proud Pharisees, avowing their impious claims upon the Divine Being. May we not ask, Who art thou that judgest?”*

As to Mr. Braidwood's allowing them to possess "clear views of the freedom and sovereignty of divine grace," I do not understand how such views can accompany, and still less produce, such a spirit as he has described; but with regard to the spirit itself, it is manifestly drawn from life, and is of greater effect than if he had written a volume on the subject. Whethor his observations do not equally apply to that marked separation of church-members from others in public worship, said to be practised of late in Ireland, and to which he refers in page 32, let those who have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil judge. Lastly: The spirit of primitive Christianity was catholic and pacific. Its language is, Grace be with all them that love our Lord' Jesus Christ in sincerity.-As many as walk by this rule, (that is, the cross of Christ,) peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.-All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both theirs and ours, Grace be unto them, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

There were cases in which the apostles and first Christians were obliged to withdraw even from brethren who walked disorderly; but this would give them pain. And if the disordered state of the Christian world at present render it necessary for some of the friends of Christ to withdraw from others, it must needs, to a truly good man, be a matter of deep regret. It will be his concern, too, to diminish the breach rather than widen it; and to consider the things wherein he agrees with others, and as far as he conscientiously can, to act with them. If we see individuals, or a community, who, instead of such regret, are generally employed in censuring all who follow not with them, as enemies to the truth: and, instead of acting with them in things wherein they are agreed, are studious to render the separation as wide as possible, and glory in it-can we hesitate to say this is not Christianity?

There is a zeal which may properly be denominated catholic, and one which may as properly be denominated sectarian. It is

*Letters on various Subjects, &c. Introduction.

not supposed that any man, or body of men, can be equally concerned in promoting Christ's interest in all places. As our powers are limited, we must each build the wall, as it were, over against our own houses. Nor are we obliged to be equally concerned for the prosperity of all religious undertakings, in which the parties may be in the main on the side of Christ. It is right that we should be most interested in that which approaches the nearest to truth and true religion. But true catholic zeal will nevertheless have the good of the universal church of Christ for its grand object, and will rejoice in the prosperity of every denomination of Christians, in so far as they appear to have the mind of Christ. Those who builded the wall against their own houses would not consider themselves as the only builders, but would bear good will to their brethren, and keep in view the rearing of the whole wall, which should encompass the city. As it is not our being of the religion of Rome, nor of any other which happens to be favoured by the state, that determines our zeal to be catholic; so, it is not our being of a sect, or party of Christians, or endeavouring with Christian meekness and frankness to convince others of what we account the mind of Christ, that gives it the character of sectarian. It is a being more concerned to propagate those things wherein we differ from other Christians, than to impart the common salvation. Where this is the case we shall so limit the kingdom of heaven to ourselves as nearly to confine our good wishes, prayers, and efforts to our own denomination, and treat all others as if we had nothing to do with them in religious matters but in a way of censure and dispute. Wherein this kind of zeal differs from that of the Pharisees, that compassed sea and land to make proselytes, but who, when made, were turned to them rather than to God, I cannot understand.

It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding all which has been written by the advocates of this system about a free gospel to the ungodly, they do not seem to have much to do in labouring for the conversion of men of this description. Their principal attention, like that of the Socinians, seems directed towards religious people of other denominations, and from them their forces have been mostly recruited. This may not have been universally the case, but

from every thing that I have seen and heard, it is very generally so: and if this do not betray a zeal more directed to the making of proselytes to themselves than of converts to Christ, it will be difficult to determine what does.

The zeal of the apostles was directed to the correction of evils, the healing of differences, and the uniting of the friends of Jesus Christ: but the zeal produced by this system appears to be of a contrary tendency. Wherever it most prevails, we hear most of bitterness, contention, and division.

It may be said, this is no more than was true of the gospel itself, which set a man at variance with his father, his mother, and his nearest friends; and relates not to what it causes, but to what, through the corruptions of men, it occasions. The words of our Lord, however, do not describe the bitterness of believers against unbelievers, but of unbelievers against believers, who as Cain hated his brother, hate them for the gospel's sake.

It has been said, that "the poignancy of Mr. Sandeman's words arises from their being true." The same might be said, and with equal justice, of any other "bitter words," for which men of contemptuous spirits know how to "whet their tongues." If the doctrine which Mr. Sandeman taught were true, it would do good to them that believed it. It certainly produces its own likeness in them; but what is it? Is it not "trusting in themselves that they are righteous, and despising others?" Is it not descrying the mote in a brother's eye, while blinded to the beam in their own ?

There is a very interesting description given in the Epistle of James, of two opposite kinds of wisdom. The first is represented as coming "from above," the last as "coming not from above," but as being earthly, sensual, devilish. That is first pure,

then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy : this works"bitter zeal and strife in the heart." The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace, and in making peace, by the one: but by the other is produced confusion, and every evil work. Yet these last are supposed to "glory;" but in glorying they lie Without wishing to ascribe either to bodies of people indiscriminately, there is enough said to enable us to form a judgment of things by the effects which they produce.

against the truth.

To conclude,-It is no part of my design to vindicate or apologize for the errors of other denominations. The Christian church is not what it was at the beginning; and though every body of Christians are not equally corrupt, yet none is so pure, but that, if its character were reported by the great Head of the church, he would have " somewhat against" it. But whatever errors or evils may be found in any of us, it is not this species of reform, even if it were universally to prevail, that would correct them. On the contrary, if we may judge from its effects during the last fifty years, it would lead the Christian world, if not to downright Infidelity, yet to something that comes but very little short it.

1 am

Your affectionate

Friend and Brother,

ANDREW FULLER.

END OF THE THIRD VOLUME.