Amidst the plain severity of open rebuke, which I have thought my self bound to employ towards him, I desire to remember with thankfulness and abasement, that but for mere mercy I might now be acting his part, and employing the dishonest arts of sophistry and false learning in opposition to the precepts which I have been led to acknowledge and obey.

I have already written more than I designed when I took up my pen, and more than has been quite consistent with the nature of my other engagements. How shall I rejoice if what I have written should be blessed to extricate you or any disciple from the entanglement by which subtilty endeavours to perplex the word of God. I would thank you to communicate this letter to the Remarker, and to any others you may please.

I remain, dear Sir, &c.

P. S.-Some of my brethren to whom I have communicated this, have expressed a wish that I should enlarge it, and extend my animadversions to other passages in the Remarks, which I have left unnoticed, and which they see equally worthy of exposure. It would, in one sense, be an easy task; but, for the present, I decline prosecuting it. Besides the little time I have for writing on such subjects, and the length to which I should be led by a minute exposure of all that deserves exposure in the pamphlet, I confess to you that it is to me a disgusting task to rummage such materials as compose it, and that I feel disposed to wash my hands out of the dirty work as quickly as possible. But I will add, that I have not intentionally passed by any thing which I conceived might carry even apparent weight; and that if you, or any of those connected with you (except the Remarker), should say, We give up what you have noticed; but here is an argument unnoticed, upon which we rest as the ground of our opposition to the precept;" I will then, if life and strength be spared, meet that point; and I do not apprehend that I shall have any difficulty in proving it as weak as what I have distinctly refuted.

I have softened some of the expressions in my Letter (all that I honestly could) in compliance with the wish of one of my brethren. And here I would add, that while I have charged the Remarker not only with ludicrous absurdity but gross dishonesty, and have abundantly proved the charge, yet I gladly acquit him of that kind of dishonesty which is conscious to itself, at the time, of its departure from truth and candour; I can easily believe that, even in the grossest instances which I have marked, he wrote without thinking, and therefore did not discern the impositions which he attempted to pass upon his readers. But this is what I view as so awful in his character, while it is quite congenial to the character of my flesh as well as his; to treat a question of divine precept with head-over-heels opposition which musters every thing that can be said against it, and regards not or thinks not whether what is advanced be true or false, but only whether it carries a colour to the readers. This (however a lawyer may think it fair in defending the cause on which he is retained) is a most awful departure from Christian integrity.

MY DEAR FRIEND,-I really feel ashamed at being so tardy in acknowledging your two packets of Oct. 21, and Dec. 3. Need I say that both were very acceptable: and that, hitherto, I do not find (and, indeed, do not suspect) the least difference between us on the one grand point-"Grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Christ Jesus." I have not yet had time to look at poor Mr. Chalmers's production; and, at any rate, would defer it till I have the whole. The very title sufficiently indicates how unscriptural his views are at present. Whether it be the obscurity of one beginning dimly to discern, or the darkness of a benighted adversary to the truth, time will discover: and if the Antichristian falsehood of his present views be scripturally exposed from the press, it will serve as a test of his character. When one considers the society by which he is surrounded, particularly his clerical brethren, and their seductive arts, the thought might damp all hope, did we not recollect to whom it belongs to teach sinners his way. But with that before our eyes, who can say but the Rev. Mr. C. may yet be a despised witness of Him, "who is despised and rejected by men-who has no form nor comeliness-no beauty, that we sinners should desire him," Is. liii.— though he came to save sinners, even the chief, and is the brightness of the father's glory. As to 's wish, that I should write a reply to Mr. C., my various necessary occupations will not allow me to attempt it at present. But, if I had time, I should have much inclination for such a work. I do not know any more profitable mode of bringing forward to the world the great controversy, than by setting the truth in contrast with the sentiments of the various popular theologians, whose works appear from time to time. And often have I planned for this purpose a kind of theological review. But, perhaps, the Lord sees in my wish to be so engaged plenty of vanity and self-seeking, which he mercifully counteracts, by keeping me to the oar of business. Often have I cause to think of that word"He that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him, John vii. 18:" and ever must we own that the character is exemplified only in the one who spoke the word. Yet, according as He keeps us in the view of his own glory, and in the knowledge of the things that are freely given to us of God, we shall live not to ourselves, but unto Him who has loved us, and given himself for us; and shall rejoice to be nothing, that He may be all in all. In what an opposite way from the divines, do the Apostles exhort and animate to a conversation becoming the Gospel-setting the glory of that Gospel before them, reminding them of the high dignity and unspeakable blessedness which is put upon themof its divine nature, its wonderful price, its glorious consummation.

"Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation: that ye should" - what? endeavour to make out some title to this character, or evidences of its belonging to you, by a supposed work of faith? O, no-but "that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." “Behold! what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us!" "Beloved, now are we the sons of God." These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;" that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." Well may we say this is not the manner of man.-I was here obliged to lay aside my pen, and can now only subscribe my name. Believe me ever truly yours.

now.

April, 26, 1816.

MY DEAR SIR,-I am sorry that so many months have elapsed before I could write to you. But I wished to write at some length : and being overloaded with business, I could not take up my pen till I have read your letter with attention; and with some satisfaction. It gives me pleasure to find any professor of the Gospel expressing himself heartily concerned, as you do, for the outward union of all the Lord's people. I can truly join with you, in saying that this is an object which lies near-very near-to my heart: and my anxiety for it is increased by a confident expectation of it,—from a persuasion that it is promised in the word of Him who cannot lie, and for whom nothing is too hard. As to the men, who can without scruple multiply divisions among those who verbally profess the truth, and lightly set up synagogue against synagogue; I see in them very little of the scriptural character of disciples, however highly they are esteemed by the religious world. Among such I reckon some, with whom (I believe) you are connected in this city, and who have been, for some time, zealously gathering disciples to them, on the principle of forbearing with each other in matters of divine command.-(You will excuse me for writing with much freedom and plainness.)-Proceeding on that principle, they had consistently no occasion to form a new society. They might have joined PS-congregation, for instance, and would have only had to exercise forbearance with its present members in the few matters on which they differ. But, indeed, it would be found that no consistent reason could be assigned for their quitting the most grossly corrupt communion, in which they had been before: nor do they seem to have been directed in their conduct by anything but private fancy, and zeal against the only scriptural principles of Christian union. That union

must always appear in a form the most contemptible and odious to men; contemptible as from other causes, so from the smallness of the numbers embraced by it; and odious, as standing in steadfast opposition to all the fairest forms of the religion of the world. None can have a relish for it, but those whose minds are subjected by divine mercy to the yoke of Him who is despised and rejected by men, who has no form nor comeliness to the natural eye, and who plainly tells us of the way that leadeth unto life-" few there be that find it." I quite agree with you that there is a fault, a very awful fault, on one side or the other: and I should always rejoice to meet the inquiry, where it lies. If those you speak of in Khave been gathered

together in the mind which you describe, I trust that they and I shall not be long asunder. But excuse me for saying that they may have left the Established church "from conscientious motives," and yet upon no solid scriptural principle. Conscience, and religious conscience-is a very deceitful monitor, unless where it is regulated by the word of God. The Established church no doubt presents a striking spectacle of the setting aside of the laws of the King of Zion, and the introduction of a code of human regulations in their place. Did you break off from that fellowship in submission to the binding authority of the divine word, or in the discretionary gratification of some kind of religious taste? If the former, how can you contend for maintaining fellowship with any, in whom the same evil appears of not obeying any precept of the word? Is it the number of precepts disobeyed in the other connexion, that made it obligatory on you to leave it? The man who holds that non-obedience to any divine command may be made a matter of mutual forbearance, ought to be prepared to say, before he quits the Establishment, how many instances of it may not be forborn with:-or he ought to state distinctly (as I have often urged such persons to do, but always in vain) what the precepts are, to which continued disobedience cannot be forborn with in a Christian church, and what those are in which it may. Indeed it is no wonder they do not like to be called on to explain themselves here: because, if they gave a plain answer to the question, the ungodliness of their system would be more strikingly manifest to any one who fears the Lord, and trembles at his word. It would more plainly appear that they invade the whole authority of the divine word, by marking any of its precepts as matters which the members of a Christian church may agree to set aside. Such a union is not a Christian union, but an Antichristian confederacy; which, however, I know may make a great shew of liberality and love, and will commend itself to the taste of the religious world, by the very characters which make it an object of abhorrence to disciples. You seem to select the matters mentioned in Acts ii. 42, as including all things necessary to Christian union. And, understanding the passage aright, I would heartily agree with you. But, I dare say that you, like many others, confine the import of the Apostle's doctrine, or teaching, to the Gospel which they preached. Against that common. perversion of the word, I might refer you to Matth. xxviii. 20. Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 17. 2 Thess. ii. 15. iii. 6. But supposing for a moment that the doctrine of the Apostles

implied only the things they taught concerning the work of Christ, and the way of a sinner's salvation,-allow me to ask how you would reply to a clergyman of the Establishment objecting to your secession from it as schism, and employing your own text against you. He might say you own that I preach the Apostolic doctrine of Christ crucified, and on the first day of the week we continue in it, and in "prayers, and in the fellowship or contribution, and—(he might add if it be a Cathedral)-also in the Lord's Supper." You would probably be at no loss to vindicate your secession, by pointing cut various objections to his religious connexion; and among them, perhaps, you would mention the setting aside of all the laws of discipline, which Christ has established in his house. But are these of indispensable obligation, though not mentioned in your text? Why should you not forbear with their non-observance, for the sake of peace and union? Do you exclaim at the idea of thus joining to cast contempt upon the divine authority of the King of Zion? "Tis very good:- but with what consistency then can you object to us, who profess to regard all his laws alike as sacred; and who think it a profanation to talk of forbearing with continued disobedience to any of them?-Do you reply in that language, which I know is common in your connexion-" yes, they are all to be held sacred as far as they are seen but all disciples do not see alike; and we cannot expect the maturity of knowledge in a weak babe. Shall I, then, break off from one, of whose sincerity I am persuaded, because he does not see with me in all things? Shall I withhold Christian fellowship here from one, with whom I hope to have everlasting fellowship above?"— Alas! the plausibility with which the father of lies dresses up his opposition to Christ and his kingdcm! It would require more than the compass of a letter to shake out, and expose, all the ungodly lies that are contained in that language and argument. But the shortest way for detecting its fallacy with you may be to suggest, that the clergyman (whom I have just now supposed to argue against you as schismatic) might urge you with the self-same topics. "I do not see-I cannot see the unlawfulness which you assert in the Establishment and you own that many sincere disciples have lived and died in it. Why, then, should we not still walk together, though we cannot see alike in all things ?" How you would answer him I do not know. I should be at no loss to tell him, that the authority of the divine precepts does not depend on our seeing them or not seeing them; though certainly they cannot really be obeyed without a discernment of them: and that, as to men's sincerity of opposition to them, it no more extenuates their disobedience, than their sincere rejection of the Gospel as a lie can vindicate their unbelief. I should be at no loss to tell him, when he put himself forward as one who must be acknowledged a genuine disciple, that whatever he might be in the sight of God, he could not scripturally be manifested as such to me, but by hearing the voice of God in his word: (John x. 27.) and that while the word assures me that believers themselves, through the wickedness of our common nature, might be found in courses the most evil,-yet the same word debars me from taking part with them in the evil, or touching the unclean thing, by holding fellowship with