The principle would, in fact, involve all the same wicked nonsense, as the pretended hereditary succession of the Roman pontiffs from the apostle Peter. A question occurs, which I dare say you, sir, can answer. Who originated the churches in connection with Mr. Glass? Did he carry with him into them some character superior to that of a private Christian? Let me here observe, that I introduce his name but for the sake of illustration, and would never wish to name him, or Mr. Sandeman, but with respect and affection for their memories for the truth's sake; while I must be excused, for not considering them as having come to the ne plus ultra of scriptural truth or practice.

You ask Mr. J., and me, what those things were, which the churches without elders wanted, if the Lord's Supper was not one of them? I answer your question in a word-Elders. But the whole of your argument upon this head proceeds upon the implied principle, that the great use of Elders in a church of Christ, is-to administer the Lord's Supper. Any who think so, know not-pardon me for repeating language that displeases you so much-their real use and importance and it signifies little whether they call their Elders clergymen or not. The thing is evidently the same.

The highest churchman indeed could scarcely go further, than making such an application of the 16th chapter of Numbers, as you have made, for the purpose of proving that a church without Elders is "disqualified" for observing the Lord's Supper. I remember one who, at the time, held what you call, "that proud and elevated station of a priest in the temple of Antichrist," who yet, when preaching on the passage you refer to, protested against your application of it,-exposed the Anti-Christian presumption of any man on earth pretending to a character analogous to that of Aaron; --and applied the narrative in that chapter, as a solemn warning to those who attempted to set aside or intrude into the priestly office of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was many years ago: but to this day, I think his application of the passage more scriptural than yours. And now, sir, let me observe to your Christian readers, that the question at issue, between us, stands perfectly distinct from the many personal topics in which you have endeavoured to involve it. No matter what I am or have been, whether I affect to imitate the style of Mr. Sandeman, whether I write at random, whether I am dogmatical, dictatorial, &c. All these points should be put wholly out of consideration by the serious inquirer, in examining the scriptural question on which we differ. As to the tone of angry hauteur which you employ towards Mr. J. and myself, I confess I am not displeased to observe it. Anger is generally called in to supply a deficiency of strength, and conscious weakness sometimes assumes the air of haughty superiority, to conceal its apprehension of defeat.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

[The following detached piece is inserted here as an appropriate supplement to the foregoing letter.-Ed.]

AGAINST the views of this subject (Elders) contended for as scriptural, I have often known it objected that they quite set aside the necessity or use of Elders in a Christian church."If," say the objectors "there may be a church without Elders, and if in that state they are competent, and called to do every thing in which they engage after they have Elders, what use in Elders at all?" Now, before I directly answer the objection, I would call the attention of the Christian reader to the sentiment avowed by those who urge it do they not avow that the only use they conceive for Elders in a Christian church is to administer ordinances? and yet many of those men are at times ready to declaim against the clerical character as unscriptural, while they manifestly retain the same thing, under another name. When persons think of any class of men, as possessing peculiar qualifications to give validity to the ordinances of Christ, and to sanction their observance by his disciples, it is of very little consequence whether they call them Clergymen or Elders. But am I still pressed with the question-"What then is the use which you assign to real Elders?" I reply, that it is plainly intimated in their title of Overseers. They are persons charged with the special oversight of the flock, and acknowledged by the Church, as given them by the Lord for that gracious design. In this oversight much more is included, than any exercises in which they are engaged, merely, in the public meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week. There is included an habitual stated attention to the course and circumstances of each member, a watchful care maintained over every individual, a diligent labouring to apply the admonitions, reproofs, consolations, and instructions of the word to their several cases. Can this be considered as an unimportant task, when we think of the varied trials, afflictions, and dangers which are connected with the varying circumstances of the disciples? Or is its importance to be concealed by the ungodly fiction, that there are some of the institutions of Christ, which believers cannot lawfully observe, unless they are authorized to observe them by the presence and acts of Elders? This constant oversight of the flock, which I think forms the essential business of true Elders, does not indeed supersede the common duty of all to watch over each other in love. But as little does the latter set aside the importance of having some specially charged with it, and peculiarly called to give themselves to the work. And here I would remark, that the very circumstance of their being acknowledged by the Church as raised up among them, and given to them by the Lord, for the purpose of exercising this watchful care, is intimately connected with its inoffensive and profitable exercise. In a church, yet without Elders, some will commonly be found who take a more than ordinary lead in its concerns, and it may be impossible that they should avoid doing so, unless they held back from the service of their brethren, the gifts with which they are furnished by the Lord. But such must, from time to time, be exposed to the suspicions, however groundless, of attempting to thrust

themselves forward unwarrantably, and to assume to themselves something above the other members. But let that church be furnished with scriptural Elders, and those, in taking the same lead, will be seen as but engaged in the very service to which it is acknowledged they are called. Yet then, also, while kept in the true spirit of their office, they will no more act as Lords over God's heritage, than they did before, when they rendered in a degree the same services to their brethren in an unofficial capacity.

XVI.

TO MISS M

Jan. 22, 1810.

DEAR H.-I could not, till now, sit down to reply to your letter of the 12th inst., and even now must reply much more briefly than I could wish. The main subject on which you inquire, is one which I never wish to discuss, except with those who confess the old faith once delivered to the saints; and it is so many years since I had any communication with you on that topic, and I was then myself so indistinct in my views, and unscriptural in much of my language and conduct, that I have no sufficient ground to proceed on with you. For those who have imbibed any of the popular gospels, any of the popular churches are much fitter than a scriptural connection. Some of your expressions, towards the close of your letter, lead me to fear, that what you call the gospel, is something which you conceive has a particular aspect, more joyful to you than to other sinners. You say, that the Lord "has shewn you, that all his perfections are engaged for you." Suffer me to ask how, or where, he has shewn you that? Is your faith something that is not testified in the Scrip

tures? In them I cannot find a word about H. M., or John Walker, particularly. The faith of many professors is little more than a good opinion of their own state; or a persuasion that Christ died for them, —that is, that they are of the number of the elect. You say the society you are connected with, hold the head. I more than doubt that. Christ abideth a king as well as a priest continually. Your society set him aside from the former character altogether, not only disobeying the laws of his kingdom themselves, but systematically maintaining that they are matters of mutual forbearance,—that is, matters intrinsically indifferent-matters which the weak, indeed, and over-scrupulous may observe, but which the strong well know have no binding obligation. That such are the matters in which forbearance is enjoined on Christians, appears at once from Rom. xiv.; nor do I think it seasonable at present to say more upon that subject. But if you wish for my sentiments on it more at large, you may see them in the little pamphlet I published on the Apostolic Traditions. I dare

say Mr. M― can shew it to you. But to return to your society as holding the head. I have observed that they are Antichristian in their opposition to him as king of Zion. As to h's character of priest, I know your preacher, Mr. M., can speak a very fair and scriptural language: but I know, also, that there are held in your fellowship, those who deny and gainsay the simple doctrine of Scripture concerning the atonement, and that the great truth itself is thus made a matter of forbearance among you. He that speaks the truth ever so scripturally for himself, but holds that others, denying it, may yet be very safe and right, in that turns the truth of God into a lie. Can I talk of such persons holding the head? No-they may appear as angels of light to some, but they are of Antichrist, and manifested as such to those who are of the truth. If you ask me who are held in your fellowship that oppose the fundamental truth, I name one, —another, ———, who has avowed to me a sentiment which no one can retain, (after it has been exposed) and hold the truth— a third, (though he is one of those who can speak it very distinctly at times.) But I name also the whole mass of the most open adversaries of the Gospel, that form the congregation of the establishment. For you confessedly hold in your fellowship those, who hold fellowship with the whole mass of that Antichristian corruption and what a farce is it to say that you do not hold fellowship with the establishment? If twelve men join hands in a ring, can any one of them say that he is not connected with every other? If I hold religious fellowship with a man who holds fellowship with a Turk, are not the three of us connected in religious fellowship? If you have seen two very short Tracts, one upon 1 Tim. i. 15., and the other upon Acts xiii. 38, 39, I would be glad to know what you think of them, particularly upon that paragraph of the first, beginning with the words, "Many are seeking earnestly," &c.-(vol. 1. p. 509.) I wish you seriously to consider the assertion there advanced, and indeed the whole Tract, and to say how far your opinions are expressed or contradicted. I must now conclude, but shall very readily write more if you choose, as long as there appears any profitable end likely to be answered.

Yours, dear H., with best wishes,

XVII.

LETTER TO MRS. S

1810.

I HOPE my dear Mrs. S., though not of my mind, will not refuse to read with patience and attention a few lines from me. Your note to Mrs. W. was communicated this day. To speak of the grief of

heart it occasioned is useless. Every thing concurs to mark the justice of that exclamation, Lord, what is man?" To the great Shep herd of Israel I look to glorify his own name by dispelling the thick cloud which envelopes your mind, to send his word and heal you. You had seemed to see the principles of his divine word: but how quickly do they become as if they never had been discerned, when he leaves us for a moment to our own hearts! Your note is really like that of one who never had heard or acknowledged the scriptural grounds of what you so lately professed. You say that I would not join with Mr. R. in prayer, because I look upon all such men as deceivers. And is it possible, after all you have heard, that you think that is my reason? Indeed, it is not. My reason is, that the word of God confines my Christian fellowship in any ordinance to those who walk with me in all, and commands me to withdraw from and have no company (or fellowship) with all-whatever they profess and whatever they be-who walk not after the precepts delivered to the disciples of Christ by his apostles:-and, that they may be ashamed of their sin. I refer not now to any one passage of the word exclusively, but to the whole of it. Of Mr. R. I know nothing personally. If he be a disciple of Christ (as I own I was while I was yet walking in his ungodly course), I am sure, that in declining all fellowship with him I pursue the course of true love to him, as well as the only course of obedience to my Lord. If any thing of human instability and wickedness were surprising, the ostensible occasion of your fall would be so. A pamphlet comes out from Mr. R., which you think contains the truth of the Gospel. Be it so. Was it now that you learned for the first time that men may speak the truth, who either are not of the truth, or who do not walk according to it? But because Mr. R., in his pamphlet, expresses himself according to the truth of the Gospel, all the principles you had professed upon the fellowship of believers are to be abandoned! Alas! the root of the evil must lie deeper. I am struck with appearances in your case most like that of Mr. D.'s. While outwardly with us, he had, as he avows, walked, and acted, and spoke in great pride of heart and contempt of others. Awakened, as he supposed, to see this evil (a most serious one), he at once returned to the religion of the world, and renounced all profession of attempting to walk as the first Christians were enjoined,-in this thinking that he was humble. If I understand your language in part of your note, you also seem to speak of "the church" (the political establishment of religion in this country) as if you were reconciled to it. Indeed, if you renounce the Scriptures as the one rule of Christian fellowship to the end of the world, it signifies little what rule of man's you substitute for it. Against your perversion of Rom. xiv. it might be well to consider in what different language the Apostle addresses Gentile Christians who were coming under the observances of the law in Gal. iv. 9—11. But I am as averse as you can be to enlarge in argument; I trust to prayer. May He who is rich in mercy restore you! so that I may be able still to subscribe myself, your affectionate brother.