66 the word reconciliation to the removal of the enmity of the sinner's mind to God. If so, I assure you that you are substantially rejecting Him, who is set forth from heaven as "a propitiation through faith in his blood," as having put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. But if indeed you know him who speaks throughout the book of Psalms, Mine iniquities are more than the hairs of my head;" Him who indeed was without sin of his own, but stooped to be made sin, to have the sins of all that were given him out of the world, made to meet on him; who undertook to answer for them as his own, and to be smitten by Jehovah in the place of his sheep; if indeed you unequivocally allow these principles, how comes it that you would make my brother L- an offender, (for I know that it is to him you allude) because, as you tell me, he maintained in conversation with you, that "Christ has taken the sins of his people upon him, made them his own, and in this sense was chargeable with sins, and received the divine forgiveness?" Really, it is in the justification, release, or acquittal of their surety from sin, that the justification of all his seed is assured from heaven. But why do I talk of this to men, who seem plainly to deny that Christ became "in any sense chargeable with sin," and therefore deny the imputation to him of his people's sins? For I think that to impute and to charge to one's account is one and the same thing. It is expressly declared, that God imputed not their trespasses to his people, 2 Cor. v. 19. Those, therefore, that deny that their trespasses were imputed to Him who was made sin for them, must attribute to the Most High a connivance at sin, and a receding from the word that revealed the sentence of wrath and condemnation against it. Such men may talk highly and speciously of the divine compassion and mercy, &c.; but I am bold to say that they lie under a deadly mistake as to the nature of the forgiveness which there is with God. As to the expressions which you object to, of Jehovah's being pacified-his wrath removed or turned away, it is enough to say that they are scriptural expressions, while the believer knows, that all the language which attributes change of mind or human passions to Jehovah, is to be understood as spoken after the manner of men. There is one expression that you attribute to my brother L.,-namely, Christ came into the world to procure the love of God to man, that I would be far from vindicating, as it would be too likely to convey ideas contrary to what is declared in John iv. 9, 10, and throughout the scriptures: though I can conceive the language might be employed in a sense indubitably true--namely, that without the work of Christ no sinner could have been the object of the love of God. But let me add, that the particular expression is so unlike any thing I have ever heard from J- L——, that I must suspect you to be under some mistake in the matter, till the statement is confirmed by himself. I readily admit, however, that I have known divines to talk much about Christ's appeasing his Father's wrath, &c., in a way which I consider very objectionable. But I have far exceeded the length of communication which I had proposed; and shall only add frankly, that while you are of the mind, which your letter seems to me to indicate, I think your outward union with the church at L- very undesirable. I remain, with best wishes, your's faithfully, CXXV. TO J, II March 11, 1828. MY DEAR BROTHER H -You should have heard from me sooner, but that it has pleased God to visit me with long-continued illness. For the last ten weeks I have had a succession of gouty attacks, the last very severe, which have so enfeebled me, that I can scarcely creep along the room with the support of two sticks. Blessed be the God of all mercy that we sinners can view the loosening of the earthly tabernacle, as but the approaching answer to that prayer of the redeemer-" Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am." When HE was parted from his disciples, and carried up into heaven, (Luke xxiv. 51.) they had a striking evidence indeed that his kingdom is not of this world, and that it was not the prosperity and glory of this world they had to look for, but blessedness with him in heaven. Yet we read in the same passage, that "they returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Now the spring of their joy was-not any thing they saw in or about themselves, distinguishing them from other men-but the fact of which they just had decisive evidence, that the Lord was risen indeed, and that thus there was a divine proof and attestation that He was indeed the Messiah, of whom all the prophets had spoken, to whom all the sacrifices under the law pointed, and in whom they all received their full accomplishment. Having offered himself through the eternal spirit unto God, it was now proved that this his sacrifice for sin was accepted, that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, and that there needs no more; that the work of putting it away is finished, and everlasting righteousness brought in for the justification of the ungodly. The view of this great redemption might well send the disciples back to Jerusalem with great joy; and was well adapted, and sufficient, to impart the same joy at all times to us Gentile sinners. The risen and ascended king of Israel has "received the heathen for his inheritance," and is set for the salvation of God unto the ends of the earth. His kingly glory, in which all things are put under his feet, assures the security of all that concerns his redeemed ones. While He is head over all things to his church, all things must work together for their good. Things Whether present and things to come, life and death-all are theirs. I shall be allowed to see you again in the flesh, appears very uncertain. My last attack seemed to have gone off so well, that I was able to meet with the brethren last Sunday: but I have since had a degree of relapse. I trust to hear from you shortly, that you and our dear brethren at C- are well, and kept walking in the truth, in nothing discouraged by the smallness of your numbers, or the multitude of your adversaries. We have had a very pleasing addition to our body lately, in a woman of the name of A. C—————, whom I met in the walks at B in the year 1826. I think I mentioned to you at the time that I had got into conversation with her, and given her some of the tracts, &c. It appears that she was then half distracted with the jugglery of the popular gospel. their snare is broken, and she is blessedly delivered. My hearty love to our dear brethren. Mercy and peace be multiplied richly to you all! CXXVI. TO R. L. C. June, 1823. In the following few remarks which I am about to offer on P——'s letter, I wish to be understood as referring exclusively to the general law he promulgates: "that it is unlawful to read the scriptures to or with those who do not appear to believe them." With the particular circumstances under which any individuals may have practised the thing, or may still practise it, with the expediency or inexpediency of the practice under such circumstances, I do not at present directly meddle; and let me premise that Miss G in her letter did state the general principle most fairly. Her words are," they say it is unlawful to read the scriptures to or with unbelievers." The rest of her letter treats of the particular circumstances under which she reads them in her school. It was upon the general principle that I briefly remarked in reply, that the position seemed so monstrous, that I conceived she must have mistaken their meaning. I am grieved to find she did not mistake it, and that P—— declares himself and those with him prepared to maintain that general position, in the unlimited extent in which he distinctly lays it down. I have purposely refrained for some days from putting pen to paper on the subject; but after the most serious consideration of it, I must now declare myself prepared to resist the imposition of this law to the uttermost, as manifestly opposed to some of the most indubitable principles of the Word. In thus declaring myself, it is with my eyes open to the melan. choly consequences which must ensue, and speedily, if the diversity of mind remains unremoved. In the last chapter of the Acts, we read that Paul, addressing an assembly of his countrymen, expounded to them and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening: and some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not: and when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word-" Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people," &c. "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Now, if Paul, instead of quoting from memory (as he probably did) those verses from the sixth of Isaiah, had opened the book (as our Lord did in the synagogue at Nazareth), and had read the same passage to those unbelieving hearers, whom he evidently addresses in that part of his discourse, would Paul have done that which was unlawful? But during the whole of the preceding discussion, which was continued from morning till evening, and in which he expounded the things of Christ out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, may we not be certain that he had the book before him, and read the scriptures to and with his audience, though many of them manifested their rejection of what he offered, by contradicting and opposing him, and in this manifested that they really believed not that Moses in whom they trusted, John v. 45-47. We find Paul in like manner disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus both with Jews and Greeks; "and this continued by the space of two years.' Now, some at least of the Jews with whom he thus disputed were the unbelieving Jews, from whom he had separated the disciples when he quitted the synagogue; and never do we find him contending for the truth of Christ against his unbelieving countrymen, without appealing to those scriptures which they professedly acknowledged in the controversy. Whether that appeal was made by quotations repeated memoriater, or read to them from the book, certainly made no difference; and I am aware that those, with whom I am contending now, have too much acuteness to maintain that it could make any difference either then or now. This, however, leads me to remark incidentally, that it is plain we have not yet all the law which they mean to impose on us. We are forbidden at present to read the scriptures to any but apparent believers of them; but they must certainly intend to forbid likewise all quotation of them or reference to them, in conversation with one ignorant of the truth; and it is scarcely necessary to add that this involves a prohibition of all communication, oral or written-private or public-on any scriptural subject, in vindication of the truth or in exposure of error, with any of our unbelieving fellow sinners in these countries. How far the spirit that would dictate such a law participates of the mind of him, who has compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way, let them who are spiritual judge. I am aware that P. (in the last paragraph but one of his 4th page) appears to make a reservation in favour of "the way of oral utterance." But I must candidly say, that I do not think he intended in that passage to concede any thing contrary to the broad principle which I shew to be involved in his law. He is much too shrewd to advance a distinction between the oral utterance by reading, and oral utterance by repeating from memory. If then he would really allow me to speak with an Arminian professor, for instance, in defence of the truth, he must mean to debar me from all reference to the scriptures with one who upholds his ungodly senti ments by scripture misinterpreted. The Arminian would quote Heb. ii. 9. to prove that Christ died for those who perish in their sins. And I may indeed, by "oral utterance," assert the contrary, but I am prohibited from opening the Bible and referring to the perverted passage in its context, and proving from that very passage that Christ brings unto glory all for whom he tasted death. I am prohibited from this, for "it is unlawful to read the scriptures to or with those who do not appear to believe them." I reject the ungodly law with indignation. When P quotes 2 Tim. iii. 16., and in his usual manner asks,—Would it be monstrous if a disciple looked upon this passage as including every lawful purpose to which the scriptures can be applied ? I reply, that I am as ready to admit as he can be to assert, that we may well consider the ends for which the apostle there declares the scriptures to be profitable, as a complete enumeration of the purposes for which they were designed, or to which they can be lawfully applied. But before he infers by implication, that it is therefore unlawful to read the scriptures to those who are at present ignorant of their true import, he ought to shew that such unbelieving professors do not need reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. Paul certainly thought so, when he employed those very scriptures as he did, in contending with his countrymen for the faith of Christ. But Paul declares the ability of those scriptures to make a man wise unto salvation: whereas it seems, according to the principles now sought to be established, that a man must be first made wise to salvation, before the scriptures can be lawfully laid before him. What the means are by which P. himself would profess that he was made acquainted with the way of salvation, I know not. But if he would assign the scriptures as the instrument which God had made effectual for the purpose in his own instance, I know not how he can assert the unlawfulness of an attempt to apply them to a similar purpose in other instances. No doubt, the ultimate design of God in giving the scriptures is "that the man of God may be perfect." They are given, like all other things, for the elects' sake. But it would be as reasonable to accuse the Apostles of acting in unlawful inconsistency with this truth, because they preached the word of salvation indiscriminately to all, as it is to charge me with acting unlawfully in reading the scriptures (and expounding them also) to an assembly the most mixed. But P. intimates that this is to represent the scriptures as "designed for unbelievers." There is manifold and mischievous ambiguity in that language. I have already marked, that in the highest view they are designed for the benefit of God's elect alone. It is also certain, in another view, that none but those who professedly believe the scriptures, or acknowledge them as a divine revelation, can consistently be addressed and reasoned with in the way of appealing to the scriptures. But it is fully within the design of the scriptures, that they should be so employed in opposing the errors of such, and laying before them instruction in righteousness. Nor is there a passage, however directly preceptive to disciples alone, that may not be employed for the purpose of reproof and correction, to |