without any design of entering into a detailed reply. Your criticism on the singular form of the word tradition in 2 Thess. iii. is like many of the other criticisms of which you ought to be ashamed. I would just refer you to Matthew xv. 2, 3, 6. Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. Col. ii. 8.-in every one of which passages the word is singular, and evidently equivalent with a system of doctrine, or code of precepts delivered. It might be well for you also to consider what the Thessalonian church must have understood, when they read the sixth verse of that chapter, and before they proceeded to read the subsequent passage, in which the apostle applies that general direction to a particular instance of disobedience to apostolic tradition. It would be as easy to expose your mistranslation of the word one, in which you confound two verbs essentially distinct, σημείου and σημαίνω. It is observable indeed that in the Syriac version (one of the most ancient that we have)- so full was the translator's mind of the general direction in the passage, that he renders the words "note that man" by "let him be separated from you."

But I pass these topics, on which really the question does not turn with you. The fundamental question,-however you conceal it by vague declamation and specious words, is whether there be a King in Zion who has delivered to his subjects a sufficient and authoritative revelation of his will in the scriptures: or whether his subjects be left to walk after their several fancies and to do each what is right in his own eyes. There is fully implied a denial of the former in your palliative paraphrases for continued disobedience to the plainest precepts of his word, after full and patient admonition for the sin-as "a difference with regard to particular practices or the meaning of particular precepts." It is at once charging the sin upon a supposed obscurity or uncertainty in the word of God; and involves the common ungodly sentiment that ignorance, or non-perception of a divine command, neutralizes the disobedience into an innocent infirmity. I would recommend to your serious attention the passage in Levit. v. 17-19. and I would observe that there is a very short step to be taken, in order to extend this ungodly forbearance to the very truth of the gospel. A Socinian urges just the same principle, that even if he be wrong it is but a difference of opinion about the meaning of words-a harmless mistake. It is truly curious to observe some of those precepts which you talk of as so obscure and doubtful in their meaning. The word of God commands the churches of the saints" salute one another-all the brethren-with an holy kiss-a kiss of love." It again solemnly charges his childrenswear not at all-by any oath." (I am by no means restrained from bringing forward this instance by the shortness of the time since I was myself, in the ungodliness of my flesh, rejecting this divine command.) Now, I say that these precepts are as plain as words can make them, as intelligible to a child as to a philosopher. "No"-say you-" I cannot for the life of me understand them. I do not see their meaning. And will you withdraw from me for a mere mistake and a little ignorance ?"

"

--

But I must add, that you are only playing the deceiver in urging this, the deceiver of yourself probably, as well as of others. For

it is manifest from your interpretation of that passage in Thessalo nians, that you do not consider the most wilful and avowed rejection of known apostolic precepts-persisted in after repeated admonition -inconsistent with the offender's being kept in the fellowship of the church. Any man there, who persisted in his idleness certainly could not plead that he did not understand the apostolic injunction; and yet you assert that this idler was to be kept in the fellowship-in the closest and most endeared fellowship of the kingdom of heaven :only the disciples were not to be intimate with him!

You gravely tell me indeed what cases of disobedience you would forbear with, and what you would not. Of the latter you give but one instance, namely, worshipping with persons who remain in the establishment: as if there were any more wickedness in this than in all other breaches of scriptural rule. If ignorance of the sin may be pleaded in other cases, I should be glad to know why the plea should not be admitted in this. But the whole shews that you take no other rule, but your own fancy and religious taste.

Even in the cases of open and acknowledged immorality, to which you professedly apply the prescribed discipline of the house of God, I apprehend that the real grounds on which we would remove the offender are essentially different. It is his refusal to hear the correction of the word of the Lord that scripturally stamps him with any of the characters enumerated in 1 Cor. v. 11. and the same rejection of that word is found in the characters whom you would retain in the body. With respect to the offender himself also, the last solemn act of discipline scripturally proceeds, not at all on the pharisaic notion on which you rest it, that the person guilty of such wickedness plainly manifests that he is NOT of the truth-that he is NOT of the kingdom of heaven; but in the hope that he is, and with the merciful view, "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." With respect to the body indeed, it is (as you truly intimate) that the old leaven may be purged out-that leaven which would be likely to leaven the whole lump. But pray is there no similar danger to be apprehended from leaving in the body the standard of rebellion erected against the authority of any of the laws of Christ?

You rightly conceive that I would confidently refer to that passage in 2 Thess. iii. as expressly prescribing a course opposite to the laxity for which you contend. But I as confidently say, that the person who thinks the divine obligation of that course rests upon the interpretation of this particular passage, does not yet discern the scriptural grounds of it. It rests on the whole nature of an apostolic church, and the divine authority of the apostolic precepts. The former your principles would transform from a body joined together in the maintenance of the word of Christ, into a confederacy against every part of it for the same systematic rejection of one precept which you would tolerate in any one member must extend in principle to every precept and every member alike. And I tell you candidly, that if I were to adduce any particular passage of the word in support of my withholding fellowship from you, it would not be that passage in Thessalonians, but much rather such a passage as that in

1 Tim. vi. 3. Your sin in disobeying particular precepts has long merged in the additional iniquity of becoming a ringleader in teaching contrary to "wholesome words-the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness." I know that you, with multitudes of others, are accustomed to apply that word doctrine (or teaching) exclusively to what the scriptures declare of divine truth for the obedience of faith. But the very passage to which I refer, as well as many more, ought to correct the misapplication.

I shall take no notice of the imputations which you so liberally throw out against us-of strife, and enmity, and pride, and high-mindedness, and hypocrisy nor of your very false insinuation, that we LIGHTLY AND HASTILY Sever the bond which unites disciples with us, if they do not IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT to our authority. Most of those with you have abundant cause to know the falsehood of such a charge. As to the other melancholy effects which you so often refer to, of what you call the present system, I really know none of them. I think it a great mercy that in your present mind you are not with us. And if (as you intimate, and I know is the case,) there are other bodies in town like-minded with you, from whom you yet walk apart; this only shews your common inconsistency. You all talk speciously about unity, and yet go on without scruple to multiply your synagogues without any reason but your several fancies.

Your attempt to confound the systematic rejection of a divine precept with the short-comings which every believer will acknowledge, of conformity to them all, is a sophism so gross that it deserves no

answer.

When you apply the apostolic exhortations to follow the things that make for peace,-to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace to avoid questions which engender strife-when you apply these to the union which you plead for with those who persist in disobedience to the precepts of God, there is abundance of sophistry in this also; but indeed there is much worse. I must plainly say there is awful profaneness. And is it so, that the apostle who solemnly delivered the ordinances of the kingdom of Heaven in the name of its King, at the same time instructed his subjects to avoid the introduction of these matters, as questions that engender strife? In holding this language about them, I am aware that you mean to assume, that the matters which we hold as preceptive are not really so: and this is a palpable begging of the question. But at the same time, the whole of your argument goes to prove the duty of your forbearance about them, even on the supposition of their being what we hold them, and therefore justifies me in conceiving that you extend the same language to them, even in that view. If you really do not mean this, will you admit that the precepts-" Swear not at all"-" Salute one another with the kiss of love," &c. are parts of the doctrine according to godliness-the wholesome words, the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, to which those who consent not are to be removed from the fellowship? No: unless the Lord give you another mind, you will not admit this; for then there would be no difference be

tween us on the nature of Christian forbearance. We are as forward as you can be to assert the wickedness of putting forward as divine precepts what are not truly so.

But then comes your distinction between the present time and the time of the apostles:-" they could not have given us directions referring to the present cases, because there was no room for uncertainty about the meaning of their precepts then." This is indeed a sweeping principle of ungodliness, that would persuade us we are without rule in the scriptures-rule either of faith or practice: for an insufficient and uncertain rule is equivalent to none. The apostles were indeed better taught, than to give any direction involving the supposition that their precepts to the churches were of that uncertain and doubtful character which you attribute to them. But while in all that part of your argument, you rest on our present ignorance and liability to mistake the meaning of their precepts, you prove (as I have before noticed) by your interpretation of the passage in Thessalonians that this is not your real ground: and that you would extend the same forbearance to the disobedience (to use your own language)" which arises from want of submission to what is known to be the will of God."

I have witten much more than I intended, though in a very random and hurried way. I am sure that what I have written will afford you abundant matter-(if you be not brought to repentance)— for renewing your imputations of pride, and high-mindedness, and strife, and uncharitable severity. You seem to have quite lost sight of the real nature of the charity, and lowliness, and peace of the gospel. If what I have written be blessed to you (and it is only in that hope and prayer that I have written so much), you will form a very different estimate of evil and of good; and will see that it is not with the fire of the sanctuary your lights have been burning. I am, dear John, with affectionate concern,

Your real well-wisher,

May I beg that you will shew this letter to any to whom you have shewn yours? Should you through rich mercy be convinced of the ungodliness of the principles contained in your letter, I shall be glad to see you or to hear from you again. Should you not, I do not see any end to be answered by continuing a private controversy.

LII.

TO THE SAME.

1818.

DEAR JOHN,-Your last communication would not require any further notice from me, but for one passage in which you refer to a wicked sentiment in my piece on baptism. I am a good deal surprised to hear from you that you are not sure I have ever fully renounced that sentiment. Let me now assure you that my attention was no sooner called to it-(I believe not a month after the publication of the pamphlet)—than I fully renounced it with abhorrence, and have ever since taken every opportunity to protest against it. commonly expunging the passage from any copies of the work I circulated, regretting that no opportunity has yet offered of publicly renouncing it.

I might very suitably close our correspondence here; but as I have been obliged to take up my pen again, I shall add one or two brief remarks. You talk of one having a scruple about the salutation with the kiss of charity; evidently meaning one who doubts at once the lawfulness of omitting the practice, and the obligation of observing it. Such a man certainly cannot obey the precept, however he may profess to do so in the outward act: and as certainly such a man would be most hypocritically wicked in pretending to press upon his brethren a matter which he does not himself see to be of divine authority, or in pretending not to forbear with their disobedience to it. But you really much mistake, if you think we have adopted the practice (or any other in which we require unity of mind in those with whom we walk) as a matter of doubtful opinion. With your system, it is very suitable to talk of all the peculiar precepts of Christianity in that light, and to substitute the term "ignorant disciple" for one who rejects the plainest instruction of the Word, after it has been patiently and solemnly laid before him.

That instruction is the dealing called for with any disciple ignorant of any part of the divine will, there is no question between us. There is as little question that all the precepts of the gospel are stamped with the character of mercy and if ever you be brought to see the true nature of that mercy, you will see it as much in the last act of discipline as in any of the preceding. Your misinterpretation of 1 Cor. v. 5. is sufficiently refuted by 2 Cor. ii. 7. Certainly, if the church removed that offender as one who had plainly manifested that he was not of the kingdom of heaven, they removed him under a mistake. But probably you have an interpretation for doing away the plain meaning of the latter passage also.

You refer me to your Paisley Letters for your reasons for not uniting with those who worship privately and occasionally with persons in the Establishment. I wanted no additional reasons to prove their sin and I have found no grounds on which you can reconcile