church admonishing and reproving them for their sin! In similar treachery of specious words you say of those from whom the word commands disciples to withdraw and to have no fellowship with them, 'that they are to be patiently forborne with, and to be discountenanced in their act of disobedience to the apostolic rule.'-When you talk of a revelation of the divine will as that which must be the most joyful feeling a disciple can be sensible of, you seem to have quite rejected our testimony against the meaning in which you use the word revelation. But we would again warn you that the revelation of the divine will is already made in the scriptures, and he that hath an ear to hear, will hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. We pass by your intimation that we "profess to know ALL that we are commanded to do," as that which is contradicted by your consciousness of our professed sentiments, and which is too like the language of one sitting in the seat of the scorner. Looking for the mercy of the Lord to be displayed, in recalling you to the fear of his name, we beseech you again to consider your ways, and not to reject our repeated admonition. Signed, &c.

ΤΟ

XXIV.

Dec. 11, 1813.

You probably know that, when I re-introduced this subject to the church, it was under the same impression of the immediate meaning of all the five passages-as desiring the conveyance of the Apostle's salutation; but convinced that-even upon that supposition-the inference was plain, and binding on Christians to the end of the world. For, if we find the Apostles adding to the salutations they desired, an express injunction that they should be conveyed by a kiss, and this, in writing to churches situated in the most various countries, and where this mode of salutation was not more general, as a national custom, than among us ;-I did, and do, conceive that there would be in this a decisive indication, that the Spirit of truth meant to establish among Christians universally that most significant expression of brotherly affection: especially when it is considered, that it would be manifestly absurd for any one to desire his own correspondent to salute, in his name with a kiss, one whom that person was not in the habit of saluting with a kiss in his own name. And, if it were admitted, that the first Christians in Rome and Greece, &c., were accustomed to salute each other with a kiss, it must have been a custom peculiar to them as Christians,—(for in those countries it confessedly was not the national mode) and, therefore, must have

been a custom derived to them from the same source of apostolic regulations, from which they derived all their other Christian practices.

But the clearer views, produced on the protracted discussion of the subject, have led me to quit the ground of this interpretation altogether, and, from the fullest conviction, to revert to the original view of the passages, which would strike any plain reader, as desiring the Christians-not to convey the apostolic salutations—but literally, as the words run, to salute EACH OTHER with a kiss. And here, before I state the arguments I employed last Sunday, let me call on you to consider whether the form of expression-salute EACH OTHER -can, by any fairness of interpretation, be construed into—“ present my salutations to all." I might desire-I have desired a person to salute another with a kiss in my name; and I, therefore, can conceive that I should desire him to salute twenty others with a kiss in my name. But can you conceive any one, in his senses, desiring the twenty persons to salute EACH OTHER with a kiss in his name? to salute each other with a kiss in testimony-not of their mutual affection, but of the affection of the writer to them all? The thing is so utterly unnatural, and the interpretation so forced, that it ought at once to be abandoned without further argument. Yet it has been so pertinaciously maintained, upon the ground of supposed Jewish custom, that I proceed to repeat what I urged last Sunday. First, then— however customary salutation with a kiss was among the Jews, what evidence is there that it was customary with them to salute with a kiss by proxy? We have fuller accounts from various sources of Jewish customs, than of the customs of any other nation. Yet of this there is not a vestige of tradition: while, according to the interpretation I contend against, it must have been so VERY COMMON, as to account for two Apostles-in five different letters-desiring this proxy-kiss, and not merely to this or that individual, but to the whole body of Christians.

But 2dly, supposing this to have been so common with them, how can it be accounted for, that the Apostles NEVER desire an individual to be thus saluted; though the instances of salutation sent to individuals be so extraordinarily numerous? Here, then, we have positive scriptural evidence against that commonness of the practice, which the interpretation would require.

And 3dly, we have various epistles to individuals, in which salutations are desired to single disciples, and to the whole body collectively but in no one instance does the expression, "with a kiss," occur in this connexion.

Now, I say, that those, who still after all this maintain that interpretation of the texts, maintain it against a body of evidence, greater than we could expect to have accumulated upon such a point.

If that interpretation be given up, there only remains the other simple view of all the passages, that the Apostles do direct the Christians to express their mutual affection by salutation with a kiss. And while we walk in the fear of the Lord, and trembling at his word, I conceive that this must at once carry decisive authority to us,—so decisive as that we shall address ourselves to obey the direction without murmuring, and shall no longer urge objections, however we may propose inquiries.

What is, then, the fair inference from the connexion of all the passages, and from the repetition of it in 2 Cor? Simply this-that in none of these passages are the Apostles establishing a new practice in the churches, but referring to one of established existence among them. And, in this view, what is more natural than the connexion? How suitable, when the Apostles are conveying expressions of their love in salutations to various individuals, that they should incidentally remind them of the standing expression of their mutual love, by salutation with a kiss? And, as to the repetition of this, in different letters to the same church, is it more surprising than if they concluded twenty letters with-" my love to such and such. Brethren, love one another." If they were establishing a new rite, or reproving the neglect of an instituted practice, we might certainly expect the direction to occur in another connexion :-but the present connexion, and the repetition, simply indicate the customary existence of the practice.

I confess, also, that I am more and more strongly inclined to think, that the reference in all the passages is to a stated practice in their meetings, on the first day of the week. For, as has been justly observed, it seems not likely that the church at Rome would have waited, perhaps for a year after the receipt of the Apostle's letter, before they obeyed the direction-waited for the occurrence of one of those rare occasions, of the return of a brother, after long absence, &c. We have decisive historical information, that the churches, about 60 years after the time of the Apostles, did observe such a practice in their meetings, and professedly in obedience to these apostolic directions. I am apt to think we have sufficient evidence from the Scripture that, in this instance, they understood the word aright.

And let me remark that, if such be the allusion, there would be no room for the objections you hint at borrowed from propriety, &c. If at the end of worship each brother saluted the brethren next him with a kiss, and each sister the sisters,-the world might scoff, but would have no just occasion to speak reproachfully. It would be, as directed, universally practised by all the brethren, while there would be in this no human limitation of the thing enjoined; for I am sure that no fair interpretation of the passage could conclude that any disciple was to salute with a kiss all the rest.

MY DEAR R.—I have read your letter, as you may suppose, with much interest. I am grieved at the distressing account you give of your body; but if you be made acquainted with the joyful and faithful testimony of God concerning his son Jesus, all is well. Upon that question, it is not for me to judge, except so far as your professed sentiments accord with, or oppose, the revealed truth of God. The greater part of what you wrote on the 4th instant, particularly on that passage in Rom. x., would lead me to suppose that you had been mercifully led to see what God exhibits to us in his word; and all who see it live for ever. It is the distinguishing mark which he puts upon the vessels of mercy, which he has before ordained to glory; and the effect that you there describe, as following your view of the passage, is such as must follow from the belief of the gospelpeace and assured hope towards God. But then you afterwards sadly fly from this, when you come to your doubts and uncertainties whether you believe the gospel or not. God declares in his word that he sent his Son into the world to save sinners, to die for sinthe just for the unjust: he sets him forth to a guilty and ruined world as the propitiation or atonement for sin, which he himself provided when no other sacrifice could take it away, which he has accepted as completely magnifying his righteousness and truth, and which he has proved his acceptance of by raising him from the dead. Whosoever believeth this divine testimony (according to the same word) shall be saved: he is jutified from all things, and has that eternal life which is the gift of God in Christ Jesus. This glorious gospel, which thus reveals to us the character of the only living and true God as just and the justifier of the ungodly the just God and the Saviour, manifests at the same time the exceeding sinfulness of man; and this not only in the greatness of that atonement for sin which it exhibits, but also in the reception it meets with from man. -The carnal security and ungodly pride and earthly-mindedness of our hearts lead us all naturally to reject this divine testimony; and the rejection of it is manifested not more by careless indifference in many, than by the religious anxiety and religious exertions of others to make their peace with God-i. e. to do for themselves that which it has declared that Christ has done for sinners. Hence all the corrupted gospels that overspread the world, and the arguings and blasphemies of devout unbelievers, against the unadulterated gospel of God. So that, wherever any are brought to the knowledge of the truth, God is found of those who sought him not. But can they consistently doubt whether they believe the gospel or not? If a thing is declared to me, and I doubt whether I believe it, this is certainly

the same as to doubt whether the thing declared be true or not. Yet I know there are many religious, who will gravely declare that so and so is the gospel of God, but that they fear they have not faith or do not believe it. This, in the plain and true meaning of the word faith or believing, is profound nonsense. Yours, &c.

DEAR SIR, I am ashamed of having been so tardy in acknow. ledging your favour of last month. But my engagements are such, that I could not take up my pen till now to thank you for the kindness and candour which prompted your communications. I was not at all surprised by the terms in which I am marked in the printed leaf you enclosed; and I conceive Mr. K has more cause to complain of being undeservedly brought into such company. I have no right to complain. For opposed as I am to the religious world, I must expect that the religious world will be opposed to me. What they esteem best I think Antichristian, and what I hold as the precious faith once delivered to the saints, they brand with every opprobrious name of Antinomian, or empty speculations.

66

I do not well know how I should set about answering the writer of that paper: he observes that "all the serious people acquainted with the circumstances are now agreed that my leaving the establishment has been a curse instead of a blessing to Ireland." So far from denying that sentiment, I confess that I believe it is very true— taking all the serious people" in the sense in which he uses the phrase, as comprising all those who seriously hold any such gospel as that, to the cause of which he says the Wesleyan Methodists are devoted, and to which that writer is evidently devoted with them. I doubt not but they would have been much better pleased with me had I remained in the most Antichristian connexion, violating the plainest principles of Christ's kingdom, and darkening that glorious gospel, which I even then at times inconsistently put forward; and I am well persuaded that any satisfaction some of these serious folks at first felt at my quitting the establishment, was only in the expectation of my falling in with some of those other ungodly sects, regulated, as much as the establishment, by the traditions of men. while I am aware of all this, and cannot think of shrinking from the opprobrium which the writer marks as attached to me, I deny the competence of those most serious people to form any scriptural judgment about my conduct or my sentiments. Another matter, however, which the writer states, I can contradict,—namely,

But