Page images

as he does in opinion at present. The most prominently treated objection is that respecting “women prophesying in the church;" setting at nought, as an “inference” and “supposition" (pp. 47 --50) the evidence for their doing so, founded on the fact of Pentecost, the prediction of Joel, the statement of Peter, the rule of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 5). Perhaps, when Mr. M'Neile has considered the opinions of some of our best commentators--by no means excepting Grotius, Jobn Locke, John Wesley, which we know have been laid before him-he will abandon this and other newspaper and magazine objections: though, to make use of the author's words on another point, 'here the student 'who is most thoroughly acquainted with his Bible will be the most competent judge, supposing him to have imbibed no in

fidel principles or party prejudices'--or, we may take the liberty of adding, to have substituted no opinions and customs of formal and fruitless professors, for the faith and practice of Apostolical and primitive churches.

A reference to the primitive church the Reverend Gentleman "passes over" in p. 52. Our readers, however, will respect the following testimony, adduced from the ancients by the present Bishop of Lincolo, in his Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers:-"We have the express testimony of Justin Martyr to assure us that the extraordinary gifts still continued in the church, and were communicated not only to men, but women; and that we may be sure he spake nothing in this matter but what he could undeniably have made out, we find him boasting of it against Trypho the Jew, and urging it then as an unanswerable argument in behalf of Christianity, and against the Jews, from whom the Spirit of prophecy had a long time been departed."

"Tertullian (A. D. 230), in his tract on the Soul (cap. ix.), says, There is a sister at this day living among us who is partaker of the gift of revelations, which she receives under ecstasy in the Spirit, in the public congregation. And whilst the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are singing, or they are preaching, or prayers are offered up, subjects from thence are ministered in her visions.'

The whole foundation of Mr. M'Neile's argument rests upon the Apostolic injunction, “ Let the women keep silence in the churches." This be chooses to take strictly and literally, in arguing against the present manifestations; and, positively insisting on absolute, unconditional silence, he will listen to no argument, either from the prediction of Joel or of our Lord, that women should prophesy; nor from the practice of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Hannah, in old times; of Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, &c., in the time of our Lord ; nor from the Apostolic directions to keep their heads covered when so doing. No, says Mr.

M'Neile, these arguments are only inferences; and my word, keep silence,” is positive, without limitation of any sort or kind, even of the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost. But if he will insist upon silence in this unlimited sense, we should be glad to ask Mr. M.Neile how he can possibly continue to minister in a church whose practices are directly in the teeth of bis own interpretation of an Apostolic prohibition, which he says must in nu wise be infringed: for he not only permits, but requires, all the women in his church to speak, and would reprove any of them whom he observed to keep silence. They are all required to read aloud half the Psalms; to say aloud many of the prayers; to repeat all the responses, and the Creeds, in an audible voice; and to sing the Psalms or Hymns which may be used in his church. What becomes of his olyarw here ? All his arguments in defence of these practises can only be inferences, like those which he himself has discarded; while the Apostolic oyarw is positive, and without limitation! But this is only a fair specimen of the qualities of Mr. M'Neile's mind for just and comprehensive reasoning: he fastens upon a shred of a subject, the whole of which he cannot embrace ; turns this fragment of an argument into a bad syllogism; and then boasts of his logic.

Another objection is to the tongues as “unknown;”-a very awkward one to those who have adopted Mr. Pilkington's discovery, which bas “ proved," he says, that the said tongues are

English, Spanish, and Latin !*” Moreover, Mr. Baxter was said to have spoken, in the Spirit, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, by some of those who are now most strenuous in maintaining that he was under delusion at that time. We lament the undue stress laid upon this objection, which holds so much of outward circumstance and external evidence, and which says so little of the person and work of the “Spirit giving utterance;' postponing as secondary, if not despising as unnecessary, the two special gifts of discernment, and of interpretation, by the Spirit. Some objectors would, it is evident, bave spoken against the Spirit which gave utterance” in other tongues on the day of Pentecost, had they been present when such tongues were first spoken, which was, of course (the precise period not revealed), some time before" this was noised abroad "--some time before the multitude of Parthians, Medes,” &c., came“ together

* This contemptible publication is actually in its third edition, and is quoted as authority by the greater part of the ministers, even the Gospel ministers, who have written on the subject! There is a curious request in the Evangelical Magazine-a formal invitation to Mr. Pilkington for an “ interview,munication !” How does it happen that none of the editors of the magazines, norany of the ministers who espouse their opinions, ever express the same willingness to inquire on the other side ?



and heard them.” A modern writer might well complain; “How little has been said of the Spirit who gave utterance; how much of the foreigners in audience !” and we fear that the unqualified and unceasing demand for foreigners to recognise, for this additional proof, and that after-corroboration, borders on the “ evil and adulterous seeking of signs," which Mr. M'Neile condemns in one part of his work.

The most awful objection we consider to be stated in Preliminary Observations, pp. 12, 13: When read coolly' (alluding to the mode of speaking in the present manifestations), it sounds • ludicrous, causing the profane to laugh, and grieving the serious Christian ;'-sentiments and expressions which had gone the round of the newspapers and magazines. The

The “profane" " laugh” at every holy doctrine and great mystery of our faith : they “ laugh” at the general doctrine which Mr. M`Neile (in some parts at least of his pamphlet) maintains, as well as at the particular manifestations which he censures: and has the profane laugh become half an authority with the Rector of Albury? As to "grieving the serious Christian;" how often bas he done so, by his “ prophetic method;" by his bold, scriptural, successful advocacy of the Lord's speedy and personal advent in glory, and by the holy doctrines and duties therewith connected! But is it possible the serious Christian" could be “grieved” at the mode of speaking in the manifestations alluded to, did he know, as we do (those who have only read, may have been deceived by those who wrote), that the speaking complained of is of “Christ, and Him crucified-of Christ, and Him glorified-of the sufferings of Christ, and of the glory to follow?” Every one that bath prophesied in the present cases, hath spoken, agreeably to Apostolic definition, “ to edification, and exhortation, and comfort;" hath testified that “ Jesus is the Lord;" that “Jesus is come in the flesh ;”—and here are "serious Christians grieved," we are told! and here is the Rev. Hugh M'Neile, of all men, "grieving.” with them ! It is doubly grievous.

Oh,' adds the author, how utterly does the general strain of the Prophetic and Apostolical.writings differ from such incessant repetitions !' To which it may be replied, How utterly does the strain of modern writings differ from the Prophetic and Apostolical ; seeing that the "propbetic

propbetic” announcement (Isa. xxviii.) of the Lord's resorting to the speaking “ with other tongues” to his “deaf” people, and “ drunken” priests (we have

Apostolical” authority for applying this to the gift of tongues 1 Cor. xiv. 21), is given in terms of " such incessant repetitions :" the word “ line,” for instance, being repeated eight times in two

There are several insinuations running through these discourses, which are as unworthy of the preacher as they are VOL. V.-NO. II.

3 L

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

inapplicable to those he opposes. •To overbear all argument • and objections by pleading the superior authority of the Holy ‘Spirit speaking in the gifted persons, is manifestly to beg the

whole question. The Holy Spirit can never be resisted by an ' unhesitating submission to the Holy Scriptures'; but he may be

resisted, and very grievously, if the utterance of any individual • be put in competition with what is written in the Bible.' (Prelim. Obs. p. 12.) Again : “If the great enemy of our souls can

succeed in diverting our minds from the old things of the Bible, • and fixing our attention and interest on the new

things of sup• posed or real miraculous doings or sayings amongst our

fellow-men, he will assuredly triumph in the achievement.' (Ibid. p. 25).

If these, and other remarks, are intended, as most persons we bave conversed with understand them, to apply to those who have most prominently advocated the truth of the Spirit's gifts, as permanently promised, and probably now partially manifested, we consider the expressed and implied insinuations alike inappropriate and uncharitable. We have, more frequently than Mr. M'Neile, heard the persons we believe to speak by the Spirit; and are able to say, we never found them" resisting unhesitating submission to the Holy Scriptures ... putting the utterance of any individual in competition with what is written in the Bible ... diverting the mind from the old things of the Bible." Never.

Then, as to the “ advocates," &c. we can only meet the charge, as it bas been met by others, with positive contradiction, and by direct reference to the writings hit at, but not quoted from, by Mr. M'Neile. “ Does this living voice supersede the Scriptures ? No; by no means. Can it contradict the Scriptures? Never. If it should, then say, It is not the Spirit of God, but an unclean spirit which hath spoken."! (Day of Pentecost, p. 65).

“ It cannot be too often inculcated, that our only preservation is by taking the written word in its plain meaning for our guide.” (General Delusion, &c.; Editor's note, p. 284).

As to our own pages, we need only ask if the twelve laboriously and scripturally studied articles of “ Interpretations of the Old Testament Prophecies quoted in the New," have “diverted the mind of the writer or of the readers from the old things of the Bible ?” We are almost tempted to punish Mr. M`Neile, by asking what he has done, when compared with those be would depreciate, for the “old things of the Bible ?" We thank him, on the whole, for his Lectures on Jewish Prophecies, with all their errors; but we believe they are bis only effort in this sphere, and were very reluctantly published some years after their delivery, though much required during the

interval. When the insinuation changes to the honest method of " formal quotation and direct reference," from which Mr. M.Neile says he forbears, we shall fully meet the charges which the author before us, or those with whom he is now acting, may manfully prefer. At present, this and similar insinuations are, in the language of the author himself (p. 73), “bitter words and irritating sneers, which no argument can ever require, and which but too plainly betray an

absence of tender sympathy."

Again : • The Apostolical scale of comparative exellence is . reversed by some, in their zeal for gifts” (p. 71). This would indeed be lamentable, if true ; and the pages of this Journal are at the service of any charitable Christian, desirous of exposing any instances of such " reversings of the Apostolical scale.' ” Those whose zeal thus carries them away from discretion, and no less from Inspiration, cannot have profited by witnessing the present manifestations, or by attending the ministry of the Rev. Edward Irving.

This last insinuation has called forth the following observations, in a pamphlet well worthy of attention, entitled, "A Letter to the Rev. H. M'Neile, in Reply to bis Objections, &c.," by a Member of the Church of England :-“ The zeal for gifts which you ascribe to them apart from grace, I have not witnessed. On the contrary, I have observed among them the utmost jealousy lest gifts should be set before grace.

When I was in Scotland, lately, I heard scarcely any thing about the gifts, although I saw them exercised repeatedly. But both there and in London I saw among the gifted persons a breathing after Christ, and after conformity to bis image, such as I can only describe in the language of the Psalmist : “My soul breaketh for the longing which it hath to thy statutes."” “In conclusion, let me say, that the utterances in prophecy which I was privileged to hear, were very different indeed from the description you give of them.” (pp. 25, 26).

As the letter from wbich the above is extracted treats of Mr. M'Neile's objections, insinuations, &c. at length, and in order, we may be excused from making further comment at present; and shall proceed to notice, in conclusion, a specimen of Mr. M'Neile's statements of fact.

He speaks (p. 41), of the fact that to no other church (but Corinth), not even to those most commended (as the Philippians and Thessalonians), does the Apostle make any mention of his speaking in languages.'—This statement would not deserve formal notice, if it were not preceded by a curious argument on the “ geographical position of Corinth," and followed by an astounding declaration of there being " no mention of the gifts” in three Epistles. Thus stated, and thus encumbered by Mr. M`Neile, the fact he refers to is made to support the


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »