worldly men. Of late, the system has been improved. Instead of owning, as formerly, that "the fear of God seemed to require this duty," it is now held to be unlawful, provided any part of the family be unbelievers, seeing it is holding communion with them. On the same principle, unbelievers, it is said, are not allowed to join in public prayers and praise, unless it be in an adjoining room, or with some kind of partition between them and the believers. In short, it is maintained, that "we ought only to join in prayer and praise with those with whom we partake of the Lord's supper."* Such are the consequences of confounding things moral with things positive or ceremonial.

We have no account of any particular injunctions given to Abraham respecting the ordering of his family. God had said to him in general, Walk before me and be thou perfect; and which, as to things of this nature, was sufficient. I know Abraham, saith the Lord, that he will command his children, and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment. Can a child be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord when it never hears its parents pray for it? Paul would not have eaten the Lord's supper with the ship's company; but he made no scruple of "giving thanks to God in presence of them all" at a common meal; and this, I presume, without any partition between his company and theirs, or so much as a mental reservation in respect to the latter. To join with unbelievers in what is not their duty, is to become partakers of other men's sins: but to allow them to join with us in what is their duty, is not so. The believer is not at liberty to join in the prayer of unbelief: but the unbeliever is at liberty, if he can, to join in the prayer of faith. To deny him this were to deny him the right of becoming a believer, and of doing that which every one ought to do. We ought to pray for such things as both believers and unbelievers stand in need of: if the latter unite with us in desire, it is well for them; if not, the guilt remains with themselves and not with us.

The sanctification of the Lord's day is said to be very generally disregarded among the admirers of this system. Having met, and

*See Braidwood's Letters, pp. 31-46.

kept the ordinances, they seem to have done with religion for that day, and feel at liberty to follow any amusement or worldly occupation during the remainder of it. This is the Christian liberty; and the opposite is pharisaism!

So far as relates to its being a day appointed for Christian worship, rather than the seventh; that is to say, so far as it is positive, the keeping of it is amply supported by scripture precedent : but as to keeping the day holy to the Lord, this, being moral, is left to be inferred from general principles. This is the case as to the manner of attending to all positive institutions. No injunctions were laid on the churches with respect to their keeping the Lord's supper in a holy manner; yet in the neglect of this lay the sin of the church at Corinth. And the reasoning which the Apostle used to convince them of their sin applies to the case in hand. He argues from the ordinance of breaking bread being the Lord's supper, that turning it into their own supper was rendering it null and void :* and by parity of reasoning it follows from the first day of the week being THE LORD'S DAY, that to do OUR OWN work, find OUR OWN pleasure, or speak OUR OWN words on that day is to make it void. Of the first he declared, This is not to eat the Lord's supper; and of the last he would, on the same principle have declared, This is not to keep the Lord's day.

If, on the other hand, we do every thing that is commanded in the New Testament, according to the letter of the precept, we shall in many cases overlook the true intent of it, and do that which is manifestly wrong.

The design of our Lord's precepts on prayer and alms-giving in the Sermon on the Mount, is to censure a spirit of ostentation in these duties; but a strict conformity to the letter of them would excuse us from all social prayer, and public contributions.

The design of the precept, Resist not evil; but if a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also, is to prohibit all private or selfish resentment, and to teach us that we ought rather

* I am aware that THEIR OWN SUPPER has been understood as referring to the LOVE FEASTS; but the reasoning of the Apostle seems to me to admit of no such meaning. How could he accuse them of making void the Lord's supper, if it were not the Lord's supper that they were eating?

to suffer wrong than go about to revenge an injury.

Who does

not admire the conduct of the noble Athenian, who, in a council of war held for the common safety of the country, when the Spartan chief menaced him with his cane, cried, "STRIKE; BUT HEAR ME!" Such, in effect, has been the language of the martyrs of Jesus in all ages, and such is the spirit of the precept. But to contend for a literal compliance with it were to reflect on the conduct of Christ himself, who, when smitten before the high priest, did not so exemplify it, but remonstrated against the injury.

If the design of our Lord, in forbidding us to lay up treasures on earth, were absolutely and in all cases, to prohibit the increase of property, it was his design to overthrow what the scriptures acknowledge as a dictate of nature, namely, the duty of parents to provide for their children.* True it is, that men may board wealth in order to enrich and aggrandize their families to the neglect of present duty toward the poor and toward the cause of God: but this is the abuse of the principle, and ought to be corrected, and not the principle itself destroyed. Only let our own interest, and that of our children, be pursued in subordination to God, and in consistency with other duties, and all will be right. The contrary practice would load the industrious poor, and prevent their ever rising above their present condition, while it screened the indolent rich, who might expend the whole of their income, in self-gratification, provided they did not increase their capital.

Nor can any good reason be given, that I know of, why we should understand this precept as prohibiting in all cases the increase of property, any more than that of "selling what we have, and giving alms," as absolutely forbidding us to retain it. To be consistent, the advocates of this interpretation should dispose of all their property, and distribute it among the poor. In other words, they should abolish all distinctions of rich and poor so far as concern themselves; not only of the very rich and very poor, but all distinction whatever, and be perfectly on an equality. When they shall do this, they will at least prove themselves to be

sincere, and impart a weight to their censures against others which at present they do not possess.

It was not our Lord's design in this partial manner to lop off the branches of a worldly spirit; but to strike at the root of it. To lay up treasures on earth denotes the desire of amassing wealth, that we may be great, and shine, or in some way consume it upon our lusts; and herein consists the evil. There is as great a difthis principle, and one

ference between a character who acts on whom God prospers in the path of duty, and in full exercise of benevolence toward all about him, as between one who engages in the chase of worldly applause, and another who, seeking the good of those around him, must needs be respected and loved.

The evil which arises from such interpretations, whatever be their tendency, does not consist in throwing civil society into a state of disorder; for though men may admit them in theory, yet they will contrive some method of practically evading them, and reconcile their consciences to it. The mischief lies in the hypocrisy, self-deception, and unchristian censures upon others to which they give occasion.

Much has been spoken and written on "observing all things, which Christ hath commanded us," and on the authority of apostolic example. Both are literally binding on Christians in matters of positive institution, and in things moral the spirit or design of them is indispensable: but to enforce a literal conformity in many cases would be to defeat the end, and reduce obedience to unmeaning ceremony.

In eastern countries, the washing of the feet, after the toils of a journey, was a common and necessary refreshment; and our Lord, to teach his disciples in love to serve one another, took upon himself the humble office of a servant, and washed their feet; enjoining upon them to do that to one another which he had done to them. But to conform to this custom where it is not practised, nor considered as necessary to be done by any one, is to defeat the end of the precept by substituting a form in the place of humble and affectionate service. We may wash the saints' feet, and neglect to dry their clothes, or to administer necessary comfort to them when cold and weary. If, in commands of this nature, no

regard is to be had to times, places, and circumstances, why do Sandemanians allow it to be binding "only when it can be an act of kindness to do so?"

It was customary in the east, and still is so in many countries, for men to express affection to each other by a kiss; and the apostles directed that this common mode of salutation should be used religiously. But in a country where the practice is principally confined to the expression of love between the sexes, or at most among relations, it is much more liable to misconstruction and abuse; and being originally a human custom, where that custom ceases, though the spirit of the precept is binding, yet the form of it, I conceive, is not so.

For a man to have his head uncovered was once the commonly received sign of his authority, and as such was enjoined: but with us it is a sign of subjection. If therefore, we are obliged to wear any sign of the one or of the other in our religious assemblies, it requires to be reversed.

The Apostle taught that it was a shame for a man to wear long hair like a woman, not that he would have concerned himself about the length of the hair, this being a distinctive mark of the sexes, he appealed to nature itself against their being confounded; that is, against a man's appearance in the garb of a woman.

In the primitive times Christians had their love feasts: they do not appear, however, to have been a divine appointment, but the mere spontaneous expressions of mutual affection; as when breaking bread from house to house, they did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. While these feasts were conducted with propriety, all was well; but in time they were abused, and then they were mentioned in language not very respectful, These are spots in YOUR feasts of charity. Had they been of divine institution, it was not their being abused that would have drawn forth such language. The Lord's supper was abused as well as they; but the abuse in that case was corrected, and the ordinance itself reinculcated.

These brief remarks are intended to prove that, in the above particulars, Mr. Sandeman and his followers have mistaken the true intent of Christ and his apostles. But whether it be so or