lific)-which appeared in your language as we walked together, and which is repeated in one of your letters to my brother C. You profess to see much sin in the course in which you lately walked, in a kind of fellowship with other professors. But according to the sentiment which you maintain, (and which on the day I saw you, I hoped was but the perplexity of an agitated mind), what sin after all was there in it? or what sin would there be in your returning to the Establishment-if you like it? If indeed it be so, that the rule which was formerly binding on disciples in the apostolic word has ceased to be binding now, I cannot understand what sin there is in walking contrary to that rule; and I am sure no other revelation from heaven has been given since, which they can transgress. You continued in that kind of fellowship while you liked it: you gave it up when you ceased to like it; and you may resume it, or any thing in its place, when you like. Where is the harm in any part of this course? where lies the sin that you mean to acknowledge and take shame for? But I do not wonder that many who were engaged in such an attempt should find it much more comfortable, and (as they will say) more profitable, to abandon it. You did seem in some points pleasingly distinguished from them: but, indeed, you now seem just of their mind.

Praying the God of all mercy and power, that if you be one of his, you may receive the reproof of his Word,

I remain, dear madam, yours faithfully,

LXIX.

TO THE CHURCH IN C

July, 1820.

BELOVED BRETHREN,-We write to you at the desire of the church in Dublin, about a matter in which we have all to acknowledge much unfaithfulness heretofore. Our attention was called above a year ago by the church in C to the intrinsic unlawfulness of our employing a clergyman to solemnize our marriages, in any circumstance, or under any supposable modification of their religious rite. At that time, most of us conceived that we had sufficiently come to a scriptural settlement of mind upon the subject, because we were professedly agreed upon the utter inadmissibility of the thing, in the circumstances in which we are placed; having an opportunity of obtaining an equally legal validity to the marriage contract without having recourse to any antichristian priest for the purpose. And satisfied with that kind of hollow unanimity of sentiment, which we flattered ourselves would produce a unanimous abandonment of our

former wicked practice, we most unwarrantably (with the exception of a few brethren) deprecated the agitation of the question-whether circumstances might not be at least imagined, in which, if we had no other way of having our marriages legalized, we might have it effected even by the intervention of a clergyman;-provided that he either forebore the usual religious exercises on the occasion, or received our explicit declaration that we did not mean to join with him in them.

A marriage that has recently taken place in the church at L has again forced our attention to the subject: and we would lay before you the plain considerations which now make us avow the full conviction (with shame for our past slowness to admit it)— that the thing is in itself absolutely inconsistent with our allegiance to Christ. We beseech you then to consider, brethren, that—although marriage is in its nature essentially a civil contract-yet the solemnization of marriage by a clergyman is essentially and avowedly a religious rite; in which the clergyman acts officially as such, and in his capacity of a priest of his religion: that when, therefore, we apply to him under any circumstances to solemnize our marriage, we necessarily call upon him to act for us in that capacity, to exercise his clerical function for us; and that no explanation we could offer, nor any indulgence he could afford, can possibly make us throw off the fellowship, which we do thus hold with his antichristian system. This position we shall confirm by taking a case the most apparently favourable to the opposite view which can possibly be imagined.

We shall suppose that a good-natured clergyman, in order to meet our scruples, not only consents to lay aside all religious exercises or expressions upon the occasion, but even dispenses with our appearance in what is called his church; that he merely pronounces the parties man and wife, on their declaring that they receive each other in that relation, and upon this gives them the usual certificate that he has solemnized their marriage: now, would not the parties, in submitting even to this, have employed that clergyman to perform for them, in his clerical function, that which none but a person sustaining this function is considered capable of doing? Would they not have had their marriage PROFESSEDLY solemnized according to the rites of his religion? And would they not vainly put a cheat on their own consciences by pleading that these rites indeed have not been really observed? Allow us to illustrate this (if it need illustration) by putting another perfectly parallel case. The law of the country requires men to qualify for various offices by receiving what is called their sacrament. We should all look with horror at the idea of this conformity, whatever might be the worldly temptation. It is well. But let us suppose that the same good-natured clergyman agrees to lay aside every tittle of religious ceremony on this occasion also,-merely to give us some bread and wine, which (he says) we may innocently receive from any man, and upon this to furnish us with a certificate of having qualified,—a certificate of our having committed the most awful abomination. Could we seek it? Could we receive it? Could we, without the most hypocritical treachery against the King of Zion, concur at all in the wicked im

posture? Yet, to mark the case as perfectly parallel with the former, it is only needful to add, that-according to the principles of that religion of which that clergyman is a priest-the administration of their sacrament is not more essentially a religious rite than their solemnization of marriage.

We are persuaded, that nothing more needs to be said on the subject for deciding the minds of all who are kept standing fast in the truth, and therefore "sanctifying the Lord God in their hearts." We only beg it may be distinctly observed, that we should not conceive the decision rested on scriptural grounds in the mind, if the circumstance of our being able to have our marriages legally ratified otherwise, were allowed to enter at all into the considerations which produce it; if we stood not prepared in the strength of the Lord to encounter every loss that could possibly be incurred by our adherence in this matter to the principles of the divine Word. We have to confess in this (as in every thing) our own awful unfaithfulness; and to praise him for that mercy which endureth for ever. We pray that you may all be "kept in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life :" and hoping soon to hear from you in reply, we remain, &c.

[A brief remark or two on the answer of one of the members is added.]

His decision seems to consist of two parts:-1. That it is intrinsically unlawful to employ a clergyman to solemnize our marriages. 2. That in a certain supposed case it would be better to commit this sin than a greater. In the first point, the matter on which we wrote would seem given up. But is it given up honestly? with a manly a Christian acknowledgment of antecedent error, in opposing our admonition as altogether unscriptural in its tenor? Alas! what poor work we make when we want to preserve our consistency! But on the second point, I must say, that a most unscriptural principle is put forward. According to the whole nature of the revelation from the living God, I am not at liberty to suppose that it ever leaves me to a choice of evils-to choose which part of his revealed will I shall violate.

I believe I was sufficiently distinct in marking, that our assertion of the wickedness of employing a clergyman to solemnize our marriage, never was to interfere with our marrying, where the Word points it out that we ought to marry. And when any one says against this What, if I can get no woman to live with me as my wife unless I will join in a sacrifice to Jupiter to solemnize the marriage?' he says what is absurd in the supposition, and what is profane in the application: profane in implying that our heavenly Father, who has given us the two precepts in the Word-" FLEE fornication," and "FLEE from idolatry"-will yet place some of his children in circumstances in which they cannot obey both-but ought to balance in their judgments the comparative importance of the precepts, in order to decide which of them they will violate in the name of God. No other answer ought to be given to the argument.

LXX.

TO MR. J. HALDANE.

Jan. 1821.

MY DEAR SIR,-Having at length decided on replying to your strictures publicly, I have just finished the rough draft of an introductory letter to you. But I find that in it I have been obliged on one point to employ terms of reprehension, which I think it safer to communicate to you in the first instance in private. No doubt the blessed rule of dealing among fellow disciples, given in Matt. xviii. 15, is not in some views applicable to us, as we have never walked together as brethren; yet the spirit of it, as well as other principles which I need not enter into, lead me to think this the more expedient course: I shall therefore proceed without further preface or apology to extract the passage to which I allude." As to your grossly ca lumnious," &c. and down to "sacrificing his truth to gain your approbation." (Vol. 1. 434.) Such, my dear sir, are some of the observaations which I find it necessary to make in my introductory letter. Greatly should I rejoice if they were made the occasion of leading you to consider your ways in the light of the revealed will of God. Any other consideration of them is a vainer thing than you suppose. Very different indeed is the course you and I are pursuing, (so different that one or other of them must be very evil) as well as the views and spirit with which we write. By and by we shall both stand before the judgment seat of Christ; and there the opinion that men have formed of us, will be a matter lighter than vanity. In your jealousy for the characters of "excellent men"-in your so rapidly retracing the steps, by which you formerly seemed to approximate towards the assertion of most important scriptural principles-in your joining and now heading the popular outcry against them,-in all this I am sure you think yourself engaged in a course of christian usefulness; and I suspect the unscriptural ambition of that, has long been your great snare. But I know that the spirit which prompts it, is a very evil one; for it is our own, though in a very fine dress. You think you are promoting God's service, in cultivating a friendship which is enmity against him, and the wickedness is covered from your view, under the specious motive of winning the religious world to some shreds, which you retain of professed principles like scriptural truth. Yet with all the increasing respectability of your character, and increasing obloquy attached to mine, I am happy, and I do not think you can be so. I doubt whether the popular teachers do not still look at you with something of a jealous eye, on account of your former approaches to that same Sandemanianism; and whether you must not recede still farther and more openly from the profession you once made, before you can fully satisfy them that you also are not, or were not, one of that sect everywhere spoken against.

You have gone far indeed towards clearing yourself from the imputation: but can you be quite at ease between the conflicting considerations, that still more is needful to wipe it off thoroughly, and that any more explicit recantation may hazard the loss of those "excellent men," whom you have hitherto attached to you? Ah, dear sir, if ever you be brought to the mind of seeing nothing glorious but the name of the Lord, the object of your contention will be changed; you will have all the world against you; but you will find in the light of His countenance what will outweigh all worlds. But let me not increase the enormous length of this letter by further remark. Only let me suggest to you that it is an awful state which is described in Hos. vii. 9; and that all that kind of self examination, which I dare say you diligently employ, or at least earnestly enforce, never can prevent or detect it. Yours, &c.

LXXI.

TO J. L

Jan. 1821.

MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,-You must indeed have greatly mistaker any expression of mine, from which you inferred that I wished to terminate our correspondence. Your intelligence of having now a few connected with you, is very interesting to me; and I think the better of their profession, from their being desirous to canvass with us the only point of difference. That is but consistent with their conceiving us to be of one mind with them on the faith and hope of the Gospel. The existence of any difference is very-very painful. But let us make it a matter of joint petition, that it may be scripturally removed, and not fear but that the prayer shall be answered. Coming with any legitimate request to Him to whom sinners have access, what but our hardness of heart and unbelief ever makes us doubt of being heard? Matth. vii. 7—11. Mark xi. 24. John. xiv. 12-14. xvi. 23, 24. 1 John v. 14, 15. These are great words : but not too great for the warrant of a sinner's drawing nigh to God.

There are just two points to be considered in the question—(I do not mean to argue either of them now.) 1st. Whether the thing forbidden us in the word be not a pledging ourselves before the Lord, that we will act so or so, under any forfeiture, however small.-2dly. Whether all oaths in this country, and indeed in every country, be not such a pledge; and whether this be not the essential difference between an oath and a simple affirmation, however solemn. Now, dear friend, resume your pen to me; and tell me all particulars about