THE HERESIES

THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.

JAM E S C. L . CARS O N ,M .D.

iifm ntb M ont ana.

L O ND O N

B O U L S T O N S O N S .

1 883 .

P R E FA CE .

M ANY parties ima gine, because the Plymouths have

no professed Confession o f Faith , that they have noregular system of belief

,but this is a great mistake .

They no t only have a very complete system,but they

are as tyrannical as Rome in keeping their followers to

it. Although the Ch ristian public cannot divine whattheir system is

,i t is all perfectly understood by those

who are thoroughly initiated into it. The great difficulty o f getting at it

,arises from the fact that it

is always put forth in a complete ly Jesuitical form .

It is entirely to this it owes its success. It is so

thoroughly “ guarded,

” that Mr. Darby seems to be

surprise d I was able to unfold it,as he says

,

“ the incriminate d language

,not o n e in a thousand would haVe

noticed as anything particular.” In place o f trying tomake everything plain and specific to the eye o f theCh ristian publi c

,the Darbyites have managed to cloak

their Opinions by using language in a Je suitical sense,

and the consequence is,that few o f the parties who

have hitherto tilted with them,seem to have been

able to discover the peculiarities o f the sect,or yet

thorough ly to expose and overturn their obnoxious

vi PREFACE .

sentiments . They have been frequently met in such a

powerless way,by men who were not naturally fi tted

fo r the ta sk,o r who were not thoroughly up to their

system,that the opposition they have en countered has

only added strength to their cause . Unless a personmakes himself properly acquain ted w ith the Opinionshe controverts

,keeps closely and strictly to Bible prin

ciple s, argues carefully, accurately, and with the utmost

precision on every point,and hits home without fear o r

dread,it i s 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 e n

t e re d its fold. It is unfortunately true that simple

minded Christians have,in many instances

,given in

their adhesion to the sect. They have been deceivedby the plausible sanctimoniousness of the Plymouthleaders. In place of making this a reason

,however

,

for sparing the hypocrisy o f 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 i t was in the beginning.

At its c ommencement,i ts aim appeared to be good

,

and many excellent men were attracted towards i t ;but it has now run in to the Wildest extremes imaginable ; has become as en tirely Je suitical as the systemo f Loyola itself and by the denial of the moral law asthe rule o f life

,has led

,in many instances

,to the most

d isastrous consequences.

CO L E E AINE , I RE LAND, 1 883 .

CO NT E NT S .

THE HUM ANIT Y O F CHRIS T

S O C INIANI S M

T HE RIGHT E O US NE S S o r CHRIS T

M ACKINT O S H VALOUR

THE PAS T O RAL O FFICE

TH E PRE S IDE NCY o r THE HO L Y S PIRIT

THE L Aw A RUL E o r L IFE

VAR IA T IO N S o r PL YM O UT HIS M

M O RAL ITY o r PLYM O UTH IS M

M R. m omuro sn’

s RE CANT A'I‘IO N .

M B. DARBr’s RE PL IE S

P LYM OUTH HERE S I E S.

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST.

T HE Editor of the Calemin e Chronicle , in his paper

for the 22d of February 1 862, found fault with the

Qua rterly Journa l of P rophe cy for charging Mr.

Mackintosh with denying that “ Christ’s body was o f

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 j ournal . As I understood that M r. Mackintosh

and his followers held heretical views regarding the

p e rson of Christ, I was surprised at the editor’s state

ment,and therefore I took the trouble o f examining

Mr. Mackintosh’s Notes on Levi ticus where I found,

page 35 , the following expression The first Adam

even in his unfallen condition,was ‘

o f the earth ;

but the second Man was,as to His manhood

,the

Lo rd from heaven .

’ This surely puts Mr. Mackin

tosh’s opinion beyond the slighte st doubt. He em

phatica lly asserts that Christ,

“a s to His manho od,

A

"

z PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

was the Lord from heaven. There can be no mistake

here. If,as to His manho od, He was the Lord from

heaven,He could not by any possibility whatever h e

o f the substance o f the Virgin. To speak o f His being

the Lord as to His manhood seems a strange contra

diction in terms. He was perfect man and perfect

God ; but H e 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 human ity

of Christ,he should openly join the Socinians and

Unitarians in denying that t h e expression Lord is a

proof o f 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 Journa l of P roph ecy,

“ 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 o f any passage of Scripture which con

tains Mr. Mackintosh’s words,and says that Christ

,

a s 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,

“ T h e

first man i s o f the earth earthy ; the second Man is

the Lord from heaven ; but i t nowhere asserts that

the soul of Adam was earthy,and the body of Christ

the Lord fromheaven ; and this makes all the differ

THE HUMANITY o r CHRIS T. 3

ence in the world. Regarding the divin ity of Christ,

there are plenty o f proofs that He is the Lord from

heaven but regarding His manhood, we are expressly

told He “ was made o f the seed o f David according to

the flesh . God sent forth His Son,made o f a

woman. I am the root and the offspring o f David,

and the bright and morning star.

In this enlightened age,and in this free country

,

every man has a right to promulgate his o wn 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 o f truth,whilst the

opportunity is taken of gradually and almost imper

c e ptib ly slipping in the deadly poison. The doctrine

of reserve,says Mr. Spurgeon, so detestable in the

mouths o f 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 o f 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 a ll

their sentiments in the ears o f the people . The

public get the choice things,whilst the peculiarities

are kept for the benefit o f those who are gradually

drawn into the mysteries of this mo st‘

de cide d sect of

4 PLYMOUTH HE RE S I E s.

all the sects. I ask,Is this fair ? Is it honest ? Are

they ashamed o f their peculiarities ? o r are they well

convinced that,i f 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 ? It is very easy to find out

the real sentiments o f a straightforward man but the

double-dealing o f the Plymouths makes it difficult to

get at their opinions. A Plymouth writer,signing

himself W . K. ,in his review of Mr. Re es, says,

Doubtless the difficulty [of ascertaining their opinions]i s great for an outsider. “ Not on e Christian in a

thousand can understand til l 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 con fession The

outside Christian must get enough to attract him but

he must be real ly in fellowship b efore the genuine

opinions of the Plymouths can be placed before him

in a form capable o f being understood. I f the senti

ments were put in language which was mean t to be

interpreted o n honest principles,any man o f ordinary

understanding could comprehend them ; but in order

that the unin itiated may not be frightened from the

system by the terrible opinion s which they are after

wards obliged to imbibe,a thorough plan of doub le

dealing must be adopted . I f such a course would

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. 5

disgrace me n of the world,i t i s surely nothing short

of disgusting when used by men calling themselves

Christians .

The success o f Plymouthism is owing entirely to

the jesuitical conduct of its adherents. Its peculi

aritie s are either shrouded in a sort o f mystery,o r

i t 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 o f most o f their distinctive

views,

”sh e says “ that o n the fundamental truths of

the gospel they are at o ne with all evangel ical deno

minations whereas,the real state o f the fact is

,that

there are very few o f the great fundamental doctrines

on which they are at o n e with evangelica l 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 o f most o f the distinctive views ” o f

that sect but she has no right to gloss matters over

for the purpose o f making i t appear that the Plymouth

views agree with those held by evangelical Christians

o n the great fundamental doctrines of the gospel .

Strange and exaggerate d statements,says she ,

have bee n made with regard to them,and an

erro neous impression seems to prevail that their

views are sadly hete rodox, and their practices some

6 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

what fanatical . In place o f thus merely asserting

that it was an error to charge their views with hetero

doxy,and their practices with fanaticism

,i t would

have been well if Mrs. Guinness had quoted and criti

cise d the statements which she stigmati ses as e xagge

rated . Her readers would then have been able to

j udge h o w 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 o n the great funda

m e n tals of Christian ity. There is something peculiarly

distressing and lamentable in the fact o f a person

making a high profession of religion,and at the same

time advocating o n e o f the most thoroughly j esuitical

systems th e world has ever produced ; — a system

which,in an insidious form

,undermines nearly every

o n e o f the fundamental doctrines o f Christiani ty as

held by o ur evangelical churches. I am extremely

sorrythat I must also pass an adverse opinion o n the

course adopted by Mr. H . Grattan Guinness . I n his

Letter to the Plymouths o n the Pastoral Cfiice,he

says,

“ From the first o f my acquaintance with you

as a body O f 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 o n e

thing—I never could persuade myself that your

views and practices as regards the questions of pastor

ship and ministry were0

scriptural.” Now,to say

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. 7

the least o f it,I think it is much to be regretted

that Mr. Guinness,in place O f occupying for some

years,under the appearance of orthodox sentiments

,

the Dissenting pulpits o f England,Ireland

,and

Scotland,did not announce

,in a fair and straight

forward manner,at the very first

,that he was at

o ne with the Plymouths on every point,with the

single exception O f 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. N0 man can really help on genuine

Christianity by passing with the publi c for o ne thing

when in reality he is another. There can be no

excuse for his hiding the fact Of his Plymouthism

un til the 8th o f October 1 863 .

In the first edition of his “ Notes on Leviticus,

” Mr.

Mackintosh says,pages 29 and 30,

“ There is o n e co n

sideration which should weigh heavily in the estima

tion of every Christian,and that is

,the vital nature

o f the doctrine of Chris t’s humanity . I t lies at the

very foundation o f Christianity . While I feel

called upon to warn the reader against strange

sounds,in reference to the divine mystery o f 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 o f

8 PLYMOUTH HE RE S IE s.

Christ,which has not been generally received by th e

Christian Church ? Observe,i t i s no t a doctrine

regarding the Godhe ad o f Christ ; but a doctrine

regarding His humanity. It is not the mystery of

the union of His Godhead with His humanity,but

the “ mystery O f Christ’s humanity ” alone. We are

not warned against “ strange sounds ” in reference to

His divinity,but only in regard to His human ity .

I s there a man in Christendom could read his O b se r

vations without being convinced that Mr. Mackintosh

holds some ideas regarding the humanity o f Christ

d ifferent from those entertained by the great body

o f professing Christians ? I rather think no t. But

the question is put beyond the possibility of dis

pute in other parts o f the very same chapter from

which I have already quoted. At page 3x he calls

Christ a “ divine man .

” Now,i f He be a divine ma n

,

He cannot possibly possess our humanity,because a

divine man must o f necessity be Go d in what i s thus

called,however improperly

,His humanity. Christ i s

both God and man ; but He is neither a divine man

n o r a man-God. Again,page 3 5 , he says,

“ T he first

Adam, even in his unfallen condition , was‘O f the

earth,

’ but the second Man was,as to His manhood

,

‘ the Lord from h eaven.

’ 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 “ th e Lord from

THE HUM AN ITY O F CHR IS T . 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 rea l hu

manity . Further, page 56, it is stated that“ the in

te llige nt interpretation of it (the meat- offering) must

ever guard,with holy j ealousy

,the precious truth of

Christ’s heavenly humanity.

” If His humanity be

heavenly,i t cannot be in any sense the substance Of

the Virgin ; i f i t was sent from heaven, it was not

formed upon earth. Such is Mr. Mackintosh’s Christ

but he is not the Chri st of Scripture,which says

,

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers o f flesh

and blood,He also Himself likewise took part o f the

same. God sent forth His Son,made of a woman .

Which was made of the seed of David according

to the flesh . The Chris t 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 i t is quite impossible to

misunderstand them. I would not dare to insult any

of my readers, as Mr. Mackintosh has la tely done his ,by suppo sing that the language could

,under any cir

cumstance s, be misunderstood by them . M isunde r

standing here is quite impossible by any p erso n who

is one degree removed from simplicity. To suppose

the wo rds use d could mean any other thing than that

I O PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

which I have taken out o f’

th em,would be to suppose

that Mr. Mackintosh had no idea of the meaning of

language , and was utterly incapable o f writing in

te lligib ly on any subject. I f he does not understand

the fair import o f the language h e uses,he should at

once cease from attempting to instruct the people

either in writing o r 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 o f the views

which were maintained b y‘

M r. Mackintosh at the

time he wrote his “ Notes on Leviticus,I shall now

turn to his letter in the Co le raine Chronicle in reply to

me. I am certain many parties imagine he has re

can ted the objectionable doctrine ; o r perhaps some

think he has denied ever holding it . We shall see .

Mr. Mackintosh says it is strange I should have

singled out on e passage [the second Man was, as to

His manho od,the Lord from heaven] frOm 35 I pages

to prove the heresy against him. He does not dare

to deny, because he could not, that the heresy is

c ontained in that passage,from his 3 5th page , as

plainly as words can make it ; but still he argues

that a sta tement on ano ther page proves my charge

regarding this one to be groundless . This i s logic

with a vengeance The prin ciple seems to be almost

universally acted on,that any imaginable sort o f

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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 37 th page ? Nothing

at all to the purpose. I never charged Mr. Mackintosh

with denying that Christ was born o f the Virgin,was

composed o f 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 th e

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

,i f

thi s human body was truly God,although it was b orn

of the Virgin,it was not made O f 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

“o f th e seed

o f the woman,

” but in other places he tells us He was“ a divine man

,a heavenly man and “ in hisman

hood was the Lord from heaven. No w,these state

ments directly contradict each other,and therefore

cannot possibly both be true. Which o f them are we.

to believe ? Which is true,and which is false

“

2 This

is a case o f Mackintosh versus Mackintosh .

AS to the sentence,continues Mr. Mackintosh,

“ to

which the Doctor ca lls 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 HUMAN ITY OF CHRIS T. I 3

states in I Cor. xv. 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 o r,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 antic ipated controversy,

says Mr. Mackintosh,

“ I would have guarded the

sentence of which the Doctor makes such a moun

tain .

” Just think o f thi s ! What an expression for a

man calling himself a Christian 1 Would the greatest

heathen that ever lived make such a statement ? He

doe s n o t say he would have expunged every shred o f

the deadly doctrine from his book,but

,in th e face o f

controversy,he would have gua rde d i t ! Like some

other expressions in his writings,i t would then have

been so thoroughly after the fashion o f the oracles of

ancient days,that a person might read it in any way

he please d . For example,when Mr. Mackintosh

speaks,in a multitude o f instances

,o f “ the Glorious

Person o f Christ,

” and o f “ the birth o f thi s Glorious

Person,what does he mean ? How are we to inter

pret him ? One man may say h e means the glory O f

the union of the Godhead with the humanity o f Christ ;

but another has ample room and verge enough to

argue that the words apply alone to th e glory of His

manhoo d , to what is called , in th e Valentinian style of

1 4 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the second century,the “ heavenly humanity ; in

sh ort,that it might correspond with the ideas which

were stoutly maintain ed by a poor member of Mr.

Mackintosh’s congregation in'

Coleraine,that the Virgin

h ad no more to do with Christ than the pump h as

with the water which runs through it. This i s an

uncommonly apt illustration of the views promulgated

in the “ Notes on Leviticus,and I would like to

know where this poor illiterate man go t the doctrine,

i f he did not learn it from Mr. Mackintosh . If Mr.

M . never taught it, where did this man find it ? Can

i t be supposed he got it in the writings O f the Valen

tinians, o r the Monophysites of the second and fifth

centuries ? I am certain h e never saw,o r he ard o f

,

their works.

Mr. M ackintosh forbears to animadvert on my

speaking of his followers . T O a certain extent,I must

confess my fault here . No doubt,he has many

followers ; but there are a few crusty exceptions. I

have i t on indisputable authority that some of his

disciples have advanced S O 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 O f the scholars have

already become the masters,the rulers

,the dictators

,

and the announcers Of the j udgments of the Almighty

upon those who dispute their opinions. They can

very nearly wield the thunderbolts of heaven .

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. I S

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 o r

I,sin excepted .

” This i s exactly my own creed on the

subject. But I 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

thi s be really his opinion,i t is unaccoun table how he

could have written so much as he has done o n the

huma nity of Christ, without ever expressing himself

in similar language . I have examined o ne thousand

pages o f 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

state ments are in direct opposition to the one sentence

in the Chro nicle . Now,which o f 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 contradic tory

testimony. Which of his statements will he stick to

His prese nt position forc ibly reminds me of the witness

who,on his second examination

,contradicted the state

ments of the first. When the counse l reminded him

that his evidence of to-day contrad icted his affidavit of

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

yesterday,he 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

acce ptation of the words, o r has he,after Plymouth

fashion,a private meaning o f his own attached to the

language ? I shall try this point in two ways. F irst

of all,I ask him to tell us plainly

,yes or no

,does he

n ow believe Christ appeared in our human ity ? Does

he n ow deny that Christ, as'

to His manhood, was theLord from heaven ? ” Does he now deny that Christ

was “ a divine man ? Does he now d eny 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,h e cannot have the least ' difficulty in answering

them to me ..

One week will tell the result. He has

so thoroughly “

gua rded” his remarks in the paper

,

that he has nowhere said his belief is n ow different

from what i t was when he first published that Christ“ as to His manhood

,was the Lord from heaven.

This i s a most significant fact ; and I am determined

to sift it to the bottom . I will have no evasion of the

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. I 7

point. I must wait the next issue o f the paper for the

reply ; but, in the meantime , I Shall try his opinion

by a second method.

Mr. Mackintosh has not denied,and he cannot

,and

dare not,deny

,that in the first edition o f his Notes

o n Leviticus ” he has published statements which,i f

hi s one sentence in the Chronicle 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 h aschanged them,and publicly

announced the change,he has a right to be respected

by every honourable man. Has h e announce d the

change ? Has he given us sufficient evidence of the

change ? I rather think not. He has told us in the

Chronic le that if he had “ anticipated controversy,he

would have “ guarded ”th e 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 b e lie v

ing that he holds to the original doctrine, which runs,

in a guarded ” vein,through much of his wri tings

,

and which appears openly and boldly in some o f them .

If Mr. Mackintosh had really changed his opinions,

and had found that he had published statements in

the first edition o f his “ Notes on Leviticus ” which

contained a deadly and soul-destroying heresy, whatB

1 8 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

c ourse o f conduct,would you

,my readers

,have ex

pe cte d him to pursue ? Would you not have been

certain that he would have burned every copy o f the

book he could lay his hands o n,which either directly

o r indirectly contained the'

heresy and that he would

also have written to every paper,j ournal

,and magazin e

in the empire,to which he could find access

,in order

to warn all parties against th e heresy he had unfo r

tunate ly published ? This would have been a plain

and effectual way o f counteracting the baneful influ

ence o f his teaching. Has he done this Did he ever

say on e word to that effect till I called him Out in th e

public press ? Never,so far as I am aware . Hen ce I

feel certain he has in no way changed his opinions.

In the second edition o f the “ Notes on Leviticus he

h as omitted a few words,and only a few words

,but

has sounded n o alarm whatever,and taken no means

to counteract the deadly poison he has administered .

What would be thought of me,i f I were to order

poison to be mixed up with medicine for a patient,

and , after having given a good and e fle ctual dose,I

were to stand by till the patient expired,without

making the slightest effort to overcome the effects O f

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 th e next time I order medicine I will

“ guard ” it so that few people will be aware it con

tains the poison ? If I “ guarded ” i t so that the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

believe he has really changed his Opinions I do not.

He has slightly touched a few expressions which

seemed likely to be “ misunde rstood. Now,I seriously

ask Mr. Mackintosh,will he risk his reputation as a

writer,a Speaker

,and an expounder of Scripture

,o n

this statement ? Is it true ? Will he affirm that any

man,who is not a simpleton

,could misunderstand his

language,when he says

,Christ a s to His ma nho od was

the Lord from heaven ? If so,will he be kind enough

to point out any plainer o r more intelligible language

in Johnson’s Dictionary ? He ought to be ashamed

o f himself for saying any man could misunderstand

such language .

S o much for the preface. Now for the body O f 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 h as “ guarded it so

that a careless reader would imbibe the poison without

being well aware he had done so . Hence the danger

is the greate r. If he had wished to leave out the

doctrine,h e would have expunged

,at the very least

,

th e whole of the second chapter ; but in place o f

this,he has retained i t all

,except the following

eight words “ as to His manhood,

” “ divine man,

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,O ne consideration should weigh heavily in

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. 2 1

the estima tion of every Christian and that is the vital

nature of the doctrine of Christ s humanity ; i t lies

at the very foundation o f Christianity ; and , for this

reason,Satan has diligently sought

,from the b egin

ning, to lead people astray in reference to i t. 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 o f Christ.’

I feel called upon to warn the reader against

strange sounds, in reference to the divine mystery o f

Christ’s humanity. It i s to be feared that great

looseness prevails in reference to thi s holy mystery.

Is i t no t plain there is some special doctrine under

lying this Recollect,i t is no t the divinity o f Christ,

but His humanity,he is speaking o f. The humanity

is the burden o f this whole chapter. The question o f

His Godhead is not in discussion. It is all about th e

humanity. We are n o t warned ag ainst strange sounds

concerning the divini ty of Christ it all relates to His

humanity. Now,what are the strange sounds on the

human ity of Christ which have crept into the profess

ing Church ? What is the doctrine on thi s point

which Satan has been so active in in troducing ?

Where has the professing Christian Church gone

astray on the humanity of Christ ? Where does the

great loose ness o n this point prevail ? Is i t no t as

plain as the light of Heaven that Mr. Mackintosh

holds Opinions regarding the humanity o f Christ

2 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

different from those which are held by the professing

Church ? I s it not evident his views are not the same

as those which he thinks Satan is diligently inculcat

ing o n professing Christians ? No person can doubt

this without charging Mr. Mackintosh with the high

crime o f wilfully misrepresenting the views of the

professing Church . The Church is either going aside

from the views i t has been supposed honestly to e u

te rtain,or else Mr. Mackintosh thinks those views so

erroneous that they are the inventions o f Satan . I

ask Christians,are they dishonest o n this point ? Do

they really hold views ou'

the human ity of Christ

different from those they have hitherto professed ?

If not,Mr. Mackintosh must be falsely accusing them

,

or e lse he conside rs th e ordinarily re ceived opinions to b e

the invention of S a tan . There cannot be the shadow

o f 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 ?

Why does he leave any possibil ity of doubt on such

a momentous subj ect ? Why has he “

gua rded his

present edition If he wanted the truth to be known,

there would be no need o f guarding. He stated his

views in the plainest possible language in the first

edition of his book . Why has he altered i t so now

that his real opinions are more difficult to discover ?

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. 2 3

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 ,

h e should honestly tell us so . He should recant all

his former sayings,and tell us plainly where he was

w rong. 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

bignona,o r to hide them

,but he has never recanted

them.

I t is also evident,from the extract I have given

,

that when Mr. Mackintosh speaks of the “ person o f

Christ,

” he means the humanity,because it is on the

humanity o f Christ,or the person o f Chri st

,that he

says Satan is introducing the false doctrine. If this be

kept distinctly in view in reading his works,i t will

be seen that he de ifie s the humanity in an immense

number of instances. As I cannot find space to

criticise the whole chapter,I will j ust 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 ofl'

e ring

and in it we have a type of Christ’s humanity.

Observe here,the question in the paragraph is the

humanity, not the divinity, o f Christ. “ The Holy

24 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Ghost,

” he continues,

“ delights to unfold the glories

o f Christ’s person. He contrasts Him with Adam ,

even in his very best and highest state. The first

Adam even in his unfallen condition , was‘ Of the

earth,but the second Man was ‘ the Lord from

We here see that when Mr. Mackintosh

Speaks of the glorious person of Ch rist, he means His

humanity. The sense o f the paragraph also demon

strates that it is the humanity o f Christ Mr. M . i s

contrasting with Adam. There would be no sense at

all in the paragraph if he meant the Godhead o f Christ,

because his whole argument relates to the humanity of

Christ. Con sequently, he must mean the“ manhood

of Christ when he says He is “ the Lord from heaven .

No Christian will deny that, in Hi s Godhead, Christ isthe 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 o n .

It is not on the divinity o f Christ,but o n “ the vital

nature o f the doctrine of Christ’s human ity, that he

says professing Christians are so led away by Satan.

It is this affair o f the humanity he is trying to in cul

cate on his readers. It is , therefore, indisputable that

he means the humanity of Christ when he calls Him

the Lord from heaven . He has made it more

diflicult for ordinary readers to unravel his meaning,

but he has in no way altered the sense,by omitting

,

in the second edition , the expression “ as to His man

THE HUMANITY O F CHRIS T. 2 5

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 o f truckling

about it,he should stand manfully up for it.

Again,at page 36 of the guarded edition , we have

the words,

“ The conception o f Chri st’s human ity, by

the Holy Ghost,in the womb o f the Virgin .

” The

doctrine creeps out here also. The Scripture says,

Behold,a virgin sha ll conce ive and again

,

“ Thou

shalt conceive in thy womb but Mr. Mackintosh

improve s upon this,and says the conception

,in place

o f being by the Virgin,was by the Holy Ghost. If

the Holy Ghost conceived in her womb,it was n o t

the Virgin herse lf that conceived . According to this

view,the Virgin had no more to do with the con

ce ption than, as Valentine said, the condui t 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

ce ive d also but this idea is too absurd for any person

o f 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 o f the

humanity was by the Holy Ghost in the womb o f the

Virgin, whereas the first chapte r of Matthew says,

26 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

That which is conceived in her is of the Holy

Ghost.

” These two statements are not the same ; and

we can have no difficulty whatever in understanding

the meanin g o f the expression,“ Of th e Holy Ghost,

”

in Matthew,if we only look at the context. It is per

fe ctly 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

h erself conceived.

“ When Mary was espoused to

Joseph,before 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 o f 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 o f the Holy

Ghost conceiving,nor does it in any way contradict

those Scriptures which say that the Virgin conceived .

She was no t found with child of man,but “ she was

found w ith 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 thing

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 8 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Christ,and humanity as seen in us

,there could be no

union. His spiritual humanity could not unite with

o ur carnal humanity ; His heavenly humanity could

not uni te with our earthly humanity ; His humanity

which was conceived by the Holy Ghost—which wasspiritual—could not unite with our human ity which

was conceived by the daughters o f Eve,and which

consequently was no t spiritual and heavenly, but

carnal and earthly. I really feel it would be a waste

o f time to dwell much longer on this point . There

is scarcely a page in his second chapter in which

th e doctrine of “ the heavenly humanity ” is not

taught either directly o r indirectly,either openly

o r guardedly.

Having traced the pernicious doctrine through the

first and se cond editions o f “ Notes on Leviticus,

” I

must now see i f it is to be found in the second re vised

edition of “ Notes on Exodus. On page 276 , Christ

is called “ a heavenly man and o n 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—i s directly called the Lordfrom heaven. The sentence I have quoted also ex

plicitly states that th e L ord from he aven was about

to b e formed by divine power. This is rank Socinian

ism. At pages 28 1 , 280, and 265 , he says, Christ was

entirely heavenly,

” was a heavenly stranger,and

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIS T. 29

“ travelled from the eternal throne o f God in heaven

down to the depths of Calvary ’s cross . There are

many other po ints,but I cannot now dwell on them .

There is a third,and revised edition o f his “ Notes on

Genesis . What does it say ? Preface,page 9, There

is no bless ing outside of,or apart from

,the p erson o f

Ch rist—the heavenly M an . Surely this needs to be

gua rded.

” But th ere i s one remarkable sentence on

the 19th page, which needs to be doubly“ guarded .

It runs thus Yes,my reader

,the Lord Christ

,God

manifest in the flesh,the Lord o f the Sabbath

,the

maker and sustainer of heaven and earth,spent the

se venth day in the dark and silent tomb. If there

be any meaning in language at all, Mr. Mackintosh

here makes the body o f Christ—the only part whichlay in the tomb—completely God and this is in per

fe ct accordance with the idea of the “concep tion by

the Holy Ghost,

” the “ divine man,the “ heavenly

humanity,

” the “ manhood which was “ the Lord

from h e aven . If Mr. Mackintosh,in the words I have

quoted,did not mean that the body of Chri st, 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

o f writing intelligibly as the new-born child .

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

S O CINIANI S M.

T HE great danger to be feared from the Plymouth

Brethren arises from the fact,that they have inge ni

o usly 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 o f discovering the errors and laying them

open to the gaze o f the Christian world. “ In most o f

these combinations o f scriptural truth with error (of

which the apostles were very says a foreign

correspondent o f the L ondon Re cord,

“ instead of the

good compensating for the evil, by neutralising it, as

i s often erroneously supposed,it rather increases the

evil by helping to give it currency ; many proofs o f

which could be supplied from the history of the

Christian Church .

Greater zeal ,” says my father

,in the fifth volume

o f his Works,“ for the salvation o f sinners

,and the

amelioration o f the condition o f human kind,never

was manifested than at present. This is ground o f

rej oicing to all the friends o f the Gospel. But there

i s one unhappy symptom Of the present times,with

respect to Christianity. Zeal for the purity o f divine

truth has not kept pace with zeal fo r the salvation Of

sinners. Where now are the friends of ancient

S OC IN IANISM. 3 I

orthodoxy ? Are there not still multitudes who ad

here to the strong views o f truth professed by the Re

formers ? Will they quietly enfle r a spurious liberali ty

to rob them o f the truth Are they afraid to contend

earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints ?

I S it more important to propagate the Gospel , than

to preserve its purity ? Paul thought i t o f more

importance to conte nd for the purity o f th e Gospel

than to extend its reception by his personal ministry.

He never laid down his weapons. He was unceasingly

employed in combating the corruptions o f the Gospel .

All the zeal at present manifested by the Man o f Sin,

all the efforts o f Atheism,are not so much to be

dreaded as the present apathy among Christians re

garding the integrity and purity o f divine truth . I f

judgment shall be execute d upon the house of God,

this base acquiescence in the subversion o f 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 Qua rterly Journa l of P rophe cy, which stated that

the Plymouth Brethren were propagating the Socinian

view of some of the sacrifices. As this point i s in

discussion between Mr. Darby and th e Editor Of the

Journa l,I shall not dwell upon it. But still, I find so

many things in Mr. Mackintosh’s book which , to my

judgment, smell strongly o f Socinian doctrine , that I

cannot altogether pass on without pointing out some

3 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

o f 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 o f Christ’s

work was to God-ward . It was an ineffable delight to

Him to accomplish the will o f 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 o f the sinner. Again,page 7 ,

“ In all this self- emptied devotedness to Go d,

there was truly a sweet savour.“

A perfect Man on th e

earth accomplishing the will of God even in death,

was an object of amazing interest to the mind o f

Heaven. Unitarianism and Socinianism are not yet

dead. The perfect Man accomplished the will o f God,

and obeyed Him as the antitype o f the burnt-Offering,

but not in the room and stead o f the sinner Further,

page 10, Christ, in the burnt-offering, was exclusively

for the eye and heart o f God. This point should be

distinctly apprehended.

”

Abraham “ took the ram,

says the Scripture,“and offered him up fo r a burnt

offering in the stead o f his son. Is there no sub stitution here ? In th e stead of his son . Job “ offered aburnt-offering according to the number o f them all

for Job said, It may be my sons have sinned.

” The '

S OCINIANISM. 33

inspired penman tells us Job offered the burnt-offering

for the sins of his sons ; but Mr. Mackin tosh, it is to

be presumed under “ the presidency o f the Spirit,

i s enabled to tell us that i t was not for sin at all,

but “ exclusively fo r the eye and heart o f God , that

Christ appeared in the burn t-ofl'

e ring . The Sinner h ad

neither part nor lot in this part of Chri st’s work. I t

was merely to please God without any apparent cause .

Does i t not approach to the borders of blasphemy to

suppose God required all this without any relation to

the bearing o f the sins of His people,as if He were as

capricious as one o f the gods of the heathen ? “ The

burnt- offering,

” continues Mr. M .,page 1 1 ,

“ does no t

foreshad ow Christ on the cross bea ring sin , but Christ

on the cross accomplish ing the will of God.

” Is there

a Socinian in the world would refuse to subscribe to

this doctrine ? If there is,I never saw o n e like him .

Again,page 1 7 ,

“ The cross,in the burnt-offering

,i s

not the exhibition of the exceeding hatefulne ss of sin ,

but of Christ’s unshaken and unshakable devotedness

to the Father ? ” Would the Socinian not j oin 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 o f sin

bearing—the imputation o f Sin—the wrath o f God

does not appear in the burnt-offering. True , he con

tinues,

“ we read,

‘ It shall be accepte d for him toc

34PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

make a tonement for him but then it is ‘ atonement ’

not according to the depths and enormity of human

guilt,but according to the perfection o f Christ

’

s sur

render o f Himself to God , and the intensity of God’

s

delight in Christ. What great sin was there in

Christ’s surrender o f Himself to the Father, and in

the Father’s delight in the Son,that thus required

to be atoned for ? I S it no t sufficient to terrify any

Christian to read such sentiments Just think of the

hardihood of the man who w ill thus deal with Scrip

ture.When Revelation says

,

“ He shall put his hand

upon the head o f the burnt-offering , and i t shall be

accepted for him to make a ton ement for him,Mr.

Mackintosh gives a flat contradiction,and informs us

i t 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 o f Christ’s surrender o f

Himself to God,and the intensity of God’s delight in

Christ ! ” Leaving the awful impiety o f thi s 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 o f Christ’s surrender of

Himself to God,and th e intensity of God’s delight

in Christ ? Did any man ever before hear such a

jargon o f nonsense,with a deep purpose to mystify

Scripture ? This is so well “ guarded,

” that I am sure

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

tion o f sin—th e wrath o f God—does not appear in theburnt-offering.

” According to this view , there is on e

portion,o r aspect, o f Christ

’s work on the cross which

h as nothing at all to do wi th the sins of His people .

It h as no relation to His chosen ones. In whose stead,

then,i s He standing ? If in every portion o f this work

He is no t standing in the place Of the sinner, for whom

is He atoning ? Job ofie re d the burnt-Offering for the

sins o f his sons ; consequently Christ , a s the a ntitype

of tha t ofiering, must have been offered for some per

son’s sins . For whom,then

,was He Offered ? For

Himself,o r for others ? AS Mr. Mackintosh utterly

denies it was for the sins of His people—that there

was any imputation in the matter—h e should j ust go

the whole length of saying it was on His own account.

He admits it was an atonement. For whom was th e

atonement effected ? If i t was not effected for His

people, it must have been for Himself. Mr. M. tells

us it was a tonement,not according to the depths and

enormity of human guilt,but according to the pe rfe c

tion of Christ’s surrender of Himself to God .

” If i t

was really an atonement, i t must have been for sin ;and if it was not for the S in s o f His people imputed to

Him, it must have been on His own account. This isthe fair, ,

le gitimate, and necessary result o f Mr. M .

’s

representations o f Christ as th e antitype of the burnt

offering.

I am persuaded there is not a Socinian i n the world

S OCINIANISM. 3 7

would find fault with Mr. Mackintosh’s opinions about

the burnt-Offering.

“ This attack upon the burnt

Offering,says the Journa l of P rophe cy, is

,perhaps

,

one o f the worst of their errors. For that sacrifice i s

the great parent of all the other sacrifice s - the root

from which the others have sprung as branches. If,

then,the Socinian axe b e laid to the parent root and

stem,the whole tree with all its branches must come

down. It requires no common amount of pre po s

session and hardihood to deny a pro pitiatory character

to the burnt-ofl'

e ring. We could not have believed

that any but a Socinian or a Rationalist could have

so entirely set as ide the great features o f the burnt

Offering. Those who have gone thus far will have

no difliculty in going farther. The heresy is a

serious one,and strikes at the very root of redemption .

It is the the ory o f Maurice and Socinus in an evan

ge lical form .

The Socinian tendency of Plymouthism is further

shown by Mr. Darby’s new translation o f the S crip

tures. As I have no t seen that work myself, I take

my authority from an article in “ The Sword and

Trowel ” for D e cemb er 1 87 2 . Mr. Darby,” observes

the reviewer,says in his preface

,I have not a doubt

of the justness O f the change,and just because , in

modern English , worship is used for what is rendered

to God only. When the English translation was made ,

i t was not,and the use o f i t now falsifie s the sense in

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

three-quarters o f th e 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 o f

owning Him as God. And it falsi fies 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

o n 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 maj ority of instances, they had

n o t the least idea o f owning Christ as God .

’ This is

the next statement and further,

‘ i t falsifie s the sense

o n a material point so to use the word This is

the third and consequently,as worship is for God

only,and in the vast majority o f cases they had no t

th e lea st idea o f 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

,o r

Be lsh am 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 o f Christ out o f the New Testa

ment ! Again , why does Mr. Darby no t allow

the capital letters to remain as before to the names o f

o ur Lord and o f the Holy Ghost These words in the

commonFrench version begin with capital letters,but

S OCIN IANISM. 39

Mr. Darby expunges the capitals and puts small letters

instead. Thus,in his version

, seigneur, Lord, is printed

w ith a small 8,and saint esprit, Holy Ghost, with a

small s . All this,observe

,is done coolly and de lib e

rate ly.

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 o f having His title,Lord

,

w ritten 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 me n from the East (Matt. in

place o f coming to worship Jesus,only came to pay

Him homage—that the disciples (Matt, when

they came and worshipped Him,saying

,

“ Of a truth

Thou art the Son o f God,did no t worship Him at all,

but only paid Him homage—that Mary Magdalene,

and the other Mary,and the eleven disciples (Matt.

did no t worship Him,but only paid Him

homage, for worship is for God only—that the disciple s, on seeing the Lord go up into heaven (Luke

merely paid Him homage,because worship is

for God only—and tha t the blind man who was healed(John in place o f saying

,

“ Lord,I believe and

he worshipped Him,

” should have said,

“ lord,worship

is due to God only,I will not worship thee

,but I will

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

pay thee homage.

” Christian reader, what do you

now think o f the Socinian tendencies of Darby and

Mackintosh ? What do you now think o f the truth

fulness o f Mrs . Grattan Guinness , when she asserts

that “ on th e fundamental truths Of the gospel,”

these

Plymouths “ are at o ne with all evangelical denomina

tions Is there a single evangel ical denomination in

the empire which denies true worship to Jesus in th e

New Testament ; or that the burnt-offering prefigure s

Christ on the cross bea ring the sins of His people ?

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST .

THE RE 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 no t

completely righteous,he cannot enter heaven. Wh en

man fell from his pristine sinless condition,he could

not o f himself procure a righteousness . He therefore

required a substitute wh o was able both to keep the

law and to suffer the penalty for its breach. It is o f

the utmost importance to understand the distinction

between obeying the law and suffering its penalty.

Suffering th e 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

is brought to trial,he must be pronounce d guilty.

Being once guilty , he can never be made innocent by

THE RIGHTE OUSNES S OF CHRIS T

sufl’

e ring the puni shment. For example , a man who

h as committe d murder may suffer death as the penalty

o f 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 i t with the sinner. He has broken the

laws of God,and cannot save himself. If h e i s to be

saved,it must be by the instrumenta lity of o ne wh o

is able to render perfect obedience to every precept of

the law,as well as to suffer its pe nalty. In both these

poin ts,the saved sinner has a perfect substitute in

Christ. Christ “ took not on Him the nature o f

angels ; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham—our humani ty—and in the room and ste ad o f His

peo ple, He lived a life of complete and perfect Obedi

ence to every po ssible demand of the law which they

were required to keep ; and then , in His death , He

paid the full and entire pena lty o f the law which

they h ad broken. In this way He wrought out a com

ple te robe o f righte ousness for His Church . The law

was kept, and the pe nalty paid and the saved sinner

ente red heaven perfectly righte ous when viewed by

God in His all-Sufficie nt substitute Christ Jesus.“ In the plan of salvation through Christ

,

” says my

father,

“ the authority o f the law is fully vindicate d ,

and the bre ach O f it fully avenged . Not only so , but

its demands are fully yie ld ed in the obe dience of the

life of the sinner’s substitute . Save d sinners have

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

given the law what damned S inners will never give it .

I n th e substitute they have rende red full o bedience to its

pre cep ts and sufi’

ered the full pe na lty of its bre a ch. In

stead o f trampling on the law,in the salvation o f His

people from its curse,Christ has magnified the law

and made it honourable. Is i t possible for God more

highly to honour the law than to exact obedience to it

from His Son,and to demand from Him full satis

faction fo r its breach by His people ? 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 o f the

Son o f 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,b ut i t was fulfilled by the second . I ts

requirements were perfectly yielded by the Obedience

o f the life o f Christ,and its penalty was suffered by

His death . This,then

,is the ground on which rests

the character which God gives o f 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 cle aiing 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

inno ce nt. They have suffered the penalty Of the law

in Christ : they have fully kept the precepts of the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

their righteousness is of Me , saith the Lord . He

hath clothed me with the garments o f salvation ; He

hath covered me with the robe o f righteousness.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness o f the

man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without

works. That righteousness might be imputed

unto them also. For the marriage o f th e 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 o f Him

are ye in Christ Jesus,who o f God is made unto us

w isdom , and righteousness,and sanctification

,and

redemption. For if by one man’s offence death

reigned by one much more they which receive abnud

ance of grace,and o f the gift o f righteousness

,shall

reign in life by One,Jesus Christ. For as by on e

man’s disobedience many were made sinners,so by

the obedience of on e shall many be made righteous.

The imputation o f Christ’s righteousness to His people

i s here taught as plainly as words could teach it.

Their righteousness is not their own ; i t i s said to be

of the Lord. They are covered with the robe o f right

e ousn e ss. God is said to impute righteousne ss without

works . The Church, the Lamb’s bride

,is arrayed in

fine linen , which is the righteousness o f saints . Christ

is distinctly said to be unto us wisdom,righteousne ss,

sanctifica tion, and redemption so that if we have no t

THE R IGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T. 45

His righte ousness,we have not His redemption. But

to place the matter beyond every possibility o f dispute,

we are informed that,as by the disobedience o f 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 o f inspiration as

clear as the light of heaven .

Now,what do the Darbyites say o n this question

In order to prevent misunderstanding o n the part of

myr e ad e rs, I must here mention that the point b e

tween them and us is no t the long-disputed question

of the imputa tion 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

sid e re d. They admit the imputation o f righteousness,

but deny that there is such a thing at all as the right

e ousne ss of Chris t 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 slighte s t doubt about their Opinions on the

subject. From the thoroughly j esuitical way in which

they ofte n speak of righteousness,many parties imagine

they are quite so und, but their heterodoxy is rendered

indisputable by the following proofs. “ It i s very

re markable,

” says Mr. C. Stanley,“ that the Scriptures

never use the expression,the imputed righteousness

of Christ,

’ or even ‘ the righteousness of Christ ’ ; but

always the ‘ righteousness of God .

’ The words,

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the ‘ righteousness o f God ,’ do not mean the ‘ righteous

n ess of Christ. Imputed Righteousness, pp . 1,

It i s here very plain ly stated that what is called in

Scripture “ the righteousness Of God , i s 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 o f 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 o f 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,“o f ‘ the righteousness of God and

,

moreover,of the imputa tion of righteousness, but never

o f the righte ousne ss of Christ.’ Tribe o f Levi

,

third edition,p. The imputa tion Of the righteous

ness o f God is here distinctly held,whilst it is most

emphatically denied that the oracles o f God contain

such a thing as the righteousness o f Christ. Again,

“ to the believer now,says Mr. Bell

,

“ righteousness

is imputed without works . How ? Through the

righteousness o f Christ ? The Scripture does no t say

so . You (Mr. Co x) complain of the many points

o f difference which exist between ‘ Brethren ’ and

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T. 47

The righteousness which is imputed to the believer is

here denied to be the righteousness o f Christ ; and it

is admitted that justification through the righteousness

o f Christ is a fundamental point on which the Ply

mouths dissent from other sects. It is o ne o f the

cardinal questions . And yet Mrs . Grattan Guinness

doe s not hesitate to state that “ on the fundamental

truths o f the gospel the Plymouths “ are at o ne 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

O f God,” which they say is imputed to the believer ?

They just mean one o f the a ttributes o f the Godhead.

The righteousness spoken o f here (Rom . says

Mr . Bell ,“ i s evidently the righteousness o f the God

head—that essential attribute.” Cease ye from

M an,p.

“ It i s very remarkable,

” observes Mr.

C. Stanley,

“ that the Scriptures never use the expres

sion,

‘ The righteousness o f Christ,’ but always

,as in

Rom . iii. 19 , 26,‘ The righteousness o f God.

’ The

Holy Ghost must have an object in this and surely it

is to direct our attention first o f all to God himself, to

Show His own character and attributes in perfect con

sistency and harmony,that He is just in justifying the

S inner. It is o f the first importance that God

should be seen to be pe rfectly consistent with Himself,

in the rela tion in which He stands to all created beings,

and this is righte ousness. The subj ect of the first

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans , is the

unfolding the righte ous character of God in condemning

sin,yet justifying the believing sinner. Imputed

Righteousness,

” pp. 1“ It is not the righteousness

o f God,a fa ct

,an existing thing , which is spoken o f,

says Mr. Darby,but righteousness o f God—this

qua lity of righte ousness.” The Righteousness of God ,

p. Righteousness is here made the inherent

quality, o r attribute, which belongs to the Godhead .

Again,pages 1 8, 10 and 28

,Mr. Darby says,

“ The

righteousness o f God means,first '

o f all,His own

righteousness—that He is just. The righteous

ness spoken o f 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

tity o r 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 qua lity in the cha rac ter of Go d, i s beyond all

question or controversy. Is it different wholly in the

New ? I do no t be lieve z'

t.” The Pauline Doctrine

,

p.

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 o ne of the divine attributes. Now,inas

much as they hold the imputa tion of the righteous

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T. 49

ness of God,if thi s righte ousness be, as Mr. Darby

says,

“ the quality or character that is in God Him

self,

”—if it thus be on e of the a ttributes o f the

Allhigh ty, I demand to know how this attribute o f

the Godhead is to be imputed to man . Just think o f

the inte rpretation of Scripture which compels them

to hold that some o f the attributes o f the Almighty

are to be imputed to man ! I demand a rational ex

planation o f this point. I ask how man i s to be

clo th ed with an attribute of the Godhead ? Let them

explain this if they can . No doubt God possesses

righteousness as one of His attributes,but this is not

th e righteousness which is impute d to man. It could

not be so ; the attributes o f the Godhead are not

conferred on the human race. I call on Mr. C . Stanley

to show how his statement could be true,when he

asserts that “ God’s own essen tia l righte ousne ss i s com

municate d to us.

” by the Rev. John

Harriso n,p. Will God endow us with His own

attributes ? “ Even the righteousness o f God,which

is by fai th o f Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them

that believe .” This righte ousness cannot b e the

attribute o f divinity,because by faith it is unto all

and upon all that believe. Man is not converte d into

a God after this fashion. As Mr. Haldane has well o h

served,

“ Th e righte ousness o f God,which is re ceived

by faith,denotes something tha t becomes the pro perty

o f the be liever. It cannot,then

,be here th e divine

D

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

attribute o f justice, but th e divine work which God

h as wrought through His Son. This, therefore, deter

m ines the phrase, in this place , as referring imme

diate ly, 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

o f these Plymouths, my dwelling so long on the proof o f

this point may appear superfluous and so it Would h e ,

were it not that many half-hearted supporters of truth

are so fond o f cloaking error, that they try to make us

believe the Plymouths do not hold the righteousness

o f 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 i s easy to prove that this

must be the opinion o f 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 th e words,“ the right

e o usn e ss o f God,do no t mean the righteousness of

Christ ; but he also says,“ The thought of Christ

h aving 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 , o r put upon the law

breaker, to enable him to stand in law-kept righteous

ness before God. Imputed Righteousness, p .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLY MOUTH HERES IES .

being accounted righteous .” Now,what sort of impa

ta tio n i s 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

languag e to wh ich he attaches a different meaning from

what it is able to bear. If this system o f “ guarding

h e not dropped, it must just be exposed . It is a

complete deception . A ccording to th e turn Mr. D .

has now taken,the righteousness is not imputed at

all,but the man who is not righteous is accounted

righteous. T h e God o f truth and justice is to come

forth with a lie in His right h and,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 o f a falsehood,by accounting an

unrighteous man righteous ? I f God accounts a man

anything b ut what he really and truly is,He den ies

Himself and ceases to be God. It is impossibl e 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 accoun ts h im so .

There can be no if o r and in the matter. Although

personally a sinner, the believer has the righteousness

of Christ so really and truly imputed to him,that h e

is as innocent, standing in Christ, as i f he never h adsinned , and as spotless as the throne o f the Almighty.

Again, if the righteousness be not the righteousness

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T. 5 3

of Christ, but is one o f the attributes o f the Go dhead ,

as the Darbyi tes make it, I want to know how the

attribute of the Godhead is to be “ accounted ” to

man. This i s the point. If Mr. D. had on e particle

of perspicacity,he would see that he has not advanced

a single step towards relief from his predicament. It is

just as impossible fo r an attribute o f the Godhead to be

a ccounted 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 o f the work o f Christ.” As Mr. D .

is about as confused a writer as ever put pen to paper,

this idea may probably satisfy his o wn understanding,

but it could no t satisfy any man who i s capable o f

thinking clea rly. Just look at it. The attribute o f

righteousness which belongs to the Godhead o f Christ

cannot be imputed o r accounted to any man. Indeed,

Mr. D . does not he re say it could . He says it is for the

work of Christ we are accounte d righteous. Now,fo r

what work are we accounted righteous ? The paying

of the penalty in the death o f Christ is an esse ntia l

ingredient in righteousness,but i t alone does no t con

stitute righteousness . The man who is righteous is

entirely innocent. Suffering the punishment can never

bring innocence. Consequently there must be a per

feet obedience in the room o f the guilty,as well as an

atonement. But Mr. D. utterly denies the obedience

of Christ’s life in.

the room o f His people. . Wh ere ,

5 4 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

then, can he find the completion o f righteousness ?

Nowhere. His view o f the work o f Christ cannot

produce it. He makes Him pay the penalty for His

people,but he does not make Him fulfi l 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 prin ciples are dreadful. They make the God

o f heaven account a man innocent when he is not truly

innocent—they make the holy God the author o f a

fiction

Another idea here strikes me. Take Mr. Darby on

his own showing, and what is the result ? He says we

are accounte d righteous for the work of Christ. If so,the work of Christ must constitute a righteousness !

and what is this but a righteousness o f Christ,which

he lustily denies Further,i f the righteousness which

Mr. Darby says is accounted to us be constituted o f

the work o f Christ, as he affirms, how does this work

o f Ch rist become an attribute o f the Godhead ?

Absurd ! At on e time Mr. Darby says,

“ Righteous

ness is here made the inherent quality, or attribute,which belongs to the Godhead

,- e u attribute inse par

able from divinity and then,in another place

,when

driven into a corner,he is obliged to acknowledge that

the righteousness wh ich is accounted to us results

from the work o f Christ. And still he denies there is

such a thing as the righteousness o f Christ ! Verily

THE R IGHTEOUS NES S or CHRIS T. 5 5

there is no end to the inconsistencies and contradic

tions o f error. Again, if the work of Christ constitutes

a righte ousness, h ow does Mr. Darby venture to say

that “ the righteousness of our Go d and Saviour Jesus

Christ is not spoken of as to justification at all, and

has noth ing to do with the subject ? ” If the righteous

ness o f Christ has nothing to do with j ustification,h ow

are we justified by the work o f Christ,which Mr. D .

says is accounted to us ? Truly such inconsistencies

are inconsiste nt enough even for the authors o f Ply

mouthism. In his reply to Mr. Trench,Mr. Darby

complains tha t he cannot give intelligence to his ad

v e rsarie s. It would be a gre at blessing, however, if he

could by any means obtain the least possible trifle o f i t

for himself. No man in the world has more need o f i t.

I was told,a few days since

,that it is impossible

for the obedience o f Christ to be so imputed that the

man who h as broken the law becomes entirely inno

ce nt. I f so,I reply

,on the same principle of re ason

ing,It is impossible for the work o f Christ on the

cross to be so imputed that the man becomes entirely

free from his guilt. If the on e be impossible,so is the

other. In commenting o n this, Mr. Darby says,“ With

a man who can reason thus,it is lost time to reason

at all. There is not a particle o f sense in the passage .

An innoce nt man is,to go no de eper

,a man who has

never been guilty ; and his ever becoming innocent

is simple nonsense .” Not so fast, Mr. Darby. Your

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

argument here,in place of making a fool of Dr. Carson ,

just proves your own in capacity,i f you had the brains

to see it. A t the 4sth page of your“ Righteousness

and Law,you say your sin is put away by the atone

Now,to turn yourment

,and you are guiltless.

’

o wn argument on yourself ;“ With a man who can

reason thus,it is lost time to reason at all . There is

no t 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 i s simple nonsense .

Verily,Mr. Darby, if you had the least critical power,

yo u would have seen the predicament you were plac ing

yourself in . On Mr. Darby’s principles no man could

be saved . I t 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 “ covere d

with the robe of righteousness ; and that Christ is

made unto us wisdom,and righteousness

,and sancti

ficatio n, and redemption . If the Plymouth views

were correct, the redemption would be sufficient, and

the robe o f righteousness which God has provided i s

qui te superfluous. They are far wiser than Go d .

The y can take men into heaven who are in no sen se o f

the word innocent Innocence can never result from

suffering the punishment. The man who was hanged

yesterday has undergone th e full punishment for his

THE RIGHTEOUS NE S S OF CHRIS T. 5 7

crimes—h e has paid the pe nalty ; but if he were tocome 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 no t get

clear o f the gui lt. He might escape the repetition o f

punishme nt, but he could never proclaim his inno

cence . He could never use the language o f Scripture,

and say,

“ Who shall lay anything to my charge ?

He is still a real murderer,and is chargeable with the

guilt o f his crime. He cannot in any sense h e looked

o n as innocent. Paying the penalty can never bring

innocence. That cannot result without perfect obe

dj enoe . So it is with the sinner. Christ paid the

penalty on the cross by suffering the entire punish

ment,but that alone does no t bring innocence o r

freedom from guilt,and alone could n o t admit to

heaven. The man who enters heaven is in such a

condition that nothing wha tever can be laid to his cha rg e .

Al though 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 . Th e

perfe ct obedience of Christ’s life and the complete

atonement effected by His death on the cross,are both

really and truly imputed to the saved sinner,and he

thus enters heaven in a perfectly pure and spotless

condition. He is innocent or guil tless.No man but a polytheist could be lieve in a multi

tude of Gods. It is utterly impossible for men to b e

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

converted into Gods by having the attributes o f the

Godhead imputed,imparted

,or accounted to them .

God cannot give away His own attributes. He cannot

either impute,impart

,or account His attributes o f

omnipotence,omnipresence

,j ustice , 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 o f Christ, and if man cannot possibly

work out a righteousness for himself,h ow i s he to get

into heaven ? This is a vital question . If Plymouthism

be true, no person who was once a sinner ever entered

h eaven , or else heaven is peopled with unrighte ous

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 i s filled with

unrighteous people, and God could not look on them

without abhorrence. Such views are entirely sub ve r

sive o f the Gospel.

As this point is o f overwhelm ing importance,I will

repeat my statement. When Christ suffered on the

c ross, He endured the entire punishment for the sins

of His people He paid the penalty in their room and

stead ; but this a lone does not make them righteous.

The man who is righteous is perfectly innocent. He

not only defies punishment,but nothing whatever can

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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

i ts precepts . If,then

,man cannot obey the law o n

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 o f him. He must certainly

be excluded from heaven, o r else heaven is to be filled

with those who are still transgressors. Suffering the

punishment o f the broken law ,is not fulfilling its

requiremen ts and obeying its precepts. Hence , if the

death o f Christ alone be available for the believer

if the obedience o f His life be excluded—His people

must be excluded from the habitation o f a just and

holy God,because they are still under the stigma o f a

broken law. The law has no t been kept by them nor

by any substitute o n their behalf,and

,therefore

,they

cannot produce a full claim to th e mansions o f glory.

Perhaps these Plymouths would attempt to escape from

this predicament by asserting that we are no t under

law. Let them do so,and I at once reply

,If we are

no t under law to God,and if Christ hath rendered no

obedience to law for us,we cannot in any sense be

guilty o f the sin o f 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,o r by a substitute in his stead

,there was no law

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S or CHRIS T. 6 1

to break,and there could be no atonement for its

brea ch . This is self-evident. This view no t only

renders the obedience o f 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

ne ver read in Scripture o f “ the ‘ righteousness o f

Christ ? Now,says the Journal of P rophe cy,

“ suppose this were true—was no t 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 o f Christ’s supreme Godhead lurk under the

gular idea o f His righteousness ? ” It is the right

e ousne ss o f God in contradistinction to any thing which

could be done by men o r angels “ For they being

ignorant o f God ’s righteousness, and going about to

establish their own righteousness, have no t submitte d

themselves unto the righteousness o f God . For Christ

is the end o f the law fo r righteousness to every one

that believeth.

” In the first o f these verses, it is

called the righte ousness of God , in direct contrast to

th e righteousness o f man,which man was trying to

establish . There is no contrast here,regarding right

e ousn ess, between the Father and the Son , but there is

a contrast between God and man. In the one case it is

th e righte ousness established by man,in the other i t

is th e righte ousness pro vid e d by God . It must also b e

62 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

specially remarked that what is called the righteousness

o f God , in the first part o f the quotation, is called, in th e

last part,the righteousness o f Christ . He is here said

to be the end,or complete fulfilment, o f the law for

righte ousness to every one that believeth . Besides, i f

Christ be God,His righteousness is God’s righteousness,

and' h as a perfect right to be so called . No man can con

siste ntly deny this who admits the divinity o f Christ.“ I will raise unto David a righteous Branch .

And this is His name whereby He shall be called,

T HE L o an O UR Rmnrsousnsss. It is beyond mycomprehension how these Plymouths can believe this

to be Scripture,and still say

,We read o f the righteous

ness of God,but never of the righteousness o f Christ.

They should cut this text o ut 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 o f sense

could argue that the righteousness here mentioned is

the righteousness o f the Father. I t unquestionably

applies to Christ ; and the name whereby He shall

be called is the Lord our Righteousness. I t is evident

the righteousness here referred to is not the essential

attribute o f righteousness which Christ possessed in

His Godhead, because i t 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 wh ich He could work out and

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T.

confer upon us. The attribute o f righteousness,which

be longed essentially to His Godhead,could no more

b ecome ours than could His attributes o f omnipotence,

omnipresence,and eternity. If these Plymouths, in

claiming the attribute o f God’s righteousness,would

be consistent,and also claim the attributes of omni

potence and omnisc ience,they would soon be con

signed to Bedlam. The attributes of the Godhead

cannot be conferred upon man. Jeremiah had no t

heard of these Plymouthites,for he tells us that Christ

shall be ca lled the L o a n ous RIGHT E O US NE S S .“ And Jesus answering said unto him ,

S ufl'

e r i t to

be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. What was the righte ousness which Christ

was fulfilling here in His baptism ? Was it o ne of His

own attribute s ? How could He fulfil His own a ttri

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 as David also describeth the blessedness

o f the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness

wi thout 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

sham either in the righteousness o r in the imputation .

The righteousness is a true righteousness , and no

mockery ; and the imputation is real, no t pretended .

PLYM OUTH HERE S I E S .

When God says He imputes righteousness, He meanswhat He says. He does not count a thing which

never happens . There is no fictitious work with Him .

When we are told (Rom . i ii . The righteousness of

God is up on all who believe, we should be quite certain

i t i s a something in which they can be clothed. If

this were not so,the Scripture which says it is up on

them,would n o t be true. The righteousness which is

impute d becomes so really and truly their own ,that

they are perfectly righteous in the sight o f a holy God .

That such is the case is placed beyond dispute by

Matthew,wh o tells us

,that .

“ the righte ous” shall go

“ in to 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 o f thi s paragraph does n o t say

that God imputes the consequences o f righteousness,

but He imputes the righteousness itself. As Dr. Owen

has well observed,“ In this imputation

,the thing

i tself is first imputed unto us,and no t any o f the

effects o f i t, but they are made ours by virtue o f that

imputation . T o say the righteousness o f Christ

is no t imputed unto us,only its e fl

'

e cts are so,i s really

to overturn all imputation . For the effects o f th e

righteousness o f Ch rist cannot be said properly to be

imputed unto us ; and if His righteousness itself be

no t so, imputation hath no place herein. And,

TII E R IGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T.

therefore,the Socinians

,who expressly oppose the

imputation o f the righteousness o f Christ,and plea d

for a participation o f its effects or benefits only, do

wisely deny any such kind o f righ teousness o f 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

o f must be a righteousness which God can confer upon

man. It cannot, as maintained by these Plymouths,

b e one o f His own attributes,because men cannot be

converte d into Gods by having the attributes o f

divini ty conferred upon them. This is impossible.

If God were to give away His own attributes, He

would cease to be Go d. I t is so impossible for God

to part with His attributes,that when we find Christ

manifesting the attributes of divini ty,we know o f a

truth He is really God. Here,again

,we see tha t the

views of the Darbyites undermin e the divinity o f

Christ. If the attributes o f God can be conferred upo n

man,the p osse ssion of them by Christ would b e no proof of

the divinity of Christ. T h e righte ousness mentioned

in the passage I have quote d is on e which God is said

to impute to man,and

,therefore

,i t cannot be the

attribute o f divinity possessed by the Father and Son,

but must b e the righteousness which was worked out

by Christ,or

,in other words

,Christ’s righteousness

n

66 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

the righteousness wh ich He h as provided by th e

obedience o f His life,and the atonement effected in

His death,in the room and stead of His people.

In the 9th chapter o f Daniel, we are told that a

certain time was determined “ to finish the transgre s

sion,and to make an end o f sins

,and to make recon

ciliation for in iquity,and to bring in everlasting

righteousness. Who is referred to here ? Who is to

make an end o f 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 n o t 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

,i t is to be

everlasting . I t is to last for ever but it does not say

it has existed from past eternity. If such had been

the case,th e expression would have been similar to th e

o ne in the Psalms,which says

,

“ From everlasting to

everlasting,Thou art God .

” In the case o f the righ

te ousn e ss,th e word “ everlasting ” applies to its dura

tion after being brought in,and

,therefore

,cannot refer

to a pre -existing attribute but in th e other example ,

the expression ,“ From everlasting to everlasting

,in

e ludes eternity past and future.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

68 PLYMOUTH . HERES IES .

been something Wo rked out for man , and then b e

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 ? If it w as

n o t worked o ut by the Father, but by Christ, i t must

be the righteousness o f Christ.o

T h e re i s no escape

from this. The comparison between Adam and Christ

is kept up in the next verse,

“ Therefore,as by th e

offence o f on e judgment came upon all men to con

demna tion ; even so by the righteousness o f One the

free gift came upon all m e n unto justification o f life.

As by the offence of on e (Adam) condemnation came

even so by the righteousness of one (Christ), the free

gift came unto j ustification . No w,if the righteousness

mentioned here be not the righteousness o f Christ,

but of the Father,the comparison must lie between

Adam and th e Father. Can any person believe that

Adam is here compared with the Father,and not w ith

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 on e man’s disobedience many

were made sinners ; so by the obedience o f One shall

many be made righteous.” Surely the disobedience

here which makes many sinners is the disobedience o f

Adam,and the obedience which makes many righteous

is the obedience of Christ. Is i t not,then

,the righ te

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRI ST.

o usne ss o f Christ resulting from His obedience ?

Would any person venture to say it was the obedience

of the Father which was compared o r contrasted with

the disobedience o f Adam ? Certainly no t. The o b e

die nce here is the obedience o f Christ . Now,what

obedience did Christ render ? And for whom did He

render it ? If we examine the Scriptures,we shall

find that He rendered a perfect obedience to the pre

ce pts o f the law in His l ife, and then submitted to the

penalty of the broken law in His death o n the cross.

In whose stead did He stand throughout these trans

actions ? Did He obe y the law for Himself, o r His

people ? Did He sufl'

e r the punishmen t for Himself,

or His people ? For His people,most certainly. He

did not require to soj ourn in this world on His own

acc ount and if His obedient life had nothing to do

with His saints , i t was perfectly useless. He might

as well have gone to the cross on the day of His birth,

i f He had nothing to do,as these Plymouths assert

,

by way of obedience to the law during life in the room

o f His Church. It is a glorious truth,however

,that

,

as the substitute o f His chosen ones,He rendered a

perfect obedience to the holy law o f God in His life,

and paid the penalty o f the broken law in His death ,

and thus brough t in an e ve rlasting righteousness, the

righteo usness of Christ—a righteousness which, being

worked out by Christ,is capable of being conferred as

a gift upon man .

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

But,finally

,according to the marginal, proper, and

literal rendering o f the following passage , the righ te

oneness is expressly called the righteousness o f Christ

“ Simon Peter,a servant and an apostle of Jesus

Christ,to them that have obtained like precious faith

w ith us through the righteousness o f our God and

Saviour Jesus Christ. Here it is expressly called the

righteousness o f Jesus Christ who i s o ur God and

Saviour. This verse places the question beyond dis

pute . It proves the righteousness to be the righteous

ness o f Christ, and further shows that Christ is God .

Just look at a similar expression on another subj ect

Looking for that blessed hope,and the glorious

appearing o f the great God and our Saviour Jesus

Christ,who gave Himself for us.” Is i t the Father

who is mentioned here ? Did the Father give Himself

for us ? Is i t the Father, and not Jesus Christ,for

whose appearing we are to look ? Is it no t plain that

Jesus Christ,wh o gave Himself fo r us

,is to appear

(on the day o f j udgment), and that He is the great

God and our Saviour ? If so,a similar interpretation

must make “ the righteousness o f our God and Saviour

Jesus Christ ” the righteousness o f Christ. Further,

let us examine the expression,

“ Feed the Church o f

God, which He h ath purchased with His own blood .

I s it the Father is meant here Had the Father flesh

and blood ? Did the Father purchase the Church ?

Was i t not Christ who purchased the Church with

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T.

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 ? If so (and wh o can deny it a

similar interpretation must make “ the righteousness

o f our God and Saviour Jesus Christ ” the righteous

ness of Chri st ; and , Christ being God , i t i s properly

and correctly also called the righteousness o f God.

Those who dispute these principles o f interpretation

are bound,for their own consis tency’s sake

,to deny

that Christ is God. Socinianism would make the best

foundation for the Darbyite Opinions on this point.

Another great error of Plymouthism is,that Christ

during His life did not actually suffer with o r for

His people,but that it was merely sympa the tic. This

is the fair result o f the “ heavenly humanity view.

I f His humanity was and not ours,o f

course He could not actually suffer. The Plymouths

are perfectly consistent with themselves in making

the sufl'

e rings of Christ during His life merely sym

pathetic,be cause this i s the only sort o f suffering

which could be borne by a person wh o,in plac e o f

our humanity, had a“ heavenly humanity

,

” was a

divine man,

and,

“ in His manhood was the Lord

from he aven.

” In his “ guarded ” edition of “ Notes

on Leviticus , pages 58 and 59, Mr. Mackintosh says ,

Himself took our infirmitie s, and bare our sick

nesses. ’ This was entire ly sympa the tic—the power of

7 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

fellow-feeling which in Him was perfect . There

is, therefore, a very manifest difference between

Christ’s suffering as a voluntary sympathiser w ith

human misery,and His suffering as the sinner’s sub

stitute.” No doubt of it,Mr . Mackintosh ; there is

a vast difference between these twol poin ts

—j ust 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 o ur infirmitie s, and bare our sick

nesses ;” that He was “ a man Of sorrows and a o

quainte d with grief ; that He was “ despised and

rej ected o f men ; that He“ hath borne o ur grief and

carried our sorrows ;” that when “ He was reviled

,

He reviled not again ; when He suffered, 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 n o

difficulty here . Was Christ a man of sorrows on

His o wn accoun t or on ours ? We are plainly told

that He took our infirmitie s,ca rried our sorrows

,bore

our grief,and suffered fo r us

,leaving an example

which we are to follow.

“ Fo r w e have not an high

priest,” says the Scripture

,which cannot be touched

with the feeling of o ur infirmitie s; but was in all

points tempted like as we are,yet without sin .

Fo r in that He Himself hath suffered,being tempted

,

He is able to succour them that are tempted.

” Words

THE RIGHTEOUS NES S OF CHRIS T. 73

could not more explicitly assert that Christ sufferedfrom the temptations endured in life, and that He

was tempted on all points like as we are , yet wi thoutsin and th e 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

,infirmitie s

,and temptations to

which His people are liable,He is in a proper position

to b e touched with the feeling o f their infirmitie s.

Besides,He endured all these things without sinning

in any sense o f the word,and

,therefore

,we are certain

that He rendered a perfect obedience to the law o f

God. Such is the testimony of the Holy Spirit re

garding the reality o f the endurance o f the griefs ,

sorrows,and infirmitie s which were exemplified in

Christ’s life : but Mr. Mackintosh is much better

informed on the subj e ct. He is able to . te ll us that

there was no reality in the taking o f our infirmitie s,

and in the bearing o f o ur 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 i t not dreadful to

think o f 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 infirmitie s, bare

our sickne sses,and carried our sorrows, as we are

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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.” O n the same principle , he

should deny the reality o f Christ’s death as an actual

atonemen t,and make it “ sympathetic ” also. I t is

an awful thing to twist Scripture to the support of a

system,and thus be guilty o f “ handling the Word o f

God deceitfully.

There is o n e point which Mr. Mackintosh and his

d isciples 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 o f His Father’s countenance.

From time to time,says Mr. Mackintosh

,during

th e life o f Ch rist,down here

,heaven had opened to

give forth th e expression o f 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 Whywas He not forsaken o f God during His

'

e ntire course

What was the differe nce between Christ on the cross,

and Christ on the holy Mount o f Transfiguration Was

He forsaken o f God on the mount ? These are very

simple questions, which should be answered by those

who maintain the idea Of a life o f sin -bearing.

” Notes

on Leviticus, p. Great stress has been laid on this

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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'

th e

difference between Christ’s life and the cross. In

the on e,He was rendering obedience , and the Father

gave Him the light o f His coun tenance in the other,

He was und e r the curse o f the law,and sufle ring th e

punishment for its breach,and consequently the

Father hid His face from Him. An able corres

pondent o f the L ondon Re cord very properly observes

The whole work o f obedience o f the Lord Jesus

Christ is excluded from this new gospel . The surety

might have gone at once from heaven to the cross on

Calvary.

” I f 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 L O O KE D in vain over the pages o f the Cole raine

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

MACKINTOS H VALOUR. 7 7

attempt h e made to improve his position, only made

him flounder the deepe r.

I did not,I could not

,believe Mr. Mackinto sh was

such a monster as to continue circulating an awful

heresy which , either in a palpable o r in a guarded

form,underlies almost every article h e has written

,if

he did no t be lieve in. the doctrines he wa s prop ounding .

Consequently , I never for one moment imagined he

had changed the opinions h e originally published . To

give him a full opportunity,however

,of making the

matter plain to the world,I put a number o f questions

,

which,i f answered

,would have left no doubt on th e

subj ect. But these questions he h as no t found i t

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 ; h e looked

like a valian t soldier in the first flush o f excitement ;

but the moment he saw the batte ries before him were

fully manned and thoroughly equipped , he came to th e

wise,although unmanly

,conclusion

,that “ discretion

was the better part o f valour. The flying Americans

levelled a coward’s gun at Dr. Russell Mr. Mackintosh

has presented o ne at me . He sent a priva te -public

letter to the editor of the Chronicle , which might be

shown to all and sundries , but which was no t to be

printe d. I saw i t, and I only wish I had go t a stretch

at i t. His conduct was cowardly in the extreme, and

be trayed a want of confidence in his principles.

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

As I had not the slightest idea o f allowing Mr.

Mackintosh to escape,I demanded an explicit answer,

yes o r no,without any shuffling, evasion, explanation ,

o r“ guarding

,to the following questions —Does he

now de ny that Christ,“ as to His manhood

,was the

Lord from heaven ”? Does he now de ny that Christ

was “ a divine man ” ? Does he now deny that Christ

had a “ heavenly humanity ”? Does he n ow be lieve

that Christ appeared in our humanity ? Does he now

b e lieve that Christ was made unde r the law ? Will he

positively declare that his opinions regarding the

humanity of Christ are exactly and precisely the same

as those w hich are held by the Established Church ,

the Presbyterians,the Methodists

,the Baptists

,th e

Independents,and the Covenanters ? These were

fair,plain

,intelligible questions

,and required only

yes or no for an answer. Indeed , thi s is the only sort

of answer I would have taken,as I would suffer no

quibbling in the matter ; no special pleading ; noguarding. Some o f Mr. Mackintosh ’s followers

have written to me to excuse his silence,on th e

ground that he might not think the Chronicle a proper

place for religious subj ects ; but this'

e x cuse 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,th at it became

necessary to avoid the columns of a newspaper. In

the hope of a Plymouth victory,the paper was com

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE. 79

ple te ly sanctified ; but the moment a crushing defeat

became inevitable,the Chronicle was unholy ground .

This is quite in harmony with the deeply j esuiti cal

system of Plymouthism.

THE PASTORAL OFFICE.

T HE existence o f the Pas to ral Office i s so plainly

taught in Scripture,that I am surprised any person

would think of questioning it.“ I will give you

pa sto rs according to mine heart,says the Lord

,by

Jeremiah,

“ which shall feed you with knowledge and

understanding.” God h as here promised pastors : i s

He a man that He should no t fulfil ? The duty o f

these pastors is also specially mentioned . They are

to feed the flock with knowledge and understanding.

If so,they must possess a high degree o f knowledge

and understanding themselves,because they could

not communicate if they had not received . I t 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 flock cannot be teachers. If all the flock are

to be place d o n a par in this respect,the distinction

of pastor and flock is lost ; and the establishment

would correspond with Donald Carr’s description o f

the school in which “ the one was taugh ting the other.

80 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Then th e 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 o f Barnabas and Saul.

We here see that the assistance for the relief o f th e

brethren was no t S ent to them direct,but through the

h ands o f the e lders; and this shows that there were

elders,and th at they occupied a prominent position in

comparison with the ordinary members. A careful

examination o f Scripture will demonstrate that th e

term Elder i s applied exactly to the same office as

pastor and bishop (see Titus i . 5—7 , where elder and

bishop are used interch angeably) and h ence 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

w ere sent by Barnabas and Saul.

And when they had ordained them elders in every

church .

” It i s evident from this that a church must

exist before an elder o r pastor can be placed over it.

I t is also plain that a pastor was placed over e very

church so formed . There was no exception every

church .

” I t 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 o r

dained in every church . If a church cannot,by the

greatest effort, support a pastor, o r i f i t be impossible

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE 8 1

to find one of the proper description, God will not lay

the want of one to the charge o f that church,because

He is not such a hard taskmaster as to require people

to do impossibili ties in this affair but I am perfectly

certain if a church,from any other cause than an utte r

imp ossibility, neglect to procure a pastor, i t is com

mitting a great sin in the face of high Heaven,and

cannot possibly prosper. I have never known pros

pe rity to take place where the Pastoral Office was

despised,and God’s arrangements thus neglected and

trampled under foot. The Plymouths are no t the

only guilty parties in this matter. I t is quite a

common thing to find men who pre tend to be guided

by Bible principles and scriptural authority,and yet

feel that it i s 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 i t ; 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 illi terate lips . Whilst there is a tota l

absence o f all re al gift and power, they get infatuated

with the sound o f their own voices, and become so far

puffed up with pride and self-conceit, that they cannot

bea r to submit to the Scripture rule of having one

w ho is “ apt to teach ” placed over every church .

They thus, under the pre te nce of standing by ScripF

8 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

ture,trample under foot the very Office which was

instituted by God for the instruction, e dification, 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 o f re com

mending the system o f 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 j udges 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 deci sion o f a church,

the scene i s entirely changed. The pastor must be

tested ; but the men o f “ gifts ” are so superhuman

that they cannot submit to any test outside their

own infallible j udgment. 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 o f p etty tyrants

can be found

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 o f “ gifts in different

men will'

be found Of immense use in a church. I n

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

84 PLYMOUTH HERES IE S .

those who obj ect to on e 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 re ceived o f the church and o f the apostles and

the elders.” Could anything be plainer than this ?

We have three classes here—the church , the apostles,and the elders . Now

,i f 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

presen t ? What reasons could be adduced for their

necessity in those days,which do not still exist ? 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 o r 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 j ust the same necessity as

ever for the exercise o f the gifts o f the pastors o r

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 PAS TORAL OFF ICE.

existed , they are sure ly equally necessary now. It i s

very evident all these classes were necessary at th e

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 ? We have a perfect substitute n ow,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,no twith

standing the miraculous gifts , they required pastors

o r 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 ?

Fo r the perfecting O f the saints,for the work o f the

ministry,for the edifyin g o f the body o f 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 fo r their performance. So long as

there are saints upon earth , so long as there is any

portion o f the body of Christ (His Church) in this

world,the work of the ministry must go on

,the

sain ts must be perfected , and the body o f Christ (His

Church) must be e dified . In primi tive times they

had pastors and teachers as well as inspired men ; in

86 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

these days we require pastors and teachers, as well as

the words o f inspiration . But my text goes further

still,for it says these were given , not for a day o r an

hour,but till we all come in the unity o f the faith ,

and o f the knowledge of the S on o f God , unto a

perfect man,unto the measure o f the stature o f the

fulness o f 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 s ame way as we have the sacred oracles

to take the place of those who were endowed with

miraculous gifts.

Paul and Timotheus , the servants o f 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 o f Christ,o r the

Church o f 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 Are we able to dispense with bishops and

deacons, seeing that they were required even under

the eyes o f the apostles

Remember them which have the rule over you,

who have spoken unto you the Word o f God. The

elders which are among you I exhort,who am also an

elder and a witness o f the sufferings of Christ,

feed the flock o f God which is among you, taking the

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE 8 7

oversight thereof and when the Chief Shepherd

shall appe ar, ye shall receive a crown of glory that

fadeth not away.

” The sa in ts 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 no t 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 o f 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 o f 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 o r

pastors must exist. It must also be observed that a

Chief Shepherd is mentioned ; from which it is palpablethat there must b e unde 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 o f a bishop,he desireth

a good work .

” A bishop,then , is no t a common man.

He h as a special Office , and an Official position. He is

more than a common soldier. Amongst the various

qua lifications enumerate d for a bishop , the capability

o f teach ing and ruling occupies a prominent position,

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

A bishop then must be apt to teach ,

that ruleth well his own house for if a man know

no t how to rule‘ his own house, how shall he take care

o f the Church o f God ? ” Who will read this and dare

to say that a church requires neither ruling no r teach

ing,but is j ust to be left to the mercy o f 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

o f view is rendered evident by the lamentation made

by Mr. Mackin tosh over the condition of their gather

ings. “ Al as alas,

” says he ,“ we often see men on

their feet,in the midst o f our assemblies (that word

our will creep in), whom common- sense,to say nothing

o f 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 o f ignorant m e n,fond of hear

ing themselves talk , as a sphere in which they might

easily figure without the pains o f school and collegework. If an assembly be troubled by the intrusion

o f ignorant and foolish me n,—men who have never yet

measured themselves in the presence of God ,—menwho boldly overleap the wide domain over which

common-sense , good taste , and moral propriety pre

side,and then vainly talk o f being led by the Holy

Ghost,—restless men who will be at something, and

THE PAS TORAL OFF ICE.

who keep the assembly in a continual state o f ner

vous apprehension,no t knowing what’s to come next,

&c. (Quoted in Bennett’

s L ecture .) 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 o f blasphemously

saying that the Holy Spirit is presiding under such

circumstances, you should set all down to the right

cause—a rotte n system. For what purpose are the

qualifications of the bishops o r elders so minutely

laid down in Scripture,i f they are not to serve fo r

guiding us ? Have we no special interest in these

matters now ? If th e 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 o f

rulers and teachers as they had . The circumstances

which rendered pastors and teachers necessary at first

were not of a tempo rary nature,nor did they belong

specially to any country or age and hence, so long as

they continue—ao long as there are churches to be

ruled and taught—there must be rulers and te achers.The teachers and rulers can cease only when the

necessity for teaching and ruling ceases.

Let the elders that rule well be counte d worthy of

double honour,especially they who labour in the word

and doctrine. For the Scripture saith , Thou shalt no t

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

muzzle the o x that treadeth out the corn ; and, the

labourer is worthy o f his reward.

” There are several

items O f importance in this passage. The duty o f 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 o f

Go d. 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 o f reward,but some

o f them more than others . Some are to . b e 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 abilityhe displays

,and the work he performs. The context

here shows that double honour means double support.

The temporal wants o f the elder are to be supplied , so

that he may be enabled to attend to his duties . He is

to live o n the proceeds o f his ministerial labours,j ust

in the same way as the o x must be permitted to sup

port nature by the proceeds of his labour,whilst h e

treadeth out the corn for the wants of others . This is

the plain meaning o f the comparative illustration . If

the ordinary “ labourer is worthy o f his hire,surely

the spiritual labourer is not less so. Observe,too

,it

i s no t a mere gratuity it is hire , or wages, o r a debt

honestly due. This is the teaching o f Scripture , and

I believe the man wh o denies it, generally does so

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

engaged in,while their miserable parsimony prevents

them from se eing and doing their duty as laid down

in the Scriptures of Truth ? Are these narrow-hearted

creatures aware that it is written,

“ T h e Lord o r

dain e th that they which preach the gospel should

live of the gospel. Let him that is taught in the

word commun icate unto him that teacheth in all good

things. Be not deceived : God is no t 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 d ecry 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 T he Sword

a nd T rowe l for August 1 876,“ when I look at this

list I see the only shadow o f sadness that ever rests

upon my Book Fund. It is the grief of knowing

that there exists a terrible necessity for this service

o f love ; that, without this help, the poor pastors to

whom it has been sent must have gone on famish

ing for lack o f 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 o f books is

THE PAS TORAL 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 o f need must

h ave been sorely felt,since relief is received with

such rapture . Surely these servants o f 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 adj uncts of a carpenter’s bench.

We pity a poor mechanic whom accident has deprived

o f his working gear,we straightway get up a sub scrip

tion to restore it , and certainly never expect a stroke

o f work from him while it is lacking why, I wonder,do we no t bring the same common-sense help to our

poor ministers,and furnish them liberally with the

means o f procuring the essentially-important books ?

Is it not pitiful to think o f their struggling on from

year to year on their miserably small incomes Many

have large families,many more sick wives

,some

,

alas have both they have their ch ildren’s education

to provide for, are obliged to keep up a respe ctable

appearance o r their hearers would be scandalised,

and how they manage to do all this and yet keep out

o f 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 th e price of a new

94 PLYMOUTH HERE S lE S .

book without letting their l ittle ones go barefoot ?

The ‘ labourer is worthy of his hire but these poor

labourers in the gospel-fie ld get a pittance which is

unworthy both o f the workman and the work .

” For

the remainder o f Mrs . Spurgeon’s excellent letter, I

must refer my readers to T !ze S word and T rowe l.

I shall here make a digression from the d irect line

o f my subj ect for the purpose o f remarking on the

duty of T eaching . In order that the pastor may feed

the flock,he must possess tact

,j udgment , 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 o f edifying them for hundreds o f

consecutive Sabbaths : he must be possessed o f some

abilities,and b e

'

b y no means a fool o r 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 i s 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 i ts own place,

- but they seldom think of teaching .

What is the cause o f . this ? . I t is chiefly, perhaps,

owing to the fact that sermonising requires less talent,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

had recourse to. The on e i s to take up a special

subjec t , and trace it fairly, regularly, and fully through

Scripture,something after the method which I have

attempted,but to o briefly, in the chapters on th e

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 o f Scrip

ture in the order in which God has thought proper to

give it to us. When this plan is adopted,every sub

je ct 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

cordan ce with God’s own order. Moreover,unpalatable

truths are much better re de ive d in this way than in

any other,because the doctrines

,in place of being

forced o n th e attention,arise naturally and simply

o ut 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 v iew

with any special intention. As there is never too

much o n on e subj ect at a time,the point does not

become irksome to the b e are r.

Al though it is impossible for any real advance to

be made in divine things without the operation o f

the Holy Spirit,i t may yet safely be affirmed that

,

as far as mere human instrumentality is concerned,

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE. 9 7

there is no difference whatever between teaching the

Scriptures and teaching any other subj ect. This is

an important point,which seems to have been lost

sight of. I f it had not, sermonising could never have

superseded exposition in the way it has done . If the

principal of a school,the occupant o f 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 o f office or left with

out practice in a week. The professor would hardly

get through a course o f science in a quarter o f a

century. Would any sane man ever think o f teaching

natural philosophy,by giving an eloquent oration o f

an hour’s length on a sente nce here and a sentence

there,in place of dealing with the subject in

'

a regular

and systematic manner ? Certa inly not. If the con

tents of any book are to be le arned in a school or a

college,they w ill 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

adopte d with the Scriptures ? Why do theologians

ignore the rational method ? God h as given us the

whole Bible,and it is our duty to become acquainted

with every part of it, i f 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 th ings by

merely listening to sermons with a text for theirG

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

motto. The knowledge o f the hearers will be super

ficial and trifling in the extreme. To prove this, i t i s

only necessary to go into a congregation so circum

sta nce d, and then examine the hearers on a single

chapter in the Scriptures. They will be found mar

ve llously innocent on the subject. In point of fact,

they are so conscious Of their ignorance,that they

would run away almost as readily as they would for

the reading o f the Riot Act. They could no t 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 o f a

verse,and then at once proceed to the next. He must

not only be careful to take all the food out o f th e

verse which it is intended to communicate,but he

must also Specially guard against adding to the Scripture

,by putting things into the text wh ich it never

contained . This last, although a common practice , is a

great crim e,because it is adding to the Scripture

,and

a being wiser than the Holy Spirit . I t is no excuseto say

,as is often done

,the doctrines inculcated are

true,and are to be found elsewh ere. When God has

no t put them into the text under consideration , man

should not attempt it. Fo r 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 w i th the substance o f the text,

which scarcely serves the purpose Of a motto. The

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 00 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Why,then

,i s the same course not to be adopted

regarding the Bible ? It i s the letter which God has

sent from heaven to earth,and Should be expounded

every word .

In his excellent article o n 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 o f saying,

‘ The

It makes a man an inch and aGreek is S O -and-so .

half taller by a foolome te r, i f he everlastingly lets fall

bits of Greek and Hebrew,and even tells the people

the tense o f the verb and the case of the noun,as I

have known some do . Those wh o have no learning

usually make a point o f 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

no t intended, however, to prevent the proper use o f

learning in exposing the fe w mistakes which are to be

found in th e English version o f the Scriptures. Indeed,

i t 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 willbe put wrong. In place of being a correct translation

,

I believe it will be found to be one to foster some pet

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE. 1 0 1

opinions. Time will tell. Th e 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 o n

the ninth verse o f 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

w as sadly put about by a fe w 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 fo r the

purpose o f 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 e fl'

e cts,

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 no t so much even

as one lette r in the original for the word “ man in

the translation. There is no sort o f shadow,o r shade

o f 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 fo r every.

The parties include d in the term every ” would then

I 02 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

have been easily ascertained,because the next verse

demonstrates that it was every son brought to g lory.

We thus see that,when properly translated

,the pas

sage,in place o f supporting the Arminian heresy of

extending the death of Christ to those wh o were actu

ally in hell at the time He suffered , goes directly on

the other S ide,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

,o r

bringing up far-fetched and imaginary ideas. The

imagination should never be let loose on such moment

o us subj ects. If men want a novel , let them go to Sir

Walter Scott,rather than the Word o f God. If an

interpretation be correct , i t will commend itself to

the understanding. I t will appear plain,simple

,and

natural . It may sometimes be difficult to ascertain

the exact meaning of an obscure passage ; but on e

thing is absolutely certain, that no exposition o f the

obscure text can ever be correct which contradicts the

plain , palpable , and inevitable meaning of other por

tions o f d ivine truth . The Word o f God can never

contradict itself. If properly understood,the obscure

passages would be capable o f an exposition in perfect

harmony with the plain. If any doctrine is to be

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 04 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

‘

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 o f necessity exist in the Word of the

God o f truth,they make the Bible worse than a fable.

How they can do so,and yet believe it to be o f divine

origin,is a mystery to me. The man wh o sets on e

portion'

o f revelation to contradict another i s 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 o n

a Calvinistic text,and Arminianism when they come

o n an Arminian text. Such a statement is nothing

short of impious. I t degrades the Bible even below

th e production o f an honest man. On this view i t

could not be'

the Word o f 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 o f them must

be false. AS I have already demonstrated,in my work

on“ Transubstantiation

,

” the existence o f a contra

diction in the Bible,in place of proving the contradic

tion to be true, would only prove the book which con

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE 1 05

taine d it to be false. Hence I say that the man who

holds two such contradictory things as Calvinism and

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

o f Paul ; consequently the harmony o f divine truth

must for ever exclude the doctrines of Arminius from

the pages of revelation. Indeed it is a marvellous

problem in human nature,h ow any rational man

could believe in the inspiration o f 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 o f God’s elect ? Fo r 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 o f Him

who worketh all things afte r the counsel of His own

will. As th e elect of God . Knowing, brethren

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

beloved,your election of God. God b ath from

the beginning chosen you to salvation through sancti

fication o f the Spirit and belief o f the truth .

According to the faith o f God’s elect. Elect

according to the foreknowledge o f God the Father.

But ye are a chosen generation. Wh o 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 S on . Moreover,whom He did predestinate

,

them He also called and whom He call ed,them He

also justified ; and whom He justified, them He also

glorified .

” The meaning Of these passages i s 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 itsel f

,and re

duces Scripture from the dignified position o f being

the Word o f God. His position is a most awful one .

Indeed,leaving Scripture out o f the question

,every

rational man is bound to believe in predestination,

wh o believes in a God possessing the divine attribute

o f foreknowledge . If God did not know everything

that would h appen be fore 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

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I o 8 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

God. I f He knew it, i t 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 o f the Godhead must believe in the doctrine

o f 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. Th e

man must deny the use o f his senses who cannot see

these two things in revelation . If we are called o n

to explain o r reconcile them,we must at once confess

o ur 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

o f reason,and as it h as not been revealed

,we must

no t 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 o f

inspiration . How any man has been able to deny

their existence in Scripture is a marvel to me . His

THE PAS TORAL OFF ICE 1 09

opposition to the ddctrine s cannot possibly be based

on the want O f evidence,but must be owing to an

utter want o f disposition to submit to the evidence

which is so plainly before him. The denial o f these

doctrines is just a species o f infidelity.

Although this is not the place for discussing these

questions,I shall

,before quitting the subj ect

,refer to

one point,which I imagine the most reckless amongst

the professors o f Christianity will not venture to dispute—namely

,That man may sin

,and be held accountable

fo r his sin , in carrying out the very decrees o f the

Almighty . This is a wonderful idea ; but it is an

incontrovertible truth. Christ came into the world fo r

th e very purpose of dying on Calvary’s cross for the sins

o f His people. Every single thing that happened was

absolutely necessary for the fulfilment Of that marvel

lous fifty- third chapter of I saiah . All was prophesied

and decreed beforehand . It must happen,and happen

in an exac t and particular manner. It was unavoid

able, because it belonged to the e te rnal p urpo se s of

the Almighty. But yet,notwithstanding all this

,the

parties who carried God’s decrees into ope ration 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 i t. T h e facts are patent

throughout revelation,and the words of Scripture are

I I O PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

unmistakable “ Him,being delivered by the dete r

minate counsel and foreknowledge o f God , ye have

taken,and by wicked hands have crucified and slain .

But those things,which God before had showed

by the mouth o f all His prophets,that Christ should

suffer,He hath so fulfilled. Repent ye , therefore, and

be converted,that your sins may be blotted out.

All things must be fulfilled,which were written in the

law o f Moses,and in the prophets

,and in the Psalms

,

concerning me . Truly the Son o f Man goeth as

i t was determin ed but woe unto that man by whom

He is betrayed . I t had been good for that man i f he

No language could be moreh ad not been born. ’

decisive than this. Christ was delivered by the deter

minate counsel and foreknowledge o f God His suffer

ings were foretold by all the prophets ; and yet the

parties who fulfilled the predictions,and carried o ut

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 o f it was sin. Christ must

n eeds be betrayed,and yet it would have been well for

Judas had he never been born . We may look uponthis 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

w e may, it i s there. To'

some it is very unpalatable

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

b ut I would lik e to see the man who can tell me what

life is. We may know i ts consequences,and the

indications o f its existence,but we cannot in the least

degree fathom its nature. I t 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 o f Transubstantiation. They are above rea

son , i t is within the bounds o f reason ; they do not

necessarily contain a contradiction,i t does . Take the

Trinity as an illustration . It would certainly be a

contradiction to say that o ne God is three Gods,and

that three God s are one Go d or to say that one

person is three persons, and that three pe rsons are one

person. This would - come within the compass of

reason,and would involve a contradiction

,and could

n o t be true. But this is .not the Trinitarian doctrine.

I t involves no contradiction, because it holds that the

three persons are on e God , and the on e God is three

persons. They are no t three in the same sense in which

they are one , no r on e in the same sense in which they

are three. They are three in one sense, and on e 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 i s incomprehensible because it is beyond our

reason ; but there is no contradiction in the matter.

On the other hand,however

,the doctrine of T ransub

stantiation comes perfectly within the province of, and

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE . I I 3

directly contradicts,our reason

,and

,therefore, cannot

possibly be true . I ts essential point is, that a piece o f

bread i s changed into the real body, flesh , blood , and

bones of Christ,whilst at the same time, according

to the testimony o f our senses o f sight,touch, taste,

hearing,and smelling

,there is not the least change o n

it—it has all the qualities and properties o f bread , and

gives us no evidence whatever o f being flesh, blood, and

bones. Now,this is a point within the power o f our

reason, i s perfectly cognisable to o ur senses,and as it

is plainly contradicto ry to our senses and reason , i t

cannot possibly be true. NO evidence could prove i ts

truth . A contradiction cannot be true . It is difle re nt,

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 sufh

c ient evidence. It i s very foolish and quite unphiloso

phical to refuse to believe a thing merely because it is

beyond our reaso n. 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 o f things

which we cannot comprehend. Let us no t on this ac

count foolishly imagine that they must be untrue. They

may or may not be true for aught our reason can tell. Ifour reason were more perfect and more extended

, we

might understand many th ings which are now quite

dark. Things which are incomprehensible to an idiot

might b e quite easily understo od by a man like Sir

I I 4 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Isaa c Newton . On th e same principle, things wh ich

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 o r two additional

re ason ing faculties to those which Newton possessed .

This is the right w ay to look at it. If one o f 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,o r be a proper reason for our denying their

truth ? Certainly not. They would only then be above

the reason we possessed,and might be true for aught

we could te ll by reason. So , in the other case ; the

things which are above our present reason might be

completely within our compass i f we had another faculty

added to o ur 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

o ur present puny intellects. Hence I conclude that,

whilst we ought to reject everything which contradicts

reason,because , being thus w ithin its compass, we know

i t 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 o f our present

reasoning faculties. This is th e course which appears

to me to be consistent with revelation as well as with

genuine philosophy.

In expounding Scripture, th e re should be as little

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I I 6 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

words as if he were sick at stomach,and modulate his

voice in such a delicate manner , that the first and last

o f hi s senten ces are inaudible to the jury ? No. He

will get up all the fire,energy

,and vigour of which hi s

nature is capable h e will show that he is thoroughly

in earnest and believes in his subj ect ; he will cause

his voice to ring through every corner o f the building

and he will impress the jury by the weight,power

,

majesty,and force o f the well-argued and touching

appeal which he makes to th eir understanding and

th eir feelings. He never permits their energies to

flag,o r their thoughts to wander from the subj ect o f

life and death which lies before them. Wh v 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 th e temporal life

more important than the eternal ? Mr. Spurgeon i s

quite up to the mark on this point. Every word o f

his discourse isplainly heard throughout the Taber

nacle h e uses no redundant words ; his observa

tions are intensely to the purpose ; i t is impossible to

misunderstand him ; he is evidently all in earnest ;he is so much alive to the value o f time

,that h e never

lose s a moment during the entire service ; and the

energies o f his hearers , from the beginning to the e nd ,

are so sustained that thought is never interrupted.

To me,his service is perfectly enchanting .

To speak in a perfectly natural voice.

is high ly

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE. I I 7

important. “ Sca rcely o n e man in a dozen in the

pulpit talks like a man,says M r. Spur

geon.

“ This

afl‘

e cta tion is no t confined to Protestan ts, for the Ab b e

M ullois 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 artific ial language and a false tone.

This style o f speaking is only tolerated in the Church,

because , unfortunately , i t i s so general there ; else

where it would no t be endured. What would bethought of a man who would converse in a similar

way in a drawing-room ? He would certain ly provoke

many a smile. A man who has not a natural and true

delivery should no t be allowed to occupy the pulpit.’

You maygo all round,to church and chapel alike, and yo u

will find that by far the larger majority o f our preachers

have a holy tone for Sundays. They have o ne voice

for the parlour,and quite another tone fo r the pulpit

so that,i f not double-tongued sinfully

,they certainly

are so literally . The moment some men shut the

pulpit-door,th e y leave their o wn personal manhood

behind them. There they might almost bo ast with

the Phari se e,that they are not as other men are ,

a lthough it would be blasphemy to thank God for it.

The cerebral organs connec ted with observation and

comparison are fairly develope d in a vast maj ority o f

the human race ; but, if we except the Scotch and

Germans,we cannot say the same thing in regard to

I I 8 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the faculties o f concentration and abstract reason ing.

Hence it is necessary for every public instructor to

lighten his subj ect by suitable anecdotes,comparisons

,

and i llustrations,drawn from history

,natural science

,

and daily observation o f the occurrences Of life . I t

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

treme ly interesting and attractive , whilst his line o f

argument will be much more easily understood than if

he kept to a dull process o f mere abstract reasoning.

Above al l things,thorough honesty of purpose is

essential to the religious teacher. He should be above

suspicion o n every point. When called to th e pastorate

o f a church,he sh ould never accept i f his sentiments

differ from those of the church,unless he has first

fairly and fully explained the points on which he

difl'

e rs. If he keep his pe culiarities in the back

groun d until he has an opportunity of insidiously and

gradually indoctrinating th e 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

o f Christianity. A pastor should '

b e 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

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

to break up the harmony of a church,or to create dis

sensions and divisions o f any sort. I t is not thought

near so much o f as it ought to be. If it ever be done,

except under circumstances of the most decided usees'

ty, it i s a Sin o f a very high order—it is raising adirect Obstacle to th e prosperity o f 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 o n e Greek is worth

half Agamemnon’s host let,then

,the wooden horse

o f liberality be introduced by force or art,as best may

serve the occasion . Talking evermore right boastfully

of their candour,and hatred of th e h o llown e ss of creeds

,

&c.,they will remain members o f 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 imagin e themselves

to be martyrs. If a person, holding radical sentiments,

insisted upon being a member o f 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 . I t is a flagrant violation o f

liberty of conscience when a man intrudes himself into

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE. I 2 I

a church w ith 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 no t ignore his own principles by becoming

an integral part of a body holding tenets which h e

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 j oin a community like

the Wesleyans, and should c laim a right to teach

Calvinism from their platforms,his expulsion would b e

a vindication,and not a violation

,o f liberty. If it be

demanded that in such matters we respect the man’s

independence o f thought,we reply that we respect it so

much that we would not allow him to fetter it by a falseprofession

,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 o f organised

Christianity impossible . We would not limit the

rights of the lowest rufhan but if he claims to enter

our bedchamber the case is altered ; by his summary

expulsion we may inj ure his highly-cultured feelings,

and damag e his broad views ; but we claim in his

ej ection to be advocating,rather than abridging

,the

rights of man. Conscience,indeed ! what means it in

the mouth o f 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 is

I 2 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

i nsulting the conscience o f all the true members by his

impertinent intrusion . Our pity is reserved for the

honest people who have the pain and trouble o f

ej ecting the disturber : with the ej ected one we have

no sympathy : he had no business there,and had h e

been a true man,he would not have desired to remain

n o r would he even have submitted to do so had he

been solicited .

”—S word and T rowe l for November 1 87 1 .

I may,perhaps

,take the liberty of referring to the

course pursued by the Rev . Edward Dennett. In the

year I 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 i s no single publication which con

tains their v iew s,and hence we have h ad to read a host

o f pamphlets,to wade through shoals o f their contro

v e rsial writings,to sift and winnow the chaff from the

wh eat,to apply to ‘ Brethren ’ themselves for infor

mation in fact,to adopt any and all possible means to

arrive at an accurate knowledge o f th e subj ect.

We can,therefore , venture to give the assurance that not

a single statement has been made without a most con

scie ntious investigation o f all the means of information

placed within our reach .

” This is all as it should be .

I f th e statements here be correct, he took nothing at

random,nothing second-hand

,nothing without the

most careful investigation. Having read a host of their

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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 cri ticising 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,i s a task

I must leave to himself—I could not undertake it .

After j oin ing the Brethren,

” Mr. Dennett lays down

a principle o f interpretation which is exactly suited to

the awkward position in which he is placed . Instead

o f following the regularly-adopted course of interpretingevery 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

th e interpretation of a passage,even though a faulty

style or laxi ty of expression might seem to admit o fIanother meaning.

’ Although this rule of interpreta

tion is essential to all wh o adopt the system of

Plymouthism,i t is plain on the face of it that it has no

valid foundation to rest o n . How is the mind O f th e

writer to be ascertained except by the words which he

uses ? Can any o n e but God know what is going o n in

the mind ? If a man never uses a word,either in

THE PAS TORAL OFF ICE . 1 25

writing or speaking, who can tell what the thoughts o f

his mind are ? And if a man uses words in writing,i s

h e no t 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 o f

the lawyer who would adopt Mr. Dennett’s principles ?

If he were to come into court and acknowledge that

the words o f the Act o f Parliament were against his

client,but inasmuch as the mind o f the writer o f the

A ct might be entirely difl'

e re nt from the words,h e

c laimed the release o f th e prisoner, would he not be

b o o te d as a madman and turned out o f 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 o f

1 87 5 , Mr. Dennett says,“ Some six years have now

elapsed since our friendship was formed . I ts very

commencement was a prediction o f i ts nature and char

acter,for it sprang out o f fellowship in what we

,at

that time,held to be the truth. What

,then , was

that position Nominally we were Baptist ministers,

but in spiri t,and also in practice

,we were outside th e

Baptist denomination altogether. The e fl'

e ct of thi s

was that we gave ourselves more heartily to the work

of the Lord,striving to fence o ff our people as much as

possible—though the task was very difficult—fromdenominational influences

,to tra in them to the study

o f the Scri ptures fo r themselves, and to build them up

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

in the truth o f 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 o f

conduct is this ? What are we to think of men who are

nominally on e thing, while in Spirit and in practice

they are another ? 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

o f fencing o ff their people from the influence of the

denomination to which these people honestly and pro

fe sse dly belong ? What are we to think o f the system

which permits a man to look for God’s blessing on

such conduct ? If there be on e 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 . Je suitical conduct should

never exist under any pretence whatever.

A lthough i t is incumbe nt on every Christian to act

and Speak with the greatest care,it is doubly impor

tant for th e minister to do so,as small matters will

sometimes influence his position. I once heard o f a

minister who was said to have paid almost daily visits

to an o ld lady and gentleman named Little,who were

hearers o f his,and who possessed all the comforts o f

life,whilst a poor woman o f 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 mini ster for neglect o f her,he replied that,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2 8 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

reason to be dissatisfied with his-people. There may

a lso be various other motives w hich would j ustify a

change. Full privilege is always conceded to him

o n this point. This is quite right ; but, o n the other

hand,there should just be the same privilege extended

to the people. If a congregation wish to get rid o f

their mini ster,there should be no o bstacle in their

w ay. They sh ould just find it as easy to get rid o f

their mini ster as their min ister would to get clear'

o f them . The fac ilities Should be mutual. Ar e they

found so in practice ? By n o means. There are ex

amples innumerable o f crotchety ministers,and use

less drones,sticking by a disaffected people until they

h ave ruined the cause ; and when they ultimately

leave,in place of seeing their own defects

,they throw

all the blame o n 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,o r else he should turn himself to

some avocation for which h e is better adapted than fo r

the Christian ministry. Instead of charging the faults

o f the drones on the hearers,who are generally thirst

ing for knowledge , we should feel certain that the man

wh o i s spiritually-minded, consistent in his walk, sound

in his doctrines,and “

ap t to tea ch,

” will not be left

without success. As the rain watereth the earth , and

maketh it bring forth seed fo r the sower and bread for

the eater,so the word o f the Lord shall not return

THE PAS TORAL OFFICE I 29

void,but shall infallibly accomplish the purpose for

which i t is sent. God will bless His own institution .

I must now return from this long digress ion. Many

parties have taken up the strange notion that they

have a right to speak in the church whether they have

been appointe d to an Office or not. This surely is an

evidence of great presumption . They are to be the

sole j udges 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 o f their own abilities.

The sound o f their voice charms themselves so much ,

that i t must of necessity charm other people. I re col

lect once being present at a meeting where the pro

prie ty o f listening 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 te st ; he said he had a right to speak ,

and would speak. In other words,he was to be sole

j udge o f his own powers, and those he was about to

instruct must liste n to him whether he e difie d them

or not. This I looked upon not only as unscriptural,but also as a specimen o f the most absolute tyranny

that could be imagin ed. The witness,the counsel, the

jury, and the j udge were all to be rolled into his own

sweet self. Such a sta te of matters could not be e n

dure d, and he found it convenient to j oin the PlyI

I 30 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

mouth Brethren,where he can ride and rule with

undisputed sway. Autocrats o f this description seem

to forget the Scripture which says,

“ Let all things be

done unto edifying. If this rule be not observed,the

intentions o f Scripture are frustrated . The church

must be e difie d and I would like to know who is to

judge of the capabilities of the speaker—whether o r

not he is “ apt to teach —if those who are to be edifie d are precluded from forming an Opinion .

“ Those

new- fangled religionists,says Mr. Spurgeon ,

“ whose

public worship consists o f the prelections o f any

brother who chooses to j ump up and talk,n o twith

standing their flattering inducements to the ignorant

and garrulous,usually dwindle away and die out ;

because even men,with the most violent crotchety

views,wh o conceive it to be the mind o f the Spiri t

that every member o f 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 Cflice

—th at the pastor must be chosen out o f the very in

dividual church over which he is to be placed . Now,

there is n o t a Shadow o f Scripture fo r ’

such an opinion .

The idea has arisen from confounding the election o f

deacons with the election o f pastors . In regard to the

election o f deacons,they were told to choose out seven

men among themselves,and hence a restriction arises

o n this point ; but with respect to the elders,o r

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

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,o n the on e

h and,they should make use of the gifts they h ave

,on

the other hand,i t is positively and highly S in ful 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 j udge o f his own position in these mat

ters,and

,therefore

,the Scripture has laid down the

rule that the body o f Christ (His Church) must be

edified, and that all things are to be done de cently and

I n orde r. Consequently it follows,as a matter o f n e ce s

sity, that the partie s who are to be edified must be the

j udges of the gifts of those wh o presume to edify them .

Under these circumstances,no person can c laim a

right to exercise any office in a church ti ll h e is first

approved of by that church and if th e 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 e dificatio n o f the body. This is a point

which must never be lost sight o f,because it is th e

Scriptural rule for our guidance. It matters no t how

much a man may think of himself,he is here preclude d

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 PAS TORAL OFFICE.

an exceedingly wise one. If it were not for it, a

church might be placed in a condition of the mostabject slavery by some empty-headed creature who

was incapable of seeing his own insignificance . The

great evil of departing from Scriptural rule o n 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 e n

dure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall

they heap to themselves te achers,having itching ears

and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,

and shall be turned unto fables. The miserable pligh t

in which this deluded sect is pla ced is well exemplified

in the lamentation o f Mr. Mackintosh,which I have

already quoted in this chapter,at the 88th pag e .

A Church o f Christ is most aptly compared to the

human body. As in the body every organ has its o wn

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 o f the eye , nor the hand of the ear. Every

o ne should keep his own place and do his own duty,

and then the whole body will be in good,healthy

,and

useful action. There wil l be a delightful harmony and

b eauty under those circumstances,which cannot be

seen when all the members act as if they suppose d

I 34 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

that the body is composed o f only o ne organ —the

tongue . When a person complains that there i s no

room allowed in a church for the exercise of gifts,let

him be told that there is ample Opportunity for the

exerc ise o f the gift o f reproving ta ttlers,healing

breaches,promoting unity

,assisting the poor

,support

ing the ministry, and paying towards the propagation

o f the gospel ; and it will soon become evident that

the gift o f the gab,

” if I may use such an expression,

i s the only gift which he recognises in a Church Of

Christ. He will talk by the hour, but he will pay by

the farthing. In words he might perhaps recognise

the Pastoral Cflice,but in practice he will ignore i t.

There is on e peculiar feature, as I have already said,

about these sticklers for the exercise of imaginary gifts.

If a pastor is to be chosen,a man equal to the Apostle

Paul would h ardly please them . They will examine,

and examine,and examine into every shred o f his

composition they will try him,and try him

,and try

him ; they will turn him inside o ut, and outside in,and after all they would like three months more . But

,

i f any person should propose that their own gifts

should be well tested before being formally recognised,

they will kick against it at once . Their talents are to

be j udged of by themselves,and must n o t be sub

mitte d to the vulgar crowd . These men have received' the gift in their own eyes

,and are infallible . They

must be heard . They cannot submit to the mean or

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

heaven,if i t was only put in an envelope and dropped

into the Post-oflicc for him,without any intimation as

to the source whence it came,o r th e purpose for which

i t was given ? It is manifest, if he has no private

income,he must l ive in o n e or other of these ways.

Now,whether would he be acting more consistently with

honour and.

high-minded integrity in holding out his

right hand before his face,and openly and thankfully

receiving the honest reward o f his labour,o r i n slipping

his left hand quietly behind his back,as the Plymouths

do,in the hope that the money might be slipped into

i t,in a legerdemain fashion

,in order that it might be

called a gift from on high ? To my mind,the o n e plan

would be an evidence of manly principle ; the oth er

the indication o f a low,sneaking disposition

,which

blushes not to insult the Maj esty o f Heaven . These

Plymouths,however

,are wise in their own generation

,

because their Je suitical plan of support secures an in

come to the preachers far beyond anything they could

Obtain by straightforward , hon est means.

Having thus given a concise statement o f wh at I

believe to be the teaching o f Scripture regarding the

existence,necessity, continuation , and support o f a

stated and settled Christian ministry,I shall now turn

to the theory of the Plymouth Brethren concerning

THE PRES IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. I 3 7

THE PRESIDENCY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

I WIS H it to be specially observed that the statements

I quote on this point are taken from the accredited

writers amongst the Plymouth Brethren themselves .

I thus gave them the fairest possib le j udgment,as

all the wi tnesses are from their own side o f the ques

tion . What more could they ask ?

At the 6th page o f Worship and Ministry, we are

told that th e doctrine o f th e Holy Spirit’s “ presence

and suprema cy in the assemblies O f the saints is one“ of the most momentous truths by which the present

period is distinguished and the writer further says

he could not “ have fellowship with any body o f pro

fessing Christians who substitute clerisy in any of its

forms for the sovereign guidance o f the Holy Ghost.”

It is also sta te d on the 7 th and 9 th pages o f “ Christ

the Centre,

” that,from the moment the Holy Spirit was

sent,

“ we search in vain in the New Testament fo r

any Church government except the sovereign guidance

of the Holy Ghost. Ente r an assembly belonging

to any denomination o f the present day the

PRE S IDE NCY o f the Holy Ghost is forgotten : a man

fi lls His place.” Again,

“ No gathering can claim to

be a Church o f God, save that company that meets in

the name o f Jesus, and in the dependence upon the

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

presence,supply

,and ministry o f the Holy Ghost.

(“ The Lord’s Supper and I need not mul

tiply quotations, as these are quite sufficient to Show

that the special presidency Of the Holy Spirit in the

assemblies is a settled doctrine. Now,it is easy to

prove that Christ has promised to be in the midst

Of His people when they are gathered i n His name,

although,be it observed

,He nowhere says He is to

be the president o r pastor. On the contrary,we are

expressly informed that He has given pastors and

teachers ; and we are told in other places that the

elders o r pastors are to feed the flock of God,and

take the ove rsight thereof, and that those elders whichrule well are to be counted worthy o f double honour.

Now,i f the pastors are to oversee and rule th e flock

,

i t cannot be disputed that they occupy the position

o f presidents. This i s the testimony o f the inspired

Word,and there is not a single text in all the Scrip

tures which states that the Holy Spirit is to be th e

president of the assemblies, or that He is even present

in any other sense than as He dwells in individual

believers. The Holy Spirit dwells in every Christian,

either in the church meeting o r out o f i t ; but it

cannot possibly follow from this,that the moment a

number o f them meet together,He becomes their

president . This i s a p ositive doctrine, and requires

a positive,distinct

,and unmistakable proof. Now

,

I demand of the Plymouths one text of Scripture in

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

authority of the Holy Ghost.” I can well understand

that God,and not man

,has the power o f conferring

the gifts which are necessary for the pastoral office ;

but I cannot understand how the Holy Spirit can

choose the man,and then make His choice known to

the world. This could not even be known by the

parties chosen being inspired to tell it,because we

would not know they were inspired. Besides,i f the

Holy Spirit i s to cho ose the pastors,there i s not th e

slightest necessity for the minute scriptural details

regarding the qualifications for the office, because the

Holy Spirit surely requires no information on this

point. He needs no instructions. To my thinking,

the fact that the Holy Spirit has thought i t necessary

to lay down in the Scriptures, in the most precise and

particular manner , the various qualifications which are

necessary for the man who desires to fill the office o f

a pastor or bishop, i s an undeniable proof that he i s

to be chosen by uninspired men. If the choice rested

with the Holy Spirit,he would require no instructions.

Just think o f the Holy Spirit requiring a printed list

o f qualifications to guide Him in His choice ! Just

think of the Holy Spirit causing the instructions for

His own guidance to be written down for fear He

might forget them ! Plymouthism ! Plymouthism !

Even if the choice was to be made by inspired men

there would be no necessity for details. The power

o f inspiration would enable them to point out the

THE PRE S IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. 1 4 1

man without a long list o f instructions. Hence I

conclude,as minute details are given concerning the

qualifications,they cannot be intended either for the

Holy Spirit or inspired men ; but must be for the

guidance of ordinary morta ls . If this be not so,the

Scriptures contain more than is necessary—a useless

supe rfluity—when they detai l the qualifications which

are requisite in the man who is to be selected to the

office of a bishop .

The author of “ The Ruined Condition of the

Church,at page 19 , says,

“ It is remarkable that

those companions o f the apostle who possessed his

confidence,were left in the churches

,or else sent to

them when already existing,in order to se le ct such

elders—a clear proof that the apostle could no t confer

upon the churches the power of choosing their elders

and the writer o f the tract called “ The Brethren

says,p . 1 7 ,

“ As to elders,then

,an apostle chooses

(Acts xiv. This is entirely ne w light to me. As

my Bible contains no such statement,there must be

some version of th e_S cripture s which I have never yet

beheld . It must be the Plymouth , o r forged , version.

My Bible informs me that “ those companions o f the

apostle,

” and the apostle himself,ordained elders in

the churches,but it nowhere states that they se le cte d

o r cho se them ; and this makes all the difference in

the world. There is not one word in the whole com

pass o f inspiration which state s that the elders were

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

selected or chosen by inspired men,nor is there a

single iota to lead us to such a supposition. On the

contrary, as I have already observed , the minute

qualifications which are detailed must be taken as a

conclusive proof that the elders were to be selected

by uninspired men,wh o required proper and full in

structions for their guidance At the 1 8th page o f

his “ Inquiry into the Sabbath,the Law

,and the

Ministry,

” Mr. Mackintosh asks,

“ Why was not the

church at Ephesus,or why were not the churches at

Crete,directed to e le ct or appoint elders ? Why was

the direction [to e le ct] given to Timothy and Titus ,

wi thout the slightest reference to the Church o r to

any part o f the Church ’

l” In place of answering this

,

I just . ask Mr. Mackintosh , why will he state a thing

to be in the Scriptures which he knows is not in the

Scriptures ? He here states that Timothy and Titus

were dire cted to e le ct the elders, whereas he must know

that there is no such direction in the whole Bible.

They go t no instructions whatever to e le ct or cho ose ,

but they got instructions to ordain. I can hardly

give Mr. Mackintosh credit for sufficient stupidity to

warrant -the supposition that he could confound the

choosing o f a man with the ordaining of him after he

is chosen,as if both meant the very same thing. He

must be selected or chosen before he can be ordained .

The rule o f Scripture is as plain as possible. The

members of the church , who are to choose their office

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

he must be inspired and infall ible. If the man’s

action be a manifestation o f the Holy Spirit ; if it be

the result o f a direct impulse from the Holy Spirit,he should not only not be appealed from

,but his

decision should,on no account

,be questioned

,because

he is the direct and infall ible mouthpiece of the

A lmighty. To hinder any movement of the Spirit”

says the author o f “ The Lord’s Supper and Ministry,

when the saints come together into one place,o r

to tie down that movement to any defined system in

our thoughts,i s to quench the Spirit.” Again

,

“ It

is not sobriety , as a Christian, to overlook or deny

the present dire ct guidance . by the Lord through His

Spirit,o f His disciples, as being something over and

above the written Word .

” Present Testimony,

p . 56, quoted by Mr. Go ve tt.) Further,

“ We meet

o n the principle that God the Holy Ghost (who dwells

in believers individually,and in the body collectively)

a lone has a right to sp e ak in the me e ting, and He has a.

right to speak by whom He will.” —(T o rquay sta teme nt.

See Go ve tt.) These not only claim inspiration for

the interpretation of the inspired writings,but they

go the whole length o f claiming inspiration for all

that is said at the meetings. If their acting be God

acting ; if their impulse be the Spirit’s impulse ; i f

hindering the movement be que nching'

th e Spirit ;

i f the disciples have the direct guidance of the Lord

by His Spirit,and if the Spirit alo

’

ne speak in the

THE PRES IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. 1 45

meeting,it must follow

,as a matter of necessi ty

,that

every syllable uttered is really inspired . If these

me n speak as they are moved by the Holy Spirit, they

are quite on a par with the prophets of o ld,whose

prophecy came not by the will o f man ;“ b ut . h oly

men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy

Ghost.” On their own showing,the Plymouths are as

thoroughly inspired as were the prophets of ancient

days. There is not the slightest difference. They

are far beyond the reach of the instructions given in

the New Testament. “ I f any man speak,

” say the

Scriptures,“ let him spe ak as the oracles of God .

”

Here it is the man who is to speak but amongst the

Darbyites the man is only to stand up fo r the Holy

Spirit to speak through him. Here the man is to

speak in accordance with the oracl es o f God,but

every Darbyite is an oracle of the Holy Spirit. Weare told the Jews had a great advantage

,

“ because

that unto them were committed the oracles of God

but we of Great Brita in have a far greater advantage,

because we have Oracle Darby alive and in our midst

[M r. Darby die d . in the yea r “ If any man

minister, let him do it as of the abili ty which God

giveth.

” Here again,i t is the man who is to ministe r ;

but the Plymouths say they meet on the principle

that God the Holy Ghost alone has a right to speakin the mee ting.

” Here again,the man-minister is to

minister as of the ability which God giveth,and thisx

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

must include every sort o f ability which he possesses,

w hether by his natural or spiritual bi rth,because he

possesses no sort o f ability whatever but what h e has

received from God but , o n the Darbyite view, a man

should not use his own natural powers at all,as be i s

only to be the passive instrument o f the Holy Spirit.

When the greatest fool in the assembly gets up,he is

no more to be questioned than if he were the Apostle

Paul,because i t i s an example o f the Holy Spirit using

whom He pleases. The Scripture which directs that a

pastor must have the endowment o fbeing “ apt to teach

must not be attended to,for these new- light divines have

discovered that the only thing necessary is to watch the

movement o f the Spirit. As a quaint o ld man once

said to me,

“ They must start up when the Spirit jags

them .

” That these views , however inconsistent they

may.b e w ith some others o f their statements

,are

really held by the Darbyites, is incontrovertibly mani

fest from the quotations I have made,as well as from

the following extract, which has been taken by Mr.

Gove tt and Dr. T re ge lle s from M r. Haffner That

the practical denial o f the presence o f the Holy Ghost

in the Church existed at Ebrington Street,I am fully

assured . My assurance o f this arises from a con

versation I h ad with Mr. Newton,just before leaving

Plymouth,o n the subject o f preparation fo r ministry

,

when he said , that before coming to th e Lord’

s table

he did no t see it at all wrong to be prepared with wha t

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Let us now see h ow far their practice bears out

their theory o f the sovereign guidance,movements

,

and presidency o f th e HolySpiri t'

in their assemblies.

Of course,i f the Holy Spirit preside

,he will keep due

order,and e ffectually 3prevent the intrusions o f Satan

and o f man . The Holy Spiri t i s surely too powerful

as a president to permit us to think that i t is possible

for Him to be overcome by either man or devil . Such

a thought would be blasphemous. How,then

,i s i t

with these fanatics ? I have already quoted,a t

'

page

88,the very emphatic lamentation o f Mr. M ackintosh

regarding the conduct o f some parties inthe assemblies.

Just think o f the awful impiety of charging the Holy

Spiri t with presiding in the meeting under such cir

cumstance s..

I confess to you,my brethren

,says th e author o f

Worship and Ministry,p. 1 8 , wh e n some time ago

we had five or six chapters re ad,

'

and as many hymns

sung,around the Lord’s table

,and

'

p e rh aps not more

than o ne prayer o rg iving o f thanks,it did occur to me

whether we had me t to improve ourselves in readingand singing

,o r to show forth the L ord’s ‘

d e ath . If

the Spirit was pre sidin'

g,'

this must have been.

all co r

rect,and the writer is far -astray when

,in the next

sentence,he says he unfeignedly blesses God an im

provement has since taken place ; Just think o f this

An improvement has taken place in w hat was presided

over and guided by the Holy Spirit

THE PRES IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. 1 49

It i s in t his way,says Mr. Goodall

,

“ the agency

o f the London'Bridge

’

meeting (now Salter’s Hill) i s

working—o n the o ne hand superseding and suppress

ing local responsibility,and on the other usurping the

authority o f the Holy Ghost in the Church by its

ecclesiastical documents. " Walworth and Priory

Correspondence,p . An undoubted proof o f inapi

ration The Woolwich Assembly having in February

1 86 1 , without waiting for a trial and in the'

a bsence

of evide nce , on ex p arte statements, pronounced Mr.

Ste wart to be excommunicate,thus practically de nv

ing the unity o f the body and the presence o f the

Holy Ghost in the Church,to o ur common shame and

humiliation. and Priory Correspond

ence Introduction,p. Who can doubt the Spirit

was presiding “ On th e'

23rd November 1 860, a

printed circular was issued , containing charges against

Mr. Stewart o f untruthfulness, dissimulation , and nu

righte ousness , signed on behalf of the Brethren meet

ing at Zoar Chapel, Jerse y, Henry Bullock and Philip

Denize.’ Statement o f Jersey Case,by Mr. Eland ,

p . In relation to this,Dr. Currie of Jersey write s ,

I believe the charges brought against Mr. Stewart

utte rlyfa lse , and that he made every effort to have anopportunity of p roving them so. Jersey Case

,

” by

Mr.Eland

,p. If the Spirit be acting, how do Mr.

Bullock and Dr. Currie deliver such opposite sta te

ments ?

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Suffice i t to say,says Mr. Stewart, in his

“ Ap

peal,pp . 14

—34,

“ that the whole o f thi s shameful pro

c e dure was got up by a faction, fed and fostered into

an exaggerated form by dissimula tion and for a w ell

understood purpose. The table was set up there

more as a matter of convenience than o f principle .

No pen could describe how for fourteen years

the poor saints of God have been worried and per

ple x e d in Jersey. Whenever a dishonourable action

is to be done,o n e h as not far to go to find an

How was this brought about ? Through‘ th e cunning craftiness o f men

,whereby they lie in

wait to deceive,

’ aided by the counsels and appeals of

p lausible sanctimoniousne ss. Is it come to thi s

pass,brother Darby

,that injusti ce

,banished from th e

slaveholders o f America,has found an asylum in the

bosom o f the Brethren ? I do not believe that

any religious body could be found—unless it be the

M o rmonsfl wh e re such a wanton outrage could be

offered with impunity to truthfulne ss a nd honour.

Who would now dare to doubt the presidency of the

Spirit “ The excitement and confusion,says Mr.

Culverhouse,in his Statement as to the Jersey

,Guern

sey,and London Case

,

” pp . 5 , 10,“ which prevailed at

the conference,precluded

,I regret to state

,a ll sob e r

investigation. It i s impracticable,dear brethren

,

to describ e the true state o f things,either in the

gatherings or at the conference. Every remonstrance

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 5 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

o f heaven They pretend to be wholly led by

the Holy Spirit,wh ereas a ll things a re a rranged before

hand—who shall le cture , who sha ll pray, who sha ll

I take these extracts out o f a lettergive out hymns.

’

contain ing sixteen pages of similar,o r

,w o rse , matter,

for the purpose of letting my readers understand how

some of these garotting gatherings are conducted .

I f the Darbyites wanted to prove the presidency o f th e

Devil at these meetings , the task would be an exceed

ingly easy one ; but to say they were presided over,and directed by

,the Spirit of .God, is about as unblush

ing a piece of blasphemy as ever was uttered by mortal

man .

Mr. Groves,who was on e o f the chief founders o f

Plymouthism,foresaw the condition into which his

party were certain to fall , and thus warned theminthe year 1 836 Your government will soon become

o ne wherein is overwhelmingly felt the authority o f

m e n The position which this occupying the

seat of judgment will place you in,w ill be this—the

most narrow-minded and bigoted will rule,because

his conscience cannot and will not give way,and there

fore the more enlarged heart must yield.

” —(Appendix

to the Life of Groves.) The truth of these observa

tions has long since been fully verified . O ne of Dr.

Bell’s correspondents writes concerning Jersey I

found that divisions and differences had crept in

among those Christians who meet in this simple way,

THE PRES IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. 1 5 3

and that there were three separate meetings in St.

Helier’s,none of them walking towards each other in

th at spirit which becometh saints. How these

d isputes and fleshly strivings about questions,often

times to no profit,have distracted the Brethren from

o ne end of the country to the other ! ”—(E arthe n

Vesse l,March 2

,Is not this a direct charge

against the Holy Ghost,who is said to be presiding

where these quarrels originate ? It surely is.

Mr. Mackin tosh,in “ Now and Then

,p. 1 1 , calls

Christ “ the heavenly Man but Mr. Newton (see

Bethesda,

” by Mr. Trotter, pp. 4, 5) says“ ‘ Christ

was exposed,because o f His relation to Adam

,to that

sentence o f death that had been pronounced on the

whole family of man.

’ Observations,

’ by B. W. N. ,

p. He was represented as ‘ exposed to that curse,

’

and ‘ to the doom o f man. I t was taught,

continues

Mr. Trotter ,“ that in consequence of Christ’s relation

to Adam,His own relation, as a man , to God , was such ,

that for the firs t thirty years of His li fe the hand o f

God was stretched out,rebuking Him in anger and

chastening Him in h o t displeasure. Mr. N. taught,

that from these nonsubstitutiona l sufferings Christ

emerged,either at His baptism by John

,or at the

cross itself. I n short,the doctrine held was such ,

that one who had been delivered from it remarks,in

his printed confession , how it must, if true, have dis

qualified Christ fo r becoming our surety,our sacrifice,

1 5 4 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

our Saviour,fo r He had to extricate Himself ! Now

,

I ask,if the Holy Spirit is moving , speaking , and pre

if,as Mr. Darby says

,i t is God acting, how cansiding

such opposite doctrines,o n a vital point

,as those which

were broached by Mr. Mackintosh and Mr. Newton ,

originate in the assembly,o r be taught ? Impossible

utterly impossible It is no t the shadow of an excuse

to say these parties h ave no w separated , because they

were in full fellowship with the Brethren at the time

the above opinions were promulgated . Their separation

afterwards does not in the least affect the question I

am discussing,except that it bears still more strongly

in my favour. If the Spiri t had really been presiding

and speaking through them,false doctrines and Oppo

site Opinions could never by any possibility have a risen .

If such a thing were to occur under the influence and

presidency o f the Spirit,the sin would be directly

chargeable o n the Spirit o f God . It would make Him

the originator o f false doctrines and contrary Opinions.

I t is,therefore

,impossible that the Spirit could be act

ing and presiding under such c ircumstances. Indeed,with al l the bo ast o f the Darbyites about the presi

d e ncy o f the Spirit,it is evident they do not fairly

believe it themselves,be cause th ey have separa ted from

M r. N ewton on a ccount of the views which he is said to

have p ublicly taught in the a ssemb ly. Their own con

duct gives the flatte st contradiction to their honest

belief in their own statements. In place of separating

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 5 6 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

blasphemies are the actual utterances of ‘

th e'

Holy

Spirit,because he says

,

“ it is a manifestation of the

Spirit in the individual who acts' it is God

acting l ”

I fully concur in the following sentiments from my

father. The Holy Spirit,says he

,in his “ Principles

o f Biblical Interpretation,

” p. 235 ,“ teaches only what

in words i s revealed in the Scriptures ;- and only

through the words. It i s necessary for 'every Chris

tian to have clear and precise notions on this subj ect

for th e teaching of the Holy Spirit is capable o f being

misrepresented and most dangerously perverted by

enthusiasm. It has been so perverted,to th e ‘

disgrace

o f Christianity,and to th e beguiling of unstable souls.

The tide o f fanaticism that has late ly se t in upon

Britain,and which threatens to roll over th e world,

has been raised by false views o f the teaching o f the

Holy Spirit. This deludes many but"

still more are

furnished with a plausible pretence to renounce the

doctrine o f th e Spirit’s teach ing,or to keep '

it out of

view as a dangerous doctrine . But the success o f the

forgery only shows the value of the original and he is

not wise wh o will not look to God as a guide because

some fanatics choose to go astray under the false pre

tence of that guidance . Let us avoid errors on the

right and errors on the left. There is ‘ no safety but

in implicitly following the Word . It is in this only

that we are encourag ed to expect the enlightening and

THE PRES IDENCY OF THE HOLY S PIRIT. 1 5 7

'

constant guidance o f the glori ous Spirit o f Truth . The

Scriptures are the Word o f God,and He honours them

in His teaching by employing them to enlighten the

mind o f the sinner, and carry on the education and

instruction o f the believer. He teaches nothing with

o ut them . To enlighten the mind o f the sinner by the

knowledge o f Christ,or to instruct the Christian in

the truths and duties of Christianity,without o r b e

yond the Scriptures,would represent the

'

Scriptures as

unnecessary. o r deficient. Whoever pretends to learn

from God anything as to the truths or duties o f

Christianity,but through His Word

,has a spirit o f

fanaticism . This peculiarity in the teaching o f the

Spirit through the word o f the Spirit is th e great

safeguard which we have against the delusions o f

Satan and the dreams o f a crazy imagination. The

Spirit of God teaches only what i s contained in the

Scriptures,and this He always teaches through the

means of the Scriptures. Though all Christians

are taught by'

the Spirit,it does no t follow that they

are taught the true meaning o f every passage o f the

Word of God . Indeed, the doctrine o f the teaching of

the Holy Spirit,properly understood

,affords no evi

dence that they are correct in their explanation o f

any passag e whate ver. Th e truth o f their explanation

must rest on the arguments by which they support

i t, and not o n the pretensions to divine te aching. The

explana tion of every uninspired man must be received

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

no farther than it i s seen to be the necessary result of

the words o f inspiration. Implicit acquiescence

in the explanations o f Scripture by any uninspired

man i s a disgrace to human understanding, and an

insult to God . No man has a right to say,as

some are in the habit o f saying,The Spirit tells me

that such or such is the meaning o f such a passage.

How is he assured that it is the Holy Spirit, and that

i t is not a spirit of delusion,except from the evidence

that the interpretation is the legitimate meaning o f the

words ? The lying spirits spoke o f o ld through the

false prophets,with all the usual formalities o f the

true prophets o f God . Such are the views regarding

the operations o f the Spirit,which I believe to be in

strict accordance with Scripture. They avoid infidelity

on the o n e hand, and fanaticism o n the other.

How far this Plymouth sect has gone aside from theopinions o f its original founders may be gathered from

the following sensib le . 0b se rvations o f Mr. Groves,regarding impul sive ministry I tell them it is o fthe same class o f errors as those which characterise

Popery (see 1 Timothy iv. being an attempt to

set up a higher standard o f holiness than God’s ; and

must end , like theirs, in deeper sin. We as little deny

the truth o f God’s promise,that our bread and water

shall be sure,by going to our daily work to earn it, as

we do that o f the Spirit’s help,by studying God’s Word

in dependence on His guidance in order to minister to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 60 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

not rendered obedience to it in their stead,how are

they to be exempted from it in any point o f view ?

Their only consistent course is to deny law in every

shape and form —whether contained in the Scriptures

o r written on the heart. They will then be able to

dispense with Christ both in His life and in His death .

If there be n o law,there is no transgression and no

need of a Saviour.

But I will not admit that,on account o f the

obedience of Christ,the Christian is released from

the moral law as the rule o f his life . He is released

from it as the procuring cause o f his j ustification,

and as the grounds o f his condemnation,before God

,

because Christ has rendered,in his room and stead

,

that perfect Obedience , in life and in death,which he

was unable to give . In this point o f view,he i s not

under law ,but under grace . It is perfectly true that

,

by the deeds o f the law there shall no flesh be j usti

fied.

” But why is this the case ? Is it owing to any

defect in law itself ? Certainly not. Righteous

ness,or justification , would undoubtedly result from a

perfect Obedience to law,

. because we‘

are expressly

told that “ the doers o f the law shall be justified .

I t is not,then

,o n account o f any defect in law

itself that no flesh shall be justified by its deeds,but

i t i s entirely and solely on account o f our utter in

ability to render that perfect obedience which law

demands. The defect is all in ourselves. We cannot

T HE L AW A RULE O F LIFE. 1 6 :

be justified by the deeds of law, because we are not

ab le to obey it aright,and because we have broken it

already.

It is not only true that by th e deeds of the law no

flesh shall be justified , but i t is also true that every

man in the world is under law in some respect ; that

is to say,he is under the law as written in the boo k

,or

under the law as written in th e heart either the one

o r the other and that comes prac tically to about the

same thing. Although the Gentiles had not the law

written in the book,they h ad the law written on the

heart,and

,therefore

,the Apostle Paul says

,they show

the work of “ the law written in their hearts. “ For

when the Gentiles,

” says the Sc ripture,which have

no t the law,do by nature the things contained in the

law,these

,having no t the law

,are a law unto them

selves ; which show the w ork o f the law written in

their hearts . We have before proved both Jews

and Gentiles,that they are all under sin. Now

we know that what things soever the law saith,it

sa ith to them who are under the law,that every

mouth may be stopped,and all th e world may become

guilty before God.

” From this i t i s evident th at all

me n are under law,whether written o n the heart or

revealed in the Sc riptures. I f there be any man in the

world who is not under law,the passages I have here

quote d c ould not be true. Where no law is,there is

no transgre ssion. Fo r sin is the transgre ssion ofL

1 6 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the law hence both Jews and Gentiles,who are

said to be “ all under sin,must be all under law

,

whether we call i t the law written in the heart o r

revealed in Scripture . That the whole human race

is under law is evident from th e fact,th at every

mouth is to be stopped,and all the world is to become

guilty before God. There is no possible escape from

this . NO son o f Adam can be exempted. It extends

to every mouth and all th e world. If,then

,w e are al l

under law,either written on th e heart o r revealed

,

how does it come that we are not under law,but under

grace ? There must be a sense in which both these

things are true,as they are Scripture doctrines. The

passages I have just quoted prove that every man

in the world is under law . In what sense,then

,i s h e

not under it ? Just in the sense that the work of

Christ has released him from it as the procuring cause

of his j ustification and as the grounds o f his c'

ond em

nation,but in no other sense . Christ has done for His

people what they could not do for themselves . He

has rendered pe rfect Obedience,in their place

,to th e

law in His li fe,and paid the full penalty o f the trans

gre ssion in His death , and in this wayHe h as prov ided ,

and bestowed o n them,a complete robe of righteous

ness which re leases them from th e law,as the procur

ing cause o f their justification and as the ground s of

their condemnation . They are not justified by th e

deeds o f the law,but by the righteousness of Ch rist

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

same mode of reasoning the atonement effected by the

death o f Christ on the cross would be a suffic ient

warrant fo r our continuance in sin . If the argument

holds good in the on e case , i t is equally good in the

other. Under these c ircumstances,of all men in the

w orld,the Christian would have th e greatest liberty

for indulging in sin with impunity. He would be the

only man in society who would be released from the

obligations o f morality . In place of releasing us from

all obligation of law to God,the work Of Christ should

make us more anxious to obey. We should neither

put forth the obedience o f Christ’s life as a reason for

o ur release from the moral law as the rule Of our life,

nor claim th e atonement o f Christ as an argument for

our continuance in sin . Instead o f taking us entirely

from under law to God,Christ h as given us additional

reasons for obedience. The Scripture says w e are not

without law to Go d,but under the law to Christ.”

How,then

,can any man say we are freed entirely from

law as the rule of our life ? If we are not wi thout law

to God,we are surely under law to God . We are not

under law to procure us li fe o r salvation ; but we are

under law as the rule by which w e should live . These

two things are entirely distinct,and th e distinction

should never be lost sight o f. I t i s for want o f making

a proper discrimination o f points which differ that

errors so frequently abound.

On this point Mr. Darby certainly goes far enough

THE L AW A RUL E OF LIFE. 1 65

He says,Men before Moses

,Gentiles since

,and

3Christians now,are not under law .

’ This is a very

sweeping assertion . It does not stop short with that

po rtion O f law which was confined to the Jews but it

includes law o f every description , whether written on

the heart or revealed in Scripture. It makes no e xce ption . The term is thoroughly general not under

law.

” Besides,it is announced in his own special

dicta torial style. I t requires no evidence to sustain

it. Darby has announced it, and all his followers must

believe i t. Those,however

,wh o tremble at the Word

of God,will take a different view . What saith the

Scripture ? “ Whosoever c o nimitte th sin transgre sse th

also the law ; for sin i s the transgression Of the law .

”

This puts every sinner under law. The man who is

not under law is no t under sin,if this passage be true.

For when the Gentiles,which have not the law

,do

by nature the things contained in the law,these

,

having not the law,are a law unto themselves which

show the works o f the law written in their hearts.”

Take care,Paul. Y o u here place the Gentiles under

the law writte n on the heart ; but the apo stle Darby

knows far better,for h e clears the Gentiles o f every

sort of law. On this point Darby is an infallible

authority, and Paul must hide his diminished head .

At another place , Paul, you say that, by th e things

which the law saith , every mouth is to b e stoppe d ,

and all the world is to become guilty before God but

1 66 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

here,again

,Darby is a master for Paul

,for he h as dis

covered that “ Men before Moses,Gentiles since

,and

Christians n ow,are not included in the world which

is thus to become guilty before God. Harmle ss peopleFurther

,Paul

,you say you have proved both Jews

and Gentiles,that they are all under sin

,and co nse

quently that, as being all under sin, they are all under

law,in accordance with another statement o f yours

,

that “ Where n o law is,there is no transgression .

For sin i s the transgression of the law. Here,again

,

however,Darby confron ts .you, for he holds that a

large portion o f the world is not under law at all and

as a necessary result o f this,he is fairly bound to hold

that “ Men before Moses,Gentiles since

,and Christians

now,

a re not unde r s in ; o r else he must dispute you r

premises that “ Where no law is,there is no trans

gre ssio n . On Mr. Darby’s principles, a Christian

might pra ctise sin to any extent without breaking any

law,either written o n the h eart o r revealed in Scrip

ture for he says most emphatically,at the a 1st page o f

“ Righteousness and Law,

” that in th e 6 th of Romans“ the apostle declares there

,as to pra ctice , or to sinning,

w e are not under law. Hence it is indisputable that,

on Darbyite principles,a man may commit the greate st

crime in the calendar without violating any law o f Go d.

This i s glorious news for the libertines . I t also fully

accounts for the extremely low state of truthfulness

which exists in many instances amongst the Plymouths,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 68 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

tions o f sin,because this would directly contradict

,as

a matter o f fact,the experience o f every Christian in

the world. The man wh o j oins Mr. Darby in saying h e

is removed completely from the power,the allurements

,

and the temptations o f sin—as completely as if h e

were a dead man—knows nothing o f what i t is to be

a Christian . He knows noth ing o f the experience o f

the apostle Paul,o r of the Christian’s warfare. There

is no such state o f sinless perfection in this li fe. I f

such were the case,the Christian could n o t possibly

fall into any sort of sin,o r be affected by it

,o r back

slide . This n e w- light doctrine o f tota l death to th e

power o f sin was . unknown to the apostle when h e

said,

“ Brethren,i f a man be overtaken in a fault

,ye

which are spiritual restore such an o ne in the spiri t

o f meekness ; considering thyself,lest thou also be

tempted .

” It i s evident Paul was behind th e Darbyite

improvements o f this generation,because h e thought

the brethren were liable to temptation,and, therefore ,

w ere not like dead men in relation to the power o f sin .

If this advanced theology were correct , w e could n o t

possibly be tempted,o r backslide . We would be ab so

lute ly perfect. There would no t be the slightest n e ce s

si ty fo r w atching against temptation . I t would be

superfluous to pray to be kept from the temptations

o f the devil , the world , and the flesh . If we did so ,

we would be praying to be delivered from a thing

which it was impossible for us, as dead men, to fall

THE L AW A RULE OF LIFE.

into. I unhesitatingly conclude , then, that when Scripture says we are dead to sin

,and dead to the law

,i t

means no more than that we are dead to the g uilt and

consequences of sin,and dead to the justification and

condemnation o f the law,on account o f what Christ

has done in o ur room and stead . The man who argues

that we are entirely released from the obligations of

the moral law,as th e rule o f our lifia

,because it is said

that we are dead to the law,is bound in consistency

,

by the same rule o f interpretation,to hold that we are

without sin in word,deed

,o r thought—in a state o f ah

solute sinless perfection—because it is said that we aredead to sin. Consistency demands that the Darbyite s

shall go this length and I am quite willing to leave the

whole question to be settled by the judgment o f the

public as to how far the parties who compose the sect

are to be considered as incapable as a dead man o f sin

in word,deed

,and thought. When their deeds shal l

establish this state of sinless perfection in the eyes of

the public,I will give up the controversy.

In place o f telling the brethren at Rome that they

were released from the moral law as the rule o f their

life,Paul says

,at the 9th verse o f the 1 3th chapter

,

Thoushalt not commit adultery,Thou shalt no t kill

,

Thou shalt not ste al , Thou shalt no t bear false witness,

Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other com

mandment,i t is briefly comprehended in this saying,

namely,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

lf Paul had had a wholesome fear o f the Plymouth

Brethren before his eyes,he would not in this pal ~

pah le manner have told the Christians at Rome that

they were to regulate their lives bythose precepts o fthe moral law ; and it is very evident to me that the

Plymouths do not incline to keep this law,for in place

of loving me as themselves,most o f them

,as far as I

have had an opportunity of j udging, hate me with a

most perfect hatred ; and I feel very certain, if they

had the power,they would persecute me with a most

thorough persecution. Consequently, I con clude that

th e y do well to release themselves from the obligations

o f the moral law.

“ Again,says Mr. Mackintosh ,

“ we read,

‘ And the

commandment which was ordained to life I found to

be unto de a th .

’ It evidently did not prove as a rule of

life to him. The Sabbath,the

'

Law,and the Min is

try,p. This statement evinces a lamentable want

either of perspicacity or of fairness . The law is here

put forward by Mr. Mackintosh as the procuring Cause

of li fe,whereas he knows that no Christian holds such

a sentiment. The Christian holds that the law is a

rule for the guidance of his life and conduct ; but he

does not hold that he is able to obtain life,or sa lvation

,

o r justification by it. These two things are as distinct

as the poles . It is on e thing to be placed under the

law to procure life by it , and quite a different thing to

be placed under it as a rule for our guidan ce as to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM.

THE RE i s such a variety of opinion o n different points

amongst the members o f the sect which is commonly

known by the title of Plymouth Brethren,that I could

not undertake to enumerate all their peculiarities.

For practical purposes,however

,the sect may be

divided into three great heads,—the M iillerite s

,th e

Ne w tonite s,and th e Darbyites . These three parties

differ most materially on fundamental points and as

I have been charged with misrepresenting some o f

them,in consequence o f no t having pointed out the

distinctions between them,I must now refer to the

matter.

In the month o f June 1 862 , I received a letter from

M r. Maunsell,who

,I believe

,belongs to the M ulle rite

division,complaining that I had misrepresented the

views o f his party. As I wish to give every man full

fair-play,I will j ust let him speak for himself. I

have no sympathy,

” says he,with Mr. Darby’s peculiar

tenets,ecclesiastical, doctrinal, o r prophetic. I could

give you many grave errors of his you have not touched

upon, which I greatly abhor, and so do the portion o f

the division on the contrary side of his. I can say

for myself,and for those with whom I associate

,that

we have not,and never had

,the doctrines you con

VARIATIONS o r PLYMOUTHISM. 1 73

demn in h im and in his party. I have no o bje c

tion to make to your letters,as far as Messrs Darby

,

S tanley,and Mackintosh were concerned ; but I was

anxious that you should know that,about twelve years

ago,there was a division amongst the Brethren called

Plymouth Justice demands that I should thus allowMr. Maunsell to speak for himself. I may further

state,that I fully believe what M r. Maunsell says on

his own behalf. How far all the M iille rite s,however

,

may go with him,i s another question. I do not pre

tend to say much o n the subject, be cause I have not

read many o f their writings . But I confess there is

o ne passage in “ The Letter o f th e Ten (this letter is

signed by Mr. Muller,Mr. Craik

,and eight others)

which rouses my suspic ions as to their orthodoxy.

We feel it o f the deepest importance, say they,

explic itly to state that the views relative to the

person o f o ur blessed Lord,held by those who, for

six teen years,have been occupied in teaching the

Word amongst you, are unchanged. The truth re

lative to the divinity of His person,th e sinle ssness

o f His nature,and the perfection o f His sacrifice

,

which have been taught both in public teaching and

in writing fo r these many years past,are those which

we still maintain. No w,what do they mean by the

pe rson”o f our Lord ? It could no t b e the Godhead ,

b ecause this was never doubte d by Mr. Newton , whose

opinions they were called on to try. Mr. Newton was

1 74 PLYMOUTH HERE S IES .

charged with giving Christ a sinful humanity, b ut he

w as never charged with disputing th e Godhead o f

Christ. It was the humanity alone, then, The Ten

had to deal with . Hence I conclude,when they speak

o f the person o f Christ, they mean His humanity, and

n o t His Godhead. In order to remove any impression

about their sympathising with th e v iews ascribed to

Mr. Newton regarding Christ’s humanity, they say

they believe in the divinity of His person,the sinless

ness o f His nature,and the perfection o f His sacrifice .

.As the Godhead is not called in question, and as they

are declaring their o wn views regarding the point o n

which Mr. Newton has been charged with heresy—th ehuman ity o f Christ—all they say here applies to th e

humanity. O therwise,their observations would be

foreign to the subj ect. If I am correct in this,they

are thoroughly involved in the “ heavenly humanity

theory,when they say they believe in “ the divinity

of Christ’s person.

” Some parties may,perhaps

,say

that The Ten did no t mean what they affirm—that

they were only carried away by the “sla ng

”o f the

Darbyite school,without considering the true import

o f their language but I cannot adopt that explana

tion,simply because we have no right to imagine that

they did not understand what th e v were saying. As

they are men o f education and leaders o f the people,

they ought to ge t credit fo r knowing the thing where

o f they affirm. I,t herefore

,take their language as I

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

very letter ? Certain ly not ; and yet o n e o f the chief

men amongst them suggests that,in place o f j udging

their views o n this spec ial point from this deliberate

document,I should have gone elsewhere to find o ut

what they meant . Was anything so absurd ever heard

o f N e ver. As Mr. Craik has here emphatically as

se rte d that he never intended the expression animad

verted o n to convey the meaning I have taken out

o f it,I frankly and unreservedly accept his declara

tion as true,both on his o wn part and o n the part

of his friends . At the same time,I must express my

regret that he and his fellow- labourers did not state

their opinions o n this momentous subject in language

that would have been above all suspicion and that

did no t require a person to read their other works to

find o ut what they meant. They should have been

far more careful than they were. But I believe the

plain state o f the matter is,they were i n a sort o f

go-between position

,trying to avoid both sides

,and

then,as might have been expected under such time

serving circumstances,their deliverance did not ring

o ut that unmistakable sound which i t should have

done . As they say themselves,

“ We did not feel i t

w e ll to be considered as identifying ourselves with

either party. I t would have been well,however

,i f

they h ad written so plainly that every person would

have known what they meant.

In his letter to me,Mr. Craik says

,

“ If you had

VARIAT IO NS o r PLYMOUTHISM. 1 7 7

given your views to the world o n any subject,would

you think it right that a single doubtful expression

should be made the subj ect o f a serious charge ? ” I

have no difficulty whatever in answering Mr. Craik’s

question. If I had published a direct and deliberate

opinion o n any subj ect,and afterwards

,in some casual

,

indirect,and unintentional way

,had dropped some

doubtful expression on the same point,I would ce rtainlv

consider i t only fair that the doub tful expression should

be interpreted in accordance with the deliberate Opinion.

No doubt o f this. But this is in no sense the case o f

The Ten,

” because,in place of being incidental , casual,

o r unintentional,it would be impossible to imagine any

thing more serious,deliberate , and intentional , than a

letter written by ten men for the express purpose o f

stating their opinions concerning certain charges brought

against them. If this letter be not deliberate,I know

not what is. No man who signed it should complain

o f the interpretation put o n its ambiguous parts ; but

he should censure himself most severely fo r having

made any o f i t ambiguous ; and especially for having

used the least shuffling respecting such a momentous

question as the divin ity or humanity o f Christ.

Mr. Craik says ,“ By the ‘ divinity o f His person ’

we meant neither more nor less than would be under

stood by the other phrase,

‘ Godhead o f Christ.’ The

notion of a h e a venly hwmanity,’ so far as I know, was

not at that time held or taught by anybody .

”T h e

M

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

statements o n this point are so con tradictory that it

is difficult for o ne,who was no t on the spot at the

time the divisions took place,to come to a right c on

e lusion. Mr . Craik here leads us to believe that the

doctrine o f the “ heavenly humanity was not held o r

taught by anybody at the time the letter o f “ The

Ten was written—that is,at the time th e discussions

and divisions took place concerning Mr. Newton’s

doctrines in 1 847 (see“ Bethesda

,

” by W. Trotter,

page whereas Dr. T re ge lle s, in his published

Letter,

” dated Plymouth,March 1 5 , 1 849 , which

purports to give a faithful account o f these division s

in 1 845 , 1 846, and 1 847 , states as follows I will

give a few instances—expression s which I know to

have been used. It was said that ‘th e Lord was

and that the name,

ma n,but not the son o f Adam ;

S on of man , was simply a title ; that His humanity

was some thing divine ; that‘ it was a spiritua l huma n

ity that He was not a man o f the substance of His

mother,but that He was o f the substan ce o f God

,

His Father ; that ‘ the expression,wi thout father

,

w ithout mother , without descent, related to our Lord

as man ; and that the genealogies both in Matthew

and Luke were those o f Joseph , His reputed father,and not o f Mary so that the Scripture has designedly

cut Him O ff from the family o f man,and from that o f

Israel . It i s n o t easy to reconcile Mr. Craik with

Dr. T re ge lle s on th is point, as they directly contradict

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

no t read many of the writings of the M ulle rite s,but I

have read more o f the publications of the Darbyite

enemies o f'

M r. Newton than I would like to read

again,and I have never yet observed on e sentence

which struck me as charging Mr. Newton with deny

ing the Godhead o f Christ. I t is hardly credible to

suppose that the charges o n this head could have

been made without being put prominently forward in

their different publications . Take for example,M r.

Trotter’s tract called “ Bethesda. First,says he

,

“ the circumstances wh ich gave occasion for ‘ The

Letter of the Ten.

’ In 1 847 , a doctrine was found to

be promulgated by Mr. Newton, by which our blessed

Lord Jesus C hrist was represented as exposed,b e cause

of his re la tion to Adam,to that sentence o f death that

had been pronounced on the whole family of man . He

was represented as exposed to that curse and to the

doom o f man. I t was taught that,in conseque nce of

Christ’s re la tion to Adam,

His own relation,a s a man

,

to God,was such that , for the first thirty years o f His

life,the hand o f God was stretched o ut rebuking Him

in anger and chastening Him in hot displeasure.

Not a word here about the Godhead . I t i s all about

the humanity. However objectionable the doctrines

stated may be,they have no relation to the Godhead.

They are specifically limited to the human ity of Christ.

Nay, more ; there is no mention of this charge con

cerning the Godhead in the letter o f “ The Ten ,

VARIATIONS o r PLYMOUTHISM. 1 8 1

but rather the opposite. “ In conclusion,say “ The

Ten,” “

.w e would seek to impress upon all present

the evil of treating the subj ect o f our Lord’s humanity

as a matter o f speculative or angry controversy.

” This

does not look very like a charge concerning the God

head ; it is specially o n the humanity. I do n o t now

assert that this charge respe cting the Godhead was

never preferred,because i t might have been without

my knowledge ; but I must say, I am not prepared

to accept it without further evidence than I at pre

sent possess. I strongly suspect that Mr. Craik, in

his anxiety to save The Ten,

” has been maligning Mr.

Newton.

If the reader turns back to the 1 53d page of this work ,

he will find a highly important quotation from Mr.

Trotter's tract called “ Bethesda. On the supposi

tion that Mr. Trotter is worthy o f credit,i t must

be grante d that Mr. Newton has promulgated some

dreadful opinions. Whether Mr. Trotter’s statements ,

however,are correct o r not

,i s no t o f the slightest

personal concern to me,as I am in no way responsible

for them. Seeing they are in print, I am responsibleonly to quote them fairly. But if they are not strictly

correct, Mr. Trotte r’s position is a most serious one.

I t is not in my power to decide the question,but

in jus tice to Mr. Newton and myself,I must clear

i t up as far as I now know the true state of the

facts.

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

On the z rst o f June 1 862,Mr. Newton wrote me a

note,in which he says

,

“ I am not surprised at the

m isapprehension that has led you to say what you

have respecting me,at the close o f your tract ; for

my sentiments have been by some persons so indus

triously misrepresented , that it‘

w ould be wonder

ful,indeed

,if many were not deceived. If

,however

,

you will have the kindness to glance at the publica

tions I now send, yo u will see in a moment that my

doctrines are the very reverse of those imputed to

me .” I was greatly surprised when I read this note,

because I never imagined,after reading Mr. Trotter’s

tract,that there could be the slightest doubt of Mr

Newton’s heterodoxy. I therefore read the works he

sent me with intense interest and great care . And I

am free to confess that th e se works,so far from

bearing o ut Mr. Trotter’s explicit statement that Mr.

Newton considered the sufferings o f Christ’s li fe“n on- substitutiona l, taught the very reverse

,and

that,too

,in the most unmistakable language. I

might adduce many proofs,but o ne will suffice .

All His sufferings,

” says Mr. Newton,were to

that end,and none ever came o n Him

,from th e

c radle to the grave , but as the Redeemer. He

was ever acting as the surety of God’s people,and ,

therefore,whatever sufferings He might endure under

the righteous government o f God,they came on Him

as one who was suffering all that He did sufl'

e r for

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Of which I had reasonable doubt. What, then , was I

to do ? I had at that time between two and three

thousand copies Of my pamphlet un sold. On mature

consideration,I made up my mind to lose and destroy

them all,and issue a new edition

,in order to set M r.

Newton straight with the public, provide d he would

prove to me that Mr. Trotter h ad falsified his printed

statements. Without this proof I could not proceed

one step,because I would n o t otherwise be justified

in throwing a slur o n Mr. Trotter’

s character. There

was n o possibility,that I could see , Of reconci ling Mr .

Trotter’s and Mr. Newton’s statements. They could

n o t both be correct ; but which Of them was right

I was not in a position to decide. On one point

the poin t Of substitution—M r. Trotter’s statement

was at direct variance with all I had read Of Mr

Newton’s . But then'

I felt I could not fairly judge

Mr. Trotter,because Mr. Newton had not sent me

the pamphlet from which Mr. Trotter professed to

quote . I therefore came to the determination that,

unless I saw this pamphlet with my own eyes, I

would not withdraw on e word I had quoted from Mr.Trotter. If I were to do so

,I would be doing Mr.

Trotter a great injustice,by impugning his veracity.

If Mr. Trotter has made his quotations fairly from Mr.

Newton’s pamphlet,he h as a righ t to be upheld and

supported,no matter h o w inconsistent those state

ments may be with other writings Of M r. Newton’

s.

VARIATIONS O F PLYMOUTHISM. 1 8 5

I would judge the matter at issue by the pamphlet,

and the pamphlet alone .

Impressed with these views,I wrote

,on the 2 1 st

July 1 862, to Mr. Newton , as follows However far

I may differ from the views contained in the books

you sent me,I must say I am much pleased with th e

honest,intelligible

,and straightforward manner in

which your views are set forth . I will be much obliged

i f you send me the tracts you have withdrawn from

circulation,and from which Mr. Trotter has quoted o n

th e 4th and 5 th pages Of‘ Beth esda.’ If I find , as I

expect,that he has misrepre sented you, I will go to

th e expense of getting out another edition of my

pamphlet,in order that you may b e set right as far as

I am concerned . NO person could reasonably expect

me to go farther than this. Indeed, I was not n e ce s

sita te d to go thus far, as Mr. Newton and Mr. Trotter

had a right to settle their own dispute . However,as

Mr. Newton’s note to me conveyed so decidedly the im

pression that he had been grossly misrepresented,I

fel t anxious to have the case placed fairly before the

world . Now, i t appeared to me there was only o ne

way in which this could be properly done ; and thatw as by allowing i t to be shown

,by an examination o f

the pamphlet itself, that Mr . Trotter had dealt unfairlyin his quotations, and had misrepresented the views Of

the write r. This was a simple affair,and one easily

settled. The pamphlet would spe ak for itself. Be

1 86 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

sides,i t appeared most fortunate that the document

should be examined by a person wh o was opposed to

both parties . My surprise,then , was great when I

received a letter from Mr. Newton declining to send

me the tracts . He said he could not do so, as he h ad

only o n e copy O f them himself,and it was important

that he should keep them for reference but if I hap

pened to be in London,he would be glad to let me

have a sight Of them. He also said,as his reputation

was already inj ured as much as i t could be,he would

not wish me to do what . I proposed about my o wn

pamphlet. Mr. Newton is fully capable O f thinking

for himself but he has not adopted the plan I would

have taken under similar circumstances . If I thought

I had been misquoted and misrepresented,I would be

very sorry to allow any man to blacken my character.

I would soon expose his dishonesty by republishing

every line Of the work upon which he founded his

statements. This would give all parties fair play,and

le t the public j udge for themselves. Mr. Newton

appears to me to labour under on e great mistake. He

seems to think that the public ought to be satisfied

Mr. Trotter has misrepresented him,because the senti

ments Mr. Trotter attributes to him are inconsistent

w ith plain statements in several Of his works. In this

view,I believe

,he is entirely mistaken. It matters

not what his other works may say I would not clear

him O f a single charge Mr. Trotter has brought against

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

i s an indisputable proof that the assumptions o f th e

Darbyites about th eir own inspiration and the presi

dene y Of the Spirit,have no foundation in truth .

The failure,says Dr. T re ge lle s, O f those who pro

fe ss to a ct o n certain principles does not condemn th e

princip le s themselves otherwise , what shall we say o f

the churches planted by the apostles O f Christ,which

so soon departed from the truth o f God both in doc

trine and practice Three Letters,

” p . As I b e

l ieve Dr. T re ge lle s does not agree with the Darbyite

inspirations,and as I imagine his O bservations are in

tended to apply under ordinary circumstances,I at once

accede to the truth of his statement. The case he ad

duces is one in point, and answers my purpose at the

present moment. The apostles, be cause th ey we re in

spired, delivered infallible instructions, both on doctrine

and practice,to the churches but the churches

,be cause

they contained uninspired men , went aside from the

instructions delivered by the inspired apostles. The

errors o f the churches did not affect the correctness

Of the inspired instructions they had received,but

they conclusively proved that the parties who com

mitte d the errors were not acting under direct in

spiration. S O is i t with the Plymouthites. When

they contradict each other on vital points,i t is a

certain indication that they are not acting under the

direct movements O f the Holy Spirit,and that the Holy

Spirit is not presiding. False doctrines and erroneous

VARIATIONS O F PLYMOUTHISM. 1 89

practice s could never arise under the presidency o f

the Spirit O f God.

Such was the state of matters regarding M r. New

ton’s case at the time a previous edition o f this work was

printed . Still I could not feel satisfied w ith the condi

tion O f affairs . There was something mysterious which

I could not get under. I f Mr. New ton had changed

his v iews at the time he withdrew the Obnoxious

pamphlets from circulation, i t would have been very

easy for him to have announced the change in numis

takable lang uag e,and then the whole dispute would

have been over. In place O f doing this,however

,he

charges his opponents with industriously misre pre

senting his views. It thus becomes a question o f mis

representation Of facts,and no t a change of opinions.

Mr. Newton might have settled this as easily as pos

sible by reprinting his tracts. He was fairly bound

either to stand by them o r to acknowledge that they

were wrong. He has not, strickly‘

spe aking, done either.

In place of standing up for his published Opinions,he

withdrew the tracts from circulation ; and instead

of acknowledging error and a complete change Of

opinion,he charges his opponents with misrepresent

ing the views containe d in his tracts. This conduct

se emed to me so extraordina ry that I was anxious to

ge t a sight of the pamphlets . I have no w h ad an oppo r

tunity, though not from Mr. Newton, O f perusing the

docume nts,and

,in j ustice to M r. Trotter and all parties

I 90 PL YM OUTH HERES IES .

concern ed,I feel it to be my duty to examine th e ques

tion at issue. If I were to shrink from this subj ect at

present,I would no t be dealing fairly by Mr. Trotter

after the referen ce I made to him in a former edition

o f this work . It is a very disagreeable thing to quote

from tracts which have been withdrawn from circula

tion ; but I feel it to be unavoidable just now, seeing

that my previous publication has placed me in a posi

tion between the two parties,—and that position un

favourable to Mr. Trotter.

In his “ Remarks on ' the S ufl'

e rings o f the Lord

Jesus,written at Plymouth

,July 26th , 1 847 , and

published in London in 1 847 , Mr. Newton says,“ But

in the Psalms,where we specially read the inward

experiences o f His spirit, we find not only the suffer

ings o f those hours o f public ministry—not only th e

sufferings and reproach that pertained to Him as the

appointed servant o f God,but sufferings also which

pertained to Him,be cause He wa s a man

,and be cause

He was an I sra e lite ;—sufi'

e rings, th e refore , which cannotbe restricted to the years o f His public service

,but

which must be extended over the whole of that period

during which He was sensible,under the hand o fGod

,

o f the condition into which man had sunk,and yet

more into which Israel had sunk in His sight ” (pp.

1 , Now, i t appears to me that there is no room

for misunderstanding here.’

I t would b e difficult to

make the language much more explicit than it is and

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

r9 2 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

everything occurred,and not by the mere accident of

His birth as a man and an Israel ite.

Personally,continues Mr. Newton,

“ He w as on e

who,as to His essential relation to God

,could know n o

change . But what were the ne w relations assumed,

when He was made flesh,born of a woman

,made under

the law,and were they relations that necessarily brought

suffering with them ? Surely we cannot hesitate as to

the reply. Creation groaned in the bondage o f

corruption . That groan was a penalty an infliction

from the hand of God,intended to work on the human

soul certain results o f sorrow. The Lord Jesus e xpe

rie nce d those results . I t h ad been said to Adam,

‘ Cursed is the ground for thy sake. ’ Labour,sorrow

,

sweat o f the brow (and many other things might be

added), were not circumstances fortuitously connected

with the human family—they Were infiictions in dis

p le asure from the hand of God, and under these inflic

tions because He was a man,Jesus was found. But He

had not merely become connected with the sorrows

and sufferings of man . There was a part of the human

family that had been brought into peculiar nearness to

God,who had nourished and brought them up as

children,but they had rebelled against Him. This

was Israel . They had fallen from that ground o f

professed obedience,and like Adam had earned

,by

their disobedience,the fearful inflictions of God’s

broken law. Such was the condi tion of Israel when

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHIS M . 1 93

Jesus came among st them. Lest I should be mis

understood because I say Jesus,like the prophets wh o

had gone before,was exposed to infiictions from the

hand of God , I beg that it may b e remembered that

pe rsonally He was free from every taint, though dwell

ing as it were in the midst of lepers. These suffer

ings of His life,quite as much as those o f His death ,

only reached Him because of the relative position

which it please d Him to assume in respect of Israe l,

and of man. They reached His person through and

because of others. Surely the same reasons that

would lead us to admit that He suffered under certain

inflictions which the hand of God had laid o n man as

man,would go far to show that if there were any

analogous infiictions on Israel,He would be exposed

to those infiictions as well . Was,then

,the Lord Jesus

subj ected during His life to all the infiictions that

were due to man as man,and to Israel as Israel ?

I answer,No ! To be obnoxious , that is, exposed to

certain things,is a different thing from actually endur

ing them . His faith, His prayers, His obedience, al lcontributed to preserve Him from many things to which

He was by His re la tive posi tion exposed , and by which

He was threatene d. On the cross He endured

wrath—infinite wrath , not wrath in chastise ment, butwrath in vengeance and during such a season all inter

fe re nce s of the Father on His behalf must necessa rily

be withdrawn ; but during all th e chastenings of HisN

1 94 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

previous pilgrimage this was not so. He was continu

ally refreshed,strengthened

,sustained

,and angels

sent to comfort Him. So different is the place o f a

substitute fo r sinners, from the place of suffering

amongst sinners (pp . 4 Although these extracts

are easily enough understood,they are quite contradic

tory to each other. Mr. Newton admits that in “ His

relation to God,Jesus could know no change

,and

that He “ was personally free from every ta in t but

the whole line o f his argument is a contradiction to

this view. His assertion that Jesus is free from ta int

will not keep Him clear o f it,when he places Him in

a position which involves it. We must not forget

that he has already divided the sufferings of Christ

into two classes,—those o f the appointed servant

,and

those o f the man. This is a fundamenta l distinction .

Under such a division,those which He endured as the

servant must have been as the representative o f His

people ; but this representative position is excluded

by Mr. Newton’s division, which subj ects Him to suffer

ing in His capacity merely as a man and an Israelite.

Keeping Mr. Newton’s distinction in mind , there is

something awful in th e s tatement that Jesus,

“ because

He was a man,suffered “ inflictions i n displeasure

from th e hand o f God , and that He was under the

curse pronounced against the ground for Adam’s sake

and that He was obnoxious to,and threatened by,

many things,from which He was p rese rv ed only by His

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

The view I have already taken o f Mr. Newton’s

opin ions is fully sustained by his further ob serva

tions. “ Since,then

,

” he continues,

“ i t is admitted

that He was chastened and we all acknowledge that

He was not chastened because o f pe rsonal sin,for He

was perfect —and since He was not until the crosspunished substitutionally

,why was He chastened at

all ? How could it be but because He was made

experimentally to prove the reality o f that condition

into which others,but more especially Israel

,had

sunk themselves,by their d isobedience to God’s holy

law,a condition out o f which He was able to e xtri

cate Himself,and from which He proved that He

could extricate Himself by His o wn perfect obedience.

The manner in which the Lord Jesus e xpe ri

e nce d outwardly sufferings that immediately flowed

from the curse that was resting upon Israel,can

only be gathered from an examination o f the pas

sages in the Psalms and elsewhere, which refer to this

subj ect. Observe,I do n o t say that Jesus was

personally accursed,because He formed part o f the

people on whom curses were resting. Suppose a

servant o f ' God were to go voluntarily,and dwell

with the people o f a wicked and abandoned island ;

and suppose inflictions from God—such as drought

o r famine—were sent upon that people, the servant

o f God would not be personally accursed because he

suffered or pined under those calamities. I t would

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM. 1 97

reach him as an innoce nt person who suffered because

o f others : yet in conse quence of his position,he

would be obnox ious,that is

,e xposed to all th e inflic

tions that the hand of God might b e directing against

that evil generation (pp. 1 1,

Notw ithstanding

all Mr. Newton has sa id here about the sinless per

fe ction of Christ and His personal freedom from

curse,the doctrine contained in the paragraph i s

most obj ectionable. It entirely excludes Christ’s

position as the representa tive of His people,and

makes Him,by the mere fact of His birth as a man

and an Israelite,to b e chaste ned by God, and to

experimentally feel the reality of the condition into

which others had sunk themselves by disobedience

to God’s law,and to feel this in such a way that He

required to extricate Himself out o f i t by obe dience ;

and it also states that He experienced the sufferings

which flowed from th e curse that was resting on

Israel —all this, b e it observed , not as His people’s

representative,but by the mere condition of His birth

as a man and an Israe lite . Surely this is most de

plorab le doc trine ! How any man could trust his

salvation to a Saviour who required to extricate

Himself from a cursed position,like th e one de

scribe d,i s a mystery to me. Mr. Newto n’s illustration

from the “se rvant of God in the abandoned island ,

”

shows th at he did not co nsider Christ as standing,

whilst b e aring the se chastiseme nts or sufferings, in

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the room and stead o f His people in any sense,but

only as exposed and liable to such things because o f

the mere accident o f His birth as a man and an

Israelite,in the same way as the servant ‘ in the

abandoned island suffered from the mere fact of his

dropping into the island,and no t as the representa

tive o f the people in that i sland . He was suffering

in the midst of others,but not for others. This i s a

very different position from the o ne which recognises

Christ,in every particular from the cradle to the

grave,as the representative o f His people in such

a sense that everything He did,and everything

which happened to Him,was in some special point

o f view in the room and stead of His people .

In his second pamphlet,called “ Observations on

a Tract,entitled ‘ The Sufferings o f Christ

,

’ dated

September I st,1 847 , and published in 1 847 , Mr.

Newton says in regard to Christ ,“ He was exposed

,

for example,because of His relation to Adam

,to that

sentence o f death that had been pronounced on th e

whole family o f man. Relatively,He was exposed to

that curse -personally,He evinced His title to

freedom from it,and His title to life by keeping

that law o f which it has been said,

‘ This do and

thou shalt live. ’ They came o n Him because o f

His connection with others (p. The same do c

trine is here as in the previous pamphlet. He does

not recognise Jesus as the representative o f His

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

o f the history o f such sufferings ? He drank the

cup o f sorrow which association with Israel brought.

The Book of Lamentations teaches us,perhaps

more distinctly than any other,h ow deeply He drank

o f this cup. The sudden transition in the descriptions

o f that book from the nation to an individual,shows

how close His association with their ruin was indi

vidualise d,as it were

,in the misery and the rebuke

o f Israel,

‘ See,0 Lord , and consider, for I am become

vile. Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by ? Be

hold , and see if there be any sorrow like unto Mv

sorrow which is done un to Me, wherewith the Lord

hath afflicte d Me in the day o f His fierce anger.’

P ena ltie s, therefore , o f the Fall were connected even

with the constitution O f His human nature . Here was

the early proof that He was under affliction from the

hand o f God . I entirely admit that God was able

to have protected Jesus either partially o r completely

from the influence o f these things. He might have

placed Him in the very presence Of the burning

flame,and preserved Him unscathed . There was no

essential necessity fo r His being made to suffer untilHe took the strictly vicarious place : and this

,I

believe,i s the reason why

,during His early childhood

,

He grew up unscathed ” (p. I t is here set forth

that Jesus,because o f His birth as a man

,—because o f

His mere association with others,—and not as in any

sense the representative o f His people,is made to

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM.

suffer indignation and wrath from the hand of God ;

to drink the cup o f sorrow which association with

Israel brought ; to be made vile ; to bear unparalleled

sorrow in the days o f the Lord’s fierce anger : and

that the penalties of the Fall were connec ted wi th the

very constitution O f His human nature. The doctrine

here contained is so dreadful to contemplate that I do

not like to dwell upon it. The argument would result

in making Jesus o ne of the vilest o f sinners. I t even

goe s the length of assuming that,owing to His natural

liability to suffering and to death, the miraculous

interference of God was required to preserve Him

unscathed through childhood . All this,be it

not as the representative of His people, but

His mere association with others,

- Owing to th re

accident of His birth as a man and an Israelite .

I think it is not necessary to go any further with this

subj e ct. What h as been produced is quite sufficient

to demonstrate the pernicious nature O f the doctrines

which have been promulgated by M r. Newton. It

does not appea r to me that there can be any dif

ficulty in understanding his position,nor yet in

divining the serious consequences resulting from that

position. I am sorry to say that a perusal o f the

third tract,cal led “ A Letter on Subjects connecte d

with the Lord’s Humanity,” has led me to fear very

much that M r. Newton has not changed a single one

of those opinions which he enuncia ted in the other two,

2 O 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

although he has w ithdrawn them from circulation.

I shall now leave this subject, and turn to his views

regarding the innate mortality of Christ’s humanity.

“ The Lord Jesus,says Mr. Newton

,was fore

ordained as the sacrifice before all worlds,and

,there

fore,it was impossible for Him to die except as the

sacrifice ; but with the very obj ect o f dying as the

sacrifice,He was pleased voluntarily to assume a body

which,a s regarded its na tura l or physica l condition ,

mudh exposed to death , i f smitten by the sword ,deprived o f necessary nutriment

,as ours would

Yet it was as impossible for Christ to die in

sequence o f anything to which He might be thus

O d to be plucked from th e throne o f

O ve rnme nt. If all nutriment had been withdrawn

frdm Him from His birth , yet God His Father would

ha ve sustained Him by p e rpe tua lmiracle , o r He would

have so sustained Himself,rather than that death

should have fallen in any way,except substitutionally

,

o n the One who deserved only blessing and life .”

(“ Letter on the Lord’s Human ity

,

”1 848 , p . 20 ; foot

note). Again , Mr. Newton asks,

“ Does Mr. C. really

think that Christ had an immortal body ? Had He a

body which inherently possessed a capacity O f not

dying, even in the case o f all nutriment being with

held , and no miracle being wrought to sustain it ?

I n that case,indeed

,the Lord would not have had a

mortal body but how,then

,could He have died even

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Christ mortal,and Adam capable o f becoming mortal.

He considers if Christ had not been naturally mortal

i f “ this had not been the law of Christ’s humanity

physically,He could not have died at all

,except by a

special miracle. Surety,p .

I cannot possibly avoid looking upon this doctrine

o f Christ’s inherent mortality as a most decided

heresy. It does not in th e slightest degree affect

my opinion that Charnock,Pearson

,Bengel

,and

,per

haps,a few others

,held the same views as Mr. Newton

neither am I deterred by Dr. T re ge lle s’ statement in

his letter to me,that “ to

.

hereticate teachers in the

Church whether living or dead,

” for holding such an

Opinion, is a very bold step for this sentence would

include no t some few such as Pearson and Bengel

merely,but also orthodox teachers in general. This

i s not,

” h e continues ,“ even a point for discussion ;

for i t seems to be some Darbyite novelty that you

have repeated.

” I do n o t pretend to say h ow many,

of what is called orthodox writers,may o r may not

have held the same views as those maintained by

Mr. Newton and Dr. T re ge lle s ; but thi s I do know,

that many o f the quotations made from their writ

ings do not by any means bear out the conclusions

deduced from them ; because the views are not very

specifically stated,nor do the writers appear to have

had this special point before their minds at the time .

On the contrary,I believe that the great body of

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM. 205

divines w ill be found on my side of the question.

Th is,however

,is not the view in which I wish to

reason it,as it must be settled by Scripture

,rather

than by mere authori ty o f man. Dr. T re ge lle s i s

quite astray in supposing I have derived my idea s

from Darby. I held the same opinions as long as I

remember,

- certainly long before I heard o f Darby,

and they were so firmly roote d in me, that I w as quite

horrified when I he ard O f the opposite,in this Ply

mouth controversy,as being held by M r. Newton.

What saith the Scripture ? “ By one man sin

entered into the world , and dea th by sin and so death

passed upon all men,for that all have sinned. For

the wages of sin is death.

” Is this true,o r is it not ?

As I hold by Scripture , I maintain, from these plain

and incontrovertible statements , that death is the co n

sequence O f sin , and that if there had never been sin,

there would h ave been no death . There is no escape

from this, if death be the wages o f sin,and if death

ente red into the world by sin, and resulted from it.

Consequently, if Christ’s body was natura lly and

intrinsically mortal , it must have been naturally and

intrinsica lly sinful. In whatever aspect i t was under

mortal ity,in the same aspect it was under sin . Adam

would never have died if he h ad no t sinned ; and

Christ would never have died if He had not taken onHim the sins of His people. The fact that Christ died

on the cross is a ce rtain proof that He had the sins of

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

His people really,truly

,and actually upon Him .

There was no mockery in the matter. In His own

nature,He was free from sin

, and above mortality ;

but as th e sinn er’s substitute, He had the sins o f His

chosen so really and truly upon Him,that he became

mortal . They were so ab so lute lv upon Him that,if

He had n o t atoned for them,He could never have

en tered heaven . The imputation was real,and not

that sham affair that some seem to imagine . He who

personally knew no sin,had the sins o f His people so

thoroughly transferred to Him,that He was accounted

by God as guilty of them all. As the Scripture

informs . us,He was “ made sin ” for us

,—He was

made a curse for us,—and i t was by bearing the

punishment due to our sins He died. His death is the

strongest possible—e u insuperable—argument for real

putation . It is a mistake to suppose Christ laid

down His own life,in the way in which that is

commonly understood. When it says He had power

to lay i t down , and power to take it again, i t j ust

means that He was in the strictest sense a voluntary

agent . He had power to give His li fe,or not to give

it,as He pleased . No man could force i t from Him .

He surrendered Himself to the cross of His own free

will and accord. This is the only sense in which He

laid down His own life. It cannot fo r a moment be

imagined that He killed Himself,and thus committed

suicide , which would have been the case if He had

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

w e are told,

“ because it was not possible that He

should be holden o f ” death. Why was this not

possible ? If His body was naturally mortal, i t was

no t only possible for Him to be holden of death,but

i t was actually impossible fo r Him to come out o f

the grave at th at time,except by a special miracle.

T o say the least o f i t, without miraculous interference

He must have gone into corruption,and remained in

the dust ti ll the general resurrection, if He went to

the grave with a body naturally mortal . The body

which is naturally mortal,naturally corrupts . See

ing,then

,it was possible for Christ to die

,why was

i t impossible fo r him to corrupt and remain dead ?

T h e answer i s simple. Although not naturally

morta l,His body was capable o f becoming mortal.

Wh e iiHe took the sins o f His people on Him ,He

took mortality on Him . He was then “ made sin

for us He was then “ made a curse fo r us ; He

then became mortal . As the substitute o f His

chosen,however

,He paid in death the full and

entire penalty due for all their sins. He was then

completely released from the consequences o f the

sins He had undertaken. The sins being atoned for

and removed,He could not see corruption ; the

penalty being fully paid,He could not be holden o f

death . I lay down my life,” says He

,

“ that I

might take it again.

” When the sins o f His people

were on Him,He could die ; but when they were

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHI SM. 209

all removed,He could not see corruption

,and the

grave could not retain its holy occupant. Under sin ,

His flesh could see death ; the sin being removed ,

His flesh could no t see corruption,or remain in

death . If His humanity had be en naturally and in

trinsically mortal , by right, and by all the laws o f

nature,it must have corrupted

,and lain in the grave

till the general resurrection. It was impossible,o n

this view,for i t to escape from the one and th e

other by anything short of a direct miracle . Those

surely have a very degraded view o f Christ’s h umanitv

wh o can imagine that it was so constituted intrinsi

cally that it required the performance o f a miracle

to save i t from corruption,and to raise it from the

dead. The very thought is dreadful,as it just places

Him on a par with sinful mortals,wh o could all be

raised in the same way. If,after th e sins O f His

people were removed,His humanity had no natural

and inh erent right of escaping corruption and rising

to immortality,i t is evident there was no merit or

value in His'

re surre ction.

I think a great deal of the error existing on thissubject has arisen from a misunderstanding o f th e

double aspect o f Christ’s substitutionary work . He

had to fulfil the law,as well as to suffer the penalty

for its breach. He did both as the substitute o f

His people,and on their account ; but He was not

suffering the punishment whilst He was kee ping theO

2 I 0 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

law ; nor was He keeping the law whilst He w as

suffering the’

penalty for its breach. These two

points are very distinct,and should never be con

founded . S o long as He was obeying the law,He

had the Father’s countenance ; but when He came

under the penalty, and was made“sin for us

,He

was forsaken o f God . I t does not appear to be

clearly revealed as to the exact period o f His life

when He commenced to do His “ Father’s business,

”

nor yet as to the moment when He came under

the punishment o f sin ; and , therefore, i t i s pre

sumptuous to pry into the matter,as many have

done. We should stop where revelation stops .

There is another point o f some importance. Many

parties seem to imagine that hunger,thirst

,weari

ness,sle e p ,

‘

and such like,have arisen as the con

sequence O f sin,and must of necessity demonstrate

the natural mortality o f those wh o are subj ect to

them . This , however, i s taking for granted the very

thing which they require to prove. Thes e parties

seem to be wise beyond what i s written. They for

get that food was provided for Adam before ever h e

fell ; and that he was in a deep sleep when Eve was

called into existence . To my thinking,it is im

possible to tell precisely the different things to

which Adam may have been liable in his unfallen

condition , simply because revelation does not fully

inform us on the point. We should therefore be

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 I 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the necessary laws of mortality, because He could at

any moment have reversed those laws,and necessity

would h ave been no necessity to Him .

” Letter to a

Friend,

” p . I am surprised to find a man o f Mr.

Newton’s good sense penn ing such a sentence. If we

must die because we are placed under the necessary

laws o f mortali ty,so must Christ

,i f He is placed

under the necessary laws of mortality. There is not

the slightest difference between the cases. Death is

quite as certain in the one instance as in th e other;

By no means, says M r. Newton . Why ? Because

Chr i st could at any moment use the power Of His

Godhead and reverse those laws,and save Himself.

No doubt o f this ; but could He no t as easily reverse

those laws and save us ? If so , where is the difference

in the necessity o f death ? Nowhere. If the laws o f

nature can .b e reversed in the o ne case, they can .sure ly

b e - reversed in the other. If Christ could save Him

self by almighty power,He could surely save us by

the same power. If almighty power is re quired in

each case,are they not ' both on a par ? Wh o could

point out the difference between them ? The power

which could have saved the humanity o f. Christ has

already saved Enoch and Elij ah,and will yet save

those disciples who remain on the earth at the day o f

j udgment. T o be consistent with himself, Mr. Newton

i s bound to deny that Christ had the power to save

man from death in the same way as He could have

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM . 2 1 3

saved His own humanity. Will he do this, and make

his argument consistent with itself ? I am certain he

will not. I t appears nothing short of dreadful, to my

mind,to imagine that the humani ty o f Christ was of

such a nature,that

,apart from the cross

,it must have

died like one of ourselves and gone into corruption,

unless a special miracle had been performed for its pre

servation. A humanity of this description is one which

could no t be depended on for the atonement of our

sins.

The views I have been advocating are in no way

incompa tible with those Scriptures which speak of

Christ being raised by the power o f the Father.

Chris t says He laid down His life that He might take

it again Himself. We are also told that He was

raised by the power of the Father. There must be a

sense in which these things are both perfectly true

(and the Trinity in Unity will explain that sense) ; but

i t does not follow from this that the humanity was so

inherently prone to corruption that God had to per

form a miracle fo r its rescue. We can neve r make

the humanity of Christ superior to,or independent of

,

the operations of Deity, for the simple reason that if

we did so, we would make it God , and no humanity at

all. Adam,even in his very highest condition

,was

subject to and depe ndent on the will of his Maker.

God reigns through and over all His works. There i s

nothing created tha t i s independent of Him or can

2 I4 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

act without Him . But I cannot on this account

imagine that i t required the mira culous Operation o f

Deity to raise the humanity of Christ,in the same

way as it was put forth for the purpose Of arresting

the law s o f decomposition and afterwards raising th e

body of Lazarus. There is a great difference between

being raised by the power of God and being raised by

th e power of God put forth in a m iraculous manner.

As I have tried,however

,to unfold the nature o f this

distinction in my “ Letters on the Revival in Ireland,

I need not dwell on it here. I have only further to

remark that th e argument which will make Christ’s

humanity mortal because it is subject to b e'

raised by

the power o f God , will be equally fata l to the condi

tion o f His soul for we are told as emphatically that

He would not leave His soul in hell,as we are that

He would no t suffer His body to see corruption. This

most decidedly places the soul and the body in th e

same state of dependence upon God ; but it does n o t

necessarily follow from this that either the on e o r

the other was inherently liable to death and corrup

tion . They were both subj ect to the Operations o f

the Godhead ; but neither O f them was intrinsically

mortal.

In taking leave o f Mr. Newton,I beg to assure him

that my criticisms have not been dictated by a captions

spirit. I felt bound in my conscience , as a matter O f

duty,to say what I have said . I would not willingly

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 1 6 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

son o f Adam,

’ and that the name ‘ Son o f Man ’ was‘ simply a title that "His humanity was some thing

divine,

’ that i t was a spiritua l humanity that ‘He

did not become man by birth, but in some other way

that ‘He was no t man o f the substance of His mother,

but that He was -O f the substance of God, His Father

that ‘ the expression without father,without mother

,

without descent,related to our Lord as man

,and that

the genealogies both in Matthew and Luke were those

o f Jo seph, His reputed father, and not Of Mary ; so

that the Scripture has designedly cut Him o ff from

th e family of man,and from that o f Three

Letters,

” p.

I n August '

1 862 I received a letter from a minister

in England,from which I make the following extract

Allow me to express to you the great pleasure I have

had in the perusal O f your pamphlet,and my deep

conviction that you have laid the Church under great

obligation by its timely appearance . Allured by

th e appearance of their deep piety, I went among the

Plymouth Brethren ; and though I remained among

them little more than six months,I saw quite enough .

Among all the Christians I ever met, I never saw suchintolerance and bigotry—such denial o f the right of

private j udgment—and such miserable oppression,as

among this sect. From p ersona l conta ct with many o f

them,I know that the Plymouths do hold the errors

you have so well exposed, and that the real humanity

VARIATIONS O F PLYMOUTHISM. 2 x7

o f Christ,as believed in by the mass o f Christians,

is regarded by them,with horror

,as a fearful heresy.

”

I have received many important letters about my

pamphlet and the views of the Darbyite Brethren but

I consider this one peculiarly interesting and important,

from the fact that the writer speaks from personal

experience,as he was once in connection with the sect.

He knows the Opinions they really hold,but which they

are not always honest enough to divulge. If they were

thoroug hly candid it would be easy to deal with them

but their want o f fairness is truly distressing. I have

read on a considerable variety o f subj ects ; but it

h as never yet fallen to my lot to read any works

which are so thoroughly insidious and so entirely

j esuitical as the writings o f some of the Plymouth

fraternity.

The following letter will explain itself. Mr. Dormanheld an important and prominent position as o ne o f

the lead ers amongst the Plymouth Brethren for more

than a quarter of a century. His eyes have at length

been opened to “ the chamber o f horrors connected

with that most tyrannical and j esuitical sect ; and he

has had the honesty and manliness to come straight

out . His testimony is of overwhelming importanc e

be cause his character stands beyond reproach,and

also be cause he is thoroughly conversant with all the

peculiarities O f the syste m. His le tter runs thus

RE IGAT E , SURRE Y , De cemb e r 1 2 , 1 870.

“ DE AR DR . CARS O N,—I feel that I have no title to

obtrude myself upon your notice,o r to take up your

time,which has

,doubtless

,sufficient claims upon it ;

but I have j ust read your book on‘ The Plymouth

Heresies,

’ and o n this account I venture to send you

a line . In the first place,I may say that—if here and

there I do n o t exactly agree with your statements

I think so highly o f i ts force and purport that I

heartily wish your book may gain all th e atte ntion

from Ch ristians that you can desire for i t yourself.

To me i t po ssesses a melancholy interest which per

haps i t could claim from fe w besides,because it puts

its seal upon the j udgment that I h ad come to four

v e ars ago-vi z .

,that I had sp ent twenty-eight years of

most energetic labour in building up what I (now)

believe to be the worst sect in Christendom,instead o f

accomplishing the union o f all Christians apart from

sectarian distinction s,and placing all ministry under

the power and guidance o f God’s Spirit,instead of

under man’s appointment and control—which were

the sole obj ects that drove m e amongst the Plymouth

Brethren thirty- two years since . I w ill not, however,

say any more about myself,as my obj ect especially in

w riting to you was to place before you a very striking

proof that you had no t mistaken your point in so

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 2 O PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

As Mr. Dorman in early life held an influentialposition , as I am informed

,in the Christian mini

stry, and afterwards acted a consistent part as on e

of the leaders o f the Plymouths,I considered his

testimony so very important that I asked permis

sion to publish the contents o f his letter. He at

once sent me the whole correspondence in manuscript,

w ith permission to use any part o f .it I thought

proper. This correspondence,I find

,was 'carrie d

'

o n

in the year 1 867 between Messrs. Be ssant, Edmonds,Newman

,and Townsend on the one side

,and Mr.

P re ssland on the other (all Plymouths) . It was finally

referred for decision to Mr. Wigram but he returned

the documents with the'

remark,that “ the le ss said

upon these matters the better.” I t would never suit to

raise“opposition in the Darbyite sect against the heresies

which the leaders were trying to promulgate .

No passage of Scripture could more clearly establish

the Deity o f Christ ' th an that one which says,

“ Feed

the Church o f God, which He h ath purchased with

His own blood.

” According to this,Christ must have

been both God and man . If He were God and notman

,o r man and not God

,thi s passage could no t

possibly be explained . If Chris t be both God and man,

this Scripture is perfectly intelligible ; but i t could

not be true on any other principle. I f He were notGod

,His Church could not be called the Church o f

God and if He were not man,He could not purchase

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM. 2 2 1

His Church with His own blood. It was only as God

His Church was the Church o f God ; i t was only as

man He had blood . This portion o f Holy Wri t is a

tower of strength for the Divini ty of Christ . Hencethe Unitarians and Socinians have exhausted all their

inge nuity in endeavouring to overturn the common

reading of the passage, but in vain. As my father

says,

“ the present state o f the controversy,with

respect to Acts xx . 28, clearly establishes the common

reading.

” Carson’s Works,vol. ii. p . If I am

correctly informed,the Unitarians have endeavoured

to show that “ Lord,

” which they look on as an inferior

title,might be substi tu te d for God. In this, h ow

eve r, they have failed . But their failure would no t

have been so serious,if they had known that a

Darby would come to their rescue by giving matters

a new turn. Where the best Unitarian critic falters,

Darby fearlessly proceeds. He does not deign to stop

at trifle s. Indeed,if there be one thing which has

horrified me more than another with the Darbyite

sect, I might, perhaps , sav it is the wonderfully reckless

way in which they alter passages of Scripture,in the

translation,to suit their own views. They have a

facility in this respect that is truly remarkable.

Persons who inte rpret, not from their own acquaint

ance with author: who ha ve writte n in the language to be

inte rpreted, but merely on the authority of lexicons, will

b e wonderfully fertile in improvements o f the common

2 2 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

version,and in various possible interpretations of

almost every passage. Hardly anything in the

common translation pleases them ; and every new

dress that can be given to a passage,i s a discovery

o f the greatest importance. T he re can,inde e d

,be n o

rule more gen e ra l than tha t he who is p erp e tua lly me nd

ing our ve rsion,is but a tyro in criticz

’

sm.

” Carson’s

Works,vol . v . p.

I do not say our translation o f the Scriptures i s

perfect ; but i t is so wonderfully near perfection that

I would caution my readers to take care o f all sects

which are found altering the translation in portions

which they cannot otherwise manage in accordance

with their own peculiar tenets . Some people, such as

the Darbyites,find it more easy to change Scripture

than to change their own pet views. Beware o f al l

such. No doubt, our translation is incorrect in some

parts. This is a great misfortune. It is especially so

in passages where the addition of a word has altered

the meaning so far, that i t makes the passage speak

entirely different from what the Spirit intended.

Still,the errors o f our translation are really so few

,

that it amounts almost to a miracle in providence

that matte rs should be so exact as they are ; and if

the parties who are usually so clamorous fo r new

translations were allowed their will,they would

make such a pretty hand o f the Bible,that we would

no t know it to be the Word of God. [This pre

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 24 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Darby,in the most reckless manner

,and as scholars

well know,w ithout the slightest grounds

,plays into

the hand o f the Unitarian,by adding to the Word of

God what the Unitarian would not venture to add for

himself. Now,what is the cause of all this Why is

Mr. Darby so anxious about this translation ? Is it

owing to his deadly hatred to the righteousness o f

Christ ? I t' is evident if‘ he could

’

prove that the

Church o f God,in this passage

,does no t

‘ mean the

Church o f'

Christ,he would find it more easy to argue

that the righteousness o f God does not ‘ mean the right

e ousn e ss o f Christ. Is this his aim I s it so,that the‘

righteousness of Christ ‘ must be‘ undermined by ‘ some

means o r other ? Is it ‘ thought better to sacrifice an

insuperable proof for the‘ divinity '

o f Christ than ’ to

acknowledge His righteousness ? Where will Ply:

mouthism' end ? Under the pretence o f scholarship,

and the garb o f a' plausible sanctimoniousness

,it

twists,turns

,and adds to th e 'Word o f God .

“ There

is a generation that are pure in “ their o wn eyes,and

yet is not washed from their filthin e ss. Th ere is a

generation,o h h o w lofty are their eyes 1 and their eye

lids are lifted up. Wh o so e ve r '

shall exalt himself

shall be abased. If any man shall add unto these

things,God shall add unto him the plagues that are

Written in this book .

”

The Darbyites hold . som e'

ide as regarding John xii .

24, which are difficult to make out. This is the

VARIATIONS OF PLYMOUTHISM. 2 25

special doctrine of Paul,

” says Mr. Darby “ no thought

of a righteousness of law acquired by another for us.There is atonement for sin , in which we lay, which we

had committe d as in the first Adam but I repeat, no

conferring of righteousness on it,but closing its his

tory,and being before God in death

,in which He in

grace took its place,in respect o f the judgment due to

it.” The Righteousness of God

,

” p. This is a

fair sample of Mr. Darby’s style o f writing. The man

who can beat him at rendering a subject unintelligible

certainly deserves a medal. It would be an interesting

point in mental philosophy to ascertain,how a man who

is so utterly incapable could attain a position o f influ

ence in an extensive sect. The only way I can accountfo r it is

,that they think him very deep

,because they

cannot understand him. What am I to make of th e

above extract ? How did we lie in atonement ? How

did we commit atonement in Adam ? Perhaps this is

not what Mr. Darby intends. He probably means that

we lay in the sin. Well,let us try that

,and see how

it will do with the remainder o f the sentence .

“ No

conferring of righteousness on it.” How could right

e ousne ss be conferred on sin ? “ But closing i ts his

tory. When did sin close its history ? Beingbefore

God in death , in which He in grace took its place.

Did God take the place o f sin ? The word “ sin,

” then,

will not do. Le t us try th e word “ atonement again .

Ho w did we commit atonement in Adam ? How couldP

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

righteousness be conferred on atonement ? How could

God take the place of atonement ? How was judgment

due to atonement ? If any child asks me , in regard to

this riddle,Do you give it up I say

,I do. It should

be inserted in the I llustra tedN ews as a standing enigma.

Hence,proceeds Mr. Darby,

“ there was no connection

o f sinners w ith Christ under law. A corn o f wheat ,

except it fall into the ground and die,abides alone if

i t die,i t brings forth much fruit. We are united to

Christ in His new position,where He is the righteous

man , at the right hand o f God, when He has died unto

sin once,and is alive unto God. But if the corn of

wheat die alone,as come amongst the family o f the

first Adam,death is written on all that is o f Adam .

What does he mean ? Can any o f my readers tell ? I

give him up. And yet this is the man who is regarded

by his sect as the prince o f critics ; this is the man

who has the presumption to undertake a new transla

tion o f the Scriptures

A s Mr. Darby is under “ the presidency of the

Spirit ,” he must have received the gift o f writing in

an unknown tongue,and therefore I leave him and

turn to Mr. Mackintosh on the same point. I would

further remind my reader,says he

,in “ Notes on

Exodus,p. 1 3 5 ,

“ that the obedient life o f Christ i s

not set forth in Scripture as the procuring cause o f

our forgiveness. I t is by ‘His stripes ,’ not by His

obedient life,that ‘we are healed

,

’ and those stripes

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 28 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

o f Christ and His people . When fairly dealt by,the

text is as plain as possible. It demonstrates that,

w ithout dying,Christ could not take His people to

heaven ; i f He had gone there Himself, He must have

gone alone the cross was essential to the salvation o f

His people . The passage teaches that if He had not

died,He would have had no fruit but that dying He

would “ bring forth much fruit ; in other words, that i f

He died He would save multitudes,but without death

He could no t save o n e . The cross was absolutely

necessary. Th is is the plain import o f th e text ; it deals

with the fruit which is to result from Christ’s death,

namely,the accomplishment of the salvation o f His

people ; but it does not give even so much as a hint o n

the subj ect o f the union between Him and His chosen

ones. If a man had never heard of the doctrine concern

ing the union O f Christ and His people, h e could not pos

sib ly learn anything either for or against it from this

passage ; hence it is evident that the text doe s not refer

at all to the doctrine. I t does not say on e word on eith er

side of the question . I t nowhere tells us, as theDarbyites

do , that there was no union with Christ till after His

ascension to glory ; and , as a necessary consequence o f

th is,that the Christian was never crucified with Christ

,

never died with Him,was never buried with Him

,

never rose with Him,and never ascended wi th Him to

glory. I t contains no such dreadful Darbyite senti

ments. It just demonstrates that the cross was essen

MORALITY OF PLYMOUTHISM. 2 29

tial to the salvation of His people and that if He had

gone to heaven without it,He must have gone alone

,

a s,under these circumstances

,He could no t take His

people with Him. But i t does not follow from this

that His life was useless no r yet that the obedience

of His life was no t in the room of His people. The

text does not say one word on that subject. Mr. Mack

intosh’s argument is founded on th e supposition that

his opponents are foolish enough to imagine that the

h alf of Christ’s work was as good as the whole ; that

His life would take sinners to heaven without His

death . They hold no such principles. Their system

is a consistent whole. They maintain that everything

which Christ did was essential. He did nothing in

vain . His pe ople are so united to Him that they are

one with Him in the obedience of,His life

,in His death

,

in His burial,in His resurrection

, and in His ascension

into glory. Fo r them He lived,for them He died

,for

them He rose again. They did not help Him to obey,

they did not h e lp'

Him to die,they did not help Him

to rise from the grave . But as they are one with Him,

they are united to Him in life,death , burial, re surre c

tion,ascension, and glorification.

MORALITY OF PLYMO UTHISM.

T HE effects of denying the moral law as a rule of life

are well exemplified in the recklessness of the state

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

ments which are made by the Darbyite Plymouths.

Let us take a few examples by way o f illustration.

When the statement as to the Jersey meeting was

being read at East Street,says Mr. Eland

,

‘

“ Mr . M or

rish'

state d that it was not accepted as authentic ; and

that ‘ the stateme nt ’ was so barefaced and unfair that

Mr. Stewart’s own friends would not hear of its being

printed . He said Mr. Wigram was the friend he

particularly alluded to and he promised (when called

to account) to write to Mr. Wigram for confirmation o r

otherwise o f the statement,and to show Mr. Wigram

’s

reply. On receiving Mr. Wigram’s letter, Mr. Morrish

refused to fulfil his promise,and publicly retracted his

statement.” Statement o f Facts,” This plan

o f stating things which are without foundation,and

then retracting them when called to account,is exceed

ingly convenient.

On the 22d o f May 1 862 I wrote to the Coleraine

Chronicle as follows “ I was no little surprised at

receiving a letter from a minister in Queen’s County

,

informing me that a lady has been counteracting the

effects o f my letters by belying my character. The

following is the re ply . which I sent to the minister.‘ I am sorry to hear that th e lady you refer to at

Mount Mellick should be trying to counteract the

effects o f my letters by stating that I had belonged

to Mr. Mackintosh’s party and had been cut o ff,and

that I was writing my letters through spleen at the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 3 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

In reply,he says

,

“ I ne ver had the honour,or the

dishonour,as it might be variously esteemed

,o f b eing

cut O ff by the Brethren in Coleraine, or in Dublin,o r

anywhe re e lse .” This placed the Coleraine apostle

in an awkward predicament,—a predicament from which

all his “ inspiration has failed to release him.

“ There is a difficulty,says Dr. T re ge lle s, which

has deterred some from setting forth true doctrine,in

opposition to Bre thre nite teaching it is the unscrupu

lous (and at times successful) manner in which they

asperse any on e who firmly does this. To meet

open attack is comparatively easy ; but it is often im

possible to meet secret slander ; and this i t is which

does the worst mischief. How can I repel the quiet

whisper o f some one wh o,in the semblance o f holi

ness,insinuates that I maintain something very e vil

especially if he says that i t is too evil to be stated ?

No man o f honour has a fair chance with such parties

as are here referred to. I t is on e of the sp e cia l ma rks

o f the Darbyite Plymouths, that, if they are unable to

meet a man fairly and openly, they will whisper about

any amount o f falsehoods for the sake of accomplishing

their purposes. Their underhand misrepresentations

regarding personal character,combined with the j esu ~

itical way in which they couch their sentiments in

language which they interpret after a manner pe culiar

to themselves,enable them to “ deceive the very

elect.” This will be enough,continues Dr. T re ge lle s,

M O RAL I'

I‘

Y or PLYMOUTHISM. 233

“ to satisfy straightforward pe rsons as to Mr. Darby’s

want of reliability. Mr. Darby denied that the

word ‘ with ’ is found in the sentence but this was

merely one of his groundless assertions : that the

word is there all others can see. Do Mr. Darby’s

followers defini tely,and without reserve, condemn

these false sta tements ? and do they own that his

assertions on other subjects are habitually as unworthy

of credit ? L e tte rs”

)Mr. Ryan wrote a pamphlet in the form of a dialogue ,

in which he took special exception to certain Opinions

which were published by Mr. Darby in “ The Bible

Treasury,&c.

, &c . In place of writing a formal

reply to Mr. Ryan, Mr. Darby reprinted , as he said,the articles complained of

,in order that his readers

might judge of the correctness of the charges brought

against him. In the preface to this reprint,Mr.

Darby says : Recently an attack has been made on

the doctrine contained in them,and in other articles

,

to which I will just now refer. The reader will

find them here exactly as they were originally pub

lish e d . My only path was to publish all exactly

as i t had already appeared . Whatever they are,

you have them here,my re ader

,j ust as they were.

Could anything in the world be fairer than this ?

Nothing. There is no fairer or more reliable andsuccessful way of mee ting a charge

,if it b e false

,than

that O f reprinting every word upon which the charge

234 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

i s founded. What,then

,does the course adopted by

Mr. Darby want ? It wants nothing imaginable,it

appears,excep t truthfulness ; that, however, should

be a mere trifle with those who repudiate the morallaw as a rule o f life . Can the reader believe

,says

Mr. Ryan,in the third edition o f his pamphlet

,

“ that,

in the face o f all this boasted exactness,one entire

article is suppressed—that article in ‘ The Bible

Treasury ’ containing the famous passage where our

Lord i s described at the close o f His life,and in

Gethsemane,as going through the experiences o f

unconverted Jews with the full letting loose o f the

power of Satan upon them,

’ and,in consequence

,the

w rath of God staring Him in the face.’ I t is neither

fair n o r right to suppress the entire article,and at the

same time tell his readers he has given them a ll exa ctly

as they appeared .

” I have read Mr. Darby’s reply to

this charge,and I must say a more contemptible piece

o f shuffling I never beheld . He cannot deny that the

article which was omitted consisted o f the notes of

his own lecture ; he cannot deny that he h ad an

opportunity o f looking over it for the press ; he has

to admit that he knows it i s his o wn he cannot deny

that this very article,which contained most obnoxious

sentiments,was omitted completely in the reprint.

Why,then

,did he affirm three times over that he had

reprinted all exactly as they originally appeared Why

did he find it convenient to leave out the o ne which

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

were obliged to act [man acting I have no

doubt whatever,in my own mind

,

” he continues,

“ that Satan [under the presidency o f the Spirit

has a very large place in the whole thing. When

will the doctrine which assigns superiority to Satan

under the presidency o f the Holy Spirit come to an

end ? Can any person imagine that these men truly

believe in their o wn statements ? I have it on excellent

authority that Mr. Be lle tt,of Dublin , had a good plan

o f managing the Spirit,if I may use such an expression.

When any of the members addressed the meeting,Mr.

Be lle tt frequently made a habit of keeping silence for

that day. This, however, did not please the audience ,

as they preferred to hear Mr. Be lle tt. What,then

,was

to be done ? A very effectual method was adopted.

The ladies o f the assembly gave a go od’

tongue-thrash

ing to the unfortunate ghost who presumed to edi fy

them. This, o f course,had the desired effect. But

there could be no greater specimen of genuine hypocrisy

than for the parties who act thus to say,as they do

,

that they are under “ the sovereign guidance o f the

Holy Ghost or as Mr. Darby put it,

“ It is a mani

fe station of th e Spirit in the individual who acts ; it

i s a gift,and, if you please, an impulse ; i t is God

acting. According to this,God is acting through the

man who speaks,and

'

the Holy Spirit is presiding over

the ladies who are forming the determination to sto p

the action of God in the man

MORALITY or PLYMOUTHISM . 23 7

Dr. T re ge lle s informs us th at“ there have emanated

from Dublin professed extracts from the writings o f

the Reformers,and others

,in which the liberty has

been taken of altering their words and doctrines,so as

to suit the taste and theology of the reviser. There i s

no intimation given of such changes having been

made ; all appe ars under some known and venerable

name ; so that the doctrines are ascribed to some

ancient writer,which really are those o f some modern

Bre thre nite . I am informed that such tracts have

been circulate d by thousands. When I remon

strate d against such use having been mad e o f the

names o f Reformers,I was told that i t had been done

‘ fo r the honour of God.

’ Five Letters,

” p.

Verily,it would never do fo r such parties to accept

the moral law as the rule of their life .

In his sermon o f 29th January 1 865 , Mr. Spurgeon

charged the Plymouths with holding that it was wrong

for the Christian to make a confession of sin. No

sooner did this appear in print that the Plymouths

came down upon him for misrepresenting their views.

The conse quence was,tha t Mr. Spurgeon shortly

afterwards publ ished th e'

fo llowing In a former

sermon,while denouncing the error of the ‘ noncon

fe ssion o f sin by believers,

’ we w rongly imputed

tha t gross heresy to the Plymouth Brethren . We

have since learned that the persons to whom we

alluded have be en expe lle d from that body,and we

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

therefore desire to e xonerate the community from a

fault o f which th ey a re not guilty. We are sorry to

have made this charge, as it is far from our wish to

speak evil o f any ; but w e were not aware o f th e

Mr. Spurgeon hereexpulsion o f th e guilty persons.’

acts the part o f a straightforward,honourable man

,as

h e always does,and confesses the mistake he had

fallen into ; but do his Opponents act in th e same

straightforward manner towards him ? By no means.

He has so many things to attend to that it is impo s

sible for him to become thoroughly acquainted with

all the peculiari ties of a J e suitical sect like the

Darbyites,and therefore they took advantage o f his

innocence. He was indeed wrong in stating that they

did not confess sin. I know’

o f no parties who are so

constantly confessing as they. This is quite a p e cu

liarity o f their sect. They seem to be very regardless

of what they say,but they try to make up for their

want o f truthfulness by their confessions to each other.

The cry, Confess, confess, confess, is hardly ever out

o f their mouth . They are at no loss upon this point

and therefore they are quite right in drawing Mr.

Spurgeon’s attention to his mistake. Did they deal

fairly with him , however, in this matter ? They did

not . They put him right,in part

,regarding the confe s

sion,but they omitted the other end of the sentence.

They told a part o f the truth,but they did not tell the

whole truth. They said they would confess, but they

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

240 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

informing him that he had sent his note and Mr.

Darby’s pamphlet to me,because he thought I was

being dishonourably dealt with. I found by Mr.

Paget’s note that he requested my friend “ to re turn

a t once” the copy of Mr. Darby’s pamphlet

,which he

had sent him,as h e had discovered that “ it was not

actually for sale yet.” “ If you return it to me,” h e

continues,you shall have two other copies in about

a week o r so,o n e for yourself

,the other for Dr.

Carson,and then it will be Open, o f course

,fo r the

sharpest criticism that can be applied to it.” My

friend very properly thought the transaction an

extraordinary one,and therefore he told Mr. Paget he

had placed the whole affair in my hands. It w as

evident the Jesuits were once more at work ; but I

could not then divine the exact nature of the trick.

I could not discover the reason for so much secrecy

about a pamphlet which I found,on examination

,was

a ctua lly printed a t T oronto in Canada . It was plain,

however,that there must be some very special reason

for the great anxiety shown to get back that American

co py, in order th at it might be replaced in a week or

so by others,which would be open to the sharpest

criti cism. I t struck me that there must be two

editions—one specially suited for the Plymouthites,

and one for the public.

In the Toronto,printed edition

,Mr. Darby opens

the battle against me with’

the following remarks

MORALITY OF PLYMOUTHISM. 24 1

“ The reader may judge o f the kind of thing it (Dr.

Carson’s pamphlet] i s by learning that while the first

page assures us i t is the first five thousand,the last,

the very same side of the same sheet, assures us that

the first five thousand are all sold ! It is painful to

have to do with such adversaries . If Mr. Darby

means to assert that the statements on the first and

last pages of the cover are necessarily contradictory to

each other,he asserts a thing which he must know to

be false. He canno t be so stupid as to confound sa le

with de live ry. Be this as it may,he here most

emphatically charges me that my pamphlet bears

a lie on its cover. I cannot allow this to pass without

due attention . My letters were first published in the

Cole raine Chronicle . They excited so much interest

that I announced in the Chronicle that I was going

to publish them in a pamphlet at a particular price .

The orders for copies came showering in to me at such

a rate,that before the pamphlet had time to be

entirely printed , I had actually sold five thousand

copies, and had given orders to the printe r to pull

o ff five thousand more. There was not a single copy

of the first five thousand unsold at the time its cover

was printed,so that the statement on the cover

,that

i t was the first five thousand,and that the first five

thousand was sold before the cover was printed,is

absolutely, lite rally, and, in every sense of the word,true. I therefore fling b ack Mr. Darby’s base ins inua

Q

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

tion. I beg to inform him that I am no Darbyite ,

that I do not deny the moral law as the rule o f my life.

I have not yet adopted the religion which permits a

man to tell as many falsehoods as will answer his pur

pose,provided only he makes a sufficiently abj ect con

fession to his fellow-mortals,and that

,too

,without asking

forgiveness from the Almighty.

In the course o f a short time,I discovered that my

surmise about there being two editions o f Mr. Darby’s

pamphlet was quite correct. I have got them both .

The one was printed in Canada,and the other in

England. In the Canadian copy,Mr. Darby has

attempted to overturn my moral character, by making

a statement,containing an insinuation which I have

proved to be utterly false. Of course,if he could

satisfy his miserable dupes that I was a liar, he would

go very far towards removing any impressions which

my pamphlet might have made upon them . But

inasmuch as his false insinuations would recoil with

double force on his own head,if by any chance they

came under my eye,it was found necessary to print

another edition,in which the accusation against me is

omitted. In all probability, I would never have

known anything about the publication o f this state

ment against my moral character,and would never

have had an opportunity of proving its falsehood , i f it

had no t been for the mistake made by Mr. Catesby

Pag et in sending a copy of the Plymouthite edition to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 44 PLYMOUTH HERES IE S .

ments,they follow th e example of the lady at Mount

Mellick,and try to destroy their e fle e t by undermining

my ch aracter by a false statement,which

,only for the

hand of Providen ce,would never have r e ached my eyes.

Since I exposed this Plymouthite trick,Mr. Darby

and Mr. Paget have both found it necessary to return

to the point. We shall n ow see how far they have

improved their posi tion. In his pamphlet on “ Right

e ousn e ss and Law,

” Mr Darby says,I am quite willing

to accept Dr. Carson’s explanation of the c ontradic

tion on the cover o f his tract. What does the man

mean ? How could he accept any explanation o f a

contradiction ? Ho w could a contradiction ever b e

come true ? Perhaps with Plymouth s it might ; but

it could not with any sensible man in the world. Mr.

Darby must know,as well as he is allve

,that h e is

making a false statement,when he says the cover con

tains a contradiction . If he thought it contained a con

tradiction how could h e “ accept o f Dr. Carson’s e xpla

nation ? The acceptan ce o f the explanation proves

that he does not believe in his own statement. Whatis the advertisement on the cover with which Mr.

Darby finds fault ? A Plymouthite lady sent me,

long since,a copy o f the pamphlet

,with all h e r

obj ections written on the margin o f the leaves. I

did not place much value on her criticisms, but I

was glad to get hold of the advertisement on the

cover. Here it i s The first five thousand of this

MORALITY OF PLYMOUTHI S M . 245

pamphlet have been already sold but .copies o f the

second five thousand may be had from the author.

Where is the contradiction here ? Nowhere. As a

matter of course,the cover o f the pamphlet

,contain

ing the title on the first page,and the advertisement

on the last page,was printed after the rest o f the

work. Where,then

,was the contradiction in stating

on this cover that it was the first five thousand,and

th at all the copies contained in it were already sold

but the second five thousand could be had from th e

author ? Nowhere. It was every word true . There

was not one single copy o f that edition unsold at the

time that was printed. Hence there is no contra

diction no untruth . I t is impossible, by the utmost

stretch of charity,to suppose that Mr. Darby could be

ignorant on this point. An inhabitant o f the land o f

Tob might perhaps make a mistake here ; but a man

like Mr. Darby, who is accustomed to the public press,

c ould not. Mr. Darby knows right well that there are

plenty of books subscribed fo r by the trade , or the

public,and consequently sold before o ne line o f them

is printe d . Nay, more, he knows that in almost every

business transaction the sale precedes the delivery.

Suppose a man goe s to the Encumbered Estates Court,

in Dublin,and sells an estate under the auctioneer’s

hammer. On his return,he meets Mr. Darby

,and tells

h im that he has sold his esta te Mr. Darby asks if he

h as yet given possession ; the man says, NO , he has

P L Y M O UTH HERES IES .

only just sold. Mr. Darby at once, in the most polite

mann er,informs him that he is a liar

,because there

is nothing sold until after it i s delivered ! What

would be thought o f this ? And yet this is the sort

o f unprincipled bosh which I am called upon to meet.

I t is utterly impossible,by any amount o f charity

,to

suppose that Mr. Darby is so ignorant as to confound

sale with delivery. He is not so stupid as that would

come to,and therefore he cannot get credit for having

made his statement through ignorance ; i t must have

been intentional and diabolically malic ious.“ But

,continues Mr. Darby

,I still think it was a

glaring contradiction to sell a tract which positively

declared that it was one o f the first five thousand,

then and there sold,and to state on the back of th e

same cover,that that first five thousand were all.

sold already. Mr. Darby must know that the in

sinuation contained in this sentence is not true,

because he knows he did not buy the tract from

me . If he bought the tract from a person wh o

previously bought it from me,there is n o contradic

tion whatever on my part. Again,Mr. Darby might

sell that same tract to another,and it might be sold

five hundred times over,and yet the statement o n

the cover would be perfectly true. Nay,more

,if

th e printer, o r binder, had , by any mischance , mixed a

fe w copies O f the two parcels,as they passed th rough

his hands,so as to h ave the one delivered in mistake

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

mouth s. There is nothing remarkable in the fac t

that a Copy o f th e firs t five thousand was purchased

for Mr . Darby. I have no doubt he might have pur

ch ased hundreds oi them . I t is possib le th at even

now he could find some copies for sale. Some Of th e

ministers who purchased from me circulated their

copies gratuitously ; some sold them amongst their

people some put them into the hands of booksellers

and on e commercial traveller,who afterwards became

a m inister,bought on e thousand copies

,with the

view,as I have since ascertained

,o f having the greate r

part o f th em sold by the booksellers in th e different

town s which he visited throughout I reland . Under

these circumstances,Mr. Darby m ight have purchased

hundreds o f them but that would not in the slightest

degree affe ct the truth o f the advertisement on the

cover of the pamphlet. I t is quite impossible for Mr.

Darby,o r any other man

,to shake the truth o f it.

Mr. Darby says the obnoxious passage was struck

out o f the English edition o f his pamphlet,w ithout

his knowledge,by a friend o f his own , and at th e

suggestion o f th e publi sher.'

This might have cleared

M r. Darby o f th e trick,i f he had been manly enough

to have made an ample apology for the whole affa ir ;

but,inasmuch as he had not suflicie nt honour to

enable him to do so,he must still be held responsible .

Besides,under any circumstances

,the trick must still

lie at the door o f his Pl ymouthite friends. It is still

MORALITY OF PLYM OUTH I S M . 249

amongst the Plymouths,and is just like them . They

like to give a stab in the dark,and to keep it dark .

In regard to what his friend has done,Mr. Darby says

,

He struck his pen through the passage,j udging

,I

suppose,th e point referred to beneath notice.” Now

,

I solemnly ask Mr. Darby,does he really believe he is

here stating the tr uth ? does he really suppose , as he

says,that his friend struck it out bec ause he judged

i t a point unworthy o f notice ? Could any man

imagine Mr. Darby believes he is here stating the

truth Could any argument more powerful for

putting me to the wall be produced,than the fact

,

i f such a fact existed,that I had placed an intentional

falsehood o n the cover o f my pamphlet ? None. If

I had been guilty of such conduct,my reputation was

not worth a farthing. Hence it is impossible to

suppose Mr. Darb v . believes in his own statement,

when he says he thinks the passage was struck out

because i t was judged to be unworthy o f notice . If

Mr. Darby had been endowed with sufficiently high

and honourable principles to have enabled him to

publish an ample apology fo r the whole affair,he

would to a great extent have redeemed his position ;

but in place o f thi s,he hardly goe s the length of fully

accepting my explanation. If he imagines I care o ne

straw whether h e acce pts i t or not,he is wofully mis

taken . I ask no favour o f him o r any one else. I

dare him to attempt to overthrow my explanation.

2 50 PLYMOUTH HERES I E S .

This is entirely beyond his power. I t is true in every

letter,and will be accepted as such by every honest

man who reads it. I have no idea o f taking his accept

ance of it as a compliment ; I demand it as a right ;

and if he h ad been possessed of the refined feelings o f

a gentleman,he would have retraced his steps by a

most ample apology. A compliment

,indeed

,for Mr.

Darby to accept an explanation which he and all the

P lymouths in the world could not overturn ! But

to crown all,Mr. Darby now says,

“ There is no

statement that Dr. Carson told an untruth .

” In all

the world,where does th i s man mean to end ! I n

his first pamphlet he says,

“ The reader may judge

of the kind o f thing it (Dr. Carson’s pamphlet) is , by

learning that,while the first page assures us it is the

first five thousand,the last

,the very same side of the

same sheet,assures us that the first five thousand

are all sold It is painful to have to do with suchNow

,it would be impossible to imagineadversaries.’

any language which could more directly insinuate that

Dr. Carson was a liar, and therefore it was painful to

have to deal with him as an adversary on religious

questions. This point could not be made plainer .

But the moment Mr. Darby reads my answer,and

finds that his accusation is totally and utterly false,

in place o f apologising like a man of honour and prin

ciple , he turns round and denies that h e ever stated

I had told an un truth . This is truly Darby all the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 5 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

a gainst yourself. I have before me the ‘otlie r

’ copy

which I should have sent you, had Mr

to return me the on e I asked for, and you would see

been able

in that the original charge against you,a fe w corre c

t ions of the press in ink,and three lines o f new print

p asted over a short sentence needing correction . The

new edition,to which you refer

,I had never seen

,nor

did I know o f its existence till I read your pamphlet.

Whether it has superseded the first edition I know

not,but thi s I do know

,that it would have been a

copy o f the origina l edition , corrected as I have j ust

described,o f which a copy would have been sent you.

Can you not imagine the possibility o f an edition

b eing printed,and a few copies sold in the ordinary

way,and then

,be cause i t was only a few copies that

h ad got into circulation,a desire being felt to stop the

sale for a week in order to make a small alteration ?

I know that I have done the same with regard to a

c ontroversial tract,and did not think I was doing

anything particularly dishonourable nor j esuitical

th ereby.

” As I have no wish to place Mr. Paget in

a false position,I have thus allowed him to spe ak

for himself,and make his own explanation. I am

anxious,as far as possible

,to release him from the

cha rge ; but the only way in which I can see it po s

sible to do so,i s to suppose that he has become the

innocent dupe o f others . Although I am anxious

to believe what he so posi tively declares,there are

MORALITY OF PLYMOUTHISM. 2 5 3

some things which I cannot accept. He asks me if I

could not imagine an edition being printed,

and,

be cause only a few copie s were sold , th e sale might b e

stopped for a week o r so to make some alterations.

Well,I could imagine this to occur honestly and

fairly,but I could not possibly imagine i t in this

particular case,j ust because it is utterly inconsistent

with facts. I t must not be forgotten that the copy

o f the pamphlet which Mr. Paget sent to my friend in

Scotland was printed a t T oronto,in Canada unde r M r.

Da rby’

s own eye ; and that Mr. Darby says,in reference

to that edition,that i t “ sold la rge ly to all kinds o f

people there,while a number were sent to England .

Hence Mr. Paget’s explanation cannot apply to th e

case at all. T h e explanation of its being w ithdrawn

for correction,because only a fe w copies had got into

c irculation,cannot be accepted in regard to a pamphlet

which M r. Darby says was printed unde r his own eye in

Canada,and sold largely to various people there

,

whilst a number of them also were sent to England.

Neither can I reconcile the letter Mr. Paget wrote to

me w ith the one he wrote to my friend . In his letter

to me,he says that the “ other copy

,which he would

have sent me if my friend had returned him the first,

would not have been the new edition with the oh

noxious se ntence left out,but the o rigina l, Canadian

printe d edition,with a few corrections in ink

,and a

printe d patch on a sentence re quiring correction.

2 54 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

This,however

,is difficult to reconcile with his letter

to my friend,in which

,after requesting the copy to

be returned,he says

,

“ I was not aware when I got it

that it i s not actually for sa le yet. How could he

say this o f the edition which Mr. Darby informs us

was printed under his own eye in Canada,and had

met an extensive sale On what principle could it be

said in reference to a work which,perhaps

,was nearly

all sold out,that i t was not ready for sale yet ? I

cannot see the way to recon cile Mr. Paget’s own

statements with each other ; nevertheless, I am dis

posed to think that h e!

h as been taken in by those

parties who informed him that the Canadian edition“ i s n o t actually for sale yet

,

” although it was then,to

a large extent,disposed o f. I imagine h e has become

the dupe o f others without being aware o f the exact

nature Of their tricks.

In his reply to Mr. Trench,Mr. Darby says I turn

to his obj ections. The first is very simple. He was

told o f Brethren that any person in the apparel o f a

man could speak . Any sensible person can see this i s

simply maintaining the scriptural rule .” Mr. Darby

admits that if he i s only in the apparel of a man,the

Scripture authorises him to speak. Mr. D . may believe

this i f he lik es but does he honestly believe it ? The

remainder o f the paragraph from which I have quoted

proves he does no t.“ It is left free

,

” says he,

“ in

meetings which are not preach ings no r lectures, b ut

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

me to have made the charge I did against Mr. Mackin

tosh,because it was a “ fOul falsehood .

” How am I

to prove that Mr. Darby knew he was here making a

false statement ? Just out o f his own mouth . I n his

Righteousness and Law,

” he says,

“ Mr. Mackintosh

did overstep the bounds of Scripture statement . He

used language Open to attack,and I have no doubt his

mind,in opposing on e extreme

,had gone into the

opposite . Subsequently he published a declara

tion that he had made a wrong statement,and that

i t was to be condemned wherever it might be found .

I have no doubt his mind had overstepped the bounds

o f Scripture . There was a :root o f unscriptural

thought in his mind. I hold i t a great mercy that

i t was brought out to light. The true humanity o f

Christ is a fundamental truth,and His person and

salvation are given up if i t be touched . Mr.

Mackintosh is,of course

,bound in the Lord to do all

needed to remove any evil flowing from his words.

What think you of this,reader ? Can you believe

your eyes ? Is this not a most distressing case ?

C an any man who acts thus have the slightest pre

tensions to Christianity The commonest man who

walks the streets of London would hardly disgrace

himself by such conduct. Mr. Darby here states tha t

Mr. Mackintosh overstepped the .bounds of Scripture

used language Open to atta ck allowed his mind to gofrom one extreme o n th e humanity o f Christ to th e

M R. M AORINT O SH’

S RECANTATION. 2 5 7

opposite extreme ; had a root of unscriptural thought

in his mind,which was mercifully brought to light,

and'

the evil flowing from which he was bound to

remove ; and after all—wonderful to relate —h easserts

,in his letter to the Canadia n O bse rver (which ,

of course,he would not expect me to see), that my

accusation against Mr. Mackintosh on these points is

a “ foul false hood.

” We here see that,j udged out of

his own mouth,it would be difficult to get any man

so utterly regardless o f truth. He does well to

reject the moral law as the rule o f his life. Such is

the morality Of Darbyite Plymouthism

MR. MACKINTOSH’S RECANTATION.

I FE E L it due to God,to His Church , and to my ownconsc ience

,to acknowledge that I made a wrong state

ment in the first edition o f my Notes on Leviticus ,

p. 3 5 , in the following passage The second Man

was,as to His manh ood

,the Lord from heaven.

’ This

mistake,to gether with the serious inference deducible

from it,was pointed out to me by a dear and venerable

servant of Christ,who requested me to reconsider th e

passage, and correct it in the second edition. I did

correct the mistake,and added a note

,not to guard

error,but to guard the truth . But this, I feel , was

not enough. I ought to have confe sse d the mistake ,and should have done so in the preface to the se cond

R

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

edition,had I been sufficiently self-emptied and . care

less o f my reputation as a writer. I do reverently

believe that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ was ‘made

o f th e seed o f David , according to the flesh —that Hewas truly o f the substance o f the Virgin flesh and

blood,

’ as really a man as I am,in every respect

,sin

excepted . The reader will find this grand foundation

truth o f Christianity distinctly laid down in various

passages o f the first edition (see pp. 36, I never

meant to teach any other doctrine,and i f any expres

sion ever dropped from my lips,o r from my pen

,

which might seem to touch the precious,holy

,and

essential mystery o f incarnation,I would utterly re

pudiate it.

0. H . M ACKINT O SH .

47 M OUNTJOY STRE E T , DUBL IN,July

The more I examine this document,the more I am

surprised. Mr. Mackintosh is greatly mistaken if he

imagines he has improved his position by it. O n the

contrary,it makes him tenfold worse than at first .

He says,

“ I do reverently believe that our blessed

Lord Jesus Christ was as really a man as I am,

in every respect,sin e xcepted. I n ever meant to

7tea ch any o the r doctrine .

’ If Mr. Mackintosh imagines

his readers are going to accept of this statement,h e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

z oo PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

Mr. Mackintosh’s language without knowing what sen

time nts they were expressing “

2 Could they tell us the

devil was leading the professing Church astray on thehumanity o f Christ, and then slip in the words,

“ As to

His manhood,

” He was the Lord from heaven,without

having any design in it ? If they did so without being

aware o f what they were doing,would they not have

the fear of Bedlam before their eyes ? If they were

anxious to teach the doctrine o f the proper humanity

o f Christ,would they ever attempt to do so by saying

,

As to His manhood,He was the Lord from heaven

And yet Mr. Mackintosh wishes us to believe that he

neve r me ant to teach anything else than the real man

hood o f Christ by the expression As to His manhood,

He was the Lord from heaven. Those who think pro

per may believe this. I cannot.

I f Mr. Mackintosh’s statement, that he never meant

to teach any other doctrine than the real humanity o f

Christ,be correct

,h ow did he call Him a “ divine

man,a “ heavenly man ? ” How did he say He had

“ a heavenly humanity, and was conceived by the

Holy Ghost,when the Scripture expressly informs us

He was conceived by Mary ? How did he say,

“ Be

tween humanity, as seen in the Lord Jesus Christ, and

humanity,as seen in us

,the re could be no union.

The spiritual and the carnal—the he avenly and theearthly—could never combine ? How did he say that‘FDivine power was about to form a real man, the

M R. macxmro sa ’s RECANTATION. 26 1

Lord from h e ave n l How did he say that Chris t was

a heavenly stranger—e ntire ly heavenly ? ” On what

grounds did he say that Satan was leading the pro

fessing Church astray o n Christ’s humanity ? Why

did he tell us that “ 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 2” No sane man could

possibly come to any other conclusion than that Mr.

Mackintosh really believed Christ was,

“as to His

ma nho od,the Lord from heaven.

In order to te st Mr. Mackintosh’s present opinions,I

once more “ demand an explicit answer , yes or no,without any evasion

,or ‘ guarding

,

’ to the following

questions -Does he now de ny that Christ,‘ as to His

manhood,was the Lord from heaven ? ’ Does he

now deny that Christ had a‘ heavenly humanity ? ’

Does he now b elie ve that Christ appeared in our

humanity 7 Does he now be lieve that Christ was made

under the law ? Will he positively declare that his

opinions regarding the humanity o f Christ are pre

cise ly the same as those which are held by the E sta

b lish e d Church , the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the

Baptists, the Independents , and the Covenanters ?

I put these questions in a previous edition but Mr.

M. has not found it convenient to answer them . He

knows, as well as he is alive , that his views are not

the same as those which are held by the Christians I

262 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

have mentioned. He knows he has.

charged the pro

fessing Christian Church with being led astray by

Satan on the humanity of Christ. How,then

,can we

believe that he never meant to teach any other doc

trine than the proper and real humanity o f Christ,as

held by the professing Christian Church ? Impossible,

utterly impossible

Let us now take a peep at Mr. Mackintosh’s confe s

sio n,or re can tation

,~from another point of v iew; Let

us take it for granted he really sees now that he was

astray,in almost every word

,on the humanity o f

Christ,contained in his various works —that he does

not now believe that Christ,as to His manhood , was

th e Lor d from heaven , was a divine man, a heavenly

man,o r had a heavenly humanity—in short

,that his

confession is . to be understood in the ordinary and

legitimate meaning o f the words it contains,and that

his opinions are n o w exactly the same as those held by

the different Christian Churches—and what is the con

sequence ? Simply this . He must now believe that

his books and pamphlets contain a complete denial o f

the Christ o f Scripture,the Saviour of sinners. The

Ch rist described by the Unita rian has no power to

save any o n e,because h e is not truly God ; the Christ

described b y Mr. Mackin tosh could not make atone ~

ment for any man, because he had no real humanity .

The works of the one deny the proper Godhead o f

Christ ; the works o f the other deny the proper

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

returned w ithout being seen by any one else ? How

does it come that tracts against the righteousness o f

Christ can be circulated like hail in a shower,whilst

Mr. Mackintosh’s confession is hid ? Under such cir

cumstance s,could any man believe that Mr. Mackintosh

really holds th e true and proper humanity o f Christ ?

If he does,his credulity has banished his sense.

But M r. Mackintosh says that at the request o f a

dear and venerable servant o f Christ he corrected his

error in the second edition o f his book . As this point

has been fully handled in an early portion o f this work,

I will not return to it. A perusal o f the remarks I

have already made will show at a glance that Mr. M.

guarded ” his views from the observation o f a care

less reader,but never either corrected o r expunged

them . I have specially to request that my readerswill turn back to

,and carefully examine

,pp. 1 7 to 29,

as I do not wish to recapitulate their contents in this

section.

“ I ought to have confessed the mistake,

” says Mr.

Mackintosh,

“and should have done so in the preface

to th e second edition,had I been sufficiently self

emptied and careless o f my reputation as a writer.’

Just think o f this In his writings he has attempted

to overturn the doctrine of the proper humanity o f

Christ,and consequently has denied the Saviour o f

sinners ; and when his attention is called to the

matter,he cannot bring himse lf . to a confession of

M R. DARBr’

s REPLI ES . 265

guilt on account o f the self-conceit which arises from

his authorship His own reputation is of more im

portance than the honour o f Christ ! WonderfulWonderful Wonderful Besides

,he never

attempted to confess till he found that his heretical

opinions were fully expo sed to the view of the Chris

tian publi c by my pamphlet Who thanks him for i t

then No one but his own dupes.

MR. DARBY’S REPLIES.

IN his pamphlets called “

Brethren and their Reviewers and “ Righteousness and Law

,

” Mr. Darby

refers to Mr. Ryan,Mr. Co x, The Journal of P rophe cy,

T he Christian E xamine r, the L ondon Re cord,Mr. Trench ,

and Dr. (Carson . I shall reply to my own part,and

leave th e others to look afte r themselves.“ The reader will j udge

,observes Mr. Darby ,

“ whether these statements as to Christ,defended by

j ournals and theological names,ought to be denounced

o r not. Will Mr. D . inform us h ow name s could

defend statements ? He could hardly write one page

with accuracy. And yet this is the man who is looked

up to as the head of his se ct, and who feels it ne c e s

sa ry to come forth as the champion for Mr. Mackintosh,

in place of trusting Mr. Mackin tosh to speak for him

se lf. Poor Mackintosh will be permitte d to wri te

2 66 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

some soft-sounding twaddle but when it comes to a

higher branch,such as criticism

,he must stand aside

,

and allow Darby to come forth

Miss Adelaide Newton,who is

,I trust

,now in

heaven,says Mr. Darby,

“ but the character o f whose

piety on earth has been,I j udge

,most falsely esti

mated . As I once read the l ife o f Miss AdelaideNewton

,I feel thoroughly indignant at these barbarous

observations. Mr. Darby,in the well-known grossness

o f his nature, may foster a powerful antipathy to the

name o f Newton,and may hint his doubts (when a

Plymouth only “ trusts,” he more than doubts) about

the piety and eternal safqty o f Miss Adelaide Newton,

but I am convinced he is the only person who has

read her life that does not feel ce rtain she is now in

glory. I envy n ot the mental condition of the man

who could pen Mr. Darby’s most revolting observations.

Verily his censure is the greatest praise .

M r. Mackintosh,

” remarks Mr. Darby,“ did over

step the bounds o f Scripture statement. He used

language open to attack and I have no doub t his

mind,in Opposing one extreme, had gone into the

opposite. He laid himself open to the attack that

was made against him by language which,i f it might

be defended,at any rate gave occasion to those wh o

sought occasion . The charge against him was um

founded and unrighteous. Had he held the doc

trines imputed to him,I for one should have obj ected to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERE S IES .

pretend that you are sufficiently stupid to misunde r

stand the following statements O u the seventh page o f

th e first edition o f my pamphlet—“ I never charged

Mr. Mackintosh with denying that Christ was born o f

the Virgin,was composed o f flesh and blood

,and had

a human body ; but I did charge him,that he calls

th i s 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,i f this human body was truly

God, although it was born of the Virgin , it was not

made o f her substance . This i s my charge .

Will

you acknowledge,Mr. Darby, that you misunderstood

that ? If you do,I will forgive your misre pre se nta

tion o f my views,as I would no t then ho ld you as a

responsible being. But i f you did not misunderstand

me,on what principle do you feel called o n to mis

represent me

But I think,

” observes Mr. Darby,Mr. Mackin

tosh’s expression obj ectionable The second Man was,

as to His manhood,the Lord from heaven.

’ The O h

j e ctionab le ne ss lies in this, that, i n ascribing the title

o f the Lord from heaven,i t goes beyond ascribing it

to His person,being man

,and by the expression ‘ as

to ’ separates the nature and ascribes the title to it.”

What does he mean ? I would like to see the man who

c ould write a more thoroughly incomprehensible sen

M R. DARRY’

S REPLIES . 269

tence than this. Had he said,

” continues Mr. D. ,

He was Lord from heaven in His manhood,h e

would have been perfectly right, and h e wh o denied

it would be unquestionably a heretic, but‘ as to ’

separates the manhood , and thus the words cannot

refer to His person who was there in manhood . Dr.

C . does not see the difference,and quotes them as ‘ in

His manhood,

’ condemning them alike as the same .

Yes,Mr. Darby , and notwithstanding your remarks, I

still consider them equally obj ectionable, and if you

had one particle of perspicacity, you would be o f thesame opinion. Let us try these principles o f criti

cism on another point about which there can be no

quibbling. According to Mr. Darby’s plan o f reason

ing,the man who would say that Christ in His divine

nature was God would be right,but the person who

would say He was God as to His divine nature would

be wrong. Now,i f He is God in His divine nature

,

He is surely God as to His divine nature . To sup

pose that th e words “ as to ” would destroy His

divini ty is absurd . And it is equally ridiculous toimagine that i t makes any difference whether we use

the expression “as to His manhood

,He was the Lord

from heaven,or “ in His manhood

,He was the Lord

from heaven.

” He was not God either in His man

hood,o r a s to His manhood. But Mr. Darby may

,

perhaps,in his miserably dark sentence have a specia l

object in view in making the distinction which I s

2 70 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

a ttempts. He does not say that the body o f Christ,

separately considered,is God, but he probably holds

that the divine nature and the human nature are so

united that they form an amalgam which is God.

The two natures are fused into each other in such a

way that they form a being entire ly divine. This

would be as decided a heresy as Mr. Mackintosh’s .

Christ was perfect man and perfect God : but He

was not God in His manhood,nor man in His God

head ; nor was He an amalgam o f two natures fused

into one . -His divinity and humanity were united,

but the one was not lost in the other. The union

did not make His humanity divine. There is another

and more j esuitical view,which

,perhaps

,may have

been before Mr. Darby ’s mind. In place o f using the

language as ordinary mortals would do,when he says

,

The second Man was,in His manhood

,the Lord

from heaven,

” he may have meant that the divinity

was enclosed,as it w ere

,in His humanity. He may

have had’

this sort o f j esuitical reserve in his own

mind , but.

i t i s no t an honest way o f putting the case.

An honest writer would make a point to lay down

all his positions so plainly,simply

,and fairly

,that i t

would be next to impossible to misunderstand his

intentions ; but i t is a regular characteristic o f the

Darbyi te P lymouths that their writings are frequently

capable of a double meaning,and that their language

will be understood by those who are initiated into

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 7 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

ance of Dr. Carson seems to be aware of.” He then

proceeds to comment on the sixth of John. As I

have already carefully examined this portion o f

Scripture at pages 27 -

3 1 o f my work on “ Tran

substantiation,in reply to the Rev. Dr. Cahill, I

will not return to i t here. Mr. Darby had better

shake hands with Dr. Cahill over this subj ect, as

their views appear to be closely allied. Still,in

passing,I must call attention to Mr.

’

Darby’s charac

te ristic inconsistency o f Opinion. He says,“ The true

humanity o f Jesus is fundamental but he who wouldso separate the natures [the human and the d ivine] in

the person as to touch such expression s as the sixth of

John gives,is on very slippery ground. The bread

came down from heaven,and the bread was His flesh .

Now,i f there b e any meaning In words

,Mr. Darby here

teaches that the humanity and the divinity were so

united in Christ,that they cannot safely be separated

in expounding the sixth o f John ; and also that thebread which came down from heaven was literally bread

,

and the flesh was literally flesh,and that the literal

bread was literal flesh,and the literal flesh was literal

bread ! That this is fairly his nonsensical version o f

the case is rendered certain by a previous sentence,in

which he says,

“ This union is so true,that He speaks

o f Himself as the living bread which came down fromh e aven

,and declares that this bread is Hisflesh .

” The

italics here are Mr. Darby’s,and they point out his

M R. DARBY’

S REPLIES . 2 73

specific meaning. Now,i f it was lite rally Ch ris t

’sflesh

which came down from heaven, the flesh was literally

bread,and the bread was literally flesh, and it was

equally true that the flesh was litera lly to be eaten ,

and that the cannibals who would e at it were litera lly

to have their na tura l lives prolonged throughout all

ete rnity. Not only so, but on Mr. Darby’s view Of the

case,Christ had no humanity at all from the Virgin

He had no humani ty like ours—His fle sh came downfrom heaven .

“ Hence,says Mr. Darby,

“ as mere

human expressions,the divine man and the heavenly

man can be used as expressing what is blessedly true

though they may not have the accuracy o f Scripture .

I seriously ask my readers , have they any doubt that

Mr. Darby is as great a heretic as Mr. Mackintosh ? I f

they have,I will give th em another idea . Mr. Darby

says Christ’s flesh came down from heaven,and that

th e divine and human natures are so united that they

cannot be separated,without entering on slippery

gro und,in the six th O f John ; and Mr. Mackintosh

holds such an idea about divine humanity,that

,even

after the crucifixion,he tells us that “ the Lord Christ

,

God manifest in the flesh,the Lo rd O f the Sabbath

,

the maker and sustainer O f heaven and earth,spent the

seventh day in the dark and silent tomb. Verily,a

more decided pair O f heretics never trod the earth.

But afte r all his argument,in proof O f the point that

Christ’s “ flesh came down from heaven,Mr. Darby

B

2 74 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

tells us “ it would be wrong to say His flesh came down

from heaven. Darby ! Darby In on e

sentence,he teaches that the flesh came down from

heaven,and in the very next sentence

,he says it would

be wrong to say so How would it be wrong to say

so,Mr. Darby

,i f your li teral inte rpretation o f the sixth

Of John,in regard to Christ’s flesh

,be correct

,and i f

i t be true that the humanity and divinity o f Christ are

S O united that they cannot be safely separated in the

sixth Of John Impossible . Y ou have plainly taught,

at least as plainly as you are capable of teaching any

thing,that the humanity O f Christ came down from

h e ave n,

'

and therefore you should honestly stand by it.

But notwithstanding all your inspiration, rather than

follow your literal version o f the sixth of John,I will

rest satisfied with the version o f i t which is given by

Christ Himself at the 63d'

v e rse The words that I

speak unto you th ey a re spirit and they are life. Mr.

Darby’s predecessors,the Jews

,adopted the literal inter

pre tation , and asked , How can this man give us His

fle sh ' to eat ? But Christ left them without excuse,

for He told them,and His disciples

,that His words were

spirit and life and,consequently

,were not to be under

stood after the Darbyite fashion .

“ But Mr . Mackintosh , says Mr. Darby,“ did over

step the bounds Of Scripture statement. He used

language Open to attack,and I have no doubt his

mind,in Opposing on e extreme

,had gone into the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

self as the living bread which came down from heave n,

and declares that this bread i s His fle sh. Hence,as

mere human expressions, the divine man and the

heavenly man can be used as expressing what is

blessedly true though they may not have the accuracy

Of Scripture . What could be plainer than this ? The

human nature o f Christ is so united to His divinity,

that they cannot be separated. He is truly a divineman ; and the living bread which came down from

heaven is really His flesh . Consequently His humanity

must have come down from heaven,and could not have

been formed on earth ; He was, as Mr. Mackintosh

says,entirely heavenly. His flesh having come from

heaven,could not have been formed in the Virgin .

Let Mr. Darby say what else he may, this is the in e vit

able result O f his own principles. If the humanity

was formed o n earth,and did not come from heaven

,

his line of argument would be childishly absurd . I

have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Darby and Mr.

Mackintosh both hold the heavenly humanity theo'

ry

so decidedly,that they would never h ave made any

attempt even to “ guard,

” or,in other words

, je suiti

cally cloak it,i f it had not been that my exposure of

their heresies marred their progress in the world. This

is perfectly evident from their own conduct. At the

so th page o f his“ Righteousness and Law

,

” Mr Darby,

in specially referring to this portion of Mr. Mackin tosh’s

work,says

,

“ When first i t was shown to myself,before

M R. DARBY’

S REPL IES . 2 7 7

it was publicly in question, it was in manuscrip t, with

an answer by another person. I replied to an inquiry

o n it. Both have gone beyond Scripture ; but I do

not believe either meant anything wrong.

” From this

it is as plain as possible that the subj ect was fully

d iscussed amongst the Darbyites themselves and also

that the controverted point was referred to the deci

sion o f the infallible Judge Darby whilst the work was

still in manuscript. The publication Of it,under these

c ircumstances,proves that Mr. Mackintosh held the

heavenly humanity theory as a settled and deliberate

opinion and also that Mr. Darby did not consider he

meant anything wrong. But Mr. Mackintosh , in his

letter to the Co le raine Chronicle , says,“ I grant you

that had I anticipate d controversy,I would have

guarde d the sente nce of which Dr. Carson makes such

a mountain .

” Now,what are we to think o f this ?

t ere was the controversy to come from ? Mr.

Darby has let us into a secret. The opinion was ai

re ady controverte d,whilst the work was in manuscript

,

by some o f the Plymouths,and the matter h ad to b e

settled by Judge Darby, whose decision, o f course,as the decision o f an autocrat

,must silence in future

a ll controversy o n the part of his followers. Fo r the

initiated, it did not now require to be guarded. T h e

h eterodox Opinion might possibly h e slipped in on the

public without their being aware o f i t. I n this way it

would gain currency..But the moment I appe ared on

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the scene,the matter was entirely changed. It then h e

came absolutely necessary to “ guard the sentiments,

in order that the Christian public might not be deterred

from the sect . The squeeze from without produced

an effect which could not be accomplished by the dis

cussion which was placed before Darby in manuscript.

Such is Plymouthism

In his letter to the Church O bserver,published in

Canada in 1 868,Mr. Darby says,

“ I repeat,charging

Mr. Mackintosh with denying the true human ity o f

Christ is a foul falsehood ;'

and after the matter has been

sifted,as i t has

,a disgrace to those only who bring the

accusation,as in truth it always was. And in his

Review o f the Rev. Mr. Innes,published in Montreal

,

he also characterises this charge against Mr. Mackintosh

as “ a foul falsehood. As a matter of course,this

charge is levelled against me. Mr. Darby thus in two

of his Canadian publications chargesmy statement as a

foul falsehood . Does he believe he is here stating the

truth He does not. How am I to prove this ? Just

out Of his own mouth . In his “ Righteousness and Law,

Mr. Darby says,“ Mr. Mackintosh did overstep th e

bounds o f Scripture statement . He used language Open

to attack,and I have no doubt his mind in Opposing

one extreme had gone into the Opposite . Sub

sequently he published a declaration that he had made

a wrong statement,and that i t was to b e condemned

wherever itmight be found. I hold it a great mercy

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 8 o PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

HisDeity,must the same term,

when applied to Him,

not always be a testimony to His Deity ? How can th e

term Lord be a testimony to or a proof o f His Deityat one time

,and not be the same at another ? Perhaps

Mr. Darby would say it is settled by the con text . If

so,I reply , i t i s the context testifies to the Deity, and

not the term Lord at all. On this V iew the term Lord

could n e ver be “ a clear testimony to the Deity o f

Christ and could never be applied to Jehovah . It

is thrown overboard altogether as a term implying

divinity either in Father or Son.

“ The word Lord,in

i tself,” continues Mr. Darby

,is not a proof o f the

divinity o f Christ.” If so,Mr. Consistency Darby, how

is it “ a clear testimony to His Deity ? ” In one

sentence you tell us “ the word Lord is Often a clear

testimony to the Deity O f Christ, and in another you

inform us “ it i s not a proof of the divinity o f Christ.

I t is a proof,and still i t is not a proof ! Powerful

reasoning ! A certain sign Of critical acumen in the

man who speaks o f Dr. Carson’s “ sheer ignorance o n

the subject ! The most ignorant school-boy in the

country would be ashamed Of such things as Mr. Darby

w rites. Can that man be considered fit to take care

o f himself,who tells us in the same paragraph that

Lord is Often a clear testimony to the Deity Of

Christ but the word Lord,

’ in i tself,i s not a proof

of th e divinity o f Christ ? ” If men were to reason

about worldly affairs as they Often do o n religious

M R. DARBY ’S REPLIES . 28 1

matters,they would be placed under restraint without

delay.

T O deny His Lordship as man , continues Mr.

Darby,

“ and that in a way in which it is imp ossible to

app ly it to His Godhe ad, is to deny the first great truth

promulgate d as the foundation O f Christianity.

‘ GO d hath made that same Jesus,whom ye have

crucified,both Lord and Christ. Acco rding to Mr.

Darby,the term Lord applies here merely to th e

humanity O f Christ,and “ i t i s impossible to apply it

to His Godhead .

” I f this is not Socinianism,what i s

i t ? Those who wish to give Scripture a fair inte rpre

ta tion can have no difficulty here. The meaning Of

the passage hangs on th e application of the word“ made .” How was Jesus mad e Lord after His cruci

fixion ? Was He converted into something He was

no t previously ? Certainly no t. He was just ma ni

j e sted to b e what He professed to be , the Lord Jesus

Christ. He was not ma de the Lord Jesus Christ,but

He was p ro ve d to be the Lord Jesus Christ, by His

resurrection from the dead and His ascension to the

throne O f His power. Matthew informs us,

“ He

charged His disciples that they should te ll no man

that He was Jesus the Christ and that He “ charged

them,saying, Tell the vision to no man, unti l the Son

o f man be risen again from the dead .

” And we are

told at a later period,that all the house O f Israe l are

to be informed that “ God hath made that same Jesus,

2 8 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

whom ye have crucified , both Lord and Christ.” When

Christ was put to death,i t was supposed He was never

to be heard O f again but it was proved, o r manifested,

by His resurrection from th e grave,and by His

ascension to the throne of His glory,that He really

was what He professed to be,the Lord Jesus Christ

,

and the house Of Israel was called on to take cognisance

o f the fact. If,as Mr. Darby teaches

,Jesus was made ,

in the stri ct sense o f that word,

“ both Lord and

Christ ” after His crucifixion,i t is manifest—it is

incontrovertib le—that He never was either Lord or

Christ before it. If He was Lord and Christ before it,

He could not be made,in the strict sense of that word

,

Lord and Christ after it. Hence, on Mr. Darby’s

showing,we had no Lord o r Christ till after the

crucifixion,and even then the Lordship was a mere

title conferred “ in a wayin which it is imp ossible , says

Mr. Darby,to apply to His Godhe ad. Are my readers

prepared to swallow such sentiments ? NO Lord,no

Christ,till after the crucifixion Verily

,there is no

end to Mr. Darby’s dreadful opinions .

Mr. Darby proceeds : “ The Lordship O f Christ,as a

confe rre d Lordship,the New Testament is full o f. S O

it is said,To us there is but o ne God the Father

,and

on e Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘ Every tongue shall confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory o f God the

Father. Just think of this ! When we confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord,and that there is on e Lord Jesus

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

humanity o f Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

How does he meet me ? By Scripture, o f course. No

such thing. Scripture does not always suit him. He

threw Mr. Cox overboard with a notice of four lines,

because his pamphlet contained human authorities .

But when it suits his purpose,he ignores the Bible

practically , and quotes human authorities agains t me.When it favours himself

,human authorities are to be

d espised ; and when it favours himself, human writ

ings are to be brought forward. In arguing my point,

I alleged no human authority I appealed to the Bible

a lone. Why, then , does Mr. Darby not meet me with

the words o f inspiration ? Just because he cannot .

He has come up to the charge a second time on this

How does hepoint in his “ Righteousness and Law.

’

meet i t ? He is j ust at the human authorities again .

He dare no t Open the Bible,because he knows it is

against him and he is not honest enough to acknow

ledge the fact. Mr. Mackinto sh has said most distinctly

that the humanity o f Christ was conceived by th e HolyGhost. NO W

,i f the conception was by the Holy

Ghost,i t is self-eviden t i t was not by the Virgin. On

this view,the Virgin had nothing to do w ith th e

c onception,and there was no real humanity. The

Scripture, however, is very emphatic against this“ heavenly humanity view

,for i t says

,in regard to

the Virgin,“ Thou shalt conceive in thy womb .

” The

S cripture and Mr. Mackintosh directly contradict each

M R. DARBY ’

S REPL IES .

other here. The testimony is so plain and incontro

vertible,that Mr. Darby could not quote one word O f

Scripture against me and still he had no t the manli

ness to acknowledge I was right and Mr. Mackintosh

wrong.

Such was the humanity Of Christ,says Mr.

Mackintosh ,“ that He could at any moment, so far as

He was pe rsonally concerned,have returned to heaven

from whence He came,and to which He belonged.

Mr. Darby disputes the construction I put o n this

sentence . I state d that th is as serts that the humanity

o f Christ could return to heaven whence i t came but

Mr. Darby says there is no t a word o f the kind in it.“ I t is said

,

” he Observes,“no t it

,but He h ad come,

He belonged,and He could return. I suppose

Christ belonged to heaven,that He had come from it

,

at least He says so.” Yes,Christ undoubtedly Says

so but He does no t say,with Mr. M ackintosh

,

“ Such

was My humanity that I could return to heaven .

Christ makes no such statement ; and this makes all

the difference. If I say, such was the divinity of

Christ that He could return to heaven whence He

came,do I not assert that His divinity came from

heaven ? Most certa inly I do. And when Mr. Mack

intosh says,“ Such was the humanity Of Christ that

He could retur n to heaven from whence He came,

does h e no t assert that th e humanity came from

heaven ? Most certainly he does. That this was Mr.

2 86 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Mackintosh’s view is rendered further evident by th e

e xpressions,

“ divine man,

” “ heavenly man,

” “entire ly

heavenly,

” “ heavenly huma nity,”

as to His manh ood,

He was th e Lord from heaven,” “ Divine power was

about to form a real mam—the L ord from. h e a ven,

”

the Lord Chri st,God manifest in the flesh

,the

maker and sustain er Of heaven and earth,spent the

seventh day in the dark and silent tomb.

” Just think

o f the recklessness o f the man who,after all this

,

asserts that Mr. Mackintosh did not say the humanity

came from heaven !

Dr. Carson,” says Mr.Darby

,

“ complains that it

is asserted that ‘ there could be no union between

humanity.as seen in Christ, and humanity as seen

in us. At this side o f death there could be no union

between Christ and His people . You know right

we ll,Mr. Darby

,I made no such complaint. The

question Of the union o f Christ and His people did

not then lie before me,and I neither complained

about it nor entered on it. The question I h ad to

deal with was Mr. Mackintosh’s vi ew about the

heavenly humanity,and to that I confined myself

,

and proved that he held i t by the following words“ Between humani ty

,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 theearthly—could never combine. NO words could more

plainly assert that our humanity i s carna l and e arthly,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

288 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

there could be no union between Christ and His

people.” According to these statements,there was

no union between Christ and His people until after

His resurrection ; they were o ne with Him only after

He had accomplished His work and taken His place

on high as the glorified man ; it was only as risen

they were on e with Him there was no union,or on e

ness,until He ascended on high . Now

,what is the

result Of these sentiments ? Simply a subversion o f

the foundations Of Christianity. On these principles,

the believer had no union w ith Christ in the Obedience

o f His life,in His work on the cross

,in His death

,in

His burial,and I might also say

,i n His resurrection

because Mr. Darby positively asserts that it was “ when

exalted to God’s right hand,

” that “ saints are united

to Christ,

” and this places the union beyond the

period O f the resurrection. Most soul ~ destroying doc

trine ! It directly contradicts the apostle when he

says,

“ I am crucified w ith Christ. We are buried

with Him by baptism into death . If we be dead

with Christ,we believe that we shall also live with

Him. We are members of His body,o f His flesh

,

and O f His bones. The Apostle Paul thought the

Christian was so completely united to Christ before

His ascension to heaven,that he was actually crucified

with Him,died with Him

,and was buried with Him

b ut the Apostle Darby knows much better h o w the

matter stands,and is able to tell us

,by virtue of his

M R. DARBY’S REPLIES . 289

inspiration, that there was no union whatever until

after Christ’s ascension into heaven. Paul also madeanother great mistake

,for he thought that “ we are

members of His body,of His flesh

,and o f His bones

but the Apostle Darby has discovered that it should

have been,we are members Of His glorifie d body, of

His glorifie d flesh,and of His glorified bones !

” The

Apostle Darby h as further given us new light O f a

very important nature,as I have already pointed out

at page 28 I , concerning the conferred Lordship o f Jesus .

He has sh own that th ere was no Christ on this side the

grave for His people to be united to. Peter was com

mended for saying,

“ Thou art the Christ,the Son O f

the li ving God but if the Apostle Darby had been

there he would have reproved him sharply for such astatement.

’

Darby knows that Jesus was not then the

Christ,because He was to be made

,in the strict sense

O f that word,both Lord and Christ after His cruci

fixion. As a matter of course, then, it is incontrove rt

ib ly manifest that there was no Lord , no Chris t, pre

vious to the crucifix ion,for any person to be united

to. Christ was yet to be made . Truly,Darbyism

,in

one way or other, so ,

far from being what Mrs. Guin

ness represents i t, is subversive O f nearly every doc

trine O f Chri stianity. Oh ! but,” Mr. Darby will per

haps say O f himself, as he did of Mr. Mackin tosh onanother subj ect, the charge O f no union with Chris t

till after the re surre ction is an unfounded calumny,as

T

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

it is acknowledged on the next page, that‘we are

crucified with Christ Your acknowledgment,Mr.

Darby,is not worth a straw, because the truth of the

thing acknowledged is rendered utterly impossible on

the principles which you advocate—o f there being nounion with Christ “ until He has accomplished His

work,and taken His place o n high as the glorified

man .

” If there be no union till after His ascensioninto glory, as a matter of necessity the believer couldnot live in His life

,die in His death

,be buri ed in His

burial,and rise in His resurrection. This is a most

dreadful heresy,and yet the doctrine is looked on as

so very important that Mr. Darby considers the over

turning Of it would be “ the destruction o f true Christi

anity ; and Mr. Mackintosh believes it a point“ fraught

with such momentous results,

” that,i f it be touched

,

“ the entire arch Of Divine revelation is injured.

”

Mr. Darby’s next paragraph is so full Of contra

dictions that it proves its own paternity. His statements are so reckless that it is impossible to give

him credit fo r any intention Of making them accurate.

He says,

“ All God’s moral attributes are communi

csted to or conferred upon,mau. And as to right

e ousne ss as an attribute this is equally true . That

which is an attribute,or was in God

,may be impute d

,

taken abstractedly.

” There can be no doubt Of its

being here unquestionably stated that the moral attri

butes o f God can be conferred upon man ; that the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 9 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

till then. In fact, if he were to praise me as a Christian ,I would be afraid the devil had me. I may well consider i t a high honour to be abused by him

,seeing

that the sacredness Of the grave could not protect th e

Christian character o f Miss Adelaide Newton from his

barbarous assaults. Whether o r no t I am a Christian

is Of overwhelming importance to myself,but i t i s of

excee dingly little concern to the public and therefore

I am no t going to dilate upon it. It is sufficient for

myself that I know in whom I have believed ; I will

not trouble Mr. Darby by telling him what I am but

I will tell him what I am not. I am no t o ne O f those

long-faced,sanctimonious parties who could declare

that I had reprinted all the articles on a particular

subj ect,at the very time that I was leaving the main

,

and most Obnoxious,one out. I am not

,and I t rust I

never will be,a Christian o f this Darbyite description.

I trust the Lord will always enable me to steer clear o fsuch Christianity.

“ Nobody has said,” Observes Mr. Darby,“ that the

righteousness of God is imputed.

” It i s exceedingly

disagreeable to have to deal with a man who i s so re

gardle ss o f what he states. Look here. “ I t is not

the righteousness o f God,afact

,an existing thing, which

is spoken of,

” says Mr. Darby,but righteousness o f

God—this qua lity Of righteousness. We have

gained an immense point in understanding that God’s

righteousness is the qua lity o r character that is in God

M R . DARBY ’S REPLIES . 293

Himself.” The Righteousness Of God,

” pp. I 4 to

That,in the Old Testament, the Lord

’s righteousness

means a qua lity in the characte r Of God, is beyond all

question. Is it different wholly in the New ? I do not

b e lieve it.” Paul ine Doctrine

,

”by Mr. Darby, p.

The righte ousness Of God,” says Mr. Stanley,

“ does

no t mean the righteousness of Christ.” “ I read,

says Mr. Mackintosh ,“ of the righteousness Of God

,

and,moreover

,O f the imputation o f righteousness

b ut never of the righteousness o f'

Christ. “ T o the

believer,says Mr . Bell ,

“ righte ousness is imp ute d

without works. How Through the righteousness O f

Christ ? The Scripture does not say so.” We have i t

here state d that the righteousness Of God is the qua lity,

or attribute,which is in God Himself that the right

e ousne ss Of God is not the righteousness o f Christ ;that righteousness is imputed to the believer, but the

Scripture does not say through the righteousness of

Christ ; and that we read o f the righteousness Of God,and of the imp uta tion O f righteousness

,but never O f the

righteousness of Christ ; and consequently the right

e ousne ss which is imputed, no t being the righteousness

o f Christ, must be the righteousness o f God and,after

all, Mr. Darby tells us nobody has said that the righte ousne ss O f God is imputed .

” I ask,in amazement

,

what next ? Fie fie Mr. Darby.

“ A man who is a sinner i s acco unted righteous,says

M r. Darby,“ because O f Christ and His work .

” The

294 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

God Of truth,it is plain

,cannot account a man anything

but what h e is in reality and in truth . If God counts

him righteous,he must be truly righte ous in the sense

in which God counts him so otherwise God is made the

author O f a falsehood. Again,if he is accounted righteous

by God on the grounds Of the work o f Christ,the work

o f Christ must constitute a p e rfe ct righte ousness—theremust be nothing wan ting. Not only so

,but this very

work O fChrist,as I have pointed out at p . 54, would then

be the righteousness o f Christ,which the Darbyites so

decidedly deny. But the work of Christ,on M r. Darby

’

s

view,as I have already shown at pp. 45 to 60, which the

reader will please refer to,could no t possibly constitute

a perfect righteousness. The man who is righteous

is innocent,o r guiltle ss. Suffering the punishment

for the breach o f the law can never bring innocence.

Consequently,the sinner

,who is already guilty,

can never be made guiltless,or righteous

,by the

death Of Christ alone,because that only pays the

penalty. He requires a righteousness resulting from

the obedience o f Christ’s li fe,in addition to the atone

ment effected by His death. The law must be kept,

and the penalty suffered,in the room o f the guilty,

before innocence can result. The o n e i s as necessary

as the other. I Observe that my views are incorrectly

put on this point by the printing o f the word “ right

e ousne ss, i n place o f the word “ Obedience,

” at the

1 2th line o f the 1 7 th page Of my first edition. Mr.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

296 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

real imputation o f the perfect righteousness o f Christ

to him and consequently that,when viewed in his

Substitute,he is perfectly righteous—h e i s innocent.

Mr. Darby’s God is a deceiver, for he counts a man

righteous who is not truly so in any view O f the case

but my God is the God o f truth,for the man whom

He counts righteous is perfectly righteous in the work

Of his Substitute.

The essence of j ustification by faith,

” says Mr.

Darby,

“ is,that God j ustifies the ungodly. I suppose

ungodly does not mean truly righteous. It is the un

godly whom God justifies.” What does he mean by

this ? Does he mean that the person is ungodly in

the same view in which he is j ustified ? If so,it

proves that he knows nothing whatever o f the nature

o f true Christianity. He is yet ignorant O f a saving

knowledge o f the Gospel. And yet, if his words are

honestly spoken,this must be his meaning. He makes

Go d as bad as the devi l. His God comes forth with

a lie in his right hand,and declares a man j ust in the

very same sense in which he is ungodly. Horrible !

Horrible The word “ j ustify ” means to clear. The

man who is j ustified is cleared O f guilt,is declared

in nocent,is pronounced righteous. Pardon i s not

j ustification . The man who on trial i s proved guiltymay be pardoned, but the pardon does not make him

innocent. He is still guilty,though freed from

punishment. But th e man who on trial is proved to

M R. DARBY’

S REPL IES . 297

b e innocent i s j ustified. He is not pardoned. He isdeclared innocent or guiltless. He is j ust

,or right

e ous. He is j ustified , o r cleared. The saved sinner i s

both pardoned and justified . Still, pardon and justifica

tion are not the same thing. The one forgives the

guil t which is proved the other clears,or acquits

,o f

all guilt. Such being the meaning O f th e term “ to

j ustify,

”h ow does God justify the ungodly ? I will lay

it down as an incontrovertible principle, that the God

O f truth cannot justi fy any man,unless h e is truly

just : He cannot declare him to be clear O f all guil t,

unless he is innocent. T O deny this principle,is to

make God a liar. The man who says that God can

declare a man innocent who is no t truly innocent,

blasphemes the Almighty. How,then

,does God

justify the ungodly ? Is the man . ungodly in the same

point Of view in which he is justified Most certain ly

not. In one po int O f view he is ungodly ; in another

point Of view he is as pure and spotless as the throne

of the Almighty. Loo ked on in himself,he is an

ungodly creature, and re quires pardon ; but when

viewed in the face Of Christ Jesus,he is perfectly

inno ce nt, or righteo'

us,and is completely j ustified

.

In himself, he is condemned as a guilty sinner ;c lothed in the righte ousne ss O f Christ

,he is as pure

as the Majesty O f heaven. When viewed in himself,

many things can be laid to his charge as he stands in

Christ, he can exclaim, Who shall lay anything to my

298 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

charge ? ” In Christ he is so truly innocent,that he

cannot be truly charged with the slightest stain o f

guilt. This is a glorious view o f the Gospel ; but it

is one which Mr. Darby does not understand . On his

view o f the work o f Christ,no man could be j ustified.

The sinner might be pardon e d,‘

b ut he could not be

cleared ; he might be forgiven, but he could never be

justified. He might escape punishment,but he could

never say,

“ Who s hall lay anything to my charge ?

Wh en Mr. Darby excludes the Obedience o f Christ’s

life,and trusts alone to the suffering o f the punish

ment in His death,h e excludes the possibility O f j us

tification . His Gospel is only half a Gospel . It saves

from punishment,but does not justify. On his view

there i s not a righteous man in heaven—it i s peopledwith guilty creatures. Such is the re Sult of his denial

Of the righteousness o f Christ,as resulting from His

obedient life and atoning death . Not only so, but he

expressly excludes all idea o f innocence in the re

deemed,in the following words

,in reply to me on this

point : “ An innocent man,says he

,

“ i s a man who

has never been guilty. And his ever be coming inno

cent,i s simply nonsense.” He here completely denies

the possibility O f innocence—the possibility o f justifi

cation—the possibility o f acquittal—the possibili ty o frighteousness- the possibility o f freedom from charge ,

o r guilt ; and in doing so, he evinces a lamentable

want O f discriminating power. His brain does'

not

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

300 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

free from the consequences o f his folly ;” but the

matter does not stop here. He is not only freed from

th e consequences o f his debt,but he is also freed from

the debt itself. He does no t ow e one farthing. Inplace o f stopping short

,as Mr. Darby would have i t,

with merely defying the j ailer,he can shout

,

“ I amfree

,I am clear 1” If Mr. Darby were possessed o f dis

criminating powers,he would see that his illustration

is not altogether one in point. Sin is no t merely a

d ebt,i t is a crime. The man to whom the debt is due

must,in j ustice

,take payment from any person who

will give it and the moment payment is effected,the

o riginal debtor i s cleared both o f the debt and its con

sequences. The case,however

,i s very different w ith

c rime. The king is no t bound by justice to accept o f

a substitute for the criminal ; and even if he did

a ccept of the substitute,and thus allow the original to

g e t rid o f the punishment, he would not be clearing

him of the guilt. Suffering the punishment, whether

b y the original or the substitute,will never bring

innocence o r clear o f guilt. So is i t with the work

o f Christ. O n the Darbyite view , the punishment is

e ndured by Christ,and the sinner escapes from hell

,but

no more ; whereas on the Christian principle, the punish

ment is borne and the law is kept,and the sinner

not only escapes from hell,but he is so thoroughly

innocent,in his Substitute

,that he can enter heaven

,

and dwell in the presence of a j ust and holy God .

M R. DARBY’

S REPLIES . 301

If only a man who was truly righteous was

accounted righteous,

” observes Mr. Darby , “ there

would be no ground for imputed righteousness at all.”

I t is difficult to kn ow whether this observation arises

from extreme stupidity or from an intention to mis

lead. Mr. Darby knows quite well that I do nothold that a man is truly righteous in h imself

,nor

yet that,being once made truly righteous by having

the righteousness o f Christ imputed to him,he requires

the righteousness of Christ to be imputed a se cond

time . When the righteousness of Christ is really im

pute d to the sinner, wh o is never righteous in himself,

he is then so really and truly righteous that God can

trea t him,count him , and look upon him as perfectly

innocent. On Mr. Darby’s principles

,he is innocent

neither in himself nor his Substitute but the God o f

truth is compelled to act as a deceiver,and ca ll h im

righteous, or account him righte ous,when he is no t

truly and honestly so in any view of the case whatever 1

The work of God in us is needed,

” says Mr. Darby,

“ that we may have a part in Divine righteousness.”

Now,what is this Divine righteousness in which we

have a part ? The Darbyite s deny that Christ has

worked out a righte ousness for His people,and that

there is such a thing in Scripture as the righte ousness

of Christ. Consequently, this cannot be the righteous

ness which Mr. Darby refers to . They do not affirm

that the Father has worked out any righteousne ss for

302 PLYMO UTH HERES IES .

the Church. Consequently Mr. Darby cannot me an a

worked-out righteousness at all. What,then

,i s the

Divine righteousness o f which he speak s ? We are com

pe lle d to come to the conclusion that it is an attribute

of the Godhead. There is nothing else left which i tc ould be. According to this, God is to divide His own

attribute with,us There can be no mistake in the

matter,for Mr. Darby says,

“ We may have a p a rt in

Divine righteousness.” I must,therefore

,call on Mr.

Consistency Darby to reconcile his statement here with

the one he made on his previous page, ,

—that “ an attri

bute being imputed to us is simply nonsense,being a

contradiction in terms, because an attribute is something

which belongs to,or is in

,the being spoken o f

,so as to

be a part o f himself.” I quite agree with Mr Darby

that an attribute,o f God belongs to Him in such a sense

that i t is impossible for Him to part with it,and that

to speak o f its being imputed , o r o f man having a part

in it,i s the most perfect nonsense ; but it is a specimen

o f nonsense which belongs especially to Mr. Darby and

his followers. They do no t require to take out a

patent for this nonsense,as no person can successfully

dispute their title to i t. They ought to hold down

their heads with shame on account of their absurd and

contradictory statements. Christ is righteousness,

says Mr. Darby at page 1 8 o f his “ Righteousness and7Law

,and it is imputed to us. ’ What sense is there

in this ? What is imputed to us ? He does not say

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

304 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

you Speak of Christ being our righteousness and o f

righteousness being imputed , and of Christ s right

e ousne ss,you must do it with the full intention o f

deceiving, because you know right well that you have

a totally different meaning in your mind from the on e

which will be taken out o f your language by th e

Christian public. This is j ust one o f the most dread

ful things connected with Darbyite Plymouthism,that

the whole system is couched in the language o f de

ce ption—i s thoroughly “ guarded.

” It is this whichmakes it so difficult, and at the same time so very

disagreeable,to deal with . There is no satisfaction in

dealing with Jesuits. I t must be confessed,however

,

that the Jesuitical plan is the only on e that could suit

their purpose because, if their doctrines were honestly

told,the Christian public would fly from them with

the greatest horror.

Mr. Darby proceeds Scripture never speaks o f im

pute d righteousness at all, but o f imputing righteous

ness,and the difference is very great indeed.” When M r

Darby is at a loss for a plan o f relieving himself from adifficulty

,he is first-rate at designing one . He should

have been an architect, as he has great talent for in

ve ntion. He has discovered that there is an immense

difference between imputed righteousness and imputingrighteousness,—so great a difference that the on e is in

Scripture,while the other is not. There ce rtainly

'

is

this difference be tween the two,that imputed right

M R. DARBY '

S REPLIE S .

e ousne ss means the righteousness which God is

imputing—the one involves the truth of the other.This is j ust the difference between them ; but the

distinction can serve no purpose to Mr. Darby. Im

pute d righteousness,says he

,

“ i s not found ; but

righteousness being imputed is found. Let us see.

Suppo se God is imputing righteousness to His people,

must there not be a righteousness to impute ? To be

sure there must. God cannot be imputing a thing

which does not exist. Well,i f there is a righteousne ss

to be imputed,and if God is imputing that righteous

ness,i s the righteousness He is imputing not an

imputed righteousness the moment His , people have

received it ? Most certa inly it is. No man two

degrees above idiocy could dispute it. And yet Mr.

Darby tells us there i s imputing righteousness , but

no impute d righteousness in Scripture ' “ Because of

Chris t,

” Mr. Darby continues,“ God holds him rela

tive ly and judicially to be perfectly righteous according

to his own divine estimate. Righte ousness is imputed

to him. What ! Can I believe my eyes ? On the

1 8th page,Mr. Darby says

,

“ Scripture never speaks of

imputed righteousness at all and on th e 19th page

he tells us “ righteousness is imputed ” to man ; and

at the 5sth page of“ Righteousness and Law

,

” he says,

“ I b elieve in impute d righteousness with my whole soulin the true sense of the word.

” I t is really distress

ing to have to do with such an unprincipled opponent.U

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Mr. Darby asserts that “ Scripture never says the

righteousness o f God i s received by faith ” Where

will h e go next ? It used to be thought that those

wh o receive, by.faith , “ abundance of grace and o f the

gift o f righteousness shall reign in life by on e,Jesus

Christ but this it now appears is a great mistake.

There is no faith at all connected with the reception

o f either grace or righteousness ! At the rate Mr.

Darby is sailing,he will soon be over all the seas in

the world .

The blood of Christ,

” says Mr. Darby,

“ does not

make a man innocent ; i t“

cleanses from sin and justi

fies him .

”I t is quite true that the blood o f Christ

a lone does not make a man innocent. Nothing can do

that but the imputation o f that righteousness which

results from the obedient life and atoning death o f

our Saviour. This righteousness, however, Mr. Darby

denies. Hence his system,which recognises only the

death o f Christ, contains no plan whatever by which a

man can be presen ted before God in a state o f inno

cence—pure and spotless. On Mr. Darby’s own Show

ing,even

,there is no t a man in heaven who is in any

sense innocent o r guiltless. As no man but an inno

cent man could truly say,Who shall lay anything to

my charge ? the Darbyites cannot honestly venture

to use these words. They are no t guiltless. As it

would be nearly impossible,however

,fo r Mr. Darby to

write a consistent paragraph,he says the blood o f

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

The righteousness which is imputed to a man is put

on him—h e is clothed in i t as in a robe. “ That right

e ousn e ss might be imputed unto them also . He

hath cloth ed me with th e garments o f salvation. He

hath covered me w ith th e frobe o f righteousness. The

Scripture recognises a true imputation,a real clothing

,

a genuine robe o f righteousness,and a perfect cover

ing. But o n Mr . Darby’s system,there is no true im

puta tion, no ro b e of righte ousness, no real clothing, no

true covering. In place o f having a true righteousness

really Imputed,or put on , the man is ca lcula ted to be

righteous,when he is no t truly so in any sense o f' the

word,and God is thus made the author o f a falsehood .

It is dreadful to think o f such a system When the

Holy Spirit says righteousness is imputed,He surely

means what He says. He uses the word impute in

its proper signification, and not in the Darb yite'

je suiti

cal sense. A genuine righteousness is really imputedto the believer

,and

,then

,although guilty in himself,

he is perfectly innocent, o r righteous,as viewed in

the robe o f righteousness provided by his Substitute.

According to the use which Mr. Darby tries to make

o f the word “ impute,

” there is no such thing as real

imputation at all. He should cease to use the expres

sion altogether. On his principles,there could be no

proper imputation of the righteousness o f Christ to the

believer ; it i s all mockery. Neither could there be

any proper imputation o f the sins o f His people to

M R. DARBY’

S REPLIES . 309

Christ on the cross. If the sins were no t re allv put

o n Christ—if they were not imputed to Him—He didnot die under them He must have committed sui cide.

For my part,I stand to the glorious o ld truth

,that

the righteousness o f Chri st is so imputed to the

be liever that, although guilty in himself, h e is as

innocent in Christ as if he never had sinned ; and

also that the sins o f the redeemed were so imputed

to Christ that,although absolutely sinless in Himself

,

He became sin as the sinner’s substitute. He was“ made sin ” for us He was made a curse for us ;

He died under the punishment due to our sins. There

was neither mockery no r suic ide in this transaction.

In his “ Righteousness and Law,

” Mr. Darby has

returned to his floundering on this subject. A great

deal,

” he obse rves,

“ i s said about being innocent. It

is unfortunate when the whole argument depends

upon what is not found in Scripture. We must

have Scripture,not theology.

” A person would imagine

from this that Mr. D . was a great advocate fo r adducing

e vidence from Scripture. But a closer examination o f

his writings will demonstrate that this is all pure

c lap- trap. What Scripture did he adduce in support

of Mr. Mackintosh’s heresy concerning the conception

by the Holy Ghost ? His Scripture consisted ex

clusive ly of human authorities—a thing which he

very willingly resorts to when he is in trouble. It

seems, however, he has a great obj ection to what

3 I o PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

he calls “ theology ; o r, in other words, reasoning

o n and from Scripture . This is a remarkably easy

method o f evading an argument on Scripture which,

if he were to die for it,he could no t meet. It is also

a very wise thing for him to ignore reason,the first

revelation which God gave to man,and the chief

faculty by which man is to be able to j udge o f the

very existence o f either God o r the Bible. He should

at once j oin the Rev. Dr. Cahill in stating that “ reason

has no part at all in religion . At any rate,the less

reason a man h as,the better is b e adapted for the

reception o f Darbyism. Mr. Darby proceeds,

“ God

never declares a man innocent.” If Mr. D. believes

this statement,how h as he the audacity to speak

o f a man being guiltle ss, being justifie d before God ,

and.

o f God holding him “ to be a righ te ous man If

God calls a man righteous, i f He declares him to be

guiltless,to be justified

,He surely declares him to

be innocent. God has not condescended to take a

j esuitical lesson from Mr. Darby He means what He

says the man whom He justifies is certainly innocent

in the sense in which He justifies him . T o speak o f a

man being justified w ithout being declared innocent

is something far w orse than absurd,because it is using

the word dishonestly—it is calling a man j ust,o r

innocent,o r guiltless

,when he i s only pardoned. I f

this sort of j esuitical dealing be not stopped,it must

be exposed to the gaze of all honest men. “ The

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

Mr. Darby has devoted several pages to the considera

tion of the question o f law. I do not pretend to nu

d e rstand all he says, as he sometimes equals the real

high Dutch,o r genuine Chinese. He writes in the

true Darby style ; and he need never fear that any

man will be able to plagiarise from him without being

detected. I do not think there is a man in the world

could equal him for muddiness. It is not my inte n

tion,h owever

,to say much o n the question o f law

here,as I have already introduced a section on the

subj ect,which the reader can refer to . But I must

draw attention to a few o f Mr. Darby’s statements.

He says,

“ We are n o t under law at all. People

make this great mistake. Because the moral law is

in itself good and perfect and holy,that

,therefore;man

is necessarily and always under i t. This is no t so.”

Mr. D . h as gone aside from his usual course and made

his statement plain. We cannot misunderstand him

here . He explicitly states that we are under neither

the moral law no r any o the r law. This is going it with

a vengeance. He should burn the Bible forthwith,

and ignore the necessity o f a Saviour . He gives the

on e the flatte st contradiction,and the other he makes

useless “ We know,says the Scripture

,

“ that what

things soever the law saith,i t saith to them who are

under the law, that every mouth may be stopped , and

all the world may become guilty before God .

” We

are here told that the law speaks to those who are

M R. DARBY’S REPLIES . 3 1 3

under it, and that the obj ect o f its so doing is, that

e very mouth may be stopped, and all the world may

become guilty before God. Nothing can be more

e xte nsive than this. It includes the whole race of

Adam. If every mouth is to be stopped, and all.

the

world is to become guil ty,there can be no one omitted.

The Scripture is very specific. It does no t say the

world,but a ll the world and eve ry mouth . No man

can be exempted here . In his “ Righteousness and

Law,

” however,page 8, Mr. Darby says that this

passage i s confined to the Jews, and does not exte nd,

as it sta tes,to all the world and the inevi table con

sequence is that some mouths are not to be stopped,

and some in the world are not to become guilty before

God. As a matter o f course,these parties have no

need whatever for a Saviour. I f they are not guilty,

Christ h as nothing to say to t hem .

“ They that b e

whole,

” says Jesus,

“ need not a physician,but they

that are sick.

” Again,the Scripture informs us

,

Where no law is,there is no transgression .

” From

this,we learn most emphatically

,that i f any man

exists who is not under law,he is no transgressor

h e is no sinner—and requires no Saviour. Where

there is no transgression,there is no room for an

atonement,no need for a Saviour, and Christ i s

necessarily excluded . T h e Darby doctrine differs very

far from Paul’s. The apostle tells th e Church at

Rome that h e “ delights in the Law of God afte r the

3 1 4 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

inward man and the Church at Corinth,that we are

no t without law to God, but unde r the law to Christ.

Paul and Mr. Darby are at direct variance with each

other. Which are we to follow ? My lot is cast with

Paul.“ Sin

,says Mr. Darby

,

“ w e are told , i s the trans

gre ssion o f the law. Now, no on e knowing Greek

could cite this theological,but fatally unscriptural

,

translation. Another passage quoted is ‘ under

the law to Christ but neither here is the law spoken

Of at all. Although I have read as much Greek,Latin

,

and Hebrew as served my own purpose,I do not pre

tend to Greek,Latin

,and Hebrew scholarship. Am I

,

therefore,to accept o f Mr. Darby’s pedantic assertions

O n different points o f Greek criticism ? By no means.

He is one o f the last men in the world I would follow

on a matter Of the kind,for the S imple reason that his

organ Of conscientiousness i s no t suflicie ntly developed

to j ustify me in depending on him 3 and in the next

place,his brain is so coarse in its structural develop

ment that he could never become a really accurate and

thorough critic. His powers o f accurate discrimination

are Of a low order,and his talent cons ists chiefly o f

mere brute-force. Real critical acumen is beyond his

measure ; and this w i ll be seen hereafter when the

influence Of his personal physical force shall have ceased

to Operate. Even the very question at present under

consideration would prove Mr. Darby to be void o f

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

law i s, there is no transgression.

”S O that

,take it as

you will , Mr. Darby’s criti cism on this point demon

strates that h e has no claim whatever to th e highesto f all talents—that o f a genuine critic.

Christ,

” says Mr. Darby,

“ was made under the

law, andjke pt i t. But S inners h ad no connection with

Him in this place. I t was needed for His personalperfection, and God

’s glory.

” Now,you are at it

,Mr.

Darby,Christ did not require to keep the law as

th e sinner’s substitute but He required to ke ep it for

His own p e rsona l p e rfe ction ] If th e keeping of thelaw was necessary for His “ personal perfection

,

” He

must have been personally imperfect without i t.

Nothing could be more horribly blasphemous than

this statement o f Mr. Darby’s . It i s truly awful. In

his second reply,Mr. Darby tries to shuffle out o f i t as

follows : “ Certainly,i f Christ was under the law and

bound to keep it,He would not have been perfect if

He h ad not kept it. Nothing can be more simple .

There is not a word to withdraw in i t. If I h ad

said,as Dr. Carson in the same sentence practically

d oes,that Christ required to keep the law to become

perfect as the sinner’s substitute,i t might have

aflorde d a handle. Mr. Darby’s doctrine and mine

,

when fairly put,are as opposite as th e poles. He

holds that Christ did not keep the law at all as thesinner’s substitute

,but that He kept it

,a nd wa s

b ound to ke ep it, on His own account, and that it was

M R. DARE Y’S REPLIES .

absolutely necessary for Him to do so in order to

His own p ersona l perfection ; consequently the

mere neglect or avoidance of a single j ot o f i t, even

although that j ot might not be essentially moral in

its own nature,would have rendered Christ p ersona lly

imperfect. This is a most dreadful doctrine. It

makes the p e rso na l perfection of Christ hang upon

a contingency. My doctrine,however, is no t open

to any such accusation. Christ was personally perfect

in every sense of the word . He did no t require to

fulfil the law on His own account, or for His own

personal perfection ; but as the sinner’s substitute

it was absolutely necessary fo r Him to do so. I f

He had not fulfilled it o n every point,His sub stitu

tion would not have been Spe rfe ctly complete . The

imperfection,however

, would have applied solely and

exclusively to His substitutionary position,and could

not,as Mr. Darby maintains, have destroyed His own

persona l perfection. To render the matter a little

plainer,I may apply the argument to Christ’s position

on the cross. When on the cross He required to pay

the full penalty o f all the sins o f His people,in order

to the complete perfection of His atonement—iaorder to the complete perfection of His sub stitu

tionary ~work ; and if He had no t done so,He would

not have be en a perfect substi tute : but as regards

His own personal position,the matter i s entirely

differe nt. He was pe rsonally perfect,and

,there fore,

PLYMOUTH HERES IE S .

did not require to make any atonement for Himself.

If He h ad come down from the cross, His sub stitu

tionary work would have been imperfect ; but He

would no t have been personally and naturally imper

fe ct, and this makes all the difference in the world.

He was made sin as the sinner’s substitute ; but He

was not made sin o n His own personal account.

According to Mr. Darby’s principle o f r easoning,the

slightest imperfection in the atonement,in place o f

making a substitutionary imperfection,would have

rendered Christ imperfect in His own individual

capacity—in His own special person . The argument

i s j ust as applicable to the death as to the life o f

Christ. In either case,i t degrades the Saviour in a

most blasphemous manner. I t is truly dreadful to

think o f such opinions being promulgated under the

pretence o f Christianity.

“ Righteousness,argues Mr. Darby

,

“ does come by

law,if i t comes by its being kept.” If Mr. Darby had

a little more perspicacity,he would see that his own

po sition differs very little from this—that on his ownplan

,righteousness does come by law, seeing that it

comes by the penalty o f the broken law being paid o n

the cross. As far as

'

law i s concerned,there is no

difference in these two cases. They ” both equally

imply subj ection to law ; and any Obj ection which

could be urged against the On e view,could be equally

urged against the other. In point of fact,M r. Darby’s

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3 20 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

do you know that, Job ? Is it not said,“ In thy

sight,0 Lord

,shall no man living be justified ? ” DO

these two statements not contradict each other ?

NO . They are both true,only in a different point Of

view. No man living shall be j ustified by his own

works but he may be j ustified by the righteousness

of Christ. This i s the key which unlocks the difficulty

through which Mr. Darby is incapable o f seeing. I f

righteousness comes by law,or

,in other words

,i f a

man attempts to procure righteousness by obeying

the law on his .own account,then

,indeed , Chr ist is

dead in vain as far as he is concerned. He repudiates

the righteousness of Christ and tries to work out a

righteousness for himself. By undertaking to obey

the law himself,he ignores the necessity o f a Saviour

as much as the Darbyites,who say they are no t under

law. The one undertakes to keep the law,and the

other denies he is under it. On such a plan,neither

o f them requires a Saviour,and Chri st is dead in vain .

The Scripture,however

,takes a more satisfactory

view o f this matter. I t represents th e utter inabili ty

o f man to keep the law he is under ; but it does no tthus leave him hopeless

,as it points out a perfect way

o f escape through the work o f a substitute,Christ

Jesus.

“ For what the law could no t do,in that it

was weak through the flesh,God

,sending His own

Son in the likeness o f sinful flesh,and for sin

,con

d emne d sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness o f the

M R. DARE Y’S REPLIES . 3 2 1

law might be fulfilled in us , who walk not after the

flesh,but after the Spirit. Here i s the whole ques

tion in a few words. When we were unable,in co n

sequence o f the weakness of the flesh,to procure

righte ousness by our keeping of the law,God sent

His Son in the likeness o f our flesh,in order that the

righ te ousne ss of the law might be fulfilled in us,through

our law-keeping and sin-atoning substitute,Jesus

Christ.

Al though the question o f S anctification has not been

directly mentioned in this controversy,I shall take the

Opportunity,be cause of the great importance o f the

subject,of introducing the Opinions held by my father

o n the matter. So far as I am aware,he was the first

to point out the distinction between the progressive

sanctification in the Christian,and the perfect and

complete and instantaneous sanctifica tion in Christ .

In his letter to my brother-in-law,dated

,T ub b e rmo re ,

M ay 14th , 1 836, he says in regard to I Cor. i 30,“ The sanctifica tion here spoken o f appears not to be

that which is wrought in us by the Holy Spirit,which

is progressive and never perfec t in this world. Th e

sanctifica tio n here spoken o f is that which Christ is

made to us,and not that we are made by Christ. The

sanctifica tion o f the Spiri t i s performed in us by the

Spirit through the word. The sanctification spoken of

in this passage we have not in our own persons,but

in Christ, as one with Him by faith in His righteousx

3 2 2 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

ness through death. It is this that makes us fit to go

to heaven the moment we believe in the Lord Jesus.

We cannot enter heaven,but as having a p e rfe ct holi

ness,as well as a p e rfe ct righ te ousne ss. This we have in

Christ : as we are on e with Him,whatever is His is

ours. To suppose that the sanctification here spoken

o f is that which is wrought in us, would oblige me to

explain the righte ousne ss and redemp tion here spoken o f,

as that which is in ourselves. Fo r you may observe

that Christ i s said to be sanctification to us,j ust as

He is redemption and righteousness. NOW,i f the

sanctification which He is to us i s that which is

personally in us, then the righteousness spoken o f is

not that which we have in Christ,but that which

Christ works in us—that is,inherent righteousness .

But the righteousness which Christ is mad e to us is

no t the righteousness which He works in us,but which

He has wrought for us. We have,then , righteousness

in Him,and not in ourselves. In the same way with

respect to redemption . Christ i s made redemption to

us by God,not by enabling us to redeem ourselves

,

but by Himself paying the price. If,then

,the re demp

tion here spoken o f i s not in us, neither is the sancti

fication . God does not enable us to work a righteous

ness to justify ourselves,nor to pay a price to redeem

ourselves ; but Christ is, o f God,made to us both

righteousness and redemption we have every

thing in Him . In short,this passage shows us h ow

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3 24 PLYMOUTH HERES IES .

the reasoning o f Dr. Carson. Y ou are quite right,Mr.

Darby. There is no use in your pretending to a thing

you cannot possibly accomplish. I have been honoured

with a conside rab le'

numb e r of favourable reviews but

I consider Mr. Darby’s the most favourable I have yet

received . Many parties who speak well o f my work

agree with my o wn views ; but Mr. Darby’s reviews

are pecul iarly favourable in this respect , that w ith

the greatest wish to overturn my statements,the re

cognise d champion of Darbyite Plymouthism has not

been able to find the slightest flaw in o n e o f them .

I have come through the battle without a single

scratch . I am perfectly invulnerable,because

,and

only because,my bulwarks are resting on the sure

foundation o f God’s eternal truth .

T HE E ND.

P R IN T E D BY BAL L ANT Y N E , HANSO N A ND CU .

E D INBURGH AND L O NDO N .

FUNDAMENTAL PRINGIPLES OFPHRENOLOGYAR I;

T HE O NL Y PRINCIPL E S CAPABL E O F BE ING RE CO NCIL E D

W IT H

T HE I M M A'I‘E RIAL I T Y AND I M M O RrAL I rY or run S O UL .

BY JAM E S O . L . CARS O N ,M .D.

LOND ON : B O U LS T O N S O N S .

I n this vo lume th e autho r has tak e n up a po s it ion as startl ing as itis n ew ; b ut it i s a po sitio n which h e h as we l l po nde re d , and o ne o n

th e abso lute impre gna b i lity o f which h e i s qui te pre pare d to re st anyre putat ion h e may have ye t gaine d in th e fie ld o f l ite ra ture o r cri tic i sm.

He h as carr ied th e battle right into th e h e art o f th e e n emy' s co untryw ithout fe ar o r dre ad

,and , if his v i e ws b e found to stand th e te st o f

strict inve stiga t io n,it would b e d ifficult to ove r-e stima te the ir impo rt

anc e . H i s princ ip l e s b e ing admitte d—and h e be l i e ve s no man l iv ingcan o ve rturn the m—Phre no lo gy , in p lac e o f be ing imp l ic it a th e i smma te ria l ism,

”as Sir Will iam Hami lton h as a ss e rte d

,must th e n stand

o ut in bo ld re l i e f as th e o nly system which could by any po ss ib i l i ty b ere co nc il e d w i th th e Immate ria l ity and Immo rta l i ty o f th e S oul . No to n] so , b ut th e syste m o f me taphysic s which i s taught in o ur Co l le ge san Un ive rs itie s. and in wh ich all our c l e rgy are compe l l e d to b e ind oc trinate d ,

must b e lowe re d from its pre se nt o ste nta t ious po s i t io n ,

b e cause it is a system invo lv ing princ ipl e s wh ic h ne ce ssari ly e nd in

ma te ria l i sm,and thus ove rturn th e doc trine o f our future e x iste nc e .

T he se a re bo ld and se rious sta teme nts , b ut the y are sta teme n ts whichth e autho r is no t a fra id to mak e in th e fac e o f a ll th e critics in th e

wo rld . He h as p roved that Phre no lo gy,and Phre no logy a lone

,i s

c apab le o f be ing re conc i le d with th e Immate ria l i ty and Immorta l i ty o fth e human so ul.

C O N T E N T S .

PHR ENO L oo v—T HE RECE PT IO N o r T RUTH—PROGRE SS o r P nRE NO L o o v—U'm .Irv o r P HRE NO Lo o v—RE P L Y 'ro OBJE CT IO NS—I S T HE BRA INrun ORGAN o r THE M IND —IS T HE BRA IN A CO M P O UND ORGAN ?I NII 'L UENCE o r AGE—S in , PO W E R, AND Aorivrrv—T E M P E RAM E NrH E AL rH o r BRAI N—E FI ECTS o r E x e RO Iss—TR E BRA IN AND S KUL LAnso w '

rz AND RE LAT IVE S IZE o r BRA IN.

R E V I E W S .

W e h ad come to th e conc lus i on tha t Phre no logy as a sc i e nce(fa l se ly so ca l l e d) was e x t inc t , e xc e p t amo ng th e ha lf-e duca te d c lass e so f th e c ommun ity. W e wond e r any man o f sound s e n se can be l i e ve inth e po ssib i l i ty o f d e te c ting characte r by me ans o f an o rgan o nly ve rypartia l ly and ind ire c tly man ife ste d through its bo ny cove ring .

W e sh all no t pre te nd to sp e ak o f conc lus io ns,w h ich to ourm ind must

b e fo re go ne,co ns id e ring th e nature o f th e subj e ct.”—M ed ica l Timesa nd

Gaze tte , L o ndo n . [T h e fore h e ad o f Dr. Cha lm e rs and th e fo re h e ad o fM r. Jo se ph Hume

,M . P . ,

m e a sure d v e ry n e arly th e same a t th e re g io no f tho s e o rgans wh ich are conn e c te d w ith th e pract ica l co nc e rns o f l i fe ;b ut Dr. Cha lme rs ’ fo re h e ad me a sure d mo re than o n e inch and

‘

a ha l flarge r than M r. Hume

’s a t th e o rgan o f Id e a l i ty,which h as to d o w i th

th e i de a l , th e subl ime , and th e b e aut iful . Now,wh e n appl ie d to th e

th ickne ss o f a man’s l i ps,th e s iz e o f h i s mouth

,th e l e ngth o f h i s e ars,

o r th e turn-up a t th e po int o f h i s n o se, o n e inch and a ha l f might

, p e r

haps , mak e a v i s ib l e d iffe re nc e b ut wh e n app l i e d to th e organ s o f th ebra in , o ne inch and a ha lf i s such an imp e rc e pt ibl e me a sure m e nt tha tno

“ ma n of sound se nse a nd high educa tion ,

” l i k e th e e d i to r o f T h e

M edica l T ime s and Ga z e tte , coul d e ve r th ink o f b e l i e v ing in l e ss th anthre e fe e t ! Ha ! Ha

, Ha 1! Ha , Ha , Ha iii—J. C. L . CARSO N. ]W e are conv inc e d tha t fe w me n wh o h a t e b rains wil l put down th i s

wo rk w i tho ut fe e l ing tha t Dr. C . h as succ e e de d in pro v ing tha t th ePhre no logi st, so far from b e ing a mate ria l i st

,i s th e o n ly man wh o can

prop e rly and c o ns iste n tly avo i d mate r ia l i sm . I n th e O pe n ing chapte rsth e autho r po ints out th e d ifficul t i e s tha t Phre no lo gy h as h ad to labourund e r from th e b igo try and blo ckhe ad e dne ss o f me n

,who s e ch i e f argu

me nts c o ns i ste d in sn e e rs and j ibe s and wi lful m isre pre s e nta t io ns . Fo r

pla in, a ll-co nv inc ing, argume nta t iv e powe r, and re a l ly inte re st ing

fac ts,th e chapte rs o n th e bra in th e o rgan o f th e m ind

,and th e bra in a

compound o rgan , cann o t fa i l to pl e a s e and in struc t th e c are ful and c on

scie ntious re ad e r. T h e c o nc lud ing chapte rs a re as ful l o f instruct io nas the y are o f scho larly lo re . T h i s wo rk o n Phre no logy w il l ho l d fa stfo r th e autho r tha t fame which h is l e arn ing, h is a rgume nta t ive pow e rs ,and above a ll

,h is bo ld unsw e rv ing c l o s e k e e ping to Bibl e te ach ings

,have

e arne d fo r th e l e arn e d son o f a l e arn e d fa th e r.

”—T y"

rone Co nstitution .

“ Y ou me e t w ith v e ry gre at abi l i ty,

” says th e R ight Re v. Dr. Al e xande r

,L o rd Bi sho p o f D e rry and Rapho e

,

“ th e common o bj e ct ion tha tsuch a re la t io nsh ip b e tw e e n m ind and matte r, as Phre no logy impl i e s,would l e ad to ma te ria l ism . T h e i l lustra t ive phys io lo gica l a n e cdo te s ,&c .

,marsha l le d b y a l ogi ca l th ink e r l ik e yours e l f, are inte re sting iand

you wri te c l e arly and v i go rously .

”

(Pub l i sh e d, by p e rm i s s ion ,from a

priva te l e tte r. )“ W e have d e rive d bo th instruc tio n and e x treme gratifica tion from

Dr. Carson ’s abl e,instructive

,and mo st a ttrac t iv e wo rk . O ur spac e

unhapp i ly pre ve n ts us from e n te ring,as w e should wi sh . in to a re v i e w

o f th e many in te re st ing to p ic s which o ur autho r h as d iscusse d in a

charm ing styl e . A bare e num e ra t io n can affo rd no id e a o f th e highlya ttra c t ive s tyl e in which Dr. C. h as tre a te d th e who l e que st io n, pre ss inginto h is s e rvic e th e cho ic e st i l lustra t io ns drawn from an imme nse rangeo f pro fe ss io na l and l i te rary re ad ing

, and a c tua l ly inv e st ing hi s disquis itio ns wi th all th e l igh tn e ss and e ngaging inte re st o f a wo rk o f fancy ,so judic iously have th e popular and sc i e ntific e l eme nts b e e n bl e nd e d

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

b ut th e Phre no logist can affo rd to lo ok upon th e m ind as s imp l e, nu

compounde d , ind ivi s ib l e , immate ria l and immo rta l .—J. C . L . CARSO N . ]T hi s subj e ct i s l e arn e dly d iscuss e d in a wo rk re c e n tly publ ish e d by

Dr. Carso n , th e study o f wh ich w e re comm e nd to all wh o d e s ire to havea c l e ar n o t ion o f it. Spurz h e im and o the rs wro te o n it ; b ut th e mo stc onc lus ive re a son ing e ve r we me t i s in Dr. Carso n's able e ssay .

”

Be lfast N ews L e tte r.

W e are so rry we canno t do just ic e to th i s wo rk . I t i s impo ss ib l e,

e ve n in outl in e , to give a d ige st o f h i s argume nts ; b ut tho s e wh o are

int e re ste d in psycho lo gica l and phys io lo gica l stud ie s should a t o nce

pro cure th e bo o k .

”—Banner of Ulste r , Be l fa st.Wha t a p ity th e autho r o f th is wo rk i s no t a do c to r o f d iv in ity.

H e re is an e xhaustive tre a t i s e o n a subj e c t which ye ars ago commande dg e n e ra l atte ntion and an ima te d co ntro ve rsy. I t was stoutly afiirme d ,and by many ste ad fa stly b e l i e ve d , that Phre no logy h ad its ro o ts inmate ria l i sm

,re nd e re d mo ra l i ty c ircumstant ia l , and induc e d a sta te o f

h e s itancy in th e insp ira tio n o f D iv in e truth. T hi s o bj e c t io n Dr. C.

m inute ly e xam ine s, and by argume n ts,appare ntly compl e te

,abun

d an tly re fute s . H e go e s e ve n furth e r, and succe ssful ly shows thatPhre no lo gy i s th e o n ly bas i s upo n wh ich th e immate ria l i ty o f th e so ulcan b e uph e ld .

-T h e Voice of T ruth , L o ndo n.

T h e write r i s a ge ntl eman o f acknowl e dg e d l e arn ing and gre a tl ite rary ab i l i ty. W e hop e th e wo rk wi l l l e ad Chri stian ph i lo sophe rs toth ink , and h e lp th e m also to re a son lo gica l ly o n o n e o f th e mo st profo und subj e c ts that ca n e ngage th e ir a tte ntio n .

”—Bap tist M esseng er,L ondo n .

“ From th e po int o f v i e w adopte d by th e autho r,th e wo rk be fo re us

is w e ll argue d .

”—Gla sgow Da ily He ra ld .

“ T o say that Dr. Carson i s th e autho r o f th i s wo rk , i s a suffic ie ntguaran te e tha t it i s a v igorous, man ly

,and able tre a t i se upo n th e sub

j e ct to wh ich it re la te s . A true Phre n o lo gy do e s n o t l e ad to ma te ria l ism,

b ut is its b e st sc i e n tific an t ido te . Any o n e wh o d e s ire s to se e P h re no

l o gy and Re ve lat ion harmo n i se d by a bo l d and fe arl e ss th ink e r Shouldre ad thi s bo ok I t i s truly sc i e nt ific

,and . at th e sam e t im e

,p e rvad e d b y

a sp iri t o f d e e p e st !re v e re nc e ! fo r God’s Wo rd .

” - P rimitive ChurchM aga z in e , L ondon.

“ T h is i s re a l ly a wond e rful bo o k . Dr. Carso n efi’

e c ts hi s purpo se inlanguag e so luc id

,by i l lustra t ion s so v ivi d, and argume nts so co ge n t,

tha t h e would b e sc e pt ica l wh o would d oubt, and a dunc e wh o couldno t unde rstand . - Co leraine Chro nicle .

W e wish we h ad th e p owe r to conve y th e impre ss ion thi s b o o k h asmad e upo n o urse lve s—tha t th e Phre no lo gi st i s th e o n ly man wh o can

avo id ma te ria l i sm . T h is i s th e the o ry w ith which Dr. Carso n sta rtl e sth e think ing wo rld b ut i f e ve r th e o ry w e re made e stabl ish e d fa c t, byph i lo soph ica l cons id e rat ion s a t o nce th e mo st pro found and luc idlytran spare n t , th i s

' i s wha t our autho r h as,to h i s undying honour as an

inde p e nd e nt th ink e r, accompl i sh e d .

”—Ba llymo ne y Fre e P re ss.

T h e re i s a v igour and fre shn e ss o f i l lustra t ion,o f an e cdo te , and o f

re jo ind e r in Dr. Carso n ’s wr i ting,which lays ho l d o f th e re ad e r

’s a tte nt i o n

,and fix e s h i s m ind w i tho ut w e ari some te ns ion o n th e po int unde r

e xaminatio n . H i s re a so n ings and i l lustra t io n s o n th e re c e pt io n o f

truth , th e uti l ity o f Phre no logy, and h i s re pl i e s to o bj e c tion s,a re mo st

instruct ive re a d ing, apart from th e inquiry in to th e sc i e nce unde r co ns ide ra t io n. T ho se wh o have b e e n shak e n by th e sc io l ism o f th ema te ria l ists

,and p e rpl e x e d by th e so b is trica o f sce pt ics

,wi ll do we l l

to re a d a tte nt ive ly th e s e we l l -re s so ne and luc i d le c ture s o n th e trutho f an unjustly c e nsure d sc i e nc e

,and its p e rfe ct accord anc e w ith th e

e te rna l truths o f re ve a l e d re l ig io n.

"-T he M o rn ing A dver tiser , L ondon.

E d ite d by Jame s Grant,‘

E sq .

T o tho se wh o wish to maste r this important subj e c t, th e re se ntwo rk is in va luabl e . W e give it our h e arty re comme nda t io n . e th inkit th e mo st va luabl e bo o k e ve r writte n upo n Phre no lo gy . Dr. Carso nfe a rle ssly throws hi s who le soul into th e subj e c t, ro uts h is anta go n is ts ,and ta k e s a ll the ir stro ngho lds . —T he Go sp e l He ra ld , L o ndon.

I t is e v id e nt that Dr. Carso n i s a tho rough ly hon e st be l i e ve r in th eth e o ry h e advanc e s , and a l so tha t h e h as ba se d it upon a v e ry care fulstudy o f facts . H i s wo rk i s mark e d by much ab i l ity

,and n o one can

b ut b e th e be tte r fo r studying it. —Ab e rd een Fre e P re ss.

Th e t itle pre se nts an argume nt o f imme nse magn i tud e ; and wefe arl e ssly asse rt tha t no n e b ut dron e s and m ind l e ss pe rso ns w i l l le aveth e bo o k unt i l th e y have inwardly d ige ste d th e who l e . Dr. Carson h asdo ne w e l l to apply th e le ve r o f hi s me nta l and l ite rary powe r to a

subj e ct (P hre noio gy) so l i k e ly to b e be ne fic ial to all c lass e s ; ye a , to th ewho le wo rld . L e t h i s Vo lume s o n Phre no lo gy and Cap ita l Pun i shme ntb e c ome re gular scho o l-bo o ks, l ibrary-bo o ks, hous e ho ld-bo o ks . L e t

them b e ful ly brought be fo re th e m i l l i o ns o f th e pe o p le , and some thingwoul d b e done to ward s turn ing th is awful d e se rt into a fruitful fie ld .

”

T h e E a rth e n Vesse l, L o ndon .

Dr. Carson i s a v igoro us re asone r,w i th much o f th e fo rce and c l e ar

ne ss tha t d ist ingui she d his honoure d fa th e r. H e i s a l so a ma ste r o f

th e subj e c t h e d iscusse s . T h e vo lum e abounds in inte re sting fac ts , asw e ll as in impre ssive argume nt ; and i s a w e lcome contribut io n to th e

sc ie nce o f th e subj e ct o f which it tre a ts. "—Th e Fre eman ,L o ndo n.

Dr. Carson has co l le c te d a gre at mass o f facts , e v ide nc e s, and

argume nts to pro ve tha t Phre no lo gy is true . Wha t h e brings forwardinc lud e s substan tia l ly all tha t h as b e e n a lle ge d in favour o f Phre no lo gy,and

,pe rhaps , a ll tha t e ve r wi l l b e , and we can re comme nd th is art o f

th e wo rk as a c l e a r and abl e e xpo s i t io n o f th e po s i t io n o f th e P re no

lo gists. Th e Da ily Review ,E d inburgh .

T h i s is an impo rtant wo rk o n a n impo rta nt subj e c t. Dr. Carso n,from h is anatom ica l know le dge , hi s scho larsh ip , h is a cute and ind epe nde nt th ink ing. and his e x te ns ive rea ding, i s qua l ifi e d to di scusssuc h subj e c ts. W e should add

,too , that as h e is a firm be l i e ve r in

Re ve la t io n, h e is a safe guide in sc ie nt ific inquirie s . A glanc e at th eh e ad s in page s 45 5 to 45 9 should co nv ince th e mo st sc e ptica l tha tP h re noio g

gi s no t a l to ge th e r a d e lusio n. O n th e who l e , we

have muc ple a sure in re comme nd ing his abl e wo rk to inte l l ige ntre ad e rs . I t i s ano the r ro o f o f hi s own ta le nts and gre at me nta lact ivi ty .

”—Th e S e ntinel,

e rry .

“ Dr. Carson po sse sse s a m ind h ighly g ifte d and w e l l store d. Bis

po we rs o f re a so n ing a re o f a h igh o rd e r, and h e i s man ife stly imbue dwi th a d e e p se ns e o f th e d iv ine autho ri ty o f th e Sa c re d S c ripture s . T h e

sta tute . b o o k o f h e ave n is his ul t ima te sourc e o f a pe a l ; and whil e h esurve ys w i th pro found re ve re nc e th e re gio n o f so e nc e , a l ike phys ica land me nta l , h e subo rd ina te s all sc i e nce to th e insp ire d wo rd . In th is

tre at i se,h e cuts away e ve ry inch o f ground from th e mate rial i st and th e

fre e - th ink e r, and shows tha t th e laws o f our physica l na ture are in p e rfe e t harmony w ith th e princ ip l e s o f d iv in e Re ve la t ion . H i s chapte r o nth e Re c e pt i o n o f T ruth i s w e l l c o nc e ive d and adm irably co nstructe d.

S uch a wo rk was wante d to tak e Phre no logy out o f th e hand s o f me ree mpyrics and dabbl e rs in na tura l th e o lo gy .

—M on trea l Hera ld a ndDa ily Ga z e tte, M ontre a l, Canada , Jan. 12, 1 870.

Phre no logy h as suffe re d from th e characte r o f its advo cate s in a

gre ate r d e gre e than it h as by th e argume nts o f its o ppo ne nts. I t i s,

the re fo re,a sa t i sfact io n to have th e que st io n tre ate d tho roughly—a s in

th e vo lume b e fo re us- b y a qua l ifie d wri te r (h ims e l f a m e d ica l man o f

large e xp e r i e nc e , and an o rtho do x Chri st ian in b e l i e f) , wh o luc idly s e tsfo rth wha t Phre no logy re a l ly do e s a ssum e to t e ach , and e xpo se s th efa l se i ssue s tha t have b e e n re p e a te dly urge d aga inst it . A bo o k l i k eth e pre s e nt

,wh ich argue s o ut th e que st io n ful ly and fa irly, i s inva in

abl e to tho se wh o d e s ire to arr ive a t th e truth in th e ma tte r. A luc i dt e rse n e ss, an abs e nc e o f te chn ica l h indranc e s

,and a substant ia l v igour

in th e tre a tme n t o f th e subj e c t, wi l l c omme nd th e vo lume to th e ih

te re ste d re ad e r.

”—l e I rish T imes, Dubl in .

Y our name,on which your fa the r sh e d such lustre , induce d me to

lay a s ide o th e r wo rk s fo r yours, and its re a so nings and many inte re sting fac ts le d me o n from page to pag e .

”—Re v. T h os. Guthrie ,

T h e e d ito r o f th e A th enaeum, fo r re ason s be st known to h imse l f, ma d ea d e te rm in e d efi

’

o rt t o injure Dr. Carso n ’s bo ok by th e fo l low ing c ritic iam —“ I f any k ind o f immo rta l ity i s cul t iva te d in h is bo o k , it i simmo rta l hate . T hus

,h e says

,th e c o nduc t o f Cuvi e r was me an and

d isgust ing in th e e xtrem e .

’ S ir D . Bre wst e r’s obj e c t io n s are ch i ld i sh,

’

‘ trifiing and m i se rably insign ifican t. ’ Ano th e r O ppon e n t blund e rs sothat it i s d ifficul t t o know wh e th e r h e i s natura l ly stup id o r w ilful lyp e rve rs e .

’ A sta te me nt made by Baro n Bramwe l l d e s e rve s ‘

,som e th ing

mo re than me re c ontemp t ; it i s an outrage o n commo n s e n se,and a

d i sgrac e to th e b e nch.

’ Of Sir W . Hami lto n , Dr. C . says , I ha rdly e ve rre ad so much trash

,no ns e nse , and re ckl e ss ass e rt i on in th e sam e

bounds in th e who le cours e o f my l i fe . I am surpri s e d tha t M r. Combeand Dr. S purzh e im w e re abl e to k e e p th e ir temp e r w i th h im.

’

S uchsurpri se may b e na tura l in Dr. Ca rso n ; b ut it i s fa ta l to h i s re puta t ionas a sc i e nt ific w r ite r. T hi s i s th e mo re unfo rtuna te , as Dr. C i s a mano f ab i l ity, and coul d argue w e l l i f h e c ould k e e p h is temp e r.

”

(Now,

Dr. Carso n fre e ly adm its tha t it i s p e rfe c tly compe te n t fo r a re vi e we r tofind faul t wi th th e styl e o f an autho r, pro v ide d h e doe s it ho ne stly andfa irly ; b ut h e d e n i e s that in th i s in stanc e th e re i s on e part ic l e o f

ho n e sty e xhib ite d . A re v i e w e r o ccup i e s a re spo ns ibl e po s it io n . H e

i s bound,in ho nour, to mak e a fa ir sta teme n t o f th e cas e , in o rd e r that

h e may d o full justic e to th e autho r o n th e O n e ha nd , a nd th e publ ic onth e o th e r. He must no t swe rve from th e path o f re c t itud e to pl e a see ithe r s id e . I f h i s cri t ic i sms are w e l l found e d , and fa irly and ho ne st lyput b e fo re th e publ ic , th e autho r h as no right to compla in

,no matte r

h ow s e ve re th e y may b e . But, o n th e o th e r hand , i f through i l l-na ture ,

d isho ne sty o f purpo s e , d is l ik e to truth , o r any o th e r cause , h e wri te s asha llow, i gnorant, fiippan t , ill-d ige ste d, and compl e te ly o ne -s i d e dre v i e w, wh e the r fa vourabl e o r unfavourabl e to th e autho r, h e i s asme an

and d isre putabl e as th e judge wh o woul d sit o n th e b e nch and d e l iv e r ac ompl e te ly part ia l and o n e -sid e d d e c i s io n , o n a ccoun t o f th e brib e whichh e h ad d isho ne stly plac e d in h i s pocke t. Ho w, th e n , i s it wi th th ee d itor o f th e A th emeum ? Has h e a cte d fa irly and hon e stly in th e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

whi ch th e A the nwuin cri t i c i sed , bu t was not hones t enough'

to quote .T h e reader i s n ow i n a fai r posi tion to j udge o f the moral and inte lle ctual deve lopmen t o f the A th emrum rev i ewer o f Dr . Carson ’s book . In.th e London L ance t o f Decembe r l 6th , 1876, there i s an abl e artic l e fromth e ed i tor o n the repr i ev e o f th e conv ict, Dran t. I f the learned ed i tor,however

,had been actuated by a wholesome dread o f th e A th e nce um and

Baron Bramwell , he would no t have ven tured o n the fo l lowing s ta temen t—“ T h e scandal o f hanging a s ick man fo r a deed wh ich was , ilbfa c t, a symptom o f h i s di sease, h as been avo ided ; but the error of pron ouncing th e last sentence o f th e law i n a cas e of ma dness has beencommi t te d , an d jus t ice i s thereby d i sgraced . Justice is commonlyrepresented bli ndfolded but bl i nd fol ly should no t be o n e o f herchara cter i s t i c s . T h e absurd i ty o f proceed ing to the end of a tr i al , andsol em nly decl ar i ng th e l i fe o f a lunatic forfe i ted , i s , and alw ays w i l l be,a farce

,and i t i s o n e wh ich can not b e often rep ea ted w i thou t detractin g

v ery ser iously from th e m aj esty o f th e cr im i nal law .T h e prac t ice

o f pa rdoni'ng a person for an ofi”

e nc e he d id no t comm i t is s i l ly enoughbu t th e system which permi ts a man to be conv ic ted and condemnedwhen he is n o t i n a cond i t ion to be gu i l ty , and when h i s o ffence isplainly an acc iden t o f h i s di s ease , i s somethi ng more than r id iculousi t i s flagrantly am iss .” —J. C . L . Carson .]

T h i rd E d it ion,23 . 6d .

CAPITAL PUNISHM ENT IS MURDERLEGALIZED.BY ! JAM E S c . L . CARSON,

M .D.

L ondo n : HO UL S TO N 8c SONS .

T hose who are correctly informed o n th e matter are aware that cap i talpun i shmen t, under Bri t i sh ru le , would end at on ce and for ever, i f itwere not for the Support it receives from the rel igious commun i ty . I t

,

therefore,behoves al l Chr i s t ian s to examin e th e awfully ser ious p o sitiom

in which they are placed . If they hav e d irec t and unmis takabl eauthor i ty from God fo r choking a fel low -creature

,they are qui te r igh t

i n do ing i t ; but i f no such author i ty ex i sts, th ey are murderers of th edeepes t dye, when , i n pe rfectly cold blood , they hur l the impeni ten ts inner i n to the abyss o f Woe. T hei r posi tion i s a fe arful one . Havethey examin ed the matter carefully ? T hey know they have no t. Havethey read w i th attent ion al l that can be sa id o n each s ide o f the questionT hey know they have not. In perfect bl indness

,they have bel ieved

what they have been told,and taken the whole matter for granted .

T hey would ra ther hang the i r fel low- sinners than take the troubl e o f afu l l i nvest igat ion . T he ir respons ibi l i t i es are terrible to thi nk o f. T h e

great cause o f cr ime o f ev ery descr ip t ion i s,that there i s n o semblanc e

o f proper pun ishmen t fo r i t i n th is generat ion, M any o f those wh o

oppose the death penal ty, would put no su i table pun ishmen t in its

p lace, because they absurd ly hold that human nature i s to o good torequire i t. T h e consequence is tha t they have l eft the peopl e i n anunprote cted cond i tion in those countr i es where the law has beenchanged . I t i s a great wonder th ings have not got worse

,i n place of

bet ter . T h e pun ishment for eve ry cr ime shou ld be such as to make thelaw a te rror to cvil-doers , and a pro tec t ion to all who do wel l . One grea tobj ect ion to the death penal ty is

,that i t i s no t by o n e hundred th par t an

adequate pun ishmen t for the murderer. Hanging would fr ighten thewell -d isposed

,but i t h as no t the leas t i nfluence on the criminal class

unt i l af te r the commiss ion of the cr ime . T h e ev idence I have col lectedo n this po i n t i s unanswerab le. If the garotters had been hanged

,

garot t ing would never have ceased,but th i s cr ime was s tamped out a t

once by the lash . T h e crim inal h as l i tt l e fear o f sudden death . as hesays i t i s only a kick and a struggl e and al l i s over but he has a terr ibl efear of corporal pun ishment. L ash ing one man through the s treets o fDubl in would have done more to stop murder than al l the hanging theyhave done. L e t the murderer be lashed once or twice every year dur ingh i s l i fe

,and l e t the law be changed to the same thing i n every such

case,and murder would soon be a th ing o f the pas t. T h e pun ishmen t

,

too,should be adm in istered in as publ ic a way as i t could poss ibly be

d o ne . T h is is the only way in wh ich it could become an example .I

have often w ondered how men of sen se could talk of hanging as anexamp le,—as a grea t mora l l e sson ,—ao long as they are obl iged to perform the deed o f death beh ind a wal l . I t is perfec tly lud icrous to talkof a grand moral lesson wh ich mus t be h id from v i ew

,in order tha t the

people may not be dr i ven to cr ime by a v is ibl e example o f the mora ll esson . I wonder men are not ashamed o f such Opin ions . T here i s somuch sen t imental i sm abroad

,that many part i es wil l shudder at the idea

of lash ing a cr im inal such a mode of pun i shmen t i s considered far tooha rd-hearted. I t wi l l no t be den ied that the l ash , freely admin is teredO nce ja year, would effectually stop cr ime ; bu t our law-makers wouldrather al low the i nnocent to be murdered , than infiic t pain on the backof the cr im inal . M urder could be pun ished by the lash , bu t never bythe hangman , Hanging has so s ignal ly fai led a ll Over the world to prevent murder, that i t i s a perfec t marvel that n o na tion ,

'

as yet,has tr i ed

the lash . If i t had been tri ed i n t ime , i t would have saved to Amer ica ,and to the world

,those noble-minded men . L i ncoln , Garfi eld , and the

Honourable G eorge Brown . T h e culpr i t wi l l make a great bluster abou tdefy ing the hangman b ut he would run in to a mouse-ho le

,i f it were

poss ible,for fear of the lash.

R EV I EW S .

Dr. Carson , with greatrprO prie ty, lays stress o n th e uncertain ty o f

Ci rcums tant i al E v idence,0 whi ch he c i tes many never-to-b e -forgo tten

i l lus t rat ions . T h e proofs, as the reader o f Dr. Carson ' s book may see ,are frigh tfully abundan t, that c i rcums tances may be mis in terpre ted ,and tha t thei r te s t imony may be i nsuffic ien t

,even when no one i n

Court doubts i ts mea n ing . T h i s we adm i t to be i n i tsel f a very powerful argumen t . All who know h i s prev ious producti ons w il l be prepared to find in thi s much keenness of pe rcep tion and d irec tness i n

A 2

stating proposi tions,as we l l as acumen and forc e i n defend ing them ,

In al l these charac ter ist i c s,D r. Carson is very l ike h is em inen t father

and our readers need know no more than th i s to i nduce them to g ivethe ir atten t i on to th is o r any other product ion from h i s pen.

—T h eFre ema n ,

London ,

Dr.Carson 's work deserves a carefu l perusal

,because o f th e im

portance o f the subj ec t and the ab i lity with wh ich i t is treated.—De rry

S entine l.

“ E veryth i ng wr i tten by th e learned and exce l len t author bears th eimpress o f ab i l i ty

,refie c tive thought, and o f ex tens iv e information .

Derry S tand a rd .

“ T o those wh o des ire to know al l that can be said aga in st Cap i talPun ishment

,we recommend th is pungen t volume . I t ought to be read

by al l the fr i ends Of human i ty, order, and re l ig ion . T h e chapter on theScr iptural Argumen t i s especially able and trenchan t. T h e work iswr i tten by o n e who ev idently wr i tes from earnest conv i ct ion , and w i tha s incere regard for the author i ty o f Scr ip ture . Dr. Carson ’s styl e i sem inen tly l uc id . H e is as c lear

,conci se

,and forc ib le as h i s abl e father.

When we find i t imposs ibl e to agree w i th h im,we are amazed a t hi s

forc ibl e manner o f express ion . T h e Opponents Of Capi tal Pun ishmen twi l l do wel l to c i rculate th i s wel l-got-up book by hundreds o f thousands .We pred ic t i t w i l l pass through many ed i t ions . ”—Bap tist M e sseng e r ,L ondon .

“ T h e author of a book w i th th i s strong ti tl e,to make good h i s asser

t ion,must be a man o f s i ngular ab il i ty , and have v ery dec ided vi ews o n

the subject. Dr . Carson d id no t essay a task to o d ifficul t for h is exal tedtal ents as a conv i nc ing wr i ter o n any subj ec t to which he br i ngs theforce o f h is powerful i n tel lect . H e takes up

,o n e after another

,al l th e

tex ts o f S cr ipture wh ich have been rel i ed o n as sanction i ng th e pun ishmen t O fd e a th , and wi th the hand Of a master , whi l e sh irk ing no re S po nsib ility as a bel i ever i n th e verbal insp i rat ion Of the Scr ip tures , he shows ,w i th th e cl earness Of a sunbeam. tha t the gen ius and spi ri t o f Chr i s t iun i ty are total ly Opposed to the death penal ty . H e

,however

,does no t

con ten t h imsel f w i th the mos t l um inous expos i t i on o f the mean i ng o fthe exact words used by the sacred wr i ters

,but w i th al l the acumen o f

the mos t accompl i shed logic i an , he takes up the premises rel ied o n byh is Opponen ts

,and proves to a demonstrat i on that the conclus i on s to

which they arr i v e have been arr i ved at bywi lful ly ignor i ng facts , o r byimport ing matters in to th e d i scuss ion which have noth ing i n the worldto do wi th it.”—Ba llymon ey Fre e P re ss.

I n the chapter on the Scri ptural Argument,he assai ls the strong

hold wh ich h i s Opponents regard as impregnable,and dr i ves them b e

fore h im step by s tep , un t i l they have no t a foot to s tand upon .H e

giv es quarter to none , and never asks i t. He has no t only the courageto chal l enge the bes t men i n the r iva l camp

,but he has the ab i l i ty to

vanqu ish them . and tel l them the reason why. T h e question Of Cap i talPun i shmen t i s o n e of ex traord inary d ifficul ty ; but i t has never ye t hado n e who grappl ed w i th i t so thoroughly as D r. Carson . No t the least o fthe grea t mer its Of h i s book consi sts in th i s

,tha t i t i s plai n fac t and

cogent argument from beg inn i ng to end—so l uc idly stated,i n c lear l an

guage,that the conclus ions o f the wr i ter at once appeal to

,and c o n

v ince,the unders tand ing o f the reader. "—Co leraine Ch ronicle .

“ W e commend th i s work to th e careful perusal o f the ph ilanthro

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

F ifteenth T housand,25 . 6d .

THE HERESIES OFTHE PLYMOUTHBRETHREN.

BY JAM E S c . L . CARSON,an ) .

L ONDON : BOUL ST ON SONS .

T hi s ed it ion con tain s observat ion s on the'

v i ews o f th e M ulle rite s, theNe w to nite s, and the Dar b yi tes ; the Human i ty o f Chr i s t ; S oci n ian i smo f Plymouthism ; the R ighteousness o f Chr i s t ; M ack in tosh Valour thePastoral Offi ce ; Pres idency o f the Holy S pir i t ; the L aw ,

a Rul e o f L i fe ;Var iat ions o f Plymouth i sm ; M o ra lityo t

'

P lymouth ism ; M r. M ack in tosh’sRecan tat ion ; a nd M r. Darby ’s Repl ies to Dr. Carson . T h e v i ews whichare promulgated in th i s volume, o n th e grea t fundamental tru ths o fChr i s t ian ity

,give the work an i nterest and importance wh ich canno t be

l im i ted to any sec t,t im e

, o r place, but must be as lasting as Chr i st ian i ty,and as wide as the world .

R E V I EW S .

“ Dr . Carson , l ike h i s i l lustr i ous father, seems i n h i s element as acontrovers ia l i st . H e str i kes home

,and ne i ther g ives no r ask s for

mercy.

—Christian Ca bine t, L ondon ,

Anyth ing from the prol ific pen o f the learned wr i ter mus t commandattenti on

,and we have ourselves perused h is pamphle t w i th much in

te re st . We stern S tar , Ballinslo e .

“ Dr. Carson seems to have i nher i ted not a l i ttl e o f the i n tel lectualv igour o f hi s revered father, and we have no doub t but many who hada l ean ing to the P lymouth Brethren wi l l thank h im fo r th i s e xposure ofth ei r doc tr i nal errors .

"—Gla sgo w E xaminer.

D r. Carson has done his work w i th signal abi l i ty and logical acuteness

,and has brough t to l igh t doctr i nes held and promulgated by som e

o f these P lymouth missi onaries,wh ich can not fai l to startl e the re l igious

publ ic i n th i s country,D r . Carson ’s masterly exposure o f these dogmas

cannot be to o w idely c i rculated .

”- L ondond e rry S ta nda rd .

“ Dr . Carson has not iced and exposed th is error, and s everal others ,w ith becom ing zeal and s i ngular abi l i ty. H e wr i tes

,i n some respec ts

,

l ik e h i s abl e and upr ight father,whose memory wi l l long be embalmed i n

the hearts o f truth- lov i ng and out-spoken sai n ts . —T h e Voice of T ruth .

T h e work publ ish ed by D r. Carson effectually exposes the real charac ter o f the P lymou th isms. —M orning Ad vertise r, L ondon .

We wish to recommend once more,before clos ing the presen t art i cl e,

the slash ing pamphlet o f D r. Carson . We again commend th is l ivelypamphle t to the reader." —Record, London .

A combinat ion of the most s tartl ing d isclosures,conclusi ve refu ta

t ions,and trenchant at tacks."—Bap tist M a gazine .

T h e heres i es l oudly called for an exposure. and th is Dr . Carson hasgiven them

,wi th the sk i l l and power o f on e wh o i s thoroughly mas ter

o f h is subj ect. —Primitive Church M aga z in e .

A well-wri tten pamph let, con ta in ing a comp lete refu tati on o f someo f the dangerous heres ies of the Brethren . We wi sh the Doc tor wouldpursue the work

,and give to the publ i c a large book o n the same

subj ec t. He i s we ll able ; and it is grea tly needed .

"—Tyro ne Co nstitu~

tia n , July , 1867 .

" Dr . Carson h as con ferred a boon o f great value o n the whole of theChri s tian world

,by h is man ly and able exposure o f the P lymou th

heres ies . We thank h im for hi s able defence o f truth ,and for hi s man ly

exposure o f e rror. W e pray that the man tl e o f h is sa lute d father mayever res t upon h i s shoulders . H e has done h is work wel l . —L etter i nTh e E a rth e n Vesse l.

“ Dr. Carson i s a thorough ‘ ch ip o f th e o ld b lock .

’ H e has the i n .

tensely quick percept ion o f his i l lus trous s i re , and therefore , i s no ve rypleasan t cr it i c where all i s no t thoroughly sound No one w i ll doubtwha t we say who wi l l read th is searching pamph let. —Bap tist M e sse ng er

Dr . Carson h as ably combated the pr i nc iples and reason ings of th eBrethren . On the offic ia l orders and m in i st ry o f Churches, thewr i ter has some excel len t remarks . T h is publ i cat ion i s worthyo f at tent i ve perusal

,and those who are annoyed and d isturbed by the

pre tentious sayings and doings of th e ‘Brethren ' would do we ll top romo te i ts c ircu lat ion as widely as possibl e." T h e Gosp el Herald .

“ W e would strongly advise those who w ish to understand the P lymouth p ri nc ip les to procure th is v igorous pamph let by Dr. Carson . Hesets forth i n clear and energet i c language the pecul iar v i ews o f th i sn ew and somewhat dangerous sect

,and br ings them to the test of the

Word o f G od .

- 1 h e Bulwa rk, E d inburgh .

Of th i s pamph let we shall on ly say,that we wi sh i t had been longer.

S o far as i t goes i t i s mos t excel len t. We are much indebted to Dr.Carson fo r it. ”—Quar te rly Journa l of P rop h e cy, July 1862.

D r. Carson ‘ s w i ther i ng exposures not on ly o f the ir errors,but of

the i r Jesui t i cal moral i ty,canno t fai l to prod uce a ‘ sensat i on ’

in therel ig ious world .

” —S ta nda rd , Derry .

T h e pecul iar i t i es o f P lymouth Brethren ism are thoroughly s ifted ,scriptural ly tested , and fai thful ly exposed .

—Bap tist M e ssenge r .“ T h is is a new ed i tion o f a work wh ich we formerly notic ed . T h e

s tyle of the au thor i s calm and argumen ta t i v e,and h i s Opponents can

no t compla in of h i s ze al hav i ng betrayed him in to using in temperatelanguage. T h e errors wh ich he charges the Brethren w i th are i ncorrec topi n i ons as to the work and person of Chr is t ; and i f they are what Dr.Carson says

,the P lgomouth Bre thren approach very near to the creed o f

the Un i ta ri an and ela lan .-Glasgow E xaminer .

I had no idea that they held such heres i es un t i l I read thi s book byD r. Carson , who is a son o f the great Dr. Carso n , o fT ub b e rmo re , I reland ,and who appears to be a son worthy of such a father—one on whom themantl e of the departed E l ij ah has fal len . T his work presen ts athorough ex sure

,and complete re futa ti on , of some o f the heresies of

that sec t . lpt

o

pro ve s i ts author to be a man o f no ord inary abi l i t ie s—a

man competent for the task he has there in undertaken .—The Canadian

Bap tist, T oronto , Canada, Sep tember 3d , 1 803 .

T h e se iBre th re n have once and again been combated,bu t n ever

,we

be l i eve, with th e same success as o n the presen t occas ion . Dr. Carsoni s a powerful fr i end

,and a v ery formidabl e adversary . He i s largely

endowed w ith the i ntel lect,th e penetrat ion

,we h ad almost said in tu i

t i on , and the conv inc ing lO gic o f h is admi rabl e father, the far-famed Dr .Carson . T h e volume presents an analy t ical v iew o f the whol e subject.A s a p i ece o f pol em ical th eology

,we attach exceed ing great importance

to i t ; i t i s really a book o f thought far beyond what m igh t be supposed .

A be tter sh i l l ing’s worth o f sound d iv in i ty and convi nc i ng logic i s nowhere to be found . By mak ing a physic ian o f the author, h i s paren tshave spoi l t a first . ra te d i v in e however

,even i n tha t capaci ty he i s no t

wholly lost. - T h e British S ta nda rd , February 1 3 th, 1 863 , ed i ted by theR e v Dr. Campbel l .

T hi s i s th e mos t exhaust iv e and thorough refutat ion o f th e P ly.

mou th Heres ies that has yet b een publ i shed . I ts author,D r. Ca rson ,

wie lds a. trenchan t pen . H e has appl i ed the powers o f an acute m indto ful ly mas ter the theology and tac t i c s o f thi s most exclus iv e andsel f-r igh teous o f all sec ts . We have not space to not ic e the refutat io n o f the theory that the law i s no t a rul e o f l ife

,and o ther errors

that are deal t with i n th i s work i n an unan swerable styl e . D r. Carson ’ swork i s spec ially valuabl e fo r i ts w i ther ing exposure o f th e Jesu i try,prevar icat ion

,and evas ion o f Darby

,M ack i n tosh , and o ther Brethren ,

whg are certai nly wanting in manl iness and candour. In Canada ,as wel l a s i n Ireland , there have been i nstances o f Plymouth teachersexpl ic i tly denying that they held certain doc tr ines tha t they h ad

mos t c lear ly and unquestionably taugh t. " '

h e Ch ristia n Gua rdia n,T oronto, Canada, Nov. 9 th , 1 870.

W e scrupl e not to close th i s notice o f books wi th o n e that i s av igorous and trenchant exposure o f o n e o f the ch i ef offences o f o urt imes . I t i s wr i tten wi th wonderfu l keenness and fervour. I t i l l u st rates eternal pr i nc ipl es

,and has a un iversal in teres t . Dr. Carson

shares largely i n h is honoured father ’s qual i t i es,and nowhere has he

shown them mor e large ly than i n th i s volume .—Frcema n , Apr i l 14th ,

1 871 .

“ We most hearti ly welcome Dr. Carson ’s ab le exposure and thoroughrefutat ion o f th e P lymouth Heres ies ; and would tender h im o ur cord ialthanks for the labour o f l ove to the Chr i s t i an Church h e has i n th i smasterly work accompl i shed . Dr. Carson deserv es the thank s o f theChr i s t i an worl d

,wh ich we have no doub t he will rece i ve ; and hi s ‘ P ly

mouth Heres i es,

’ we ven ture to pred ic t,wi l l l ong remai n a s ta ndard

work o n th i s subj ect . —No rth ern E nsign, Wick , December l s t, 1 8 70.

I t s eems superfluous to rev i ew a book that has reached i ts th irteenththousand , for surely that c irculat ion has pu t an unm i stakable value uponi t. We therefore would just i nd icate that thi s i s a thorough i nvest igat i ono f th e who le rel ig ion o f Brethren ism

, and wi th a cr i t i cal acumen thatno th ing i s al lowed to escape o r evade the eagl e-eyed v ig ilance o f theauthor . Many person s w i l l be both gr i eved and surpr i sed a t the s tartl i ng revelat ions o f th i s volume. Unsoundness o f doctr i ne and heret i ca ldogmas on subjects o f greatest importance are here d i sclosed , so tha tthe whol e Christian Church i s under obl igations to D r. Carson for h ismasterly v i nd ication o f the essent ial truths o f th e Chr i st ian fai th .

Bap tist M essenger, December 1 870.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

the logi cal facul ty i n a rare degree,he i s keen in detecting and expos

ing the sl i ghtes t dev iation from the form o f sound words . H e wr i tes i na manly

,straigh tforward

,trenchan t s tyle . S ee ing clearly and dec idedly

for h imself,he expresses h imself i n such a luc id manner

,tha t i t seems

almost impossibl e for the weakes t i n tel lect to m isunderstand h im . H ehas no tolerance fo r anything savour-ing o f evas ion o r tr i ckery . U tterlyi ncapable of descend i ng to anyth ing o f the sort

,h e seems the very im

personat ion o f hones t and fai r deal ing . Chr i s t ians have reason to thankhim for hi s book. T h e perusal o f i t cannot bu t contr ibute to clearerviews o f the Gospel method o f salva t ion . E ven as an ex erc i se fo r thei ntellectua l facu lt i es

,i t W i l l be benefic i al . T h e Co renan te r, December

1 870.

“ I t must be ev iden t to every hones t and sound h eart that D r. Carsonhas done a good and noble work i n expos ing , wi th such manl i ness ,ab i l i ty, and success , the Heres i es referred to T o us

,the r i chest p o r

t i ons of Dr. Carson’s work are , h i s cl ear and unmistakabl e expos it ion sof the gospel of our L ord and S av iour Jesus Chr i s t. How ful l o f consolation i s th e thought

,that whenever any body o f profess ing Chr i st ian

men have come forward to destroy the foundation o f the fai th oncedel ivered unto the sai n ts

,Go d has always raised up a champion who.

l ike Dav id,comes forth in the strength o f the L ord

,to slay Gol iath

,and

scatter the hosts o f the Ph i l i s ti nes . I n the name o f hundreds o f thousands we thank Dr. Carson for the serv i ce h e h as rendered to the caus eo f Div i n e truth . H i s v enerabl e fath er’s man t l e has certain ly fal lenupon him .

- 7 h e E a r th en Ve sszl, London , December 1 870.

T h e controvers ial man tl e o f the renowned father has ev iden tly fal lenupon the g ifted son

,and he , therefore.wi elds the same trenchan t pen .

He exposes the i r fal se teaching w i th s ingular abi l i ty and tac t . H i sl ogi cal d educ t i ons from thei r wr i t ings must be astound ing to those whohave no t exam i n ed careful ly the rel igious dogmas o f th ese P lymou thd ivi nes . T rue to h is own hones t convic t ion s, as thus stated in h i s preface

,h e does expose the errors o f the Plymouth sec t w i th an un spar ing

pen,and then br i ngs to bear upon them . w i th demol ish i ng effec t

,the

artil l ery o f the i n spired tes t imony. T h e Doctor’s unwaver i ng adhes ionto the i nstruct i on o f the D iv ine l aw book ,

sh i n es o ut d is t i nctly on ev erypage of h i s book , and i nv ests h i s argument w i th irres i s t ibl e force.H IS mas ter ly exposi t ion and defence o f the pas toral ofiic e '

1n th e churchas d iv in e i n i ts 01 ig in

,and as perpetual i n its obl igat i on s

,has afi'o rd e d

us unmingled sat i sfac t ion . So del ighted are we w i th hi s chapter o n th i ssubj ec t

,tha t we shal l embrace an early opportun i ty to furn ish c e pious

ex tracts from i t fo r the i ns truc t i on and e dificatio n o f o ur readers , ”—Th eChristian Visitor , S t. Jo h n’

s,Ne w Brunswick, November 24th , 1 870.

T hi rte enth T housand ,

THREE LETTERS ONTHE REVIVAL IN IRELAND.

And also, Six th T housand ,

ADDITIONAL LETTERS ONTHE REVIVAL IN IRELAND.

Br JAM E S c.

'

L . osaso s,up .

T h es e l et ters trea t of th e phenomena bo th in a ph i losoph ical andrel ig ious aspect and the v i ews wh ich they conta i n w i l l be found correc t,when measured by the resul ts of the Rev ival. T hey are conta ined inth e vo lum e called M isce l lan eous P apers .

R E V I EW S .

T h e ables t refutat ion we have seen o f the med ica l theor i es of Th eL a nce t. Dr. Carson has here comp letely

.

demol i shed the ‘ hys ter ic ’

theory of th e Be viva l." -Banne r of Utater .

“ Dr. Carson proves, in a manner the most conclus iv e , th at the imp re ss ion abou t hysteria is a great error. H i s v iews regarding th e

phys ical agency are put w ith great force and persp icui ty .—M orning

Adver tiser, L ondon .

“ m the great i n terest o f th e subj ec t, and the we ll-known ab ilityo f the learned author, these l etters are publ i shed in a che ap form forgeneral c i rculat ion .

—Derry S ta nda rd .

Th e more c lose ly we examin e h is pages,we are struck w i th greater

force by th e ab i li ty wi th wh ich Dr. Carson trea ts a most difi cult sub ~

je ct ."—Tyrone Constitutio n .

“ T h e O p in ions enunc ia ted are new,remarkabl e

,and sound. ”

Coleraine Ch ronicle .“ Th ey are the resul t o f thoughtfu l inqu i ry i n to the causes o f the

physicial man i fes tat ions. —Christia n Ca bine t, L ondon.

If ever a p ropos it i on was proved w i th the forc e o f demonstrat ion ,this propos i ti on has be en so by Dr. Carson .

—M orning Adve rtise r.

T h is se ems to be a rat ional way o f account i ng for the phenomenare ferred to .

"—De rry Gua rd ia n .

Dr. Carso n is an enl ighte ned Ch ris t ian phi losopher,whose Opinion

o n a question such as th is,would go for as much w i th us as that of any

pe rson we know .—Irie h E va ng elist.

Dr. Carson has done immen se servi ce by h i s practi ca l and scholarlyvind icat ion .

”-Banner .

T h e wr i ter i s e steemed o n e o f the strongest-mi nded men in Uls ter ,and h i s letter wil l commend i tsel f to the best trai n ed and most cauti ousm inds . H i s dec i s ion o n the physical man ifestations wi l l be held to befina l by al l who know h i s h i gh stand ing. Witness, E d inburgh .

“ On th i s poi n t Dr. Carson , on e of the most i nte l l igen t phys ic i an s ’

in

th e Nort h of Ireland, thus w ri tes. —L ondon Re vie w.

“ Dr. Carson has Spoken i n the character o f a phys ic ian en l igh ten edand sanctifie d .

”—Reviva l, by Re v. Dr. M a ssie .

When such a man comes forvirard to attest to th e genu ineness o fthe Rev ival , i t surely i s a fact wh ich must te l l ve ry s trongly in i tsfavour. —T h e Da ily Newsk Kingston, Qanada .

“ H ence the value o f Dr. Carson ’s very s trik ing l ette r. —Recmd ,London .

“ H i s op i n ion s are expressed i n the Spir i t o f a Chr i s t ian ph ilosopher. ”—B. S cott, E sq. , Chamb erlain of L ond on.

“ Dr . Carson appears to have di sposed o f the asserti on that th e afi' e ct ions were hyster i a.

-E cle ctic Review.

T h ey are calculated to rec tify numerous Quo tiwh ich have largelyprevai l ed in reference to th e man ifestat ion s alluded to .

”—De rryS tanda rd .

W e are gl ad to see these maste rly l etters taken out of the fug i t iv ec olumns o f a n ewspaper . —Ba nn e r of Ulster.

I t n eeded some pen l ike that o f D r 'Carson ’s to v i nd icate the causeo f tru th i n br i ef an d simpl e language. T unlnidg e We lls Ga ze tte

I t is truly refresh ing to tu rn from the s i l ly pamphl ets by D r. Bushn an

,Archdeacon S topfo rd, and others , on the Rev i va l, to those from

the pen o f Dr. Carson .—I rish E va nge list.

T hey are clear,cogent, and temperate. T h e wr i ter i s a sch o lar

,a

g en tl eman , and a Chr i s t ian ; and the ev idence h e adduces i n suppor t o fh is views on th e d isputed

pgin ts is bo th strong and convinc ing.

P aimitive Church M aga zine, ndon“ T h e wr i ters i n the L a ncet and oth er j ournal s are sat isfactorily

deal t w i th i n these abl e letters,by o n e who shows himsel f at once the

man o f ac cu rate sc i ence and the devou t and humb le Chr i s t ian .

"

Wesleyan S unday’ S cho o l M agazine .T hese letters embody a theory o f bod ily prostrat ions wh i ch i s we l l

en ti tl ed to attention.—Ab e rd e en Fre e P ress.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T h e author adduces a great many tex ts to estab l i sh h is pos i tion,

and reasons upon them in a clear and forc ible s tyle.”—Be lfast News~

le tter .

H e masses h is argumen ts i n support Of h i s propos i t ions in an arraywh ich h is opponen ts w i l l find impregnable ; wh ile those who have e sp ouse d

—though i n a hal f heart ed and scarcely d isgu ised feel i ng o ftrembl ing—the same s ide O f th e con troversy

,must have the i r fears fo r

th e s tabi l i ty Of the i r v i ews d ispel led, and the i r doubts effec tual ly d i ss i pa te —Co lerain e C hronicle .

T hi s i s a l i ttl e book on a great subj ec t. Sti l l , smal l as i t seems , itsufiic e s for i ts pu rpose, and accompl i shes what it a ims at. —T h eWa tchma n ,

London .

“ In a styl e o f logical reason ing which i t i s imposs ible to ove rturn,

the au thor shows that the M i l lenn ial sovere ignty o f Ch r i s t upon earthi s as compl etely imposs ible as it i s ev idently unscr iptural. ”—.Ba llymoney Fre e Pre ss.

“ In the d iscuss ion o f a d ifficul t subj ect,Dr. Carson d isp lays much

abi l i ty and undoub ted earn estness .”—Armagh Gua rdia n .

“ T h e author has ev idently stud i ed th e subj ect thoroughly ; and th ecourage and ease w i th which he success i vely attacks and demol i shesthe s tronghold s o f prem il l enar ian ism are admirabl e and refresh ing.

North British Daily M a il,G lasgow .

We must do Dr . Carson the j ustice to say that h e argues th e subj ectw i th keen and re lentless l ogic

,and i n o ur op i n ion w i th en t ire success .

H e travel s ov er the whol e field o f con troversy,and d ri ves h i s Opponents

out o f o n e pos i t ion after another, t i l l i t i s difiicult to imagine where theycan find a foot of ground to s tand ou.

" Gla sgow He ra ld .

“ We n eed only say that the work i s wri tten i n D r. Carson 's usualstyl e

,eviden tly from an earnes t conv ict ion

,and w i th a si ncere regard

for the author i ty o f Scr ipture .” -Bap t ist M e sseng e r , L ondon .

Dr . Carson is wel l known from var i ous works he has publ i shed tow i el d a pe n l i ttl e

,i f at al l , l ess scho larly and v igorous than that of hi s

l ate em inen t father . T h is,his lates t work

,i s ce rta in ly a very abl e

produc ti on . T h e terse and l i vely styl e , and the clear and v igorousreason i ng

,sus tai n the i n te rest of the reader to the end . Start

ing from these i ncon trovertibl e pr i nc iples, he fol lows the premillemar ian ists from passage to passage, d i s lodging them wi th to tal routfrom each

,un t i l h e has no t l eft them a foo t o f the sacred terr i tory o n

which to plant the ir banner. T h e quotat ions he makes showthat he has mastered the works o f the l ead ing wr i ters o n both s ides o fhis subj ec t ; bu t h e wr i tes w i th such sturdy independence o f though t,as mak es i t suffic i ently plain tha t he cal l s no man M aster. One caneas i ly see that he bel i eves i n the ple na 1y i n sp i rat ion o f Scr ipture fromth e mann er in which he reasons from the very let ter Of i t

,yet h e looks

in to it w i th h i s own eyes, and w i th such exerc i se o f hi s own j udgmen tas

,in the case o f the parabl e o f th e tares and the wheat

,for exampl e

,

sets h im at i ssue w i th the great maj or i ty o f the Commentators,though

Arno t, we observe, i n h i s work o n the parabl es,very ably defends th e

same v i ew .

” -0rig ina l S e ce ssion M a ga zine , E d inburgh , Se ptember, 1 873 .

[ I am glad to find that the R e v. Wil l iam Arnot has taken,to a large ex

ten t,the correct v iew O i thi s importan t parabl e ; but I d id not deri v e

my op in ions from h im. I f I h ad done so, I would gla dly have acknowl edged the fact i n my bo ok . M r. Arnot's work was publ ished in th e

year 1866 whereas , my v i ews on the parable o f the T ares were wr i t te nten years pr ior to that da te

,and appear ed at considerab le l ength, in

what was known as the Cooke con troversy, th rough the newspaperpress in 1 866 . My letters were pub lish ed , by M r. M organ , in a pamphle tin th e year 185 7 ; and the argumen t o n th e T ares w i l l be found i n thefourt een th letter, wh ich commences On the sist page —J. C . L . C. ]

“ I t will requ ire several D r. Carsons to conv ince us upon th i s poin t,

though he is c e rtainlyvo ne o f the most forc ibl e reason ers in the c i rc le o f

o ur acquai n tance . e fear we are very l ike the good man who sa id hewas Open to con vict ion

,but he w0uld l ike to see the man who could

conv ince h im . Dr. Carson can ess i l rout us upon a poi n t wh ich i s no tour forte , bu t we st ill be li eve that t e personal re ign of Chr i st du r ingthe M i l l enn ium is qui te poss ib l e ; i ndeed , we wonder how the braveDoc to r can go i n to prove anyth ing impo ssib le , which is no t also lnmoral

,so long as the L o rd i s omnipotent . "—171e S word and Trowe l,

M arch 1 874. [ I have here quoted the en ti re o f th i s rev i ew, because Imean to make some observat ion s on i t. Noth ing could del ight me morethan to be made the means, in the hand O f Go d , o f convert i ng my dearlyvalued fr i end

,the Re v. C . H . S purgeon , to my own sid e o f th e M il len

n i al ques tion . I be l i eve he i s, beyond a l l compar i son , the most em i nen tly useful man in the world at resent . No human tongue coul d te llthe ex ten t O f good he i s do i ng 11 th e pulpi t and through the press .E tern i ty alone can revea l i t . H i s i nfluence is immense. I thereforeh cpe and trus t he w i l l yet rev iew h i s pos i t ion and change h is Op in ion so n the Persona l Re ign . If he shou l d ever do so , I am certa in he wi l lacknowledge it forthwi th , because he is a pe rfect person ificat ion o f

manl in ess and honesty. M r. Spurgeon's remarks concern ing the forceo f the reason ing put forth i n my book are as favourable as I could w i sh ;and

,wi th the candour which i s natural to h im , he con fesses that I have

defeate d him upo n a poi nt wh ich h e says i s no t h isforte . I must,how

ever , say if I have been abl e to overturn hi s argumen ts , i t i s not be causeh e has not ab il i ty to defend them , but i t i s owing en t irely to the fac tthat he is on the wrong s ide o f the ques t ion , and consequently has nosolid ground to s tand on . M r. Spurgeon i s not the man to be eas i lydefeated on any subject which has a real foundation i n Scripture andthe fac t of h is argum ents be i ng ove rturned. I take as a sure proof thathe has been sta nd ing on a rope o f sand . T h e defec t i s i n the subj ec tnot i n h imself. But i t i s the last sen te nce in th e rev iew

,which I

espec ially w ish to remark on , because i t invo lves a pr i nc ipl e o f Bibl icali n te rpreta tion of overwhelm ing importance . T here i s no thing of wh ichI am more j ealous than the rinciple s of i n terpre tation , because i t w il lalmost i nvariably be found t t erro rs take the ir r ise fro m false founda o

t ion pr i nc iples. M r. S purgeon wonders how I could undertake to proveanything imposs ibl e

,wh ich i s not immoral , so long as God is omn ipoten t .

Now,I am not aware o f hav ing rested the argument i n my book on the

poi n t of omn ipo tenc e . T h e Personal Re i gn i s no t a ques t ion O f powe rit is a question of Scripture test imony . I t i s imposs ibl e

,because i t is

i nconsi s ten t w i th , and contrad ictory to, Div in e revelati on , and therefore canno t b e true. T his , and not power, i s the l in e of my argument.But leavi ng th is matter out O f the ques tion for th e resen t

,is i t a fac t

tha t ev eryth ing which i s no t immo ral i s poss ib le to mnipo te nt Power ?I deny i t. E veryth ing i n wh ich powe r is the poin t i nvolved ,

i s poss ibl eto omnipotence ; but there are many th ings wh ich , though not immoral

,are impossible to omnipo te nt power

,just because they do no t

depend upon power at a ll , and have no mo re to do w i th it than wi th theattribu te o f Jus t ice. I t would be easy , fo r example, fo rGod , as a ma t te r

o f power, to make a s ton e into a p iece o f bread but no power in heaveno r o n earth could make it bread wh i l e i t s ti l l remained a stone . I t couldnot poss ibly be bread and a ston e at the same time. T h e th i ng is imposs ibl e

, no t because o f power , but because o f i ts own i nconsi stency .

Agai n,it would be a very easy matter, in poin t O f power, for Chr i s t, in

H i s own proper bodi ly person , to come to Jerusalem ; bu t it would no tbe poss ibl e under any power whatever, fo r H i s body to be i n Jerusalemand i n heaven at the same time, In H i s Godhead

,H e can be every

where present,bu t H i s body must

,as a matter o f necess i ty i n the very

nature o f thi ngs,be limi ted by space, and cannot poss ibly be i n two

d is t inc t places at once . Further,a s my father once sa id

,“ a man could

not swall ow the whol e o f h is own body . T hi s does n o t rest upon power,but o n the fac t

,that “ the contain er cannot be the contai n ed .

” T wo

l earned men were once talk ing about everyth ing be ing possible w i thGo d

,when a simple ton

,wh o was stand ing by

,immediately asked

,

could He make two h i l l s w i thout a hol low T hat was a cracker forthem . T here would be no thing immoral i n the performance

,i f i t cou ld

only be done ; but Omnipotence coul d n o t do i t, j ust because i t i s no t aquest ion o f power at all . Pow er is no way concerned i n i t. T h e grea tO

’

Co nn e ll was once engaged conducting a tr i al where a Jew was accusedo f b i ting o ff a. man ’s nose . T h e person charged declared that the manb i t Off h i s own nose . I t was argued that th is was imposs ibl e . Noth ingi sh impo sshib le w id Go d ,

” sa id the Jew ,T h e argumen t o f the Jew i s a

ve ry common o n e amongst theo logian s but i t i s a great m i s take,and

takes i ts or igi n i n an over-anx iety to defend the power o f Go d . Go dnever requ ires such a defence . E veryth ing concern ing H im i s restingon sure pr i nc ipl es, and there n ever i s the sl ightes t inconsi sten cy . T h e

mistakes al l ar i se from inaccurate though t . T here i s noth ing i n wh ichpower i s the e lemen t concerned

,imposs ibl e w i th Go d o n the po in t of

power ; but there are many th ings, al though not immoral , which areimposs ibl e w i th Go d

,j ust because they are i nconsisten t w i th the very

nature o f th i ngs , and power has nothi ng whatever to do w i th them .We

should a lways be careful , when we come to the i nterpretat ion o f Scr ipture, to make such accurate d is t inct i on s as w i l l keep us ou t o f error .I t wou ld be imposs ibl e to adopt M r. Spurgeon ’s argument

,and at the

3am; tin

é

e

]successfully Oppose the doctr in e o f transubstant iat ion

L .

Pr ice 25 , 6d

M IS CE LLANEOUS PAP E RS .

BY JAME S c . L. CARSON,M .D,

L ONDON : BOUL ST ON SONS .

C O N T E N T S .

THE SABBATH—THE L O RD’

s DAY—T HREE LETTERS AND FIVE ADDIT I O NAL L ETTERS O N T HE REV I VAL m IREL AND—T HE NEW T RANS LA

T IO N O F THE SCR IPTURES—SCIENCE AND SCR IPTURE—A CHR ISTIANS P IR IT IN CO NTRO VE RSY .