from this Brother's language, that he holds the latter; but we do not know. Even if the former were true, it would not quench nor grieve the Spirit, to order that certain persons alone speak in a certain building and at a certain time. For if others were gifted, ever so suddenly, they would find, in another building, and to another audience, the opportunity of using their gifts. Who now advocates what Queen Elizabeth did,-the trying "to stop prophesyings" by outward force? Let the new prophets or teachers speak elsewhere: if their powers are remarkable, the church whence they came will hear of it, and can, if it please, make room for them. Its ordinances are not immoveable, as of the Medes and Persians.-How much less then is an insult offered to the Spirit by the regulation supposed, if it be believed that ministers and teachers are not formed without time? This regulation may be wise, or unwise: that is not our question. But, have the Brethren a right to dogmatize, as they do, about it ?to call all churches apostate which judge otherwise?

This word "Apostate" is intended to have, and has, a real sting it is not equivalent to misjudging. For, consider how the Brother deals towards churches which do not assent to his strange interpretation of 1 Cor. xii. 25, and his application of the whole chapter. He decides, first, they have left the apostolic model; secondly, they are apostate-their order is fleshly order, their union an insult to the Spirit; thirdly, he does not recognise the relationship between a pastor and his flock, or between churchmembers, as a spiritual reality, however truly cemented by the Spirit; but as mere fleshly formality. He would rejoice at its destruction. If the ten or twenty ministers were persuaded suddenly to abandon the flock and join the Brethren, would not this Brother glorify God that they had come out of all systems,' without asking whether the ties broken were spiritual, or merely formal? This is what we meant by saying that they did not care 'what spiritual ties they burst, while pressing their theories:' for is not this quite a refinement of theory?

He corrects an assertion of ours, which implied that it is not lawful for an individual to collect believers (suppose to his own house) in order that he might teach them himself, and be the sole speaker. Our words certainly contained this, although we had only intended them as an emphatic re-asserting of the duty of open ministry, whenever they met as believers; which we believe is identical (in the Brethren's view) with meeting as a church. This Brother, however, says that open ministry is to be enforced only when they meet as a church for the worship of 'God.' We gladly publish this more correct statement of their

* The Brother seems to think we meant ecclesiastical.

views; although we cannot conceive how 1 Cor. xii. authorizes. them in this limitation. May not a church, if it please, meet for the mere worship of God, without having, at such time, any ministry at all?

If, as this Brother appears to think, their open ministry works well, we do not grudge it them, but are glad to have this and other methods put to the proof. Yet we think it clear, that an unfair advantage is given to the system, in a picked and therefore sectarian church. While the differences between speakers lie within narrow limits, so long (and only so long) are they bearable. But let the doctrine of Wesley (to give but one instance) be broached before the Brethren; let it be periodically and permanently enforced; and we are confident that they will either silence it-by persuasion, entreaty, authority; or they will quit the church themselves.

We know they will say, that this difficulty, though great, is hypothetical; and that their faith is exercised in looking to be kept out of it, as much as to be helped through it; nay, and hitherto have been so! We cannot allow this writer the triumph implied in his thankfulness for their unanimity; for it is plain that they have employed the surest human means for suppressing differences WITHIN their church. These are two: first, by using great strength (we say, exaggeration) of sentiment, which disgusts and repels all who do not embrace it; to which also their general intolerance of contrary opinions conduces: secondly, by securing that the chief power of mind should rest on their side. Their plan of proceeding is available to propagate truth or error alike. Some half-dozen men of education, and of energetic minds, coalesce, and assemble round them a number of females and of less educated men. Individuals who combine with them become assimilated to the pre-existing body; for a person remaining neutral and calm in the midst of them would be as a chill to their fervour, and in perpetual collision. If all (true) Christians joined them instantly-as they fancy they wish-their system would prove impracticable. But because all who disagree with them either keep away through kindness, or are driven away by disapprobation, that is, because they are a sect, and not the catholic church, therefore alone it is that open ministry succeeds. Still, in a sect, and cleared from enthusiasm, it may be a very useful institution, for any thing that we are concerned to maintain.

III. We will next advert to an instance (p. 503) of his misapprehending us in a rather grave matter. Because we said that the Brethren held the law of Moses not to be our rule of life in any sense whatever,' he thinks that we are charging them with Antinomianism! Now in fact, not a feature which we have ascribed to the Brethren has any similarity to that odious error; and we particularly stated that their Calvinism was very moderate.'

It is the more remarkable, because this is one of the tenets which the writer of the former Article held to involve valuable truth;' and in a note upon their view of the Sabbath, in connexion with it, may be read: This is no peculiarity of theirs; since it was held by all the Reformers, as well as in all times by the most learned writers of the Church of England.' Did it need much study to discern that the writer agreed with them? Suspecting there might be a strong feeling against this among his coadjutors, he did not feel justified in using the editorial We; and yet (considering it to be a doctrine on which few use discrimination), he could not endure to permit it to bring odium on the Brethren, without stating, though dryly, a fact tending to disarm hostility. How the Brother, with that note before him, could suppose Antinomianism to be the thing imputed, it is difficult to say. what did we mean by in any sense whatever? Merely, that as a rule, it was gone by entirely and for ever; and not (as some distinguish) a rule in moral matters, but not in ceremonial; or a rule of conduct, but not of justification, &c. &c. The Brother fully accepts for himself the sentiments which we described; but tells us that they are not altogether unanimous, while we had said 'we believed' they were.

But

IV. He complains that we 'insinuate what we dare not assert,' that they lay claim to the gifts of prophecy. We assure him that we insinuate no such thing. We desired, as concisely as we could, to point out the contrast between the Irvingites and the Brethren; the former holding that miraculous gifts have come and are present the latter, that they are to be desired, prayed for, looked after, but are not (to their knowledge) come. We are certain that this used to be held by the Brethren, and not very long back; nor do we find that this Brother repudiates it. But, as we before said, he makes us suspect that their views concerning the Spirit have been modified. Perhaps they now think that no more gifts (in kind) are to be expected or prayed for, than they actually have at present.

Speaking of insinuations, we will add two other matters. He complains that we insinuated that they are not anxious to proselyte souls to Christ; because we spoke of their zeal to proselyte 'persons, not to Christ, but to a new system.' We cannot withdraw this statement: nay, we believe they will glory in it, changing the word system. But that we did not intend the alleged insinuation, might be seen by our broad statement, that they held they ought to preach the gospel, feed the hungry, &c.' In case any of our readers have not attended to this, we here distinctly disavow any such meaning. It would be very unworthy to imagine that no better motive than party zeal prompts their efforts to enlighten the ignorant and convert the abandoned.

Farther, when we spoke of 'pews or no pews,' as a thing on

which they lay inordinate stress (as we deliberately think), we were not intending to beguile the reader into the belief that it was the mere pew, and not the moral principle of a private pew, to which they objected. We ourselves twice said, 'private pews' and payment for pews.' Those congregations with which we are acquainted, would object, as strongly as the Brethren can, to allow poor members to be excluded from convenient sittings, by the rich monopolizing them.

V. Another grand accusation. We hold in our hands a paper, which we believe has been widely circulated, entitled, "Some Explanation of the Views of certain Brethren in Christ.' Therein we read: We hold that no difference of judgment or 'experience ought to hinder communion and visible unity among those who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity.' This is a statement which, we feel satisfied, the Brother will approve as will all Congregationalists, except Strict Communion Baptists. Yet this principle is really more barren than it seems. At first sight, it appears to say, that a man's creed is not one of the elements by which we decide whether or not he loves the Lord; but that other means exist by which this may be known, and that, this having been ascertained, his creed goes for nothing. This sounds delightfully large our hearts open towards it with desire,-we speak most seriously. We believe it is painful to every generous mind, to be brought back to the conviction that it is not possible to act up to it; but that there are points which, even as a bare creed, must be exacted. When this is allowed, it is clear that the proposition should be: No difference of judgment, which is not such as to induce the belief that an individual does not love, '&c. &c.'; in which form it loses all its pleasant generality, and says no more than common dissenters' hold.

We remarked in our former article, on the appearance of liberalism or liberality' in the Brethren, which came to nothing in practice; and this was meant as an eminent instance of it. They find great fault with all others for enforcing creeds, confessions, &c., and loudly proclaim, (as something forsooth peculiar to themselves,) that no difference of judgment should hinder communion,' &c. Yet this, when checked by a second principle, is stripped of its grandeur. We exhibited the two propositions as follows:

Every person claiming admission into a church must be received, if he is a partaker of the Spirit, be his opinions what they may

The wise and eminently spiritual may detect that a person is not partaker of the Spirit, by some deficiency in the Articles of his Creed.

The former is only that which we quoted above, with a slight change of grammar, and the word opinion put for judgment. We

have heard this proposition in a great variety of forms, and will not contest with the Brother which is best; for instance, that Nothing is to be inquired into, but the possession of the com'mon life; or, in Scripture language, We are to receive all whom Christ has received.' Now, (will our readers believe it?) this Brother actually repudiates indignantly the former of our two propositions; and next, accepting the latter as true, declares that we contradict ourselves! He says, 'First, a person may be a partaker of the Spirit, be his opinions what they may; and next, he may be proved not to have the Spirit, by a defect in his "Creed Against such stupidity (we must use this term, as we would not think it wilfulness) it is indeed hard to contend. He quotes as our words, which we never used; viz., A person may be partaker,' &c.; which it would be utterly false to impute to the brethren. We used two hypothetical clauses, if he be 'par'taker,' and 'be his opinions what they may;' and this is what the Brethren themselves say, and what, we doubt not, this very Brother has often eagerly pressed. Certainly, before he charges us with falsehood, he ought to ascertain the difference between saying, No difference of judgment ought to separate those who love the Lord,' and, 'If any love the Lord, they ought not to 'separate, be their difference of judgment what it may.'

Let it observed now, that the Brother leaves without remark the following sentiment, which we ascribed to them, though he closely criticises those on each side of it: It is unlawful to lay down 'any creed, as a test of communion, or as a test for ministers ;' which we likewise stated in pp. 575, 583. Why does he not again tell us, that we are confuting ourselves? For (he might urge), First, a man may be detected as unspiritual, and justly rejected from the church, for a defect in his creed; and next, No creed may be laid down as a test for communion!' The inconsistency is theirs, not ours.

Believing, as we do, that their talk of imposing no creed is self-delusion, and that they really impose a precise one unawares -being remarkably unable to endure intellectual differenceswe much wish that they would draw out a creed. It would then appear whether or not such articles as these must be believed, in order to admission to their church, It is contrary to our Chris'tian profession to retain the rights of worldly citizenship;' and various others which we might name. But few notions, we believe, are more inveterately fixed in their imaginations, than the abstract wrong of test articles. Meanwhile, we must again

Thus if the order were given, Admit any genuine Englishman, be the color of his skin what it may,' the Brother might allege that this was to assert, that a man may be a genuine Englishman, and yet be as black as a negro.'