and unpublished information which may explain and illustrate the revival of religion during the earlier part of the last century.

With many apologies for trespassing at such length upon your pages, I am, Mr. Editor, your obedient Servant,

HENRY VENN.

REMARKS ON THE OPINIONS OF THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. [WE have occasionally received inquiries respecting the opinions of the persons known by the name of the " Plymouth Brethren;" but have abstained from noticing the subject, upon the general principle which we followed in regard to Irvingism and many other extravagancies, that except so far as they become matters of great notoriety, or special cause arises for adverting to them, it is not for edification to make them the subject of popular discussion. It often happens that more unstable persons are led into error by its opposers than by its friends; the former drawing it from its obscurity, and publishing it among the unwary, who thus become acquainted with sophistries which they are unable to withstand. This is in some measure an unavoidable result of controversies, however necessary. The Socialists boast that their publications have circulated manifold in consequence of the notice of them in parliament; and even sermons against infidelity often suggest doubts in minds which had never before entertained them. Some clergymen a few years ago unsettled the minds of some weak members of their flock by preaching against Mr. Irving's opinions, where they would have been little known, had they not been thus unwisely published.

This must be our plea, if we seem remiss in not more prominently obtruding every passing error of the day upon our readers, even in the way of refutation. We speak generally; and not as meaning that an occasional calm and scriptural exposure of error, such as that contained in the following statement furnished to us by one of our correspondents, may not prove useful in fortifying the weak, and forearming the strong, against specious delusions to which they may be exposed.]

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

To weigh every religious theory that may be confidently started by individuals, and eagerly embraced by multitudes, were almost as arduous an undertaking as to count the number of the clouds, or to mark their varying forms and evanescent colours. Such productions of the human mind have been wanting in no age and in no country; in our own they have marvellously abounded. Like certain meteoric phenomena they have rapidly succeeded each other, and have continued just long enough to delude the minds of the simple, and to produce spiritual mischief which years may be insufficient to repair. I scarcely need enumerate, as illustrations, the respective theories of a Southcote or an Irving; and-of course not meaning any comparisonthe awful blasphemies of an Owen.

For the foregoing reasons, I have hitherto refrained from calling the attention of your readers to certain opinions which happen to have been forced upon my own consideration, and which have drawn aside some unstable brethren. The system is so much infested with extravagance, and so opposed to the true principles of Scripture interpretation, that I have let it pass, year after year, without

directly attempting to expose its true character, notwithstanding I was told of its rapid growth and pernicious tendencies. I also found some difficulty in clearly ascertaining, by any authentic publications of their own, what are the exact views and principles of (as they are now generally designated) "the Plymouth Brethren."

This difficulty is removed by the appearance of a volume, entitled "Precious Truth;" which is patronised by "the Plymouth Brethren ;" (I use the name not to degrade, but to distinguish them,) and inay be fairly regarded, more or less, as an organ of their body.

But before referring to the work, I should premise, that the Brethren at Plymouth profess, and I doubt not in sincerity, to take the Church, as it existed in the days of the Apostles, for their exact model; at least as far as may be practicable; and consequently (a strange consequence) to have done with all religious creeds and forms and shibboleths, as remnants and rags of Judaism. Nor do they obscurely intimate that their views of "holy living," as the adjunct and fruit of their theory, are higher than those maintained by Christians of other denominations; so that "the Plymouth Brethren" not only reject at once every possible claim of the Established Church, but they also condemn every Dissenting communion as shackled, more or less, by its technical peculiarities. They are most nearly allied to the Baptists; as a large proportion of " the Brethren" have partaken of the rite of adult baptism. When these circumstances are weighed, together with their zeal for proselytism, which has been neither inactive nor inefficient, the work before me becomes a fair subject for scriptural investigation. If its author and circulators have discovered a path of light hitherto untrodden by the Christian body, it is clearly incumbent on the latter to be followers of them as they are of Christ. If on the contrary (as I shall attempt to shew), they have mistaken the glimmerings of fancy for the beams of truth, and the dicta of their own body for the declarations of Holy Scripture, it is the plain duty of the church at once to avoid their errors, and to pray that those who are entangled in them may themselves be delivered " as a bird out of the snare of the fowler."

Entering calmly and impartially on the work before me, I am struck with the prodigious confidence, with which, from its commencement to its close, the subject matter is developed. Never, unless my memory deceive me, did I meet with any propositions, in the pages of Romanism itself, which had less to do with hesitation, respecting the soundness of our premises, or the accuracy of our conclusion. In "Precious Truth," I find the most positive affirmation, (grounded, it may be, on some passage in the Holy Scripture, which is urged to favour it,) the most unbounded freedom in interpreting the sacred text, and consequently such misrepresentations of its import, and such false deductions from its principles, as could not escape the notice of an unbiassed reader.

My attention was next arrested by the following expression, which occurs in the fifth page of the book: "Man's corrupt heart, that is enmity against God, is ready enough to believe something about judgment and wrath, but altogether unwilling to believe such wondrous

In this point may be traced a considerable resemblance between themselves and the Sandemanians.

love, as that God should give His Son to do every thing for us, leaving us nothing to do but to confess that every thing is already done, because He has assured us of it." Had the writer only added," in the way of justification," I should readily have assented to the statement as alike scriptural and useful. The Apostle Paul, throughout his Epistle to the Romans, carefully distinguishes between the insufficiency of works in the matter of acquittal before God, and the need of good works as an evidence of faith in Jesus. Indeed the 42nd page of "Precious Truth" contains an apparent contradiction of what is enunciated in the 5th; for it declares that the "previous step to blessing to the Lord's children is obedience.” (John vii. 17.) And truly lamentable it is that writers of unquestionable piety do not so state the impossibility of our being justified by works as still to shew their importance as witnesses to our christian hope, and instruments of the Lord's glory. I may apply the foregoing observation to page 13, in which (with no slight obscurity) the author observes" how much service are God's dear children called on to render, when thus saved, independent of any service." Had he prefixed the epithet meritorious to the concluding word in the sentence, his principle would have been equally secure, and his meaning too clear to admit of any possible perversion. But, throughout the volume, I do not find the necessity of repentance insisted on, or even noticed. It will, therefore, be difficult for the author to repel the conclusion, that he treats, as superfluous in religion, what Christ and his Apostles have distinctly spoken of as indispensable. Is not this to be wise above what is written?

In " the Christian s heavenly calling," (the second part of " Precious Truth,") there is a running comment on the difference between the Jew and the Christian. Here, however, is a striking want of discrimination. For instance, in page 21, Christians are condemned for minding "earthly things," without any attempt to shew that such things, if duly subordinated to those which are unseen and eternal, may very lawfully be attended to, and indeed cannot be innocently neglected. In the same page, and in the same spirit, it is contended that all war is inadmissible on Christian grounds; a proposition directly opposed to the express words of John, in reply to the inquiry of the soldier, and indeed to the principles of the Old Testament; since in it is clearly recognised the lawfulness of war, whenever rendered necessary, and especially by the invasion of an enemy.

I find, in page 22, a passage intended to do away with all obligation to maintain the sanctuaries of our land. "The Jews had a particular place in their land, and dedicated buildings in it, where they worshipped God (1 Kings viii.); but we have no place or building more than another (John iv. 20, 21); but wherever two or three are met together in the name of Christ, there is He in the midst of them. (Matt. 18-20.) The Jewish earthly temple was adorned with goodly stores and gifts (Luke xxi. 5); but there should be no such building, and no such adorning in the Christian Church now, but a spiritual house, composed of believers, &c. (Eph. ii. 20, 21)." I would here inquire, by what authority do our "Plymouth Brethren oppose themselves to the prevailing custom of appropriating certain edifices to the worship of Almighty God? They reply that the primitive saints had no such temples for their use, and that the New Testament writers have no where commanded us to erect them. But do they themselves copy in every respect the early followers of Christ? especially as it

regards the sale of all their goods for the benefit of the Church at large? And are they not apparently unmindful of the weighty fact, that the first disciples of Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, " continued daily in the temple?" (Acts ii. 46.) By this circumstance it appears that they saw not, in the sanctuary itself, and certainly not in the services maintained within its walls, any thing inconsistent with the purity and simplicity of the Christian character. That they did not themselves construct sacred edifices proves little more than this:-that the circumstances of the times, as it regarded the security of property, made it impracticable to do so. Here, however, it might be sufficient to turn to the remonstrance of St. Paul, addressed to his Corinthian brethren (1 Cor. xi. 22), “ What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye the Church of God, &c. ?" Unquestionably the word "houses" is here used to denote a clear distinction between them and some other edifices employed for the purposes of public worship. Here the very text of the New Testament is adverse to the practice maintained by the " Plymouth Brethren," of exclusively assembling in each others' houses on the Sabbath, for the purpose of "breaking bread," and of spiritual edification.

In the next paragraph, it is asseverated, with unrivalled confidence, that the Jews had persons among them on earth holding the special office of priest; but our only priest (except as every believer is a priest-1 Peter ii. 9) is Jesus the great High Priest, &c." Our "Plymouth Brethren seem wholly to overlook those parts of the apostolic writings which are irreconcileable to such a notion. (1 Tim. iii. 1, 12, 15; " give thyself (wholly to them." 1 Tim. v. 22; Titus i. 5; Hebrews xiii. 17.) As to the latter passage I have noted, can laymen be truly said to "watch" for the souls of others, as they that must give account?" Never yet did I meet with even a plausible reply to this simple yet important question.

May I next glance at the evils which would necessarily arise, from the disuse of the Christian sanctuary, and the abolition of the sacred office? As to the former (to say nothing of the "religio loci" being annihilated) what is to become of the ignorant and irreligious multitude on the Lord's day, if no place of public worship were open for their use and accommodation? Is it within the bounds of probability, or I might even ask, is it not morally impossible, that they should resort for prayer and instruction to the houses of pious individuals, which may be opened they know not where, and cannot ascertain when? Far different was the practice of the Saviour, when he went into the Jewish Temple (Luke iv. 18), and there preached to the people on those scriptural predictions (Isaiah lx. 1), which immediately related to himself. He knew what was in man; what unwillingness to use all such means of grace as may involve any inconvenience, even of a temporal description. He also knew full well how readily we go with the multitude to the house of God; and if Jesus, our great prophet, had been opposed to the latter practice, He could not, as he has actually done, have left his followers uninformed on a question of such spiritual importance. Therefore to abolish places of public worship is virtually to deprive the multitude of a most important means of grace, and to seal their impenitence and unbelief. history of France may tell us what will be the morals of a nation whose sanctuaries are swept away, whether by fanatical zeal, or revo

The

lutionary violence. The private houses opened for the reception of the brethren would be shunned by the irreligious multitude, and the latter would be left as sheep without a shepherd. Nor would inclemencies of weather be a slight obstacle to those who might be wandering from street to street in search of the domestic sanctuary.

The abolition of the sacred office is so wild and extravagant a project, that to name it is virtually to expose it to just and merited reprobation. While that project is zealously maintained by the Plymouth Brethren, the mischiefs essentially connected with it seem to have escaped their notice, or certainly have not engaged their serious consideration. Is it nothing, then, that the inhabitants of a place are left without a watchman who is pledged to God to warn them of their spiritual danger; without an ambassador who prays men in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God; and without a commissioned comforter who may be God's instrument in communicating to them "beauty for ashes, oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness?"

But the Brethren will smile at these inquiries, and tell us that all who are endued with the grace of the Holy Spirit are necessarily qualified to act as preachers and teachers, as visitors of the sick and as comforters of the afflicted. Admitting, for the sake of argument, the validity of this reply, I would still ask them, are the pious laity sufficiently disengaged to undertake the above most important labours ? Might not the sick, the afflicted, and the stricken in conscience, require their spiritual aid at certain seasons of the day, when, from attention to their secular duties, they would be wholly unable to afford it? In these and like instances, the clergy abolition system would prove a melancholy failure, and a serious injury to those who might hear the unavailing cry "Come and help us ;" to say nothing of that unfitness for such occupations as are spiritual, that so commonly results from employment purely secular.

To the allegation of the Plymouth Brethren, that the sums laid out in the construction of our British sanctuaries are needlessly bestowed, or rather totally misspent, a short answer may be sufficient, namely, that till they shall succeed in subverting the Scriptural arguments urged in favour of such sanctuaries, their allegation can have no weight. While those arguments remain in force, it follows that the sums in question are really presented as an offering to the God of Heaven, and consequently are not misspent. What would the objector have said, had he lived in the days of Solomon, and witnessed the costly magnificence of that Temple, which he was commissioned to erect?

I would pass on to that unusual boldness in interpreting the sacred text, which forms no subordinate part of the system. For instance, the references made in pages 90 and 92, to the Millennial reign of our Redeemer, are fraught with infallibility itself. For the writer fearlessly assumes that the saints "shall" then "reign on, or over the earth." (Rev. v. 10). And the judgment of the nations (Matt. xxv. 31) is at the commencement of the day of the Lord. judgment of the dead (Rev. xx. 11) will be at the end of the thousand years, also the burning of the earth."

"The

Connected with this view of the Millennium is the theory of the Plymouth Brethren, that the earth being still accursed in consequence of man's apostacy, the Christian should neither find nor seek any enjoy