 51
Now, I ask those would-be apologists for the Plymouths, what they make of this ? If Christ hath not kept the law in the room of His people ; if He hath not worked out a righteousness for them ; if the righteousness of God be not the righteousness of Christ, what else can it be than an attribute of the Godhead ? If it be not this, what is it ? If the righteousness of God be not the righteousness of Christ ; if Christ hath not worked it out, it must surely be an attribute of divinity. Will any one say it was worked out for us by the Father ? Consequently, if the Father did not work it out, and if it be not the righteousness of Christ, it could not have been worked out at all, and must, in the very nature of things, be an original and inherent attribute of the Almighty. This is the inevitable result ; and it lies on those who hold such views to show how it is possible for God to impute His own attributes to the human race. If one attribute can be imputed, all the attributes can be imputed, and men can all be turned into Gods.
Since this work was first published, I have read Mr. Darby's dismally dark reply to the Journal of Prophecy. I see he has taken another turn for the purpose of getting out of the perplexing position in which he is placed. He says, p. 14, « Righteousness being imputed to a man, simply means the man being accounted righteous. It does not mean a quantum of formal righteousness outside us, imputed to us, but our
52 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
being accounted righteous." Now, what sort of impu tation is this ? It is no imputation at all. He should cease to use the expression, "Imputed righteousness," altogether. He is only misleading the public by using language to which he attaches a different meaning from what it is able to bear. If this system of " guarding " be not dropped, it must just be exposed. It is a complete deception. According to the turn Mr. D. has now taken, the righteousness is not imputed at all, but the man who is not righteous is accounted righteous. The God of truth and justice is to come forth with a lie in His right hand, and to account the man righteous who is not, in any sense, truly righteous — to call the thief an honest man ! ! How can that man call himself a Christian who will make a just and holy God the author of a falsehood, by accounting an unrighteous man righteous 1 If God accounts a man anything but what he really and truly is, He denies Himself and ceases to be God. It is impossibls for God to lie, and, therefore, the man who is accounted righteous by God must, indeed, be really and truly righteous in the sense in which God accounts him so. There can be no if or and in the matter. Although personally a sinner, the believer has the righteousness of Christ so really and truly imputed to him, that he is as innocent, standing in Christ, as if he never had sinned, and as spotless as the throne of the Almighty. Again, if the righteousness be not the righteousness
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 53
of Christ, but is one of the attributes of the Godhead, as the Darbyites make it, I want to know how the attribute of the Godhead is to be "accounted" to man. This is the point. If Mr. D. had one particle of perspicacity, he would see that he has not advanced a single step towards relief from his predicament It is just us impossible for an attribute of the Godhead to be accounted to man as to be imputed to man. God's attri butes can neither be accounted nor imputed to man.
But Mr. Darby goes on to say, "God accounts us righteous because of the work of Christ." As Mr. D. is about as confused a writer as ever put pen to paper, this idea may probably satisfy his own understanding, but it could not satisfy any man who is capable of thinking clearly. Just look at it. The attribute of righteousness which belongs to the Godhead of Christ cannot be imputed or accounted to any man. Indeed, Mr. D. does not here, say it could. He says it is for the work of Christ we are accounted righteous. Now, for what work are we accounted righteous ? The paying of the penalty in the death of Christ is an essential ingredient in righteousness, but it alone does not con stitute righteousness. The man who is righteous is entirely innocent. Suffering the punishment can never bring innocence. Consequently there must be a per fect obedience in the room of the guilty, as well as an atonement But Mr. D. utterly denies the obedience of Christ's life in the room of His people. Where,
54 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
then, can he find the completion of righteousness ? Nowhere. His view of the work of Christ cannot produce it. He makes Him pay the penalty for His people, but he does not make Him fulfil the law for His people. Hence there is no righteousness at all to be either imputed or accounted to His people. It is only a part of a righteousness. It is not complete. Mr. Darby's principles are dreadful. They make the God of heaven account a man innocent when he is not truly innocent— they make the holy God the author of a fiction !
Another idea here strikes me. Take Mr. Darby on his won showing, and what is the result ? He says we are accounted righteous for the work of Christ. If so, the work of Christ must constitute a righteousness ! and what is this but a righteousness of Christ, which he lustily denies ? Further, if the righteousness which Mr. Darby says is accounted to us be constituted of the work of Christ, as he affirms, how does this work of Christ become an attribute of the Godhead ? Absurd ! At one time Mr. Darby says, " Righteous ness is here made the inherent quality, or attribute, which belongs to the Godhead," — an attribute insepar able from divinity ; and then, in another place, when driven into a corner, he is obliged to acknowledge that the righteousness which is accounted to us results from the work of Christ. And still he denies there is such a thing as the righteousness of Christ ! Verily
THE RIGHTEOUSN7ESS OF CHRIST. 55
there is no end to the inconsistencies and contradic tions of error. Again, if the work of Christ constitutes a righteousness, how does Mr. Darby venture to say that " the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ is not spoken of as to justification at all, and has nothing to do with the subject ] " If the righteous ness of Christ has nothing to do with justification, how are we justified by the work of Christ, which Mr. D. says is accounted to us? Truly such inconsistencies are inconsistent enough even for the authors of Ply- mouthism. In his reply to Mr. Trench, Mr. Darby complains that he cannot give intelligence to his ad versaries. It would be a great blessing, however, if he could by any means obtain the least possible trifle of it for himself. No man in the world has more need of it. I was told, a few days since, that it is impossible for the obedience of Christ to be so imputed that the man who has broken the law becomes entirely inno cent. If so, I reply, on the same principle of reason ing, It is impossible for the work of Christ on the cross to be so imputed that the man becomes entirely free from his guilt. If the one be impossible, so is the other. In commenting on this, Mr. Darby says, " With a man who can reason thus, it is lost time to reason at all. There is not a particle of sense in the passage. An innocent man is, to go no deeper, a man who has never been guilty; and his ever becoming innocent is simple nonsense." Not so fast, Mr. Darby. Your
56 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
argument here, in place of making a fool of Dr. Carson, just proves your own incapacity, if you had the brains to see it. At the 45th page of your " Righteousness and Law," you say your sin is put away by the atone ment, and you are " guiltless." Now, to turn your own argument on yourself; "With a man who can reason thus, it is lost time to reason at all. There is not a particle of sense in the passage. A guiltless man is, to go no deeper, a man who never has been guilty ; and his ever becoming guiltless is simple nonsense." Verily, Mr. Darby, if you had the least critical power, you would have seen the predicament you were placing yourself in. On Mr. Darby's principles no man could be saved. It is very satisfactory to know, however, that the Scriptures place the matter in a different light. They tell us very plainly that " God imputeth righteousness without works ; " that we are actually "clothed with the garments of salvation," and "covered with the robe of righteousness ; " and that Christ is " made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sancti- fication, and redemption." If the Plymouth views were correct, the redemption would be sufficient, and the robe of righteousness which God has provided is quite superfluous. They are far wiser than God. They can take men into heaven who are in no sense of the word innocent ! Innocence can never result from suffering the punishment. The man who was hanged yesterday has undergone the full punishment for his
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 57
crimes— he has paid the penalty ; but if he were to come alive again to-morrow, he would possess no more innocence than he did the day before his execution. He might laugh at the hangman, but he could not get clear of the guilt. He might escape the repetition of punishna-nt, but he could never proclaim his inno cence. He could never use the language of Scripture, and say, " Who shall lay anything to my charge ? " He is still a real murderer, and is chargeable with the guilt of his crime. He cannot in any sense be looked on as innocent. Paying the penalty can never bring innocence. That cannot result without perfect obe dience. So it is with the sinner. Christ paid the penalty on the cross by suffering the entire punish ment, but that alone does not bring innocence or freedom from guilt, and alone could not admit to heaven. The man who enters heaven is in such a condition that not/ting whatever can be laid to his cluirgc. Although guilty in himself, he is completely innocent or guiltless when viewed in Christ In Christ he is so perfect that God can see nothing amiss. Tlu- perfect obedience of Christ's life and the compli u> atonement effected by His death on the cross, aiv both really and truly imputed to the saved sinner, arid he thus enters heaven in a perfectly pure and spotless condition. He is innocent or guiltless.
No man but a polytheLst could believe in a multi tude of Gods. It is utterly impossible for men to be
58 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
converted into Gods by having the attributes of the Godhead imputed, imparted, or accounted to them. God cannot give away His own attributes. He cannot either impute, impart, or account His attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, justice, omniscience, and eternity to the human race. Consequently that jus tice or righteousness, which is an attribute of divinity, cannot be given to man. If, then, God's attribute of righteousness cannot be imputed or accounted to man ; if there be no such thing in Scripture as the righteousness of Christ, and if man cannot possibly work out a righteousness for himself, how is he to get into heaven ? This is a vital question. If Plymouthism be true, no person who was once a sinner ever entered heaven, or else heaven is peopled with unrighteous creatures. I defy any man to adopt their principles, and escape this difficulty. Their heaven is not the place where a righteous God dwells. It is filled with unrighteous people, and God could not look on them without abhorrence. Such views are entirely subver sive of the Gospel.
As this point is of overwhelming importance, I will repeat my statement. When Christ suffered on the cross, He endured the entire punishment for the sins of His people ; He paid the penalty in their room and stead ; but this alone does not make them righteous. The man who is righteous is perfectly innocent. He not only defies punishment, but nothing whatever can
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 59
laid to his charge. Suffering the penalty can never ig innocence. Palmer has suffered the penalty due his crimes, but no human being could look on him now as being innocent or righteous. No sane man would say it is as impossible to lay anything to his charge now as if he never had committed the crime. The suffering of Christ on the cross was an essential ingredient in the righteousness of His people, because nothing could make them righteous till the penalty of the broken law was paid ; but, inasmuch as they must be made perfectly innocent, it was absolutely necessary that Christ should also keep the law in their room and stead. When, in their place, He both obeyed the law and paid the penalty, He brought them into a con dition of perfect innocence. They were then com pletely righteous and meet for heaven. But how is it on the view of the Darbyites? They deny that Christ obeyed the law for His people ; they say there is no such thing in Scripture as the righteousness of Christ ; they deny that man can work a righteousness for himself ; they cannot show that suffering the puni.-hment makes a man guiltless ; and they cannot prove that God can part with His own attribute of right eousness, in order to clothe man with it ; consequently all men must be excluded from that heaven wherein dwelleth righteousness. The heaven of these Ply mouths is neither the heaven nor the hell of the Scriptures. It is an unholy place, and filled with half-saved people.
60 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Again, whether viewed as transgressors in Adam, or, as personal transgressors, we must admit that we have broken the law of God, and are not now able to obey its precepts. If, then, man cannot obey the law on his own behalf, and if, as these Plymouths stoutly assert, Christ hath not obeyed it in his stead, I want to know what is to become of him. He must certainly be excluded from heaven, or else heaven is to be filled with those who are still transgressors. Suffering the punishment of the broken law, is not fulfilling its requirements and obeying its precepts. Hence, if the death of Christ alone be available for the believer — if the obedience of His life be excluded — His people must be excluded from the habitation of a just and holy God, because they are still under the stigma of a broken law. The law has not been kept by them nor by any substitute on their behalf, and, therefore, they cannot produce a full claim to the mansions of glory. Perhaps these Plymouths would attempt to escape from this predicament by asserting that we are not under law. Let them do so, and I at once reply, If we are not under law to God, and if Christ hath rendered no obedience to law for us, we cannot in any sense be guilty of the sin of disobedience, and consequently there was not the slightest necessity for an atonement. "Where no law is," saith the Scripture, "there is no transgression." If there was no law to be kept by man, or by a substitute in his stead, there was no law
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 6 1
to break, and there could be no atonement for its breach. This is self-evident. This view not only renders the obedience of Christ's life superfluous, but it also makes the atonement effected by His death unnecessary and useless.
Is it true, as asserted by Mr. Mackintosh, that we never read in Scripture of "the • righteousness of Christ?" "Now," eays the Journal of Prophecy, "suppose this were true — was not Christ God? It looks almost as if it were going to be denied that Christ is God. If Christ be God, then His righteous ness is God's righteousness. Does any secret ques tioning of Christ's supreme Godhead lurk under the singular idea of His righteousness ? " It is the right eousness of God in contradistinction to anything which could be done by men or angels. " For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that belie veth." In the first of these verses, it is culled the righteousness of God, in direct contrast to ihe righteousness of man, which man was trying to establish. There is no contrast here, regarding right- i-'.usm-ss, between the Father and the Son, but there is a contrast between God and man. In the one case it is the righteousness established by man, in the other it is the righteousness provided by God. It must also be
62 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
specially remarked that what is called the righteousness of God, in the first part of the quotation, is called, in the last part, the righteousness of Christ. He is here said to be the end, or complete fulfilment, of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Besides, if Christ be God, His righteousness is God's righteousness, and has a perfect right to be so called. No man can con sistently deny this who admits the divinity of Christ.
"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch. . . . And this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." It is beyond my comprehension how these Plymouths can believe this to be Scripture, and still say, We read of the righteous ness of God, but never of the righteousness of Christ. They should cut this text out of the Bible. Surely the righteous Branch which is to be raised unto David is no other than Christ. He it is, then, who is to be called the Lord our Righteousness. No man of sense could argue that the righteousness here mentioned is the righteousness of the Father. It unquestionably applies to Christ ; and the name whereby He shall be called is the Lord our Righteousness. It is evident the righteousness here referred to is not the essential attribute of righteousness which Christ possessed in His Godhead, because it is to be our righteousness. He cannot part with His own attributes, and, con sequently, the righteousness which is to become ours, must be a righteousness which He could work out and
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 63
confer upon us. The attribute of righteousness, which fttlongfid essentially to His Godhead, could no more become ours than could His attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, and eternity. If these Plymouths, in claiming the attribute of God's righteousness, would be consistent, and also claim the attributes of omni potence and omniscience, they would soon be con signed to Bedlam. The attributes of the Godhead cannot be conferred upon man. Jeremiah had not heard of these Plymouthites, for he tells us that Christ shall be called the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
"And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all right eousness.1' \Vhut was the righteousness which Christ was fulfilling here in His baptism ? Was it one of His own attributes ? How could He fulfil His own attri butes ? He might prove that He possessed them, but He could not fulfil them. The views of these Ply- mouths regarding righteousness are not consistent with either Scripture or common sense.
"Even aa David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." This is a most important portion of God's Word. It clearly establishes that God really and truly imputes righteousness to man. There is no hiiiun either in the righteousness or in the imputation. The righteousness is a true righteousness, and no int.. kc-ry ; and the imputation is real, not pretended.
64 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
When God says He imputes righteousness, He means what He says. He does not count a thing winch never happens. There is no fictitious work with Him. When we are told ("Rom. iii. 22), " The righteousness of God is upon all who believe," we should be quite certain it is a something in which they can be clothed. If this were not so, the Scripture which says it is upon them, would not be true. The righteousness which is imputed becomes so really and truly their own, that they are perfectly righteous in the sight of a holy God. That such is the case is placed beyond dispute by Matthew, who tells us, that " the righteous " shall go "into life eternal." They must, therefore, be truly righteous, as God could not call them righteous unless they were so in reality. He looks on things as they are, and He judges according to truth. The text at the commencement of this paragraph does not say that God imputes the consequences of righteousness, but He imputes the righteousness itself. As Dr. Owen has well observed, "In this imputation, the thing itself is first imputed unto us, and not any of the effects of it, but they are made ours by virtue of that imputation. ... To say the righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overturn all imputation. For the effects of the righteousness of Christ cannot be said properly to be imputed unto us ; and if His righteousness itself be not so, imputation hath no place herein. . . . And,
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 65
therefore, the Socinians, who expressly oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and plead for a participation of its effects or benefits only, do wisely deny any such kind of righteousness of Christ, ... as alone may be imputed unto us."— (" Owen on Justification by Faith.") My text, however, expressly asserts that " God imputeth righteousness " to man. There is a genuine righteousness, and a genuine imputation. Consequently the righteousness spoken of must be a righteousness which God can confer upon man. It cannot, as maintained by these Plymouths, be one of His own attributes, because men cannot be converted into Gods by having the attributes of divinity conferred upon them. This is impossible. If God were to give away His own attributes, He would cease to be God. It is so impossible for God to part with His attributes, that when we find Christ manifesting the attributes of divinity, we know of a truth He is really God. Here, again, we see that the views of the Darbyites undermine the divinity of Christ. If the attributes of God can be conferred upon man, the possession of them by Christ would be no proof of the divinity of Christ. The righteousness mentioned in the passage I have quoted is one which God is said to impute to man, and, therefore, it cannot be the attribute of divinity possessed by the Father and Son, but must be the righteousness which was worked out by Christ, or, in other words, Christ's righteousness —
E
66 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
the righteousness which He has provided by the obedience of His life, and the atonement effected in His death, in the room and stead of His people.
In the Qth chapter of Daniel, we are told that a certain time was determined " to finish the transgres sion, and to make an end of sins, and to make recon ciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." Who is referred to here ? Who is to make an end of sins, to finish transgression, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness ? Who but Christ could effect this ? The righteousness, then, must be the righteousness of Christ. Moreover, it must be a righteousness which He could work out. It could not be one of the attri butes of the Godhead, because Christ is to bring it in. He could not bring in His own attributes, which have existed from past eternity. This righteousness is to be brought in, and after being brought in, it is to be everlasting. It is to last for ever ; but it does not say it has existed from past eternity. If such had been the case, the expression would have been similar to the one in the Psalms, which says, " From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." In the case of the righ teousness, the word " everlasting " applies to its dura tion after being brought in, and, therefore, cannot refer to a pre-existing attribute ; but in the other example, the expression, " From everlasting to everlasting," in cludes eternity past and future.
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 67
" Henceforth/' says Paul, " there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." If the righteous ness be one of the attributes of the Godhead, as held by these Plymouths, how is it to be given to Paul ? How is God to part with His own attribute, in order to place it on Paul's head ? Paul is not crowned with that righteousness which is an attribute of the God head, but he is crowned with the righteousness pro vided by Christ; and, as one portion of the Lamb's bride, he is clothed with the robe of Christ's righteous ness, "the fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."
" For if by one man's offence death reigned by one ; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life bv One, Jesus Christ." It surely will not be disputed by any one calling himself a Christian, that the one by whose offence death reigned is Adam, and that the One by whose righteousness life reigns is Christ. This is conveyed in the text as plainly as possible. Observe, it is not said that those who reign in life have a righteousness of their own. It is expressly stated that they receive the gift of righteousness. It was a gift, and capable of being received by man, and consequently could not possibly be one of the attributes of the God head, as that could not be bestowed upon man. If it was not one of the Divine attributes, it must have
68 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
been something worked out for man, and then be stowed upon him. By whom, then, was it worked out ? Will any person venture to affirm it was worked out by the Father, and not by Jesus Christ 1 If it was not worked out by the Father, but by Christ, it must be the righteousness of Christ. There is no escape from. this. The comparison between Adam and Christ is kept up in the next verse, "Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con demnation ; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." As by the offence of one (Adam), condemnation came ; even so by the righteousness of one (Christ), the free gift came unto justification. Now, if the righteousness mentioned here be not the righteousness of Christ, but of the Father, the comparison must lie between Adam and the Father. Can any person believe that Adam is here compared with the Father, and not with Christ ? If he can, I will give him up. If Adam be not compared with the Father, but with Christ, then the righteousness spoken of must be the righteousness of Christ.
Further, " For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners ; so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous." Surely the disobedience here which makes many sinners is the disobedience of Adam, and the obedience which makes many righteous is the obedience of Christ. Is it not, then, the righte-
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 69
ousness of Christ resulting from His obedience 1 Would any person venture to say it was the obedience of the Father which was compared or contrasted witli the disobedience of Adam 1 Certainly not. The obe dience here is the obedience of Christ. Now, what obedience did Christ render ? Ami for whom did He render it? If we examine the Scriptures, we shall find that He rendered a perfect obedience to the pre cepts of the law in His life, and then submitted to the penalty of the broken law in His death on the cross. In whose stead did He stand throughout these trans actions ? Did He obey the law for Himself, or His people ] Did He suffer the punishment for Himself, or Hi.s people ? For His people, most certainly. He did not require to sojourn in this world on His own account ; and if His obedient life had nothing to do with His saints, it was perfectly useless. He might as well have gone to the cross on the day of His birth, if He had nothing to do, as these Plymouths assert, by way of obedience to the law during life in the room of His Church. It is a glorious truth, however, that, as the substitute of His chosen ones, He rendered a perfect obedience to the holy law of God in His life, and paid the penalty of the broken law in His death, and thus browjht in an everlasting righteousness, the righteous ness of Christ — a righteousness which, being worked out by Christ, is capable of being conferred as a gift upon man.
70 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
But, finally, according to the marginal, proper, and literal rendering of the following passage, the righte ousness is expressly called the righteousness of Christ : "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." Here it is expressly called the righteousness of Jesus Christ who is our God and Saviour. This verse places the question beyond dis pute. It proves the righteousness to be the righteous ness of Christ, and further shows that Christ is God. Just look at a similar expression on another subject — "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us." Is it the Father who is mentioned here ? Did the Father give Himself for us] Is it the Father, and not Jesus Christ, for whose appearing we are to look ? Is it not plain that Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, is to appear (on the day of judgment), and that He is the great God and our Saviour ? If so, a similar interpretation must make " the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ " the righteousness of Christ. Further, let us examine the expression, "Feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." Is it the Father is meant here ? Had the Father flesh and blood? Did the Father purchase the Church? Was it not Christ who purchased the Church with
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 71
His own blood ? And as Christ is both God and man, is not the Church which He purchased with His blood properly called the Church of God, or the Church of Christ 1 If so (and who can deny it ?), a similar interpretation must make "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ " the righteous ness of Christ ; and, Christ being God, it is properly and correctly also called the "righteousness of God." Those who dispute these principles of interpretation are bound, for their own consistency's sake, to deny that Christ is God. Socinianisra would make the best foundation for the Darby ite opinions on this point.
Another great error of Plymouthism is, that Christ during His life did not actually suffer with or for His people, but that it was merely sympathetic. This is the fair result of the "heavenly humanity" view. If His humanity was "heavenly," and not ours, of course He could not actually suffer. The Plymouth.s are perfectly consistent with themselves in making the sufferings of Christ during His life merely sym pathetic, because this is the only sort of suffering which could be borne by a person who, in place of our humanity, had a "heavenly humanity," was "a divine man," and, " in His manhood was the Lord from heaven." In his " guarded " edition of " Notes on Leviticus," pages 58 and 59, Mr. Mackintosh says, "' Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sick nesses.' This was entirely sympathetic — the power of
72 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
fellow-feeling which in Him was perfect. . . . There is, therefore, a very manifest difference between Christ's suffering as a voluntary sympathiser with human misery, and His suffering as the sinner's sub stitute." No doubt of it, Mr. Mackintosh ; there is a vast difference between these two points — just as much difference as there is between your sympathetic theory and the sufferings of Christ as set forth in the Scriptures of Truth. The Holy Spirit informs us that Christ " took our infirmities, and bare our sick nesses;" that He was "a man of sorrows and ac quainted with grief; " that He was " despised and rejected of men;" that He "hath borne our grief and carried our sorrows;" that when "He was reviled, He reviled not again; when He buffered, He threatened not;" and that He "suffered for us, leaving us an example, that " we " should follow His steps." The man who wishes to believe Scripture can have no difficulty here. Was Christ a man of sorrows on His own account or on ours ? We are plainly told that He took our infirmities, carried our sorrows, bore our grief, and suffered for us, leaving an example which we are to follow. " For we have not an high priest," says the Scripture, " which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Words
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 73
could not more explicitly assert that Christ suffered from the temptations endured in life, and that He was tempted on all points like as we are, yet without sin ; and the reason why all this took place is plainly stated. It was in order that He might be an example for His people, and that He might be "able to succour them that are tempted." Having Himself endured the griefs, sorrows, infirmities, and temptations to which His people are liable, He is in a proper position to be touched with the feeling of their infirmities. Besides, He endured all these things without sinning in any sense of the word, and, therefore, we are certain that He rendered a perfect obedience to the law of God. Such is the testimony of the Holy Spirit re garding the reality of the endurance of the griefs, sorrows, and infirmities which were exemplified in Christ's life : but Mr. Mackintosh is much better informed on the subject. He is able to tell us that there was no reality in the taking of our infirmities, and in the bearing of our sicknesses ; that it was nothing more than mere sympathy. To use his own words, "It was entirely sympathetic." He is far wiser than the Holy Ghost. Is it not dreadful to think of the position of the man who, with extreme professions of sanctity on his lips, will thus recklessly deal with the Word of God ? We are as expressly told that Christ, during life, took our infirmities, bare our sicknesses, and carried our sorrows, as we are
74 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
that He died for our sins on the cross. But as the first does not suit Mr. Mackintosh's theory, he has no hesitation in denying its reality, and making it "entirely sympathetic." On the same principle, he should deny the reality of Christ's death as an actual atonement, and make it "sympathetic" also. It is an awful thing to twist Scripture to the support of a system, and thus be guilty of " handling the Word of God deceitfully."
There is one point which Mr. Mackintosh and his disciples lay great stress on, as a proof that Christ had nothing whatever to do with or for His people till He came to the cross, and that is, that it was only on the cross He lost the light of His Father's countenance. "From time to time," says Mr. Mackintosh, "during the life of Christ, down here, heaven had opened to give forth the expression of divine complacency in Him ; but on the cross God forsook Him, because He •was making His soul an offering for sin. If Christ had been a sin-bearer all His life, then what was the dif ference between the cross and any other period ? Why was He not forsaken of God during His' entire course ? What was the difference between Christ on the cross, and Christ on the holy Mount of Transfiguration 1 Was He forsaken of God on the mount ? These are very simple questions, which should be answered by those who maintain the idea of a life of sin-bearing." — (" Notes on Leviticus," p. 56.) Great stress has been laid on this
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 75
argument. It is a regular stronghold. But I confess I am quite surprised at the shallowness of the mind which could either produce it, or rely upon it. Just look at it Suppose Mr. Mackintosh's son was living a life of perfect obedience to all his commands, would he look upon him in the same light as if he were under punishment for the breach of every instruction he had given him ? If he did, he would be a most inhuman monster. And yet this is exactly the position in which Mr. Mackintosh's argument would place the God of justice ? It must also be remarked that Mr. M. mis represents his opponents, after his own sly method, by slipping in the word "sin-bearing" for obedience. Christ, in His life, was rendering a complete and perfect obedience to the law, in the room and stead of His people ; He was fulfilling every jot and tittle of its requirements : and, therefore, the Father, in place of hiding His countenance, was well pleased in Him. Would it not be worse than absurd to expect the Father to be displeased on account of a perfect and unsullied obedience to every requirement of His law ? To be sure it would ; and hence, during Christ's life of obedience, the Father was thoroughly pleased and satisfied. The case, however, was very different in regard to the cross. During His life He was obeying the law ; but on the cross He was suffering the piini.-hment for its breach. He was there suffering as a transgressor, having all the sins of His people
7 6 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
really upon Him. Consequently the Father could not but hide His face from Him, until the punish ment was borne and the debt paid. This is the difference between Christ's life and the cross. In the one, He was rendering obedience, and the Father gave Him the light of His countenance ; in the other, He was under the curse of the law, and suffering the punishment for its breach, and consequently the Father hid His face from Him. An able corres pondent of the London Record very properly observes : " The whole work of obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ is excluded from this new gospel. The surety might have gone at once from heaven to the cross on Calvary." If Christ had nothing to do with His people till He came to Calvary, for what purpose did He live ? Was His life practically useless?
MACKINTOSH VALOUR.
I LOOKED in vain over the pages of the Coleraine Chronicle for Mr. Mackintosh's reply to the second letter I published in that paper. I could not in truth say I really expected a reply to that letter. He had got so thoroughly entangled in a labyrinth, without a thread to guide him, that escape was hopeless. No man on earth could have relieved him from the predicament in which he had involved himself. The
MACKINTOSH VALOUR. 77
attempt he made to improve his position, only made him flounder the deeper.
I did not, I could not, believe Mr. Mackintosh was such a monster as to continue circulating an awful heresy which, either in a palpable or in a " guarded " form, underlies almost every article he has written, if he did not believe in the doctrines he teas proj)oundiny . Consequently, I never for one moment imagined he had changed the opinions he originally published. To give him a full opportunity, however, of making the matter plain to the world, I put a number of questions, which, if answered, would have left no doubt on the subject But these questions he has not found it convenient to reply to. The public will have no difficulty in knowing the reason why. He engaged in this controversy with great ardour at first ; he looked like a valiant soldier in the first flush of excitement ; but the moment he saw the batteries before him were fully manned and thoroughly equipped, he came to the wise, although unmanly, conclusion, that "discretion was the better part of valour." The flying Americans levelled a coward's gun at Dr. Russell ; Mr. Mackintosh has presented one at me. He sent a private-public letter to the editor of the Chronicle, which might be thown to all and sundries, but which was not to be printed. I saw it, and I only wish I had got a stretch at it. His conduct was cowardly in the extreme, and betrayed a want of confidence in his principles.
78 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
As I had not the slightest idea of allowing Mr. Mackintosh to escape, I demanded an explicit answer, yes or no, without any shuffling, evasion, explanation, or " guarding," to the following questions : — Does he now deny that Christ, "as to His manhood, was the Lord from heaven " ? Does he now deny that Christ was " a divine man " ? Does he now deny that Christ had a "heavenly humanity'"? Does he now believe that Christ appeared in our humanity ? Does he now believe that Christ was made under the law ? Will he positively declare that his opinions regarding the humanity of Christ are exactly and precisely the same as those which are held by the Established Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Independents, and the Covenanters? These were fair, plain, intelligible questions, and required only yes or no for an answer. Indeed, this is the only sort of answer I would have taken, as I would suffer no quibbling in the matter ; no special pleading ; no "guarding." Some of Mr. Mackintosh's followers have written to me to excuse his silence, on the ground that he might not think the Chronicle a proper place for religious subjects; but this 'excuse cannot hold ; because he thought it a very suitable place until he saw he was conquered. It was only when he was obliged to beat an ignominious retreat, that it became necessary to avoid the columns of a newspaper. In the hope of a Plymouth victory, the paper was com-
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 79
pletely sanctified ; but the moment a crushing defeat became inevitable, the Chronicle was unholy ground. This is quite in harmony with the deeply Jesuitical ni of Plymouthiam.
THE PASTORAL OFFICE.
THE existence of the Pastoral Office is so plainly taught in Scripture, that I am surprised any person would think of questioning it. " I will give you pastors according to mine heart," says the Lord, by Jeremiah, " which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." God has here promised pastors : is He a man that He should not fulfil 1 The duty of these pastors is also specially mentioned. They are to feed the flock with knowledge and understanding. If so, they must possess a high degree of knowledge and understanding themselves, because they could not communicate if they had not received. It must also be observed, that the parties who feed must be different from those who are to be fed ; there must be both a pastor and a flock. Hence it is evident all the Hock cannot be teachers. If all the flock are to be placed on a par in this respect, the distinction of pastor and flock is lost ; and the establishment would correspond with Donald Carr's description of the school in which " the one was taughting the other."
8o PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
"Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea : which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." We here see that the assistance for the relief of the brethren was not sent to them direct, but through the hands of the elders; and this shows that there were elders, and that they occupied a prominent position in comparison with the ordinary members. A careful examination of Scripture will demonstrate that the term Elder is applied exactly to the same office as pastor and bishop (see Titus i. 5-7, where elder and bishop are used interchangeably) ; and hence this passage proves that there must have been pastors distinct from the flock, over which they were placed, and for whom they received the contributions which were sent by Barnabas and Saul.
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church." It is evident from this that a church must exist before an elder or pastor can be placed over it. It is also plain that a pastor was placed over every church so formed. There was no exception — " every church/' It is further manifest that the pastor was not to run, after Plymouth fashion, through all the churches in the kingdom. It does not say the elders were to run from place to place, but they were or dained in every church. If a church cannot, by the greatest effort, support a pastor, or if it be impossible
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 8 1
to find one of the proper description, God will not lay the want of one to the charge of that church, because He is not such a hard taskmaster as to require people to do impossibilities in this affair ; but I am perfectly certain if a church, from any other cause than an utter impossibility, neglect to procure a pastor, it is com mitting a great sin in the face of high Heaven, and cannot possibly prosper. I have never known pros- perity to take place where the Pastoral Office was despised, and God'* arrangements thus neglected and trampled under foot. The Plymouths are not the ouly guilty parties in this matter. It is quite a common thing to find men who pretend to be guided by Bible principles and scriptural authority, and yet feel that it is no sin to neglect the plain teaching of Scripture regarding the necessity of procuring pastors for the churches. They are great sticklers for the exercise of gifts, as they call it ; and so long as it comes under that denomination, they will be quite content to listen to the most monotonous, silly, trashy, and commonplace discourses that ever fell from ignorant and illiterate lips. Whilst there is a total absence of all real gift and power, they get infatuated with the sound of their own voices, and become so far puffed up with pride and self-conceit, that they cannot bear to submit to the Scripture rule of having one \HK, is "apt to teach" placed over every church. They thus, under the pretence of standing by Scrip-
82 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
ture, trample under foot the very office which was instituted by God for the instruction, edification, and growth of a church of Christ. As might be expected where God's institutions are despised, these parties become dead, stunted, and formal. In place of recom mending the system of Christ by their conduct, they become a direct stumbling-block to all who witness their order. If in any case a pastor is to be chosen, these men of "gifts" are great judges and hard to please. The pastor must submit to every imaginable test before they can sanction his appointment ; but if it be proposed, as I have done, to submit their own gifts and qualifications to the decision of a church, the scene is entirely changed. The pastor must be tested ; but the men of " gifts " are so superhuman that they cannot submit to any test outside their own infallible judgment. With the cry of liberty in their mouths, they deprive the churches of all liberty, and become veritable popes. The only liberty they grant is the liberty of listening to their own " sweet voices," whether the auditors wish to hear them or not. In fact, no greater specimens of petty tyrants can be found, t
In New Testament times, I believe that every church had a plurality of elders ; hence it is very important that the same principle should be carried out still. In this way, the variety of gifts in different men will be found of immense use in a church. In-
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 83
deed, I go the whole length of admitting that the Scripture compels us to have a plurality of pastors in every instance where it can be obtained in accordance with scriptural rule and qualification ; but I totally deny that in cases where it is impossible to have two, in accordance with scriptural rule and qualification, we are compelled to refuse one, on the ground that we must not have one when we cannot find or support two. Such a principle would be inconsistent with the arrangements of both God and man. On this plan we could not perform any of our duties, unless we perform them all, — we dare not attend to one ordinance with out attending to more ; we could not do a single thing • in a church, unless that church was perfect and com plete in every arrangement, even the simplest. God calls upon us to have everything in a church as perfect as we can ; but He does not require us to do what is impossible ; He does not forbid us to do one duty because we cannot do two. It is just as absurd to argue that we must not have one pastor because we cannot get two, as it would be to maintain that the man who cannot find three meals in the day, must starve with hunger rather than eat one which he can get. Our proper course is to do everything right as far as we go, and to go as far as we can ; but we are not justified in sitting still and saying we will do nothing because we cannot do everything. In point of fact it will be found, on careful examination, that
84 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
those who object to one pastor because two cannot be obtained, are influenced in their conduct by a thorough hatred to the pastoral office as delineated in Scripture.
"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and of the apostles and the elders." Could anything be plainer than this? We have three classes here— the church, the apostles, and the elders. Now, if the elders or pastors were essential to the wellbeing of the churches at the very time the apostles were on earth, is there any reason for supposing that they could be dispensed with at present ? What reasons could be adduced for their necessity in those days, which do not still exist 1 The churches in those days had the inspired apostles to apply to, and we, in these days, have the Sacred Scriptures to appeal to ; but still, the elders or pastors are just as necessary now to feed the flock with know ledge and understanding as they were in apostolic times. Seeing we have the Scriptures, we can dis pense with the miraculous gifts possessed by apostles and prophets ; but there is just the same necessity as ever for the exercise of the gifts of the pastors or teachers.
" And He (Christ) gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers." If the pastors and teachers were necessary at the time the apostles and prophets
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 85
existed, they are surely equally necessary now. It is very evident all these classes were necessary at the time they were first given : otherwise they would not have existed at all. If they were all necessary then, they are all necessary now, unless we have some sub stitute to put in their place. Where, then, is the sub stitute I We have a perfect substitute now, in the possession of the Holy Scriptures, for the apostles and prophets; but where is the substitute for the pastors and teachers? The first churches had the inspired apostles and prophets, we have the inspired writings : so far we are on a par. But if, notwith standing the miraculous gifts, they required pastors or elders in every church in those days, surely there must be an equal necessity for them now. Further, for what purpose were these classes originally given? " For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Such were the duties to be performed. Will any person venture to say those duties ceased at a par ticular time? So long as the duties last, there must be ample means for their performance. So long as there are saints upon earth, so long as there is any portion of the body of Christ (His Church) in this world, the work of the ministry must go on, the saints must be perfected, and the body of Christ (His Church) must be edified. In primitive times they had pastors and teachers as well as inspired men ; in
86 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
these days we require pastors and teachers, as well as the words of inspiration. But my text goes further still, for it says these were given, not for a day or an hour, but " till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." This can never end while the world lasts. It will end only when the last Christian is removed to heaven. Consequently pastors and teachers must still exist. We have no substitute for them in the -same way as we have the sacred oracles to take the place of those who were endowed with miraculous gifts.
4' Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Again are the Scrip tures perfectly explicit. The saints of Christ, or the Church of Christ, at Philippi, had bishops and deacons. Do we not require bishops and deacons as much as they did? Are we to be behind them in Christian privileges 1 Are we able to dispense with bishops and deacons, seeing that they were required even under the eyes of the apostles ?
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God. . . . The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, . . . feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 87
oversight thereof ; . . . and when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadcth not away." The saints are here desired to remember those who have the rule over them, and who have spoken the Word of God. There must, there fore, be rulers and ruled, teachers and taught. They are not left as a random medley. The apostle, who is an elder as well as an apostle, exhorts the elders not only to feed the flock of God, but also to take the oversight thereof, and if they perform their duty as they ought, they will be rewarded by the Chief Shep herd when He comes at the last great day. It is evi dent here that the duty of the elders is to feed the flock as well as to rule over it. Consequently, so long as there is a flock to be fed and ruled, elders or pastors must exist. It must also be observed that a Chief Shepherd is mentioned ; from which it is palpable that there must be wn&r-shepherds. When the under- shepherds cease to exist in the churches on earth, there can be no Chief Shepherd for them, because in the very nature of things there can be no chief without an under.
" If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." A bishop, then, is not a common man. He has a special office, and an official position. He is more than a common soldier. Amongst the various qualifications enumerated for a bishop, the capability of teaching and ruling occupies a prominent position,
88 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
" A bishop then must be ... apt to teach, . . . one that ruleth well his own house ; ... for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God 1 " Who will read this and dare to say that a church requires neither ruling nor teach ing, but is just to be left to the mercy of any booby who may imagine that the inflations of his own pride and vanity are the movings of the Holy Spirit ? That the Plymouths are in a miserable plight in this point of view is rendered evident by the lamentation made by Mr. Mackintosh over the condition of their gather ings. " Alas ! alas," says he, " we often see men on their feet, in the midst of our assemblies (that word our will creep in), whom common-sense, to say nothing of spirituality, would keep in their seats. We have often sat and gazed in astonishment at some whom we have heard attempting to minister in the assembly. We have often thought that the assembly has been looked upon by a certain class of ignorant men, fond of hear ing themselves talk, as a sphere in which they might easily figure without the pains of school and college work. . . . If an assembly be troubled by the intrusion of ignorant and foolish men, — men who have never yet measured themselves in the presence of God, — men who boldly overleap the wide domain over which common-sense, good taste, and moral propriety pre side, and then vainly talk of being led by the Holy Ghost, — restless men who will be at something, and
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 89
who keep the assembly in a continual state of ner vous apprehension, not knowing what's to come next," &c. (Quoted in Dennett's Lecture.) Well done, Mr. Mackintosh ! You have made out a thorough case against your own sect. There is no doubt that all you have said is perfectly true : but it is the inevitable result of your own system. In place of blasphemously saying that the Holy Spirit is presiding under such circumstances, you should set all down to the right cause — a rotten system. For what purpose are the qualifications of the bishops or elders so minutely laid down in Scripture, if they are not to serve for guiding us? Have we no special interest in these matters now ? If the first churches required men who were highly qualified for ruling and teaching, do we not need the same ? Unless it can be shown that we are all inspired, we surely have as much need of rulers and teachers as they had. The circumstances which rendered pastors and teachers necessary at first were not of a temporary nature, nor did they belong specially to any country or age , and hence, so long at they continue — so long as there are churches to be ruled and taught — there must be rulers and teachers. The teachers and rulers can cease only when the
sity for teaching and ruling ceases. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not
90 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn ; and, the labourer is worthy of his reward." There are several items of importance in this passage. The duty of the elders is to rule, as well as to labour in word and doctrine. They must attend to discipline ; at the same time they are to be very careful to instruct the flock in all the doctrines contained in the Word of God. They must be both " apt to teach " and capable of ruling. When they have done this, they are to be rewarded. They are all worthy of reward, but some of them more than others. Some are to be doubly rewarded. The Scripture here lays down the rule of fair play, which is applicable in all the pursuits of life — every man is to be rewarded according to the ability he displays, and the work he performs. The context here shows that double honour means double support. The temporal wants of the elder are to be supplied, so that he may be enabled to attend to his duties. He is to live on the proceeds of his ministerial labours, just in the same way as the ox must be permitted to sup port nature by the proceeds of his labour, whilst he treadeth out the corn for the wrants of others. This is the plain meaning of the comparative illustration. If the ordinary " labourer is worthy of his hire," surely the spiritual labourer is not less so. Observe, too, it is not a mere gratuity ; it is hire, or wages, or a debt honestly due. This is the teaching of Scripture, and I believe the man who denies it, generally does so
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 91
because he is too great a miser to dip his hand into his own pocket. I am sorry to say the greatest disgrace which hangs over all sects of Christians in this land, ia the miserable— shamefully miserable — way in which they support their ministers. If they were properly alive to their duty, and their solemn responsibilities to God, they would, in general, pay ten times as much as they do. I am surprised they are not often ashamed to see their ministers in straits and difficul ties in worldly matters. They should never act so as to compel their pastors to follow worldly occupations or starve. There is a prevalent idea abroad that ministers ought to sacrifice something for the sake of the gospel. So they ought. But I ask, Are they the only parties in the community who are to sacrifice, or rather to be sacrificed ? Is the man who, from his education and natural ability, could earn three hun dred a year in any other profession, to be content with one hundred a year, doled out from heartless payers, merely because he is a preacher of the gospel ] Is he to sacrifice two hundred a year, whilst rich men in his congregation would not sacrifice two pounds ? Do the Scriptures demand this? Never. The labourer is to be rewarded according to his work. Can any man call himself a Christian, whilst he neglects his duty to a minister who is faithfully labouring in word and doctrine 1 Shame ! oh, shame ! How can people ex pect a blessing to rest upon the cause they are
92 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
engaged in, while their miserable parsimony prevents them from seeing and doing their duty as laid down in the Scriptures of Truth / Are these narrow-hearted creatures aware that it is written, " The Lord or- daineth that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. . . . Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived : God is not mocked. . . . He which soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly : and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bounti fully ?" It is to be hoped that they have never seen these passages ; but if they do cast their eyes on them, and afterwards 'decry ministers for taking and seeking a proper support for preaching the gospel, let them answer to the Almighty, who will not be mocked.
" But, ah ! dear friends," says Mrs. Spurgeon in an admirable letter which she published in TJie Sword and Trowel for August 1876, "when I look at this list I see the only shadow of sadness that ever rests upon my Book Fund. It is the grief of knowing that there exists a terrible necessity for this service of love ; that, without this help, the poor pastors to whom it has been sent must have gone on famish ing for lack of mental food, their incomes being so wretchedly small that they scarcely knew how to 'provide things honest' for themselves and their families, while money for the purchase of books is
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 93
absolutely unattainable. . . . Their very gratitude for the boon conferred, often makes my heart ache in the midst of its gladness, for the sense of need must have been sorely felt, since relief is received with such rapture. . . . Surely these servants of Christ ought to have received better treatment at our hands, than to have been left pining so long without the aids which are vitally necessary to them in their sacred calling. Books are as truly a minister's need ful tools as the plane, and the hammer, and the saw, are the necessary adjuncts of a carpenter's bench. We pity a poor mechanic whom accident has deprived of his working gear, we straightway get up a subscrip tion to restore it, and certainly never expect a stroke of work from him while it is lacking : why, I wonder, do we not bring the same common-sense help to our poor ministers, and furnish them liberally with the •leans of procuring the essentially-important books ? Is it not pitiful to think of their struggling ou from year to year ou their miserably small incomes ? Many have large families, many more sick wives, some, alas 1 have both : they have their children's education to provide for, are obliged to keep up a respectable appearance or their hearers would be scandalised, and how they manage to do all this and yet keep out of debt, only they and their ever-faithful God can know. Are these men to be kept in poverty so deep that they positively cannot afford the price of a new
94 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
book without letting their little ones go barefoot? The 'labourer is worthy of his hire ;' but these poor labourers in the gospel-field get a pittance which is unworthy both of the workman and the work." For the remainder of Mrs. Spurgeon's excellent letter, I must refer my readers to The Sword and Trowel.
I shall here make a digression from the direct line of my subject for the purpose of remarking on the duty of Teaching. In order that the pastor may feed the flock, he must possess tact, judgment, and good natural ability. As Mr. Spurgeon has well said, " A really valuable minister would have excelled at any thing. There is scarcely anything impossible to a man who can keep a congregation together for years, and be the means of edifying them for hundreds of consecutive Sabbaths : he must be possessed of some abilities, and be by no means a fool or ne'er-do-well. Jesus Christ deserves the best men to preach His cross and not the empty-headed and the shiftless." With out good natural capacity it is impossible for any man to do full justice to a congregation. He must be " apt to teach." This is a scriptural qualification which cannot possibly be dispensed with. How few do we find coming up to the mark on this point ! They may be " apt to sermonise," which is very good in its own place, but they seldom think of teaching. What is the cause of this? It is chiefly, perhaps, owing to the fact that sermonising requires less talent,
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 95
less knowledge, and less study than exposition. " With little acquaintance with the Scriptures as a whole," says my father, " and with a little general knowledge, a man may patch up an ordinary sermon. The difficul ties consist in the method being technical ; to observe which, it is necessary to learn the art in this as in all other trades. Such a sermon gives scope rather to a trial of invention than a knowledge of God's Word. When a man has got a knack of dividing and enumer ating particulars, and becomes sufficiently acquainted with the drama of the pulpit, he may readily make a sermon upon any popular text. When he has got his heads and particulars, it will be an easy thing to pour some pious rhapsody on each of them. In this con sists much of what is called evangelical preaching. Teaching, however, requires more erudition, more ex tensive knowledge of the Scriptures, more advance ment in the divine life, and a more solid judgment." " Once start a sermon with a great idea," remarks that prince of preachers, Mr. Spurgeon, "and from that moment the discourse forms itself without much labour to the preacher ; but as for the exposition, you must keep to the text, you must face the difficult points, and must search into the mind of the Spirit rather than your own. You will soon reveal your ignorance as an expositor if you do not study ; there fore diligent reading will be forced upon you."
There are two methods of teaching which may be
96 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
had recourse to. The one is to take up a special subject, and trace it fairly, regularly, and fully through Scripture, something after the method which I have attempted, but too briefly, in the chapters on the Righteousness of Christ, and the Pastoral Office. This plan will serve an admirable purpose occasionally ; but it can never entirely supersede the second method — that of the regular, consecutive exposition of Scrip ture in the order in which God has thought proper to give it to us. When this plan is adopted, every sub ject is treated in the right proportion ; none is omitted through mere human wisdom ; and none receives undue importance. Everything is right, because it is in ac cordance with God's own order. Moreover, unpalatable truths are much better received in this way than in any other, because the doctrines, in place of being forced on the attention, arise naturally and simply out of the texts ; and there are few men sufficiently hardened to rebel against a plain and inevitable de duction from a passage lying straight before their eyes, and one which has not been brought up to view with any special intention. As there is never too much on one subject at a time, the point does not become irksome to the hearer.
Although it is impossible for any real advance to be made in divine things without the operation of the Holy Spirit, it may yet safely be affirmed that, as far as mere human instrumentality is concerned,
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 97
there is no difference whatever between teaching the Scriptures and teaching any other subject This is an important point, which seems to have been lost eight of. If it had not, sermonising could never have superseded exposition in the way it has done. If the principal of a school, the occupant of a professor's chair in a university, or the lawyer at the bar, were to proceed with his subject after the sermonising method, he would be turned out of office or left with out practice in a week. The professor would hardly get through a course of science in a quarter of a century. Would any sane man ever think of teaching natural philosophy, by giving an eloquent oration of an hour's length on a sentence here and a sentence there, in place of dealing with the subject in a regular and systematic manner? Certainly not. If the con tents of any book are to be learned in a school or a college, they will be taken regularly inch by inch from beginning to end, simply because this is the only rational method. Why, then, is a different plan to be adopted with the Scriptures? Why do theologians ignore the rational method ? God has given u^ the whole Bible, and it is our duty to become acquainted with every part of it, if within our power. A regular consecutive exposition will answer this purpose as far as human agency can accomplish it. But no con gregation can ever become wise in divine things by merely listening to sermons with a text for their
98 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
motto. The knowledge of the hearers will be super ficial and trifling in the extreme. To prove this, it is only necessary to go into a congregation so circum stanced, and then examine the hearers on a single chapter in the Scriptures. They will be found mar vellously innocent on the subject. In point of fact, they are so conscious of their ignorance, that they would ran away almost as readily as they would for the reading of the Eiot Act. They could not explain a single verse, for the simple reason that they have never had the verses explained to them.
A good expositor will take all the meaning out of a verse, and then at once proceed to the next. He must not only be careful to take all the food out of the verse which it is intended to communicate, but he must also specially guard against adding to the Scrip ture, by putting things into the text which it never contained. This last, although a common practice, is a great crime, because it is adding to the Scripture, and a being wiser than the Holy Spirit. It is no excuse to say, as is often done, the doctrines inculcated are true, and are to be found elsewhere. When God has not put them into the text under consideration, man should not attempt it. For this reason it is nearly impossible to make a popular sermon without turning the Bible into a novel. The discourse has as little as possible to do with the substance of the text, which scarcely serves the purpose of a motto. The
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 99
imagination may roam at large, and men's ears may be tickled, but a thorough knowledge of Scripture can never be obtained by sermonising. As Mr. Spurgeon lias well remarked, "If only that part which we preach upon be expounded to them, how little of the Bible can they ever know ! If you will mark your Bibles with lines under the texts from which you have spoken, as I have always done with on old copy which I keep in my study, you will discover that, in twelve or fourteen years, very little of the book has been gone through ; a very large portion of it remains unmarked, like an unploughed field. Try, then, by exposition, to give your people a fair view of the entire compass of revelation ; take them, as it were, to the top of Nebo, and show them the whole land from Dan to Beersheba, and prove to them that every- where it floweth with milk and honey." I was greatly struck, when a child, by an observation on sermonis ing, made by my father from the pulpit. He said, if any of his hearers, who had a son or a daughter in America, were to receive a letter from their child, they would take it to some person who could read writing, if they could not do it themselves. It would never content them, however, to have a sentence read here and another there, whilst the remainder was all passed over. They would not be satisfied to omit even as much as the address at the top or bottom of the letter. They must have every word of the letter.
100 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Why, then, is the same course not to be adopted regarding the Bible? It is the letter which God has sent from heaven to earth, and should be expounded every word.
In his excellent article on expounding, Mr. Spurgeon cautions his pupils against pedantry in the pulpit. " Those gentlemen," says he, " who know the least Greek, are the most sure to air their rags of learning in the pulpit ; they miss no chance of saying, ' The Greek is so-and-so.' It makes a man an inch and a half taller by a /oofometer, if he everlastingly lets fall bits of Greek and Hebrew, and even tells the people the tense of the verb and the case of the noun, as I have known some do. Those who have no learning usually make a point of displaying the pegs on which learning ought to hang." These observations should be a warning to those smatterers in learning who are continually altering the text of revelation. They are not intended, however, to prevent the proper use of learning in exposing the few mistakes which are to be found in the English version of the Scriptures. Indeed, it is a marvel that the mistakes in our version are so few as they are ; and I have no sympathy whatever with the effort which is being made at present to give us a new translation, because I feel certain that where one real mistake will be rectified, a dozen passages will be put wrong. In place of being a correct translation, I believe it will be found to be one to foster some pet
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. IOI
opinions. Time will tell. The errors in our present version are not numerous ; but they are sometimes very important, and should be made known. I once heard an Arminian descanting with great energy on the ninth veree of the second chapter of Hebrews, which says that Christ tasted " death for every man." He laid great emphasis on the expression, "every man," and was thus carrying all before him ; but he was sadly put about by a few observations which I felt constrained to make. I told him, if he were really quoting Scripture, his argument would have great force ; but if he professed to understand the text in the Greek, I had no hesitation in charging him with the high crime of fabricating Scripture for the purpose of deceiving those who were listening to him. This came on him like an electrifying shock, and I took good care that he never recovered from its effects, as I placed a Greek Testament in his hand, and asked him to point out, in the original, the word which cor responded with " man," in the translation. This was a regular stopper for him, as there is not so much even as one letter in the original for the word "man" in the translation. There is no sort of shadow, or shade of cover, or excuse for it. Our translators should never have put in the word "man." They should have left the passage exactly where the Holy Spirit left it in the original — " Should taste death for every." The parties included in the term " every " would then
102 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
have been easily ascertained, because the next verse demonstrates that it was every son brought to glory. We thus see that, when properly translated, the pas sage, in place of supporting the Armitiian heresy of extending the death of Christ to those who were actu ally in hell at the time He suffered, goes directly on the other side, and demonstrates by its context that Christ tasted death for every " son " brought to glory ; for those who are " sanctified ; " for those He is not ashamed to call " brethren ; " for the " children " which God hath given Him.
The exposition should be reasoned out fairly and simply, without in the least overstraining the text, or bringing up far-fetched and imaginary ideas. The imagination should never be let loose on such moment ous subjects. If men want a novel, let them go to Sir Walter Scott, rather than the Word of God. If an interpretation be correct, it will commend itself to the understanding. It will appear plain, simple, and natural. It may sometimes be difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of an obscure passage ; but one thing is absolutely certain, that no exposition of the obscure text can ever be correct which contradicts the plain, palpable, and inevitable meaning of other por tions of divine truth. The Word of God can never contradict itself. If properly understood, the obscure passages would be capable of an exposition in perfect harmony with the plain. If any doctrine is to be
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 103
established, it must be proved by texts whose meaning is plain and inevitable. Passages of doubtful significa tion can never be properly alleged in support of any doctrine. Unless they are of certain meaning they can prove nothing. I have sometimes heard men hammering away like battering-rams in the silly attempt to establish their idea of the meaning of an obscure passage by alleging, in the way of illustra tion and proof, other passages whose meaning was quite as obscure as that of the text they were attempt ing to elucidate. This is just going on the principle of making one infallible (out of two fallibles — one plain out of two that are dark. The true principle of Bibli cal interpretation is to prove a subject by texts whicli are plain ; and when we come to those passages which are obscure, in place of alleging them to prove a thing which they can never fairly do, we should rest per fectly satisfied if we can give them a fair, consistent, and rational interpretation, which will harmonise with plain portions of divine truth. Let us prove by the inevitable ; let us rest contented if we can just fairly and rationally, without straining, succeed in explain ing the obscure.
Some men act on the principle as if they thought it no sin to gather up a certain number of texts, appar ently on one side, for the purpose of overbalancing some other texts which they imagine to be on the other side. In this way they make the passages con-
104 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
tradict each other, and then take the side which pleases their own taste best. They mistake apparent contra dictions for real contradictions, and then hold their own pet doctrines. In place of looking for the har mony which must of necessity exist in the Word of the God of truth, they make the Bible worse than a fable. How they can do so, and yet believe it to be of divine origin, is a mystery to me. The man who sets one portion of revelation to contradict another is worse than an infidel. He makes God a liar. He should burn his Bible, and profess himself to be what he really is— an atheist. Even good men have been known to say, that they preach Calvinism when they come on a Calvinistic text, and Arminianism when they come on an Arminian text. Such a statement is nothing short of impious. It degrades the Bible even below the production of an honest man. On this view it could not be the Word of God. Calvinism and Armi nianism are as diametrically opposed to each other as any two things could possibly be ; consequently they cannot both be true. It would not even make them both true if they were in the Bible, for the simple reason that they contradict each other, and a contra diction can never be true. Some one of them must be false. As I have already demonstrated, in my work on " Transubstantiation," the existence of a contra diction in the Bible, in place of proving the contradic tion to be true, would only prove the book which con-
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 105
tained it to be false. Hence I say that the man who holds two such contradictory things as Calvinism ami Arminianism to be in the Bible, is just guilty of the most awful impiety. He charges God with contradict ing Himself. Calvinism and Arminianism are not both in the Book. Such a thing is impossible, because they directly contradict each other.
The sun of creation is not more visible in the heavens at noonday than is Calvinism in the writings of Paul ; consequently the harmony of divine truth must for ever exclude the doctrines of Arminius from the pages of revelation. Indeed it is a marvellous problem in human nature, how any rational man could believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures and yet deny the doctrine of election. For consistency's sake he is bound to cut all such passages as the following out of the Book : " For the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. . . . Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect 1 ... For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth. . . . According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. . . . Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children. . . . Being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will . . . As the elect of God. . . . Knowing, brethren.
106 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
"beloved, your election of God. . . . God hath, from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sancti- fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth. . . . According to the faith of God's elect. . . . Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. . . . But ye are a chosen generation. . . . Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not ac cording to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. . . . For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. . . . Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called ; and whom He called, them He also justified ; and whom He justified, them He also glorified." The meaning of these passages is so plain and inevitable that it is utterly impossible for any rational man to mistake it. Consequently, the man who holds any doctrine at direct variance with these texts, compels revelation to contradict itself, and re duces Scripture from the dignified position of being the Word of God. His position is a most awful one. Indeed, leaving Scripture out of the question, every rational man is bound to believe in predestination, who believes in a God possessing the divine attribute of foreknowledge. If God did not know everything that would happen before it happened, He would not be God at all. If He had to wait till the event hap pened before He could know anything about it, He
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 107
would be no better than a man. It is necessary to the perfection of God's nature to grant that He had the divine attribute of foreknowledge. If so, He must have known from all eternity those who would be saved and those who would be damned. Consequently, if He knew this from all eternity, to use an able argument from one of the Largs tracts, it must have been fixed from all eternity. Unless it was fixed, He could not have known it If it were uncertain, He might guess at it, but no more. Guessing, however, is so inconsistent with Divinity, that the man who maintains such a view cannot believe in God at all. His God would be no better than the gods of the heathen. His knowledge would be imperfect. There can be no uncertainty in God's knowledge. He knew everything precisely from the beginning. If He knew all who would be saved, it is idf-evident that it must have been fixed from all eternity who would be saved. If it was not fixed, He could not really have known anything correctly about it. If there was any uncertainty, His knowledge would have been equally uncertain. He could not have known whether there would have been only one, or a million. What idea does this give us of God ? Would He have been any better than a man if He had been obliged to wait till the day of judgment to know the saved ? Did He prepare the "mansions" without knowing they would all be occupied ? He knew from all eternity who would be saved ; otherwise He was no
108 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
God. If He knew it, it must have been fixed. "Who, then, fixed it ? God, and God only. We thus come to the inevitable conclusion, that all who believe in the attributes of the Godhead must believe in the doctrine of predestination — a doctrine which is founded in reason and developed most extensively throughout revelation. The doctrine of predestination does not, as its enemies allege, overturn the responsibility of man. Nothing could be more certain than that the Scripture plainly teaches that man, since the Fall, is necessarily and inevitably prone to evil, whilst, at the same time, he is held accountable to God for all his actions. The man must deny the use of his senses who cannot see these two things in revelation. If we are called on to explain or reconcile them, we must at once confess our inability to do so. It is a point which is far beyond the compass of our reason, and God has not thought fit to explain it in revelation. "We must, therefore, leave it as we find it. As it is not within the province of reason, and as it has not been revealed, we must not attempt to fathom it. We are no more able to comprehend it than we are able to fathom time, eternity, space, life, death, and Deity. Although we cannot comprehend them, we are bound to believe the two doctrines referred to, because they are plainly set forth in various places in the infallible words of inspiration. How any man has been able to deny their existence in Scripture is a marvel to me. His
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 109
opposition to the doctrines cannot possibly be based on the want of evidence, but must be owing to an utter want of disposition to submit to the evidence which is so plainly before him. The denial of these doctrines is just a species of infidelity.
Although this is not the place for discussing these questions, I shall, before quitting the subject, refer to one point, which I imagine the most reckless amongst the professors of Christianity will not venture to dispute — namely, That man may sin, and be held accountable for his sin, in carrying out the very decrees of the Almighty. This is a wonderful idea ; but it is an incontrovertible truth. Christ came into the world for the very purpose of dying on Calvary's cross for the sins of His people. Every single thing that happened was absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of that marvel lous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. All was prophesied and decreed beforehand. It must happen, and happen in an exact and particular manner. It was unavoid able, because it belonged to the eternal purposes of the Almighty. But yet, notwithstanding all this, the parties who carried God's decrees into operation were held accountable as sinners for their actions. The action was inevitable, and yet it was sinful. Here we have the two doctrines palpably and plainly taught. No man dare venture to deny the fact. We cannot explain it, but we must admit it. The facts are patent throughout revelation, and the words of Scripture are
110 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
unmistakable : " Him, being delivered by tlie deter minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked Lands have crucified and slain. . . . But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. Kepent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. . . . All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. . . . Truly the Son of Man goeth as it was determined ; but woe unto that man by whom He is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not been born." No language could be more decisive than this. Christ was delivered by the deter minate counsel and foreknowledge of God ; His suffer ings wrere foretold by all the prophets ; and yet the parties who fulfilled the predictions, and carried out the determinate counsels, were held responsible as having done it by wicked hands. Here the two doctrines are as plainly set forth as words can depict them. The crucifixion was inevitable from all eternity, and yet the performance of it was sin. Christ must needs be betrayed, and yet it would have been well for Judas had he never been born. We may look upon this as a marvellous and inexplicable doctrine ; but that is no reason why we should vainly and foolishly attempt to deny its existence in Scripture. Deny it as we may, it is there. To some it is very unpalatable ;
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. ill
but that does not make it untrue. Neither is there any valid reason why we should reject revelation because it contains such doctrines. On the contrary, if the Book were of man, it would have been differently written, and the plan on which it is written, being objectionable to the natural mind of man, is a strong argument for its divine origin. We can neither fathom nor reconcile man's necessity and responsibility. They are not within the compass of reason. It is perfectly possible that the one may be true in one sense, and the other in a different sense, and, therefore, there is no necessary contradiction between them. When they do not neces sarily contradict each other, they have a just right to be believed on proper evidence. These doctrines just occupy the same position in regard to the exercise of reason that the Trinity does. They are far above its reach, and, therefore, we cannot comprehend or explain them. Under those circumstances, and seeing they are plainly set forth in Scripture, we are bound to believe them. This course is consistent alike with revelation, reason, and good common-sense. Since they are not contrary to reason, it would be anything but rational to reject them as untrue, whilst we firmly believe in many other things, such as life, death, eternity, time, space, and Deity, which are quite as incomprehensible as necessity and responsibility. If we were to believe nothing but what we are able to comprehend, we would believe very little. Every man believes he has life ;
112 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
"but I would like to see the man who can tell me what life is. We may know its consequences, and the indications of its existence, but we cannot in the least degree fathom its nature. It is a great mistake to imagine, as some have done, that the doctrines I have been referring to are in the same position as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They are above rea son, it is within the bounds of reason ; they do not necessarily contain a contradiction, it does. Take the Trinity as an illustration. It would certainly be a contradiction to say that one God is three Gods, and that three Gods are one God ; or to say that one person is three persons, and that three persons are one person. This would come within the compass of reason, and would involve a contradiction, and could not be true. But this is not the Trinitarian doctrine. It involves no contradiction, because it holds that the three persons are one God, and the one God is three persons. They are not three in the same sense in which they are one, nor one in the same sense in which they are three. They are three in one sense, and one in another sense. In their personality they are three, in their Godhead they are one. It is surely as plain as the light of heaven that there is no contradiction here. The thing is incomprehensible because it is beyond our reason ; but there is no contradiction in the matter. On the other hand, however, the doctrine of Transub stantiation comes perfectly within the province of, and
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 113
directly contradicts, our reason, and, therefore, cannot possibly be true. Its essential poiut is, that a piece of bread is changed into the real body, flesh, blood, and bones of Christ, whilst at the same time, according to the testimony of our senses of sight, touch, taste, hearing, and smelling, there is not the least change on it — it has all the qualities and properties of bread, and gives us no evidence whatever of being flesh, blood, and bones. Now, this is a point within the power of our reason, is perfectly cognisable to our senses, and as it is plainly contradictory to our senses and reason, it cannot possibly be true. No evidence could prove its truth. A contradiction cannot be true. It is different, however, with all the other doctrines I have been writ ing about. They are all above our reason, and may be true, and hence ought to be received as true on suffi cient evidence. It is very foolish and quite unphiloso- phical to refuse to believe a thing merely because it is beyond our reason. To do so is to imagine that we are equal with God, who knows all things. We can under- stand many things ; but there are thousands of things which we cannot comprehend. Let us not on this ac count foolishly imagine that they must be untrue. They may or may not be true for aught our reason can tell. If our reason were more perfect and more extended, we might understand many things which are now quite dark. Things which are incomprehensible to an idiot might be quite easily understood by a man like Sir
114 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
Isaac Newton. On the same principle, tilings which were incomprehensible to Newton might be as plain as the light of day to another man, provided only the Creator had endowed him with one or two additional reasoning faculties to those which Newton possessed. This is the right way to look at it. If one of our present reasoning faculties were taken from us, we would be unable to comprehend many things which we now understand. Would that make these things untrue, or be a proper reason for our denying their truth 1 Certainly not. They would only then be above the reason we possessed, and might be true for aught we could tell by reason. So, in the other case ; the things which are above our present reason might be completely within our compass if we had another faculty added to our present stock. If God had created a man as far above Sir Isaac Newton as Newton was above an idiot, that man would be amused at the tiny efforts of our present puny intellects. Hence I conclude that, whilst we ought to reject everything which contradicts reason, because, being thus within its compass, we know it is untrue, we should never reject a properly-attested doctrine, which is free from contradiction, on the mere grounds of its being beyond the reach of our present reasoning faculties. This is the course which appears to me to be consistent with revelation as well as with genuine philosophy. In expounding Scripture, thcire should be as little
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 115
repetition as possible. Turning up an argument in different aspects is quite right, because it is a very important method of catching different classes of intellect ; but mere repetition is a complete waste of valuable time, and is an insult to the understanding of the hearers. If a man who spends the first quarter of the hour in recapitulating his previous discourse will only look at his audience, he will find that nearly all the hearers cease to think during the recapitula tion, and open their ears only when new matter com mences. The repetition of a thing which has been recently heard becomes dull, monotonous, and unin teresting. Some parties imagine that very low and ;• T«ry slow speaking has a good effect in solemnising the audience ; but this is a great error. It lias ju.<t the effect of allowing the brain to become perfectly lethargic, and may suit those who mistake absence of thought for intellectual devotion— a dead calm for spiritual worship. Under this sort of speaking, the minds of the hearers will wander to other subjects, as there is nothing to support sustained thought. Those who follow this method not only show a'n ignorance of the functions of man, but they also exhibit an indiffer ence to the awful solemnity of the position in which they are placed before perishing souls. If a barrister be called on to address a jury on whose lips hang the life and death of a prisoner, how will he proceed/ Will he act in a namby-pamby way, and drawl out his
TI6 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
words as if he were sick at stomach, and modulate his voice in such a delicate manner, that the first and last of his sentences are inaudible to the jury ? No. He will get up all the fire, energy, and vigour of which his nature is capable ; he will show that he is thoroughly in earnest and believes in his subject ; he will cause his voice to ring through every corner of the building ; and he will impress the jury by the weight, power, majesty, and force of the well-argued and touching appeal which he makes to their understanding and their feelings. He never permits their energies to flag, or their thoughts to wander from the subject of life and death which lies before them. Why, then, should the same course not be taken in divine things ? Is human nature different in the meeting-house from what it is in the court-house ? Is the temporal life more important than the eternal? Mr. Spurgeon is quite up to the mark on this point. Every word of his discourse is plainly heard throughout the " Taber nacle ; " he uses no redundant words ; his observa tions are intensely to the purpose ; it is impossible to misunderstand him; he is evidently all in earnest; he is so much alive to the value of time, that he never loses a moment during the entire service; and the energies of his hearers, from the beginning to the end, are so sustained that thought is never interrupted. To me, his service is perfectly enchanting.
To speak in a perfectly natural voice is highly
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 117
important. "Scarcely one man in a dozen in the pulpit talks like a man," says Mr. Spurgeon. "This affectation is not confined to Protestant*, for the Abbe Mullois remarks, ' Everywhere else, men speak ; they speak at the bar and the tribune ; but they no longer speak in the pulpit, for there we only meet with a factitious and artificial language and a false tone. This style of speaking is only tolerated in the Church, because, unfortunately, it is so general there ; else where it would not be endured. What would be thought of a man who would converse in a similar way in a drawing-room ? He would certainly provoke many a smile. A man who has not a natural and true delivery should not be allowed to occupy the pulpit.' You may go all round, to church and chapel alike, and you will find that by far the larger majority of our preachers have a holy tone for Sundays. They have one voice for the parlour, and quite another tone for the pulpit ; so that, if not double-tongued sinfully, they certainly are so literally. The moment some men shut the pulpit-door, they leave their own personal manhood behind them. There they might almost boast with the Pharisee, that they are not as other men are, although it would be blasphemy to thank God for it" The cerebral organs connected with observation and comparison are fairly developed in a vast majority of the human race ; but, if we except the Scotch and Germans, we cannot say the same thing in regard to
Il8 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
the faculties of concentration and abstract reasoning. Hence it is necessary for every public instructor to lighten his subject by suitable anecdotes, comparisons, and illustrations, drawn from history, natural science, and daily observation of the occurrences of life. It is perfectly competent for him to do all this without introducing unbecoming levity of any sort ; and if he be up to the mark, he will make his discourses ex tremely interesting and attractive, whilst his line of argument will be much more easily understood than if he kept to a dull process of mere abstract reasoning.
Above all things, thorough honesty of purpose is essential to the religious teacher. He should be above suspicion on every point. When called to the pastorate of a church, he should never accept if his sentiments differ from those of the church, unless he has first fairly and fully explained the points on which he differs. If he keep his peculiarities in the back ground until he has an opportunity of insidiously and gradually indoctrinating the people, he is thoroughly dishonest. I have known immense injury inflicted on churches in this way. Such cases result not only in direct injury to the parties immediately concerned, but they also usually inflict a severe blow on the cause of Christianity. A pastor should 'be straightforward and above-board on every point. When very young, a case came under my notice which made an indelible impression on my mind. I was sitting at a breakfast-
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 119
table in Dublin, when a minister, who was passing through the city, called for breakfast. The convent ion was in no way restrained by my presence, as I was very little at the time. The minister had been to the south of Ireland fur some time, supplying a congregation which was being diverted from the Trini tarian to the Unitarian Church. He was asked what were the prospects of success, and he replied that they were very poor indeed. He found fault with the seced ing minister for having acted with precipitancy, and for want of judgment. He said, when the minister changed his sentiments on the Trinity, he announced the change to the congregation at once, and the con sequence was he had few followers ; whereas, if he had taken what he considered the prudent plan, he would have kept his mind to himself, until, by gradually instilling his doctrines into the people, he had brought them round to his side of the question. In this way he would have secured success to his cause. Well, thought I, that may be your idea of religious propriety, but in my opinion there is not an honest bone in your body. There can be no comfort, harmony, or pros perity in a church, unless the minister and people are of one mind on all important points. With regard to things which are usually considered trivial, and on which the conscience of either party is not bound, there should be great caution and forbearance on the part both of pastor and people. It is no light matter
120 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
to break up the harmony of a church, or to create dis sensions and divisions of any sort. It is not thought near so much of as it ought to be. If it ever be done, except under circumstances of the most decided neces sity, it is a sin of a very high order — it is raising a direct obstacle to the prosperity of the cause of Christ. "Men, now-a-days, occupy pulpits with the tacit understanding that they will uphold certain doctrines ; and from those very pulpits they assail the faith they are pledged to defend. The plan is not to secede, but to operate from within, to worry, to insinuate, to infect. Within the walls of Troy one Greek is worth half Agamemnon's host ; let, then, the wooden horse of liberality be introduced by force or art, as best may serve the occasion. Talking evermore right boastfully of their candour, and hatred of the hollowness of creeds, &c., they will remain members of churches long after they have renounced the basis of union upon which these churches are constituted. Yes, and worse ; the moment they are reminded of their inconsistency they whine about being persecuted, and imagine themselves to be martyrs. If a person, holding radical sentiments, insisted upon being a member of a conservative club, he would meet with small sympathy if the members would not allow him to remain among them, and use their organisation as a means for overthrowing their cherished principles. It is a flagrant violation of liberty of conscience when a man intrudes himself into
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 121
a church with which he does not agree, and demands to be allowed to remain there and undermine its principles. Conscience he evidently has none himself, or he would not ignore his own principles by becoming an integral part of a body holding tenets which he despises ; but he ought to have some honour in him as a man, and act honestly, even to the bigots whom he so greatly pities, by warring with them in fair and open battle. If a Calvinist should join a community like the Wesleyans, and should claim a right to teach Calvinism from their platforms, his expulsion would be a vindication, and not a violation, of liberty. If it be demanded that in such matters we respect the man's independence of thought, we reply that we respect it so much that we would not allow him to fetter it by a false profession, but we do not respect it to such a degree that we would permit him to ride rough-shod over all others, and render the very existence of organised Christianity impossible. We would not limit the rights of the lowest ruffian ; but if he claims to enter our bedchamber the case is altered ; by his summary expulsion we may injure his highly-cultured feelings, and damage his broad views ; but we claim in his ejection to be advocating, rather than abridging, the rights of man. Conscience, indeed ! what means it in the mouth of a man who attacks the creed of a church, and yet persists in continuing in it ? He would blush to use the term conscience if he had any, for he U
122 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
insulting the conscience of all the true members by his impertinent intrusion. Our pity is reserved for the honest people who have the pain and trouble of ejecting the disturber : with the ejected one we have no sympathy : he had no business there, and had he been a true man, he would not have desired to remain ; nor would he even have submitted to do so had he been solicited." — Sword and Trowel for November 1871. I may, perhaps, take the liberty of referring to the course pursued by the Rev. Edward Dennett. In the year 1 870, he published a Lecture against the Plymouth Brethren, in which he remarks that "it was to test these claims that we entered upon the task proposed this evening ; but we had no idea of the labour thereby involved, for there is no single publication which con tains their views, and hence we have had to read a host of pamphlets, to wade through shoals of their contro versial writings, to sift and winnow the chaff from the wheat, to apply to 'Brethren' themselves for infor mation ; in fact, to adopt any and all possible means to arrive at an accurate knowledge of the subject. . . . We can, therefore, venture to give the assurance that not a single statement has been made without a most con scientious investigation of all the means of information placed within our reach." This is all as it should be. If the statements here be correct, he took nothing at random, nothing second-hand, nothing without the most careful investigation. Having read a host of their
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 123
pamphlets, having waded through shoals of their writings, having sifted the chaff from the wheat, and having applied to the "Brethren" themselves for information, he could not possibly have made any serious mistakes, if he intended to do justice, unless he was utterly incompetent for the task he undertook. If he had not natural capacity for understanding his subject, he should not have aspired to the position of a critic. What, then, in the light of the quotations I have made from his Lecture of 1870, are we to think of the statements he has published in his pamphlet of 1875, after he had openly joined the " Brethren " ] The scene is entirely changed. He withdraws his Lecture from circulation ; and, in so doing, he says, " The grounds of this withdrawal may be briefly stated. The writer made the discovery that some of the sources of his information, on which he had relied when the pamphlet was written, were untrustworthy ; further and more authentic information concerning some of the circumstances with which he had dealt, constrained him to interpret them in a wholly different manner ; an examination of the citations, which he had adduced in support of his statements, in their context, convinced him that he had imposed a meaning upon them foreign to their writers' intention." This is a state of matters which requires little comment The case speakl far itself. The position is a most humiliating one.
In his first pamphlet or Lecture, before he was an
124 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
open Plymouth, he says, " We can venture to give the assurance that not a single statement has been made without a most conscientious investigation of all the means of information placed within our reach ; " but in his second pamphlet, after he became an avowed Plymouth, he says, " I sometimes suspected whether I had dealt quite fairly with them in criticising detached quotations ; whether, in fact, I had conscientiously sought to ascertain their real meaning, and to test it by the Scriptures." To reconcile these opposite state ments about his conscientious investigations, is a task I must leave to himself — I could not undertake it.
After joining the " Brethren," Mr. Dennett lays down a principle of interpretation which is exactly suited to the awkward position in which he is placed. Instead of following the regularly-adopted course of interpreting every man's writings, whether secular or religious, by the fair and real meaning of the words which are used, he asserts that " the mind of the writer ought to govern the interpretation of a passage, even though a faulty style or laxity of expression might seem to admit of another meaning." Although this rule of interpreta tion is essential to all who adopt the system of Plymouthism, it is plain on the face of it that it has no valid foundation to rest on. How is the mind of the writer to be ascertained except by the words which he uses 1 Can any one but God know what is going on in the mind ? If a man never uses a word, either in
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 125
writing or speaking, who can tell what the thoughts of his mind are ? And if a man uses words in writing, is he not bound to use them in their proper meaning, in place of shuffling in the most disreputable manner so as to mystify his subject ? What would be thought of the lawyer who would adopt Mr. Dennett's principles ? If he were to come into court and acknowledge that the words of the Act of Parliament were against his client, but inasmuch as the mind of the writer of the Act might be entirely different from the words, he claimed the release of the prisoner, would he not be hooted as a madman and turned out of court ] To be sure he would. It is only when some religious whim is to be served, that nonsense becomes sense.
In the first letter to his friend, in his pamphlet of 1875, Mr. Dennett says, "Some six years have now elapsed since our friendship was formed. ... Its very commencement was a prediction of its nature and char acter, for it sprang out of fellowship in what we, at that time, held to be the truth. . . . What, then, was that position ? Nominally we were Baptist ministers, but in spirit, and also in practice, we were outside the Baptist denomination altogether. . . . The effect of this was that we gave ourselves more heartily to the work of the Lord, striving to fence off our people as much as pMrible— though the task was very difficult— from denominational influences, to train them to the study of the Scriptures for themselves, and to build them up
126 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
iii the truth of God. . . . Our hope was to continue with our people, and to have increased blessing resting upon us and our labours in their midst." What sort of conduct is this ? What are we to think of men who are nominally one thing, while in spirit and in practice they are another 1 What are we to think of the system which will allow men, in place of resigning their charge, to stick on by their congregations in the hope of fencing off their people from the influence of the denomination to which these people honestly and pro fessedly belong ? What are we to think of the system which permits a man to look for God's blessing on such conduct 1 If there be one thing more important than another in a person professing to be a Christian minister — or, indeed, a Christian at all— it is thorough straightness of purpose. Jesuitical conduct should never exist under any pretence whatever.
Although it is incumbent on every Christian to act and speak with the greatest care, it is doubly impor tant for the minister to do so, as small matters will sometimes influence his position. I once heard of a minister who was said to have paid almost daily visits to an old lady and gentleman named Little, who were hearers of his, and who possessed all the comforts of life, whilst a poor woman of the congregation had not been called on for eighteen months. At length the poor woman received a visit, and when she found fault with her minister for neglect of her, he replied that,
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 127
as she was all right on religious matters, she did not require attention, and he was obliged to spend all his spare time amongst those who had the greatest need of religious instruction. "Hech me!" said she, "if that be the case, Mistress Mettha Little maun be an awfu' sinner." This was a severe and deep rebuke for what the poor woman considered an evasive excuse for his conduct in neglecting his ministerial duty to the poor, whilst he had plenty of time to spend with the rich. Dean Ramsay tells the story of a Scotch lady, who, when told by her minister that lie had got a call from the Lord to another part of the Master's vine yard, asked if there would be any improvement in his income. He said there would, and she at once replied, " I thocht as muckle. The Lord micht hae ca'd loud an' lang,an' ye wudna heerd Him, gin' the steepen' had nae l>een better." Under certain circumstances, there can be no reason why a minister should not better his worldly position like any other man ; but when he does so he should frankly acknowledge the fact, and stand on his privilege, rather than attempt to make people believe that he is actuated solely by a sense of duty to obey the cull of God to another part of the vineyard. He would stand much better in the estima tion of every person by acknowledging the plain truth. And this brings me to another point of some import ance. It is admitted on all hands that a minister has a perfect right to change his place, if he has proper
128 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
reason to be dissatisfied with his- people. There may also be various other motives which would justify a change. Full privilege is always conceded to him on this point. This is quite right ; but, on the other hand, there should just be the same privilege extended to the people. If a congregation wish to get rid of their minister, there should be no obstacle in their way. They should just find it as easy to get rid of their minister as their minister would to get clear of them. The facilities should be mutual. Are they found so in practice ? By no means. There are ex amples innumerable of crotchety ministers, and use less drones, sticking by a disaffected people until they have ruined the cause ; and when they ultimately leave, in place of seeing their own defects, they throw all the blame on the people. This is not as it should be. When a man finds himself without any success in a place, he should at once change his position to a more suitable spot, or else he should turn himself to some avocation for which he is better adapted than for the Christian ministry. Instead of charging the faults of the drones on the hearers, who are generally thirst ing for knowledge, we should feel certain that the man who is spiritually-minded, consistent in his walk, sound in his doctrines, and "apt to teach," will not be left without success. As the rain watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so the word of the Lord shall not return
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 129
void, but shall infallibly accomplish the purpose for which it is sent. God will bless His own institution.
I must now return from this long digression. Many parties have taken up the strange notion that they have a right to speak in the church whether they have been appointed to an office or not. This surely is an evidence of great presumption. They are to be the sole judges of their own qualifications ! If so, the fewer real qualifications they have, the higher will they rate themselves. There is no fear of such parties forming too mean an opinion of their own abilities. The sound of their voice charms themselves so much, that it must of necessity charm other people. I recol lect once being present at a meeting where the pro priety of lietening to some individuals was considered. I singled out one of them, and proposed that it should be put to the vote of the members whether he was fit to edify them or not ; but he peremptorily refused to submit to the test ; he said he had a right to speak, and would speak. In other words, he was to be sole judge of his own powers, and those he was about to instruct must listen to him whether he edified them or not. This I looked upon not only as unscriptural, but also as a specimen of the most absolute tyranny that could be imagined. The witness, the counsel, the jury, and the judge were all to be rolled into his own sweet self. Such a state of matters could not be en dured, and he found it convenient to join the Ply-
130 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
mouth Brethren, where he can ride and rule with undisputed sway. Autocrats of this description seem to forget the Scripture which says, " Let all things be done unto edifying." If this rule be not observed, the intentions of Scripture are frustrated. The church must be edified ; and I would like to know who is to judge of the capabilities of the speaker— whether or not he is " apt to teach " — if those who are to be edi fied are precluded from forming an opinion. " Those new-fangled religionists," says Mr. Spurgeon, "\vhose public worship consists of the prelections of any brother who chooses to jump up and talk, notwith standing their flattering inducements to the ignorant and garrulous, usually dwindle away and die out ; because even men, with the most violent crotchety views, who conceive it to be the mind of the Spirit that every member of the body should be a mouth, soon grow impatient of hearing other people's nonsense, though delighted to dispense their own."
I have heard another idea about the Pastoral Office — that the pastor must be chosen out of the very in dividual church over which he is to be placed. Now, there is not a shadow of Scripture for 'such an opinion. The idea has arisen from confounding the election of deacons with the election of pastors. In regard to the election of deacons, they were told to choose out seven men among themselves, and hence a restriction arises on this point ; but with respect to the elders, or
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 131
pastors, there is not the slightest restriction at all. They were ordained in every church ; but whence they came, or to what place they belonged before they were chosen, we have not the shadow of information. They might have dropped from the moon, for aught we are told on the subject. Consequently, as the Scripture has laid down no rule on the point, we should not forge one to suit our own restricted ideas. We should just do as the Scripture authorises us — choose the pastors who possess the qualifications laid down, no matter to what place they belong, or whence they come.
Let it be specially observed that the foregoing re marks are in no way opposed to the proper exercise of any gifts which Christ may bestow on His Church. Every man is responsible for the exercise of whatever gift or talent has been conferred upon him. As Dr. Candlinh has well observed, " It deeply concerns both himself and the Church, that he and the Church should find out what that is. And it is of deep concern also that, being found out, it should be used for the com mon good. . . . Every Christian should see to it that he recognises his own special gift, takes his own proper place, and does his own fitting work." — (" Sermon before Free Church Assembly in 1862," pp. 15, 16.) It is the duty of every man to ascertain exactly what his own gift i*, and then he should exercise it ; but it is also his very special duty to take care that he does not, through the inflations of pride and vanity, attempt to
132 PLYMOUTH HERESIES.
encroach on the province of gifts which he has never received. This is the rock on which most men split. They are carried away on the tide of their own self- conceit. They seem to forget that while, on the one hand, they should make use of the gifts they have, on the other hand, it is positively and highly sinful to lay claim to the exercise of gifts which they do not possess. Such is the weakness of man that he cannot be trusted to be the sole judge of his own position in these mat ters, and, therefore, the Scripture has laid down the rule that the body of Christ (His Church) must be edified, and that all things are to be done decently and in order. Consequently it follows, as a matter of neces sity, that the parties who are to be edified must be the judges of the gifts of those who presume to edify them. Under these circumstances, no person can claim a right to exercise any office in a church till he is first approved of by that church ; and if the church wishes to test any man's qualification for an office, it must be specially careful to adopt no course towards that end which could in the least encroach on the decency, order, and edification of the body. This is a point which must never be lost sight of, because it is the Scriptural rule for our guidance. It matters not how much a man may think of himself, he is here precluded from lording it over God's people, by saying he has liberty to exercise gifts which the Church has not recognised. This is both a scriptural principle and
THE PASTORAL OFFICE. 133
an exceedingly wise one. If it were not for it, a church might be placed in a condition of the most abject slavery by some empty-headed creature who was incapable of seeing his own insignificance. The great evil of departing from Scriptural rule on this point is fully exemplified by the Plymouth Brethren, who are fulfilling the prediction of the apostle, when he says, "The time will come when they will not en dure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." The miserable plight in which this deluded sect is placed is well exemplified in the lamentation of Mr. Mackintosh, which I have already quoted in this chapter, at the 88th page.
A Church of Christ is most aptly compared to the human body. As in the body every organ has its own special province, so in the Church every member has his own place. There is not a member in the Church but has some special sphere in which he can act, and for which he is endowed. Let him find out his place and then keep closely by it The foot should not usurp the place of the eye, nor the hand of the ear. Every one should keep his own place and do his own duty, and then the whole body