thing truly good, and actually destitute of it, are two things: and so is its being necessary in the nature of things to our enjoying the consolations of the gospel, and its being so as a qualification entitling, or in some way recommending us to the divine favour. To conceive of a sinner who is actually hardened in his sins, bloated with self-righteous pride, and full of opposition to the gospel, receiving joy "presently as he stands" is not only conceiving of rest for the soul without coming to the Saviour for it, but is in itself a contradiction. Mr. M'Lean acknowledges as much as this. "I have not the least idea," he says "that a hardhearted enemy of God, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness." Conviction of sin then, whether it have any thing holy in it, or not, is necessary, not, I presume, as a qualification recommending the sinner to the divine favour, but as that without which believing in Jesus were in its own nature impossible. Such are my views as to the necessity of a new heart ere the sinner can come to Christ. The joy that the unregenerate sinner can receive presently as he stands" is any thing but that which is afforded by the good news of salvation to the chief of sinners.

I am yours, &c.

LETTER IX.

ON CERTAIN NEW TESTAMENT PRACTICES.

My dear Friend,

THAT there are serious Christians who have leaned to the Sandemanian system I have no doubt; and in people of this description I have seen things worthy of imitation. It has appeared to me that there is a greater diligence in endeavouring to understand the scriptures, and a stricter regard to what they are supposed to contain, than among many other professors of Christianity. They do not seem to trifle with either principle or practice in the manner that many do. Even in those things wherein they appear to me to misunderstand the scriptures, there is a regard towards them which is worthy of imitation. There is something even in their rigidness, which I prefer before that trifling with truth which, among other professing Christians often passes under the name of liberality.

These concessions, however, do not respect those who have gone entirely into the system, so as to have thoroughly imbibed its spirit; but persons who have manifested a considerable partiality in favour of the doctrine. Take the denomination as a whole, and it is not among them you can expect to see the Christian practice of the New Testament exemplified. You will find them very punctilious in some things; but very defective in others. Religion, as exhibited by them, resembles a rickety child, whose growth is confined to certain parts: it wants that lovely uniformity, or proportion, which constitutes the beauty of holiness.

Some of the followers of Mr. Sandeman, who, in his life time, formed a society in St. Martin's-legrand, London, and published an account of what they call their Christian practices, acknowledge that the command of washing one another's feet is binding "only when it can be an act of kindness to do so," and that ⚫ though there be neither precept nor precedent for family-prayer, yet "it seems necessary for maintaining the fear of God in a family." They proceed, however, to judge those who insist on family-prayer and the first day sabbath, while they disregarded the feasts of charity, the holy kiss, &c. as persons "influenced to their religious practices, not by the fear of God, the authority of Christ, or the Spirit of truth." It is easy to see, from hence, what kind of Christian practice that is by which these people are distinguished.*

A punctilious adherence to the letter of scripture in some cases commendable, even though it may extend to the tithing of mint and cummin: but in others it would lead you aside from the mind of Christ; and to pursue any thing to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God, is dangerous in the extreme.

It has long appeared to me, that a great many errors have arisen from applying to moral obligations, the principle which is proper in obedience to positive institutions. By confounding these, and giving to both the name of ordinances, the New Testament becomes little more than ritual, and religion is nearly reduced to a round of mechanical performances.

The distinction of obedience into morai and positive has been made by the ablest writers of almost every denomination, and must be made if we would understand the scriptures. Without it we should confound the eternal standard of right and wrong given to Israel at Sinai, (the sum of which is the love of God and our neighbour,) with the body of "carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation." We should also confound those precepts of the New Testament which arise from the relations we sustain to God and one another, with those that arise merely from the sovereign will of the legislator, and could never have been

* I have not seen this pamphlet, but have taken a few quotations from it, contained in Backus's Discourse on Faith and its influence.

known but for his having expressly enjoined them. Concerning the former, an inspired writer does not scruple to refer the primitive Christians to that sense of right and wrong which is implanted in the minds of men in general; saying, Whatsoever things are TRUE, whatsoever things are HONEST, whatsoever things are JUST, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are LOVELY, whatsoever things are of GOOD REPORT; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. But concerning the latter, he directs their whole attention to the will of Christ. Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things, and keep THE ORDINANCES as I delivered them unto you.—I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, &c. The one is commanded because it is right; the other is right because it is commanded. The great principles of the first are of perpetual obligation, and know no other change than that which arises from the varying of relations and conditions; but those of the last may be binding at one period of time, and utterly abolished at another.

We can clearly perceive that it were inconsistent with the perfections of God not to have required us to love him and one another, or to have allowed of the contrary. Children also must needs be required to obey their parents; for this is RIGHT. But it is not thus in positive institutions. Whatever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever discernment in us, we could not have known them had they not been expressly revealed; nor are they even enforced as being in themselves right, but merely from the authority of the lawgiver. Of them we may say, Had it pleased God, he might in various instances have enjoined the opposites. But of the other we are not allowed to suppose it possible or consistent with righteousness for God to have required any thing different from that which he has required. The obligation of man to love and obey his Creator must have been coeval with his existence; but it was not till he had planted a garden in Eden, and there put the man whom he had formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a positive law.

The use to be made of this distinction in the present controversy is, to judge in what cases we are to look for express precept or

example, and in what cases we are not to look for them. Mr. Brainwood very properly observes, "That which is morally good in its own nature is a bounden duty, although it should not be particularly commanded or exemplified in all the word of God."* In obedience of this description there is not that need of minute rules and examples as in the other; but merely of general principles which naturally lead to all the particulars comprehended under them.

To require express precept or example, or to adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those precepts which are given us, in things of a moral nature, would greatly mislead us. We may by

a disregard of that for which there is no express precept or prece. dent, omit what is manifestly right; and by an adherence to the letter of scriptural precepts, overlook the spirit of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong.

If we will do nothing without express precept or precedent, we must build no places for Christian worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor, establish no schools, endow no hospitals, nor contribute any thing towards them, nor any thing towards printing or circulating the holy scriptures. Whether any person who fears God would on this ground consider himself excused from these duties, I cannot tell: it is on no better ground, however, that duties of equal importance have been disregarded; especially those of family-prayer, and the sanctification of the Lord's-day.

In Mr. Sandeman's time it was allowed, that "though there were neither precept nor precedent for family prayer, yet it seemed necessary for maintaining the fear of God in a family." But this concession being at variance with more favourite principles, seems to have meant mothing. It is said that family prayer has long been disregarded by many who drink the deepest into the doctrine. With them, therefore, the maintaining of the fear of God in a family," seems to be given up. This fact has operated much against the denomination, in the esteem of serious Christians; by whom they are considered as little other than a body of

*Letters, &c. p. 42.