"We know," the apostle says, "that the law is spiritual;" that is, it referred to eternal things. It referred to life eternal. When Moses said of the law, that if a man kept it, he should even live by it, it was of life eternal he spoke and there was involved in that declaration, that failing to keep the law, he would die; and that death was of an eternal character. It is in Deut. xxx. that he speaks of this spiritual character of the law. He says "I have set before you life and good, and death and evil;" and again "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing." These words are the more remarkable, because that in the 28th chapter, he had made no sort of mention of either life or death, but only of promises and threatenings of a temporal character. It is this which shows the two-fold aspect of the law that given in the 28th chapter is its temporal, the one given in the 30th is additional and is of an eternal character. Moses could not speak of life in connection with obedience, because it was not attainable by that way, neither did he; but announced to the Jews the temporal blessings and curses to which they might look. But in the 30th chapter, where he speaks of life and death, they are so placed as to make them interchangeable terms with blessing and good, and cursing and evil, respectively—the life answering to blessing-the death to cursing and evil; and he declares them to depend upon the state of the heart before God.

But if life and death were set before the Jews, it is evident that the law was based upon foreseen redemption: and both law and gospel spoke of the same things. It is the opposite opinion which has misled the Brethren. He who has chiefly influenced the minds of the rest, has expressly contemned this truth. He has pronounced the belief of his adversary "that the law was based upon foreseen redemption," a monstrous statement, which "confounds law and grace, responsibility and Gospel, in hopeless confusion."* Was then the Gospel not preached before to Abraham? The apostle says it was! even "justification by faith," which is the Gospel.

If the law was not based upon foreseen redemption, it must have been a bona fide trial of man by law; and if so the Jews were right in seeking to justify themselves by the works of the law, because they had no other chance of life. But the apostle says this was their error. He charges them with having failed of righteousness (which is life) because they sought it by works and not by faith. It follows that if they had sought righteousness by faith, they would not have failed. But faith on what? What was the object of faith to the Jews? Even the blood given upon the altar for the salvation of the soul. (Lev. xvii. 11.) Wherefore it is evident that faith in the blood of Christ was the way of salvation under the law as well as under the gospel, and if so the law was based upon foreseen redemption. The opposite opinion was the grand mistake of Israel—a mistake in which Mr. Darby would have shared, and have failed of righteousness, as they did.

This doctrine is of vast importance, because it shews us the grand purpose of God in the curse of the law. Let us therefore prove it.

We say that redemption was the basis of the law. Redemption is attainable only by faith in the blood of Christ, "In whom we have redemption through his blood." (Eph, i. 7.)

But from what does the blood redeem? From the second death, which answers to curse eternal. It is from it alone we are redeemed. "He hath Note," ," "Remarks," &c., by J. N. Darby, page

redeemed us from the curse of the law," (in its eternal character,) "being made a curse for us."

We have to prove that under the Law, the blood of Christ was given to Israel as their sole way of escape from the eternal curse of the law.

The Scripture declarations on the subject of the law may be summed up in five grand heads.

1. On the one hand it was written, "this do and thou shalt live."

2. On the other hand, that life was not of possible attainment by obedience. 3. That curse was the due meed of every one who kept not the whole law. 4. Yet that God had given "Blood upon the altar for the atonement of the soul."

5. That it is not possible for the blood of bulls or of goats to atone.

These give us a very perfect chain of information. Coupled with the offer of life by obedience, we find the declaration, not only of its impossible attainment by that means, but that failure amounted to exposure to curse; yet was there blood given upon the altar for the salvation of the soul, which was not the blood of bulls or of goats. Nothing can be more clear than that the ultimate, that is, the real, object of the law was to drive Israel to the altar, whose blood, in the declared impossibility of "justification by the deeds of the law," was their sole hope of escape from the curse to which they were exposed by reason of failure to keep it. And as the blood of animals had no power to cleanse from sin, yet was that which was shed upon the altar, it is manifest it was the foreseen bloodshedding of Christ which was thereupon prefigured to the Jews. Wherefore redemption was the basis of the law; and its curse was designed to impel Israel to the redeeming blood, even as the avenger drove to the sanctuary.

And this is the very thing affirmed by the apostle in the words, "wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The law, being spiritual, was designed to speak to the conscience alone and it is the especial object of Romans vii. 5, 25, to develope the mode in which God designed the law, in its character of schoolmaster, to act upon the conscience, and bring it to Christ. But such an experience as that supposes a conscience in real exercise before God, and that it is the province of the Holy Ghost alone to work. Moses, however, warned the Jews of this in the words of Deut. xxix. "The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear unto this day." These words should have induced Israel to ask for them.

There remains only one other doctrine of the Brethren on this point. Its principle has been already met and refuted, but it may be well to consider it more in detail. It is that the children of the Jews were, at birth, involved in curse, because of the failure of the fathers-and this has been admitted to have been the case with Christ himself, but that he was able to work his way out of it by his own righteousness!

The words of Moses place the curse upon him (that is upon the individual) who continued not; and Paul, in repeating the words of Moses, says, "cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." In both Moses and Paul there is the same specification, viz. the curse could fall upon the individual alone who broke the law.* A

*Note.-It would be a very profound misconception of the Scriptures to suppose that the apostle's words in another place-" as many as are of the works of the law are

general view of the written word on this point, describes the action of the curse of the law to be of this nature, viz.: every one, at circumcision, became debtor to do the whole law. His first transgression exposed him to its curse. But that was the full effect of its operation-exposure to curse attached, by the very words of the law, to the transgressor alone. The child of an Israelite was not in a worse position before God, than the child of a Gentile who had no part in God. But if the curse due to the Father's sin fell upon his child also, then the child was in an infinitely worse position than that of a Gentile could be, because, as there was certainty of failure, there was certainty of curse also, the inheritance of every one born to a Jew! A monstrous thought indeed! Where then was "the advantage" to the Jew of the law? There was not only no advantage, but infinite disadvantage. It is therefore manifest that the child of a Jew was exposed to, or under, no curse, until he had himself broken the law, to which he had, by circumcision, become a debtor; and it is equally plain that Christ could be born an Israelite, without being under "birth disqualification," or under any necessity "to prove that He could extricate Himself by His own perfect obedience,' out of a state of curse, in which He was not placed by birth, and into which He never could by possibility have come, or have fallen.

Having thus examined the doctrines of the Plymouth Brethren, let the reader reflect how necessarily they connect the holders with Manicheanism. For how can one who conceives that mortality and sin are inseparable, believe in his heart that Christ came in the flesh? He cannot do so, since the flesh is mortal, and to have come in the flesh, would be to have come also in sin.

Again. How can one who believes sufferings to spring out of sin-and to be in fact identical with sin, believe in his heart that Christ endured sufferings? He cannot, for with him to suffer and be a sinner are one.

Once more. How can one who conceives that every soul deriving from Adam is under condemnation for Adam's trangression, believe Christ to have been "the son of Adam ?" He cannot do so, for that is to place Him under birth condemnation.

Finally. How can one who believes Israel to have been under curse when the Saviour was born, believe Him to have been "the Christ, the son of David? He cannot do so, because that is to place Him also in Israel's place of curse.

They who have advocated those opinions, have also themselves furnished the best comment on their doctrinal results; and these have been in every

under curse"-applied to Israel before Christ had come and abolished the law. He said "the prophets and the law prophesied until John; since that time, the kingdom of God is preached." The former dispensation had then passed away, and the present had taken its place. It is to this dispensational distinction the apostle adverts. He who was of the deeds of the law, had no part in grace, by which alone is salvation; and he wrote to warn the Galatians of what would be the practical result to them, of becoming circumcised. They would thereby range themselves in the ranks of those to whom salvation was an impossible thing-since they based their hope of it upon works; and the result of every such hope will, by-and-bye, be seen to be the lake of fire, which is curse eternal.

respect identical with those to which the Manicheans arrived: as will be seen in the extracts about to be submitted to the reader.

With some (it is to be hoped with many) those opinions are probably held without any distinct perception of the doctrinal results, to which they necessarily lead. But that does not emancipate them, so long as they do hold those opinions, either from the guilt or danger of implication in Manicheanism, because they have its root in their own minds. Upon this point we have the strongly expressed judgment of one of their own leaders. He writes-" It is a great mistake to suppose that because people have not intelligently received an evil doctrtne, they have not suffered by it. The plain simple notion of Christ is undermined, and power against evil and for good destroyed, though the soul is unaware of it. The sense of evil is utterly enfeebled and Christ practically lost.-("Remarks" by J. N. Darby, page 4, note.)

EXTRACTS FROM THE PUBLISHED WRITINGS OF SOME OF

THE BRETHREN.

Premising that the last part of this work will be found to contain a detail of the origin and causes of the disruption of Brethrenism, let us proceed to an analysis of the statements in which some of them have developed the principles of Manicheanism.

We will first consider those of a Pamphlet entitled, "Remarks by J. N. Darby, on a Letter on Subjects connected with the Lord's Humanity. October 1848. London, J. K. Campbell, Holborn, opposite Gray's Inn Lane."

This paper is chiefly valuable because it contains the sentiments of the man who is unquestionably the author of the schism amongst the brethren. It was he, also, who most vehemently raised the cry of " dishonouring to the Lord," which epithet he attached to the statements of his adversary, Mr. Newton, who once divided with him the admiration and devotion of the Brethren generally.

Judging from the Pamphlet under review, the writer's mind appears of a singularly chaotic nature. It is replete with apparent contradictions, and vents itself in almost un-understandable paragraphs. One is obliged to peruse, then re-peruse, and this again and again, before one can make out what he does really mean; and it is only by a most diligent comparison of his statements one with another, and then with those of the Scriptures, that we can tell the nature of the former, or find out their discrepancy with the latter. He has evidently discernment of truth-for he puts it forth-but if he does so in one place, it seems only that he may reason it or fritter it away in a more distant part of his work. Now this may arise from infirmity: but it may also betoken deep design. It is related of Cromwell, that while a mere member of the House of Commons, no one knew the meaning of his speeches; the result proved that he had, full well, understood them himself.

Mr. Darby writes, (page 4) " nobody doubts that He (Christ) was a man and an Israelite, nor that He became so by means of birth."

Again, (page 16) "I assume that my reader holds, as myself, the true and real humanity of the Lord, both in body and soul;—that He was a true living man in flesh and blood."

And lastly, (note to page 7,) "No one doubts He suffered, and must have been a man to suffer."

If we omit from the above extracts, the words "as myself," they are explicitly orthodox. But unfortunately those words cover a mental protest against their literal meaning! Without the words "as myself," those extracts do not convey the simple truth of the writer's belief either on the humanity or on the sufferings of Christ-or on the fact that He was an Israelite. That is seen by examining his further statements on the same points. We then observe that he invalidates the obvious meaning of his original words, then substitutes another meaning, and in the end "to hold, as he does," the form of words which before met the eye, is to hold them in a sense entirely at variance with their simple meaning. For instance, the first step he takes to invalidate the words "the true and real humanity of the Lord," is found in the denial that He was under necessity to die, or liable to death—and it must be confessed that if this were so, there must have been a wide and even essential difference between the humanity of Christ and that of the human race; because necessity to die, and liability to death, absolutely belong to the humanity of man. The next step he takes in the same way is to declare the humanity of Christ was "sui generis ;" and he adds, sinless humanity (that of Christ) sustained by Godhead, is not the same as sinful humanity left to itself." So that after all, instead of "true and real" humanity, that of Christ was not the same as that of man, because the latter is sinful." Having thus invalidated the obvious meaning of his own statements, Mr. Darby proceeds to substitute another meaning for them. He does this by dividing the human race into two distinct classes. One of these in distance from God, the other in holy communion. These latter are the children" of whose flesh and blood Christ did partake, but not that of the others, whom he says Christ "abhorred!" He carries out this thought while speaking of the sufferings which he will allow Christ did endure, (but restricts them to sympathy alone) and says that sympathy was with the children alone, and not at all with mankind in general.

66

66

66

This thought lies at the root of the peculiar ideas which some of the Brethren have formed in respect to the church, which they term "the thing," meaning thereby the sole end and object of the mystery of God manifest in the flesh. It has eventuated in an high-mindedness, as opposite to the true spirit of Christianity as can well be conceived; but it throws open the door to a worse evil than that—even to entire antinomianism; for if there be something (as there must be by this doctrine) in the flesh and blood of man in general, of which Christ could not, since He did not, partake, it follows that that something cannot exist in the flesh and blood of "the children." That something must needs be the principle of sin, because the Scriptures declare Him to have been, as man, separate and apart from man only in the article of sin; and we shall by-and-bye see reason to believe this is secretly imputed to the condition of the children—a doctrine not merely opposed to that of the Scriptures, but resulting in the necessary conclusion that the actions of the children, of what kind soever, cannot partake of the nature of sin.

It

may be remembered that the Manichean opinions led to a precisely simi