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.

66

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 "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 has 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 hath 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 in'cessant repetitions!' To which it may be replied, How utterly does the strain of modern writings differ from the Prophetic and Apostolical; seeing that the "prophetic" 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

66

verses.

There are several insinuations running through these discourses, which are as unworthy of the preacher as they are

VOL. V.-NO. II.

3 L

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 have 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 has 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 he 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 his 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 his 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 his 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 which 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 Philip'pians 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

erroneous notion that the "speaking in languages," according to that gentleman, or the "gift of tongues," according to Scripture, was limited to the church of Corinth. We do not say Mr. M'Neile intended this; but some have so understood him; and to remove further improper inference, we remind the reader, that the Epistle to the Corinthians is really addressed (1 Cor. i. 2) "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Upon this we contend, that what the Apostle" mentions to the church of Corinth," is" written for our instruction;" and we dare not except the chapters (for instance) on unknown tongues, &c. No doubt the circumstances of the Corinthian church-such as the number of the gifted persons, or the disorderly use of the gifts-rendered the Apostles's formal and prominent exhortations on the subject wise and necessary; but to suppose, therefore, that such subject refers to no other church, is to carry conclusions where Mr. M'Neile has carried some of his readers, to wit, out of the right course; placing them, and leaving them, though perhaps not so intended, at "Corinth, on the middle of an isthmus, close to the sea on either side." (p. 41).

Besides, the fact as to other churches destroys Mr. M'Neile's statement, or restriction, or inference, or whatever it may be; for the believers at Jerusalem (Acts iv. 31), at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6), at Cæsarea (Acts x.44), at Samaria (Acts viii. 17), at Antioch (Acts xiii. 1)-to say nothing of the universal church as assembled on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4), received the gift of the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues being particularly" mentioned."

This is so important a part of the controversy, and error here is so common and so dangerous, that we must, at the risk of censure for "vain repetitions," draw further attention to Mr. M'Neile's statement.

In the Apostle's prayers for the highest advancement of the 'churches in holiness there is no mention of the gifts: Eph. i. 16, 20; iii. 14, 21; Phil. i. 9, 11.' (p. 41.)

We deny this statement, and pronounce it "unreasonable and unscriptural," upon the principle and in the language of Mr. M'Neile, in Preliminary Observations, page 11,That it is as ⚫ unreasonable as it is unscriptural to claim the Spirit's presence in the church for the production of fruits of holiness, and deny 'His presence for the performance of works of power.'

The first passage referred to by Mr. M'Neile as having “no mention of the gifts" (Eph. i. 16) is prefaced (ver. 13) by the Apostle speaking of the church as "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise after they believed;" and in the context of Mr. M'Neile's second quotation, St. Paul states (Eph. iii. 7) he " was made a minister, according to the gift," &c. Will Mr. M'Neile say that

"the Holy Spirit of promise" to the Ephesians, is not “that Holy Spirit" which "gave utterance" on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were "waiting for the promise of the Comforter?" Or will he say that the "gift of ministry," mentioned in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is not the same gift mentioned, with others, in the Epistle to the Corinthians?

That we are "reasonable and scriptural" in thus reconciling Paul with Paul, though in doing so we are compelled to contrast Mr. M'Neile with Mr. M'Neile, and in thus connecting "the highest advancement in holiness with mention of the gifts," is further evident from the following more direct passages.

In the xiith chap. to the Romans, ver. 1, the Apostle" beseeches them" (and if he besought them, we presume he "besought" God for them-Mr. M'Neile's reference is to " the Apostle's prayers) "to present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy," &c. Then he introduces (ver. 5) the figure of the one body and many members; using the same figure and the same expressions as in his chapter to the Corinthians on the gifts generally, and on tongues and prophesying particularly. He also "mentions" (vers. 6-8) various " gifts," beginning with that of prophecy; and in this connection proceeds, to the end of the chapter, to inculcate "the highest advancement in holiness."

66

66

Once more: In 1 Thess. last chapter (and Mr. M'Neile places the Thessalonians in his schedule A of exceptions), we find the Apostle exhorting (and we again presume his "prayers" corresponded with his preaching) to holiness, and mentioning gifts. Pray without ceasing" (ver. 17): here is "prayer." Quench not the Spirit" (ver. 19): here is the Spirit's work generally, and of course "the gifts" inclusively. Despise not prophesying" (ver. 20): here is a "gift" particularly" mentioned." "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (ver. 22): here is “holiness." Concluding with "I pray God" (prayer again) "your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless " (holiness again)" unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

These connections of " prayer and holiness, with mention of the gifts," prove Mr. M'Neile's statement to be "as unreasonable as it is unscriptural;" and, with the instances we have given of some of his waverings, objections, and insinuations, authorize us to pronounce his work on "Miracles and Spiritual Gifts" the most unsatisfactory, if not the most contradictory, which has appeared on the subject. At the same time we remember and repeat our acknowledgment of his past services, especially in following other able ministers in proclaiming the glorious doctrine which we have just seen the Apostle connect with unceasing prayer and perfect holiness," the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The false reasoning which pervades this publication of Mr. M'Neile causes us to entertain serious apprehensions for the so