c^ -^♦♦- THE ERRORS / OF THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN * BEING THE itriSTANCE OF THREE SERMONS PREACHED IN ST. GEORGE'S OHLRCH, MONTREAL, BY BfiVEBBNfi JAMiSS CAEIICHAEL. Price 5 centH. MONTKEAL: V>|iXJfTBl> IJY TUB MONTREAL WUMTlXt^ ANP PUJlJaSMlNG COMPANY. 3869. 'sm~.m~m- mf^-9^^ THE ERRORS OP THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF THREE SERMONS PREACHED IN ST. GEORGE'S CHURfH, MONTREAL. BY REVEfiEND JAMES CAMICIiEL. Price 6 cents. MONTREAL: PBINTED BY THE MONTREAT. PRINTINQ AMD PTIBLI8HINQ COMPANY. i 1«69. • ■' ■-/ .* •»■ s---, ? ■?1 M. :'t'm^4i ^«* . V.il# ^'■'■f'; ;•■*'■- SERMON. Take heed what ye hear.—Mark iv-, 24. This sacred admonition has special refer- ence to the preaching of the Gospel. It follows the parable of the sower. In that parable we are told the various ways in which men received the Gospel; but here we are torld to use discrimination even in listening to the Gospel. We are warned in the parable of the sower to take care how we hear, but the warning of our text is of a different nature. It says: '' Take heed what ye hear." Both warn- ings should ever be before us. We may hear with a great deal of attention^ rever- ence and prayer j but if what we hear is not |the gospel, or is a perverted gospel, our hearing is of little avail. And then, again, a pure gospel may be preached ; but if we do not hear it aright, it is of little avail either. Both warnings should ever be before us, and if one should be stronger than another in the present day, it is that which says, *' Take heed what ye hear." I use these words with special reference to the earnest call lately given by those christians commonly known as *' Plymouth Brethren," (a) to all godly people in all de- nominations to leave their respective bodies to join a religious organization in process of formation, not only in this city, but in various parts of Canada. We do this, believing that the time has come for doing so. We feel that there is a point at which Christian charity may be so overstrained as to really amount to a dereliction of (a) I am aware that this body deny that this is their proper title. I therefore only use it as it is the title by which they are known by the public. duty, and we do cot wish to reach that point; for although *' charity suffereth long, and is kind," it was never meant to suffer 80 long as to teach God's people to be un- faithful. Therefore, when we felt that some committed to us were likely to be led astray by the teaching of '' the Brethren,'' we thought that true charity consisted, not in concealing, but in revealing, the host of errors which, in this case, lie behind what people call the simple preaching ot the gos- pel of God. And here I would say that I cannot well express to you how deeply I feel the position I am placed in through taking the stand I am about to take against this body. From all I hear I dare not but believe that these preachers are re- ligiously earnest in the work in which they are engaged ; I am sure they are godly, christian, though mistaken men ; and I know very well, that no matter how plainly I may speak of the doctrinal errors of the body with which they are connected, or however delicately I may in passing 6 allude to the preachers themselves, that some for whom I entertain no little regard and uiFection will feel, that I am endea- vouring to injure the cause of Christ. May God grant, if any think so now, that in calmer and quieter moments of chris- tian thoughtfulness their minds on this point may undergo a change, and that they may yet be led to see that justice should be rendered to those who contend for the truth of doctrines hoary with antiquity, as well as to those who propagate novel views with no slight measure of devoted earnest- ness and zeal. If these preachers confined themselves to the mere act of preaching Christ to perishing sinners, these words would never have been written ; but any one acquainted with the Brethren must know that the preaching of the word by them leads to the reception of peculiar doctrinal views, unlike those held by any Christian body. The convert is caught by those simple words, ever fresh, always lovely : " Come to Jesus, none but Jesus." But when he comes, then the hidden' mysteries of his belief are revealed — mys- teries and doctrines that must be received, if the convert be reallv in earnest in his conversion. Now it is to " these things which are behind" I would call your attention to- day; and I do so after the most serious consultation with my dear brother in the ministry, your long-tried pastor. We — for he speaks with me — we, I say, speak solely and alone from an earnest desire to preserve you, my brethren, from being led astray by doctrines, that from my heart ^nd soul I believe to be opposed to the word of God. It is no easy thing for an ordinary hearer of the gospel, as preached by mem- bers of thio body, to discover all that it does believe. It glories in the fact that it possesses no creed, and hence the difficulty of any ordinary hearer defining distinctly what it receives, and what it rejects. But although it has no creed, the original 9 founder of the body and the leading minds connected with it have published works from which a creed may easily be compiled. It is in these books and tracts that we find their doctrines, and it is from these books or tracts I have taken the various extracts I will read to you to-night. %- For regularity sake, I will divide my remarks into three heads. First. What the Brethren think of the Church and Christian bodies generally. Secondly. What danger- ous views they hold and teach in connexion with the Old Testament. Thirdly. What dangerous views they hold and teach in connection with the New Testament. r L First. What do the Brethren think of the Church ? The following quotation, taken from a tract written by a well-known female member, will give the reply. I have chosen to quote from this tract rather than froi» one by Mr. Darby on the sub- 9 ject of the Chuich, because this lady is a much plainer writer in every way than the founder of the body. Speaking of the views of the Brethren, she says : " Believ- ing that the church of Christ is and can be but one hody^ the habitation of God through the Spirit, they deem that it ought to appear one body in its visible mani- festation on earth — one body in which all believers in the Lord Jesus are baptized by one Spirit." (a) In other words, that the visible church on earth should be com- posed solely and alone of converted people, and that consequently a national church errs on the one hand, and all sectarian denominations on the other." (6) Now, longing as I do to enter heaven, this view at first sight has something pleasing in it even for me — for if such a body were permitted to exist, surely it (a) "Who are the Plymouth Brethren?" By Mrs. H. Grattan Guinness, page 13. (5) Do. do., page 14. B 10 would furnish no slight foretaste of heaven itself; but on mature thought, and after many an earnest prayer to God for light on the subject, I have come to the conclu- sion that such an idea is not in accordance with the teaching of Christ, and I know that the efforts of the Brethren to found such a body have proved a total failure. : If Christ wished such a Church to exist, why did He utter the parable of the tares and the wheat, or the net cast into the sea. I know that the Brethren deny that these parables have anything to say to the Church, but I am sure that any unpreju- diced reader will admit that the parables refer to the kingdom of God on earth, and that that kingdom is identical with the Church. To understand these two parables, the question to settle is, what did Jesus mean by the expression " kingdom " so often used throughout them. That he did not mean his millenial kingdom is obvious, for the glory of that kingdom will be the absence of tares ; that he did not mean the 11 grace of God in an individuars heart (Ro. xiv., 17) is equally plain, for our whole life should be spent in pulling up the t ires there. We are, therefore, shut up to the conclusion that the kingdom referred to was the Church, and for the simple reason that the kingdom of Christ is represented in the BiJ)le as being identical with the Church. Baptism is the seal of admission into the Church, and baptism is the seal of admis- sion unto the kingdom (John iii. 5.) The Church has power to bind, loose, remit and retain, and the kingdom has the same power (Mat. xvi., 18-19.) The Church is the guardian of the gospel, and the kingdom is the gnardian of the gospel (Matt, xiii., 19.) In short, the kingdom is the Church, and the Church the kingdom. Now, if this be the case (and I think it would be very hard to prove it is not), it must be plain to all that Jesus Christ never countenanced this idea of a church composed solely of believers. The tares were to be left with the wheat till the harvest, the fish were V IS not to \y3 severed till brought to land, and the haryest is end of the world, and this work of severing will be in the judgement of a present personal Saviour, through his ministering servants, the angels of heaven. But, not only is the idea opposed to Scripture, but the Brethren have failed to carry it out. " The wear and tear of reality has put their ideal of a Church to the test, and it hsiS fairli/ gone to pieces?'* (a) Once it was a compact body, composed solely of believers, without a break in its ranks, Now its ranks are broken ; its body of believers split up into antagonistic partres, who not only will not commune together, but who speak in anything but a Christian way of each other. Indeed, as far as the Darby and Newton divisions are concerned, it is the old story of the * * Jews having no dealings with the Samaritans.**^ The history of the Brethren to the present (a) Letter on Recognition of Pastors, by H. Grattan Guinness. 13 has bean, *' war to the knife " between the elected Saints of God. Holding such views on the subject of the Church, it is only natural to suppose that their views, with reference to other Christian bodies, would not be of a very liberal nature, and we are not, therefore, surprised to learn " that the Established Church of England is an Apostacy (a), that it has no just claim to be considered a Church of God (6), and that Dissenters have marshalled themselves in the ranks of the Infidel and the Socinian, and are grasping at all the power and privilege that the world can give them." (c) These are very plain words. I would hope, indeed, that some of the gentler minds among the Brethren would shrink back from endorsing them. But here they are in black and white, and no doubt, I think, (a I Separation from Apostacy, page 27. (6) The Church of the Scriptures, page 1. (c) Present Prospects, page 10, ./ 14 can remain on our minds as to what pro- minent writers of this body believe us to be. It matters little that for long and many a year you may have enjoyed true spiritual life in the Church of England. The higher your spiritual blessings the greater your apostacy. It matters little either how others may have lived happily in other bodies, at best they are but props of Infidelity and supports of Socinianism. Hence arises the call to come out. Hence the frantic abuse lavished, lately, in this city, on every Christian body. Hence the solemn warnings against all ministers and pastors. Hence the narrow-minded- ness, so unlike Christ, and so detrimental to that spirit of love, which is one secret of the Church's existence. Yes, I am not afraid to say it, that he who joins this body runs the danger of being forced to set his hand against every man. His sphere of Christian usefulness is contracted, and the genial, kind and generous spirit of Chris- tianity for him is undermined. The \ .1 15 Church (the body of Christ) to him is composed of the select few who have been truly converted, and have come out from all sects. His conversion is likely to develop a haughty, dogmatical spirit in conversation, — a breaking up often of the fondest and dearest associations of the past, and an undisguised attempt to put any one down that dares to differ with him. In short, he is light, and all of us in various degrees of spiritual darkness. Now I yield to no one in my devoted love for the Church of England. I believe that in doctrine she is divine, and in or- ganization apostolic, but I would be very sorry, indeed, to say that no converted roan could live a long and noble life to Christ outside of her pale, and I am perfectly sure that Christians not belonging to the Church of England would be equally sorry to say such a thing of their respective denomina- tipns. But these new preachers practically say this. They may strive to evade the eaccusation by replying "that there ar 16 many Christians amongst us, but that they ought to come out;" but their reply proves the accusation to be correct. If in the eyes of these preachers, the test of a man being a Christian in communion with the Church of England is his leaving the Church of England, it is plain they believe that no real Christian can remain a member of the church : and this, to my knowledge, is the result of their teaching. *' How could I remain in the Church of England?" said a young convert to his Sunday-school teache^r; " I am converted." Yes, this is one result of this teaching. All Christian bodies are as Sodom, and he alone is God's child who flies to Zoar. , IT.' ■'"■"'■"■""" ;-^^ I will now direct your attention to the second division of this sermon, namely jy *' What dangerous views the Brethren hold and teach in connection with the Old Tes- tament?" And, first, I would call your attention to their views on the Moral law. w 17 In a well-known tract, entitled " A Scrip- tural Enquiry into the Law," &c., this sub- ject is gone into, and the views of the Breth- ren are summed up in the following words. " The law is not the rule of the believer's life," Now no one is more willing to ad- mit than I am that righteousness by law can never save me. I agree to a great extent with the Brethren that the *' law of Love" is, and ever ought to be, the secret of the fulfilment of Christian duties ; but I can in no way see that the law of love must of necessity exist apart from that Law which is G-od's moral standard for all his people. My love for Christ and through Christ makes the Law — Good's loving rule of life for me as his child. I take it as the rule of my Christian life ; as a Chris- tian man, I am to love God with my heart and soul, and my neighbour as myself. The terrors of the law to me are buried in Christ, the wise statutes of the law remain behind for me to strive to obey through love, and therefore to tell me 18 that the law is not my rule of life, is little short of disconnecting morality from religion. But such a view is not only opposed to the interests of morality ; it is opposed to the voice of Scripture. These preachers may tell you that the freedom of the gospel demands a rejection of the Law. They may take these words, written by the finger of God — written for man — for all time, they may take these words, I say, and fling them from them as unworthy of their advancement in religion. But I call on you to cling to Christ and his Apostles on this question. " Think not/' says Christ, " that I am come to destroy *' the law and the prophets. I am not come ** to destroy, but to fulfil. Whosoever shall ** break these commandments, and teach men " so, shall be least in the kingdom of heaven ; " but whosoever shall do and teach them shall be great in the kingdom of heaven j Yes, I call on you to cling to Christ on this question and to His Apostles. Do not forget, I say, that St. Paul said : '^ I de- 19 " light in the law of God after fche inward " man." Do not forget, when men tell you that there is nothing naturally holy as a rule of life for the Christian in the Law, that the same apostle said : *• Wherefore *' the law is holy, and the commandment " holy, just and good." And ahove, when men tell you that the gospel made void the Law, and did away with its necessity, don't forget these words : ** Do we then make " void the law? God forbid. Nay, we " establish the law." 0, brethren, repel such teaching— reject it. It is neither the voice or the mind of Christ. It should not be listened to without a shudder. It fully contradicts the words of our Lord and His Apostles. ^■^'^■-:K^.\r>x.:,,^,j--^.^, . ; .r -',i-^. It is with a like shudder that we should listen to the fact — startingly new to us, horribly opposed to all our ideas of God's justice — to say nothing of his love, and ^ yet asserted with no little dogmatism by this body — namely, that the Church of God does not appear in the Old Testament 20 Scriptures at all, and that such men as Abraham never did or never will belong to it. In a controversy between Mr. Grant and myself on the subject of the Church, Mr. Grant states " that the Church was not in existence, nor could be, till the death of Christ, and that in the Church Abraham has no part, nor could any saint have till the Holy Ghost came after the ascension of Christ " (a) Now, first, let me show you the utter folly of the statement that the Church of God, " The Ecclesia," does not appear in the Old Testament scriptures at all. We naturally appeal to the Jewish ecclesii-sti- cal polity ; but we are told very ingeniously and dogmatically that we cannot produce a text in the Old Testament in which that body is called " the Church" in the same sense that the word is used by St. Paul. Now, I can produce at least twenty-three tex^s where the word is used —not, indeed, ( :; "The Kingdom and the Church," page 9. 21 in our translation, but in tbe original text. The founder of this sect is very fond of quoting from the Septuagint or Greek trans- lation of the scriptures. Now, in the Sep- tuagint wherever the word '' congregation " or *' assembly" occurs, you may translate it Church. For instance, when Joshua read the law before the '' congregation," or Moses spoke in the ears of the '* congregation" ; Joshua read and Moses spoke before Eocle- sia, '' the Church." Indeed, if I counted how often the word " Ecclesia" is used in the Old Testament, and then pursued the same course with the New, I am fully per- suaded that I would find that for once it is used in the ^^ New Testament, it is used twice in the Old." So much for that error. But there is something revolting in the error which arises out oi this assertion. A more monstrous idea I never heard broach- ed, than that men like Abraham and David do not belong, or will not belong, to the Church or body of Christ. Again, I ask you to cling to Christ and his apostles on 22 this subject. Foremost amongst the ex- amples of saving faith held out to us as Christians stan ds this very Abraham . How- ever Christians may strive to degrade him, the voice of the greatest apostle ever in- spired by God has sealed his 'perfect^ his undoubted salvation and heavenly glory in these words : " These all — (Abel, Enoch, "Abraham, Isaac, and others) — these *' all died in faith, not having received the " promises, but having seen them afar off, " and were peruaded of them and embraced " them, for they desired a better country — " that is a heavenly — wherefore God is not " ashamed to be called their God, for He " hath prepared for them a city." Now, if Abrahfim died in/aith, if he was persuad- ed of God's promises, if in the strong lan- guage of the apostle he embraced them, if his longing ardent desire was after a heavenly home, and that God was not Ojshamed to be called his God, is it not a monstrous assertion that he should be in a less close position to Christ hereafter f 23 than I or any Christian man who lived after the Pentecostal effusion ? Nay, is it not in direct opposition to Scripture ; " Know ye not," says the apostle (in the third of Galatians), " that they which are " offaithf the same are the children of Abra- " ham, for the Scriptures foreseeing that " Grod would justify the heathen through ^^/aithy preached before the gospel unto " Abraham, saying that in the Thee shall all " nations be blessed ; so they which be of " faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Can words be stronger ? The same gospel that saves me was preached by God to Abraham, and he believed it, as I believe it ; and if I, as a faithful man, am to be blessed at all, it is not away from Abrar ham, but with him, "for they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." I now come to my 3rd division. » , 24 :i-':tw^ • f>.^'^ iifU.^r* t.^: TTT "' ' '' ■ "' "' ' ' ■ ' ■"' '■■'■"" ^ What dangerous views the Brethren hold in connection with the New Testament. And I would first call your attention to that view which limits the work of Jesus Christ as a Saviour altogether to the few hours he lay extended on the cross. The following words expressive of this idea are brought out very clearly in a Plymouth periodical, entitled, " Things New and Old," <* we believe (says the writer) that Christ's suf- ferings for sin, his suffering as the sinners substitute were exclusively confined to the cross, (a) The same idea is elaborated in these words, taken from Mr. Mackintosh's revised notes on Leviticus, pages 58 & 59. He is commenting on these words : " Him- self took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses." This he writes *' was entirely ** sympathetic, the power of fellow feeling (a) Quotation taken from tract ** Test before you Trust." Page 4. 1 I 25 which in him was perfect. There is there- fore a manifest difference between Christ suffering as a voluntary sympathizer with human misery, and his suflfering as the sinner's subf^titute." ^ -*^ii v : According to this teaching Jesus Christ |r full thirty- three years was little more an a loving gentle teacher, who felt, and at deeply, for the sins and sorrows of his How creatures. Felt as you might feel hen the drunkard crosses your path, or Kfhen entering the homes of the poor, you i8|itness their struggle for life and the ^any hardships they are forced to endure. lie was not yet the sinnner's substitute ijhen he said to the outcast " Neither do I condemn thee." He was not yet the Itnner's substitute when in the garden of i|ethsemene, he wept and prayed and suf- red, and angels came to comfort him. ay 'twas but the sympathy of the saint, |ot the work of the substitute, that was ^ofined to the cross _S I meet this view as it has often been met I ■ 26 before at once with Scripture. Surely nothing can be plainer than that Christ suffered for us as much in life as in death, St. Peter tells us (1 Ep. ii., 24.) that " Christ in himself bare our sins in his own body up to the tree, (a) St. Peter tells us (Heb. iv., 15.) ** That he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin," and nothing but the wildest infatuation, or the most determined desire not to believe Scripture ean evade the force of these well known words, ** Surely he hath home our " griefs and carried our sorrows. He was *• wounded for our transgressions. He was " bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement " of our peace wag upon him, and by his " stripes we are healed." Here thro' life he is represented as bearing and carrying our sorrows, and the bruising, the chastise- ment of Herod and Pilate previous to his crofizion, are described as a portion of that (a) See Margin Bible. 2t lealing which alone can make us acceptable > God*!;;: ■ #^:;;^■■?^'v^^/^si-g,■;:«.:•i,S-:.j; : '. --ijm'V'v^. •' '^'-'ii ' Why the Brethren hold such a view, arises from another error which T would now ipeak of; namely — their denial of the doc- pine of the Imputed Righteousness of /hrist. Of course that doctrine is based on , Ihe fact that Jesus was our sin bearer in |i/e as well as death. We claim all that 5 Jhrist has done in life and death. We ■ lold that he obeyed God's law thro' life, and atoned for sin in death, and j pat, that obedience constitutes the | /hristian's righteoiisness, or as Scripture ixpresses it, '' That Grod hath made him 4 be sin for us who knew no sin, that we | light be made the righteousness of God r [n him," (2 Cor. v., 21.) Now let me give you a few extracts on ^his subject from a well known Plymouth tract by Mr. Stanley, entitled, " Imputed lighteousness." '*It is remarkable (he f* says) that the scriptures never use the ex- " pression imputed righteousness of Christ," 28 (page 1,) and again, ^' The thought of '* Christ having kept the law for me, and that " it is imputed to me for righteousness would *'be utterly wrong, for this would only be " making me righteous on the principle of "law keeping, which God says is im- possible," (page 6.) ^ •■'-<- ^^^^^- Now let me show you the weakness of these two statements. The writer says that the expression, imputed righteousness of Christ, is never used in Scripture. I know that the writer of these words believes in the doctrine of the Trinity ; but the word Trinity is not to be found in the Scriptures. Yes — it is replied, but the doctrine called by that name is there. Well, so with im- puted righteousness, the doctrine is in the Bible tho' the title is not. Here is the doctrine in one short text out of many, (a) *' As by the offence of one (Adam), judge- ment came upon all men to condemnation, (a) See also 1 Cor. i., 30-31. Jer. xxxiii., 16. Bom. iii., 21., &c. even so by the righteousness of one (Jesus Christ), the free gift oame upon all men to justification of life," (Rom v., 18.) With reference to the second quotation, namely : that the doctrine of imputed righ- teousness " makes me holy on the principle of law keeping which God says is impossi- ble," I would only say, and that with sorrow, that such a statement is a mere trick, or trap of words. God says very distinctly that / cannot be made holy thro' keeping the law for myself, but he never said that I could not be made holy thro' Christ keeping it for me. So far from doing so he tells me " That Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every , one that believeth, (Rom. x., 4,) and again, **foras by one man's (Adam's) disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus Christ), shall many be made righteous, (Rom. v., 19). Here Adam's disobedience to law is represented as made up by Christ's obedience to it. As to what the Brethren believe on the D »..■'. , 'f,Sr 30 ► subject of what constitutes a Christian's righteousness, it is very hard for an outsider to decide, as they are undecided amongst themselves. All agree that whatever righ- teousness we possess it is not Christ's righteousness through law keeping, but beyond this their views on the subject are so chnotic and contradictory that every man's hand is against his brother. Out of these many views, that held by Mr. Bell, is to my mind the most striking, I can only call it boldly blasphemous ! It is to be found on the 15th page of his tract entitled, " Cease ye from man." In commenting on the 3rd chapter of Romans he says, " The " righteousness spoken of here is evidently " the righteousness of the Godhead, that es- " sential attribute" Now there can be but one meaning given to these words, namely : that the Christian is made holy in God's eyes, by being made in some respects as God. In the commonly received doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, the righte- ousness of the man Christ is put to the ac- 31 ' count of mm. This is reasonable, man in the person of Christ obeyed the law for man, for " by one man's obedience many were made righteous, (Rom. 5-9). Nay writes Mr. Bell, " it is not the righteousness of the man Christ, but the righteousness of the Godhead." I leave you these words to think over my friends, I can never read them without naturally thinking of Satan's lie to our first parents, " ye shall be as Gods." I The next dangerous view held by the Brethren worthy of notice is that with re- ference to Repentance. In a tract by Mr, Mackintosh entitled, "Repentance unto life, what is it," ? after stating that the general definition of repentance is "A " hearty sorrow for sin, and a sincere " desire to forsake the same" (a) he says of that definition always received by the Christian Church. ** That a more fear- *' fully mutilated marred, or depressing " Gospel could not be conceived.'* (6) He (a) Page 1. (&) Page 4. :vt; m then states with no little recklessness, " that sorrow for sin can never be pro- *' duced by looking at sin or its con- " sequences." (a) " That the way to get "pardon, is not by renouncing sin, or " being sorry for it, or forsaking it, but " by receiving the stupendous truth that " sin is put away." (6) ' -' Now, here again there is a trick of words. Every Evangelical Christian knows, that no man gets pardon on account of renouncing sin, but yet the renunciation of sin is as necessary a part of man's action in connection with pardon, as the reception of the stupendous truth that sin^, is put away. When the Brethren preach,| however, they practically carry out Mr. Mackintosh's theory. They call on all sinner's on the spur of the moment to stand up and declare their perfect con- version. A man may be aroused to a (a) Page 5. , - (6) Page 7. 33 knowledge of sin by their words, but if he does not cast away from him all lingering sorrow for his sin, he is told that he is a lost or ruined soul, or if in humility he says, " I hope I am saved," he is con- signed to the same fate, (a) Now it was not thus the Apostles preached, although they lived in an age of miracles, S^hen the Holy Ghost was poured out publickly, and with a special power. St. Peter made the distinction between re- pentance and conversion in the most marked manner, when he spoke to the Jews, in Solomon's porch. (Acts 3) He accused them of murdering Christ and killing the Prince of Life, and he closed with these words " repent yt, and be con- verted, that your sins may be blotted out." Surely the sense of the Apostle is plain enough. They were to repent of the sin of murdering Christ which he had charged them with, and to 'acknowledge him as (a) A fact capable of proof. 81 K their Sayiour, but the repentance was to precede the acknowledgment. Again, take the case of Simon, who oflfered Peter money, in order that he might buy divine powers, (a) That the man had oever been thoroughly converted to God is plain, for St. Peter told him he was "in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity." But how did St.v Peter treat him ? He did not then preach Christ to him, but he used these words, 5 "Repent, therefore, of this thy wicked- " ness, and pray God,if, perhaps, the thought "of thine heart may be forgiven thee." • Will Mr. Mackintosh tell us that St. Peter t "mutilated, marred and depressed" thei Gospel when he gave the wretched Simon .^ this advice ? or that St. John did so ^ (1 John, 1 — 9) when he wrote, ^^ If we "confess our sins, He is faithful and just to " forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from *.'all unrighteousness?" or that the Wise-man :.!i (a) Acts viii. 35 did 80 when he said, (Prov. xxviii., 13,) << Whoso confe8seth and forsaketh his sin ** shall have mercy ?" or the Psalmist when he said, (xxxii., 5,) *' I will confess my " transgression to the Lord, and thou for- ^'gavest the iniquity of my sin ?" Brethren, such a view may bring com- fort to a few hearts. There may be some so constituted that they can lay hold of Christ without feeling the pangs of con- science strongly, simply because they have never been great sinners. But to say that the drunkard, who has desolated homes and ruined souls ; the vile, immoral man, who has only lived to gratify lust ; the murderer, whose hands have been dyed with blood; the infidel, who has trodden the Son of Man under foot, — to say that such men can be saved without ever being sorry for their sins, and confessing them to God, is to upset the whole plan of salva- tion, as far as vnan is concerned, and to open the floodgates of wickedness on the Church itself. 3S Another dangerous \iew, I would men- tion, is as follows: That it is wrong to address God, the Jdolj Spirit, in prayer, or to pray for the Holy Spirit. Here are a few extracts from a Tract of the Brethren on the subject. ** If the *' Spirit be addressed in prayer, or in hymns, *' the rational consequenee is almoat hlas- ^^phemy^ Again, "if you pray for the *^ Spirit, jou virtually deny that you are " Christ's." Again, ''the Spirit having been " given, it is mockery to ask God to repeat * ' the gift ." Again, *' Dear Brethren, prayer *' for the Spirit is unscriptural." {a) Much as I wish to refrain from harsh language, I am forced to say of this view, that it is not only dangerous and unscrip- tural, but that it is undeniably heretical. If the Holy Ghost is God, as truly as tlie Father or the Son, and that we are told to ^^(ji) Pages 6, 7, 8 of a Tract, fully quoted by Mr. John Cox, in his Tract, " The Holy Spirit and Prayer."^ 37 . ■ ..^.'' ray to Qod, it is rank heresy to say that e should not pray to the Holy Ghost. If t is almost blasphemy to pray to the third erson in the Trinity, what recipe can the rethren give us for avoiding this act of lasphemy in our ordinary prayers. When, in praying, I commence with the simple ords, "My God ;" and at the close of the prayer, say, "0, merciful God, grant me these petitions for the sake of Jesus Christ," how can I avoid the act almost of blasphemy ? It is true that there are three persons in one Godhead, expressed by the word God, but when I use that word I must address the Spirit who forms a part of that Godhead. I can see no way, then, to avoid the act, save by leav- ing the word ** God " out of my prayers altogether. Now, let me expose this view from Scripture. We are told it is wrong for a Christian to pray for the Spirit. The argument of the Brethren shapes itself thus : " Eyery child of God is a temple of K 38 the Holy Ghost. He has the Holy Ghost, therefore to pray for His influence is a lack of faith, and foolishness— because when he prays thus the Spirit in him prays for the Spirit." What saith the Scriptures in reply to this theory ? Take, for instance, the Epistle to the Corinthians. In the opening of that Epistle St. Paul addresses the members of that Church " as sanctified "in Christ Jesus," and he thanks God **that in everything they were enriched " by Christ, and that the testimony of Christ "was confirmed in them." These words prove that those addressed by the Apostle were Christian people. Well, of course, you remember the prayer with which he closes that Epistle. It has three requests or petitions in it, — " The grace of our Lord '• Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the " communion of the Holy Ghost, be with ** you all, Amen." Now, no one, we think, can deny that this is a prayer. It means, " May the Triune God give you, my people, more of the grace of Christ, more 3d f the love of God, more of the Spirit's K)mmuiiion, and if this he so. St. Paul )rayed for more of the Spirit for those who Tere already enriched by Christ." ' But there is one general answer to this ssertion. There are certain Christian ;ifts or graces which proceed from the 5pirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith (Gal. v.? 2.) Now when St. Paul prays that "the ' love of the Philippian Christians may * ahoundjmore and more" (Phil, i., 9) and that the Christians at Colosse might receive "more wisdom, and spiritual understanding (Col. i., 9), and that the Lord might make the Thessalonian Christians," to increase and abound in love one towards another" (1 Thess., 3 — 12), these are practically prayers not only for more of the Spirit, but to the Spirit. The Brethren may not make such prayers. They may teach, that in making them we approach the border lani of blas- phemy, but we feel little anxiety about I - 40 , our position. We do what the great Apostle of the Gentiles did. If our prayers are *' almost blasphemy," so were his. We stand, or fall in this respect with St. Paul. ^-Y.. -.:•.',;,, '.:^;^ ;:">^. W.^M^- Now, friends I will sum up these views. The Brethren glory in the fact that they have no creed. I have gone to no little trouble through reading their tracts, and the many answers to them, (especially those by Dr. Carson and Mr. Cox,) to compile one for them, and although I know such a compilation will be useless to them as a body, I trust it will be useful to you and others in warning you against them. The creed runs thus : — I Believe that the Church is composed of believers. I Believe that we constitute that Church. "I Believe that all professing Christians outside of the Church are connected with Apostacy, Infidelity and Socinianism, that no denomination owns the spirit of God. I Believe that the Mor&l }9w is not the rule of Christian 4l life. I Believe that the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness through law keeping is nowhere taught in Sci'ipture. I Believe that Christ during his life did not really and actually suffer with, or for, his people. I Believe that it is almost blas- phemy for a Christian to address the Holy Spir'*^: in prayer, or to prfty for the Spirit in any shape or way ; and I Believe that Abraham has no place in the Church, nor could any Saint have till the Holy Ghost came after the Ascension." These are the fundamental doctrines of the Plymouth creed, there are a few other clauses not of such vital importance, which I will just mention :— I Believe that the Sabbath was or- dained for Jews alonC; Christians never had anything to do with it. 1 Believe that the choosing of Pastors is a daring encroachment on the authority of the Holy Ghost, and finally I Believe that it is lack of faith for a Christian to pray the Lord's prayer, or in any way to express .42 the thought contained in the worda '* for- give us our trespasses." 5 Brethren, I have endeavored to compile this creed as fairly and as kindly as I could. As a rul6 it is composed of literal quotations from the published works of the Brethren. Here then is their creed and this is what your are asked to believe. You the members of this Church, and indeed the members of all Churches have been implored to fly from error, to em- brace Christ. Embrace Christ ! these are lovely words brethren, in themselves, and yet in this case I would implore of you to shrink back from the embrace. Embrace Christ through this Body and, these are the things you must believe. These are the things which lie behind the plain prea3hing of the Gospel. These are the reserved doctrines which meet you face to face when initiation is over, and practical Church teaching commenced. Is it any wonder then that we as your spiritual guides whilst giving these preachers all the credit due to them for piety, fervour and zeal, should ring on your ears the words of my text, *' Take heed what ye hear,*'— Nay, be just to us. If in our consciences we believe the Brethren hold these views, and that we did not open your eyes to them, then indeed you might condemn us, justly and righteously you might then con- dem us. But surely, never for doing our duty in the sight of God and for your souls safety. But even if you did, we could not be silent, for our Saviour's glory we must maintain the spirit of his teaching. We cannot — dare not, allow a false idea to go forth unrebuked, as to what He said and taught on these im- portant matters. Hear then I ask you, our earnest pleading against error and for the truth, and may God in his love and mercy maintain his own cause, and preserve each one of ycu from error for Christ our risen Lord and Master's sake.