of that light, that all men through him might believe he was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light." If then the true light be come, shall we not turn to it? if the ministration of righteousness and the in-dwelling presence of the Holy Spirit be with the church of God, shall we not seek for the truth in this ministration and not in "the principles of the Old Testament ?" What did John the Baptist teach about the Holy Spirit? His disciples had not so much as heard that there was any Holy Ghost (Acts xix. 2), and yet our Lord who promised to send the Holy Ghost to his people, did with that promise, assure them that when he came he should "guide them into all truth" (John xvi. 13). It is no small part of this promised guidance to open our hearts and understandings for the full reception of all the words of Jesus; to obey him to the letter; to take all his precepts and to reject none of them. Now" the principles of the Old Testament" are these-"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, scald for scald, burn for burn": in direct opposition to this principle our Lord promulgated the following law for his kingdom -"I say unto you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." I say unto you, "Resist not evil." What do these words mean? What will ITS make of them? What evil can be greater than "the invasion of an enemy;" the greater the evil the more stringent is the precept, compelling the true disciples not to resist it. The principle extends to all forms and positions of violence by man; - for the evil here spoken of is the violence and injustice of man; and he that resists this form of evil disobeys the Lord. Let those who understand, however weak they may know it to be, in the spirit the heavenly calling, and who, indeed, have faith, accept this saying of our Lord; those who know not the heavenly calling, and have their hearts vitiated, or their faith manacled by worldly affections, will escape from the precept any way-they will flee to John the Baptist, to the Old Testament, -to the Amalekites, the Midianites, and all the wars of Joshua; to anything that is abrogated and cancelled, if so be that only they may retain those "principles" in which the carnal mind rejoices.

The concluding complaints of Iloric against "the Brethren" appear to touch himself more personally-they relate to temple-worship and priests. On templeworship he thus speaks:-"I find in page 22 of Precious Truth' a passage intended to do away with all obligation to maintain the sanctuaries of our lund. The Jews had a particular place in their land, and dedicated buildings in it, where they worshipped God; but we have no place or building more than another (John iv. 20, 21). 'But wherever two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ, there is he in the midst of them.' The Jewish earthly temple was adorned with goodly stones and gifts; but there should be no such adorning in the christian church now, but a spiritual house composed of believers (Eph. ii. 20, 21). I would here inquire by what authority the Plymouth Brethren oppose themselves to the prevailing custom of appropriating certain edifices to the worship of Almighty God?... Here 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?' Unquestionably the word houses is here used to denote a clear distinction between them and some other edifice 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 other's houses, on the Sabbath, for the purpose of breaking bread and of spiritual edification. I would next glance at the evils which would necessarily arise from the disuse of the christian sanctuary. 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 worship were open for their use and accommodation........ to abolish places of worship is virtually to deprive the multitude of a most important means of grace, and to seal their impenitence and unbelief. The history of France may tell us what will be the morals of a nation whose sanctuaries are swept away." Great, indeed, is the difference here between Пoric and "the Brethren." He would place those whose opinions he combats in a panorama of christianity, which he himself has painted, and then compel them to form their opinions by what they there see; but "the Brethren" are better acquainted with the good land than to be deceived by this false representation. Ioris, with a strong bias to Judaism (which indeed prevails in all his remarks) looks upon the whole nation in which he lives as "the christian church." With him, "the multitude," the population of all parishes, the people in general, are the constituents of his church; and, according to the Prayer

99

Book, he speaks consistently, and as a priest of the establishment is bound to speak -but what has an enlightened christian to do with parishes, the multitude, and the nation? and what to him is the religio loci? "the religion of a place" is superstition, popery, heathenism. How can there be religion to a child of God in a place as a place? The natural man may venerate parish-churches, old towers, damp aisles, mouldering monuments, painted windows, ancient inscriptions, and harmonious peals from the belfry: he may love the tombstones of his ancestors, the family pew, and the traditional religion of the parish-and the parish-church may be to him a sanctuary: but a child of God, who is raised into heavenly places with his risen Saviour, is above all these things; to him the household of faith is the parish, the Tapoikia, the stranger pilgrim state of God's elect, who are passing through this world to a better inheritance [Acts xiii. 17; 1 Pet. i. 17; ii. 11, see the Greek]; to him Christ is "the sanctuary," the venerable stones of the building are the saints, stones of very great antiquity chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and therefore living stones growing up unto a holy temple in the Lord, and builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph ii. 21, 22). To him the true worship is worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and no other worship does he know; "the prevailing custom" of congregating "the multitude" and making them utter sentiments of never-ending repentance (sentiments which nine-tenths of those who use them neither understand nor feel), "the prevailing custom" of calling the parish into the sanctuary to share in the benefit of the blood of sprinkling which speaketh better things than that of Abel, though but few of the parish, even in the most cases, know the value of this blood, has nothing to recommend itself in his eyes, nor could he take part in such "customs" without defiling his soul and dishonouring God; but he would not wage war against these customs; it is not his province to "annihilate the religio loci," to "abolish places of worship," and to destroy "the sanctuaries in the land," as Пɩoric supposes is the object of "the Brethren”no, "the Brethren" would not pull down one stone of "the sanctuaries:" these buildings represent the world's religion, and answer the purposes of the world, which, in this dispensation, will continue to have a religion of its own-the religio loci, so dear to Πιστις. If damage is to be done to these material churches by "the Brethren" only, they will stand unhurt till the restitution of all things; for "the Brethren" have learned this at least, not to legislate in the things of God for the world, and therefore all that IIoris has said about " abolishing the sanctuaries," &c., is beside the mark; let the world do what it chooses with its sanctuaries, let it maintain them in all their glory, let it build them up to heaven, as they of Babel did of old, or multiply them tenfold, or pull them all down, it is a matter that concerns not "the Brethren" the least; if there be the saints of God yet in bondage in these worldly systems, it is our duty indeed to awaken their consciences and make them understand their true position: our language to them should be "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you." So far as this we may, nay we ought to go, but far be it from us to think even of those things which IIoric has imagined in his zeal for "established customs." For the rest I would, in one word, remark that Ilioris has made a strange mistake in supposing that "the Brethren exclusively assemble in each other's houses, on the Sabbath day, for the purpose of breaking bread and of spiritual edification." They do no such thing; where their number is small they meet in such a room as may suit their wants, where their number is on the increase they build larger places, and undoubtedly they will provide places of public worship of this sort, when there is a call for them, uninfluenced by this superstitious love of private dwellings which exists only in the imagination of Πιστις.

The last complaint is the most important, "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.' 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 thyselt wholly to them.' 1 Tim. v. 22, Titus i. 5, Heb. 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." To what sort of persons, then, I would ask, has Пloris put this " simple yet important question ?" Surely to none but Churchmen, whose ideas are so confused

about "ministry" and "the priesthood" that they know nothing on the subject beyond bishop, priest, and deacon, as propounded in the Prayer Book. I cannot, indeed, undertake on this occasion to enter on this ample theme, which has, moreover, been frequently explained in the pages of the INQUIRER; but I would briefly remark, 1st, that Iorig sets out with begging the question, and with taking that for granted which is the thing to be proved, when he says that "laymen [his own italics] cannot watch for the souls of others, as they that must give account." Is not the question this, Whether there are indeed official priests in the church of Christ? and does not Пorig at once assert that there are, by making use of the word laymen? Where will he find clergy and laity in the New Testament? If he can find clergymen, or priests, in distinct office, then of course we would concede "the laity;" but unless he can find clergy, we cannot allow laymen. There are clergy in the Prayer Book, but none in the New Testament; except indeed in a sense fatal to the views of Iloris. Clerus is the word for clergy; and that word, in a sense applicable to men, occurs only once in the New Testament, 1 Pet. v. 3; where the clerus, or clergy, are "God's heritage ;" or, as Пorig would call them," the laity.” 2ndly. It is obvious that this writer has never learned what Christian ministry is; with him "priesthood" and "ministry" are synonymous; nor has it apparently ever even been suggested to him that there is large information on this important topic to be acquired in the New Testament, which he would in vain look for in the Prayer Book. He would find "liberty of ministry," [that is, of service] set forth most at large in 1 Cor. xii., Rom. xii., Eph. iv., but alluded to throughout all the Acts of the Apostles, and most of the Epistles.

If IIorig understood the subject of the gifts of the Spirit, he would not have found "clergymen" in Heb. xiii. 17. But why might not "laymen" watch for the souls of others? Assuredly, even according to his own confused views, he will find what he calls "laymen" directed to do this very thing by the apostle Paul. If he turns to 1 Thess. v., he will first see those whom he would take to be clergymen at verse 12, "them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord;" but at verse 14, he will meet with the whole laity "watching for the souls of others," as thus::-"Now we exhort you, brethren [not the clergy, but all the brethren], warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak;" and in many other places he will find, alas! the laity set at work to do those things which in these days the clergy consider the duties attached exclusively to their own peculiar prerogative. "As every man [not clergymen] hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter iv. 10).

Let, then, this writer understand that "government" and the pastoral gift is from the Lord; that it is his donation to the holy brethren, as he and he alone chooses; that he raises up some amongst the saints "to labour amongst them," and "to be over them in the Lord;" that the saints recognise the gift when they see it, and "esteem them [who have it] very highly in love for their work's sake;" and that this order is better and stronger than the order of Acts of Parliament and canons ecclesiastical, for it is the order of God and not of man.

Having thus run through the principal objections of this partially informed writer, I would only notice his last words, which shew too plainly that he cannot bid farewell to his subject without also prophesying a calumny. These are his last words:- "How far this Anti-Shibboleth party are secure against the snares of Socinianism, time will ultimately decide." Charity thinketh no evil! but thus it is, that between the Editor of the "Christian Observer" and his correspondent, the "Plymouth Brethren" are by broad hints placed amongst the Irvingites, the followers of Johanna Southcote, the Socialists, and lastly, the Socinians. Epyov.

[The grace of God, and that only, can keep saints from Socinianism or any other error; but surely God will keep His own blood bought children. This suffices to answer the last quoted inquiry of Πιστις

99 66

We would say, to prevent all misconception, that the name of "the Brethren" is not one which has been assumed by the Christians referred to, for they have not taken up that which, if assumed, must separate them from the children of God at large-a distinctive name. In calling themselves "Christians," Brethren," Saints," "Believers," and the like, they do it not as excluding others, for these names, and the fellowship into which these names introduce, they gladly accord to all and any of the children of God. These names belong to them in common with all the houshold of God.-ED.]

269

THE FOLD AND THE FLOCK-JOHN X. 16.

To the Editor of the Inquirer.

A DIFFICULTY has often been felt in rightly apprehending the teaching which our Lord gives in this chapter, owing to the manner in which verse 16 is rendered in our translation-" And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also must I bring; and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd;"-- from this it has been very naturally concluded that Gentiles are to be brought into the same fold in which the Jewish sheep were before, and thus that the Lord speaks of one and the same thing throughout this discourse. But observe, in this verse the word rendered fold, is avλn in the first instance, while ovn is that which is afterwards used, and is inaccurately translated by the same term, instead of having its true meaning, "flock," assigned to it.

In the translation of William Tyndale this error in rendering was not to be found, he gives this verse thus :-"and other shepe I have, which are not off this folde. Them also must I bring, and they shall heare my voyce. And there shalbe won flocke, and won shepherd." It is probable that the translators of our authorised version had the Vulgate in their minds when they rendered both words by "fold." "Ovile" is there used, thus seeming to identify the things of which the Lord was speaking. I do not mean to charge our translators with servilely copying the Vulgate,—nothing can be more evident than that they did not do this, but that version, with which they were unquestionably more familiar than with any other, had in several passages an effect in leading their minds to render some words in a manner which shews that it was, in thought at least, before them. This is just as in any modern translation of the Scriptures, the translators render sentences frequently in such a way as plainly to shew that, although they used the original, they had our authorised version, with its construction and phraseology, in their minds, much of which shews itself in the new translation: as an instance of this, I might mention Greenfield's Hebrew New Testament, which, although by far the best version into that language that ever was printed, has in several places the Greek translated close upon the model of the English, in a way which could hardly have been done by any one whose mind was not imbued with the phraseology and construction made use of by King James's translators.

It becomes at once evident, when the translation is corrected, that our Lord was speaking of two things,—the one being the fold in which the Jewish sheep then were, the other the flock into which both Gentile and Jewish sheep were to be gathered: the Lord had in the preceding portion of the chapter spoken much of the fold and of the sheep which were then there, but now He takes up something farther, as telling whither the Jewish sheep would be led, and the association into which they would be brought.

In the commencement of the chapter the Lord hath spoken of the sheepfold thus:-"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber;" this condemned those who were then standing as claiming to be teachers of the people, it, in fact, condemns all who should come in their own name, whether past or future. The sheepfold is, I judge, that in which the Jewish sheep then were,— all that of God's appointment and ordinance, by which they were kept separate from all around them. Just as a sheepfold is a small portion of the ground severed from the rest that it may be a safe shelter for the sheep, so were the ordinances of the Lord to Israel; they were fenced around and made a peculiar people to God by ordinances of external observance set up among them: the rite of circumcision was that especially by which they were marked out as a separate people, just as, in fact, this ordinance still severs between them and all the nations, even though in many respects the ordinances which formed parts of the boundary of the fold, have ceased through the dispersions of the people. The Lord then draws the contrast between the false shepherds and himself (ver. 2). "But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep; to him the porter openeth;" these last words refer,

I judge, to the Lord having come regularly introduced to Israel by John the Baptist, not presenting Himself and bearing testimony to himself, but accredited by John, who was looked upon by all as being a prophet; the Lord having thus come to the fold, He had a claim upon all that were in it;-but “He came unto His own and His own received him not;" this was his rejection by Israel at large. He ought to have been owned as the Lord of the fold, and all that were therein ought to have responded to His claim. But the rejection of the Lord by His own people put him into a new position with regard to them; He had come with blessing in His hand, all set before them in his person; He had come as the gift of God, but that gift being refused and rejected by Israel, He now works in another manner. It is after speaking of the Lord's rejection by "His own (in chap. i.) that the Apostle goes on to say, "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on His name (ver. 12). Just so here, in chap x., "the sheep hear His voice, and He calleth His own sheep by name and leadeth them out." This tells us who were the sheep of Christ, of whom He was at this time speaking. The fold contained many others, but none bear the name of being His sheep except those who hear his voice; the Jews had refused to do this, and thus it is in verse 26, that the Lord tells them, "ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you" now where had He said this? nowhere except in giving the description of His sheep, "they hear my voice," even as he again immediately subjoins.

But the Lord was not only going to gather to Himself his own sheep that were in the Jewish fold; for He says farther, "He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out." These are very instructive words, for we may remember, that these things were spoken just after the blind man whose eyes had been opened had been put out of the synagogue for the sake of Christ, and then had learned the grace that was in Christ in receiving those whom the religionists of the world would altogether reject. The Lord was not only calling His sheep out of that fold which had been in many respects a shelter, but He Himself would be first in taking this place of separation; for "when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him," &c.

The Lord, after this, speaks of the way in which life is given to the sheep through the death of the shepherd, having previously given instruction as to the new place which He would occupy as becoming the door. Now, it is the death and resurrection of the Lord, which stands as the centre point of all the teaching here contained, as well as of all our blessing. If we had not known this, we could not have understood how the Lord, in leading the sheep out, went before them until he was put to death, there was one thing lacking in His rejection; He might have been refused, but there was one way in which hatred could be displayed against Him in which it had not been. And just so with regard to his love; His knowledge of the sheep, in all their need was fully proved, by his laying down His life; He was not merely coming to aid them, but with the full recognition of their condition, fully aware of what it would cost Him, He came to do it by laying down His life. The sheep were in that fold guarded and shut up, but at the same time, the very fence around them, told them of condemnation; they were fenced in with statutes in which a man shall live that doeth them; now the Lord in leading them forth, gives his own life to them; they are now not to be fenced around by ordinances, they are not to be "shut up under the elements of the world," but life is imparted, even the life of the shepherd Himself, and it is as being guarded by this life, that their blessing is made

secure.

The Lord in speaking of Himself as the door, (verse 9.) is not carrying us back to the idea of the sheepfold; out of that He leads the sheep, but this door is a door of entrance, not that by which the sheep were led out; it is that which leadeth into the pasture of God, in which the ransomed sheep feed. Very blessed is it thus to see the Lord bearing this three-fold character or relation; the shepherd, the giver of is life, and the door. Thus we find the grace and power in redeeming, united with the constant care over the redeemed, and in the same person there is the access through which those who believe, are so brought into blessing, as to be in the presence of the Father Himself.

Anything which obscures the Gospel of the grace of God, takes away from one