whom he is bringing up in the instruction and admonition of the Lord, really set at nought the precept while they acknowledge its words. And when you call for the confirmation of the idea from experience, I cannot conjecture what the experience is which you conceive ought to have afforded the confirmation you demand. Is it that of the Moravian societies? Should this letter also fail in convincing you in any degree of the evil of your sentiments and conduct, we would not trouble you to make any reply to it; as we have no wish to maintain a disputation. I shall not imitate your unbrotherly language, by expressing a hope that you will not repel that conviction as derogatory to your dignity." I still look to Him who alone can bring us into and keep us in the simplicity of His truth, so to bless the admonition and reproof offered you, that I may be able always in confidence to subscribe myself, Your affectionate brother. DEAR SIR,-When I read the first words of your letter, telling me that you were "an inquirer after truth," a fear immediately struck me that you were a religious unbeliever; for I apprehended you meant by truth that great doctrine of God, which leaves no room for a sinner's inquiry after it; of which we are naturally not only ignorant but so opposed to it that none ever seek the knowledge of it; and which, when discovered to the conscience, supersedes all inquiry, "what is truth?" by the evidence it carries of its own divine certainty. But though the fear I have mentioned occurred to me at first, it was soon changed to very different feelings in the progress of your letter; and, unless I mistake the sentiments you seem to intimate, I think you will agree with me, that the man who is inquiring what the truth is must be considered as not only a stranger but an enemy to it. Your inquiries, however, into the scriptural directions for the regulation of a believer's walk are indeed very suitable to one who knows the truth of God. It is odd enough, that yours is the second letter I have very lately received from England on the subject. Mr. K-, of — wrote to me a few weeks ago expressing a wish to receive my tracts on Baptism, upon which subject he differs from many of his friends. He said so little in his first letter on the more fundamental subject, that I thought it needful in my answer to state my views of the gospel itself pretty fully, and this brought forth from him a reply, which has indeed afforded me considerable satisfaction; though (if he abide by the truth he has expressed) I believe he will soon find that some of his religious friends differ with him much more essentially than he is at present aware. I have since sent him various pieces that I have published at different times, and among them two or three on the Baptist question. But I am sorry to tell you, that those have been so long out of print that I had much difficulty in obtaining second-hand copies of them from a friend who possessed them. A single copy of them I had not myself, and know not at present whether I shall be able to procure them for you. I shall do what I can for the purpose; but if I fail, perhaps you could obtain from Mr. K. the use of the copies I sent to him. It is a matter of much joy and thanksgiving to find one and another in England appearing to be delivered from the snare of the religious world. May He, who stands and feeds in the majesty of the name of Jehovah," display his glory in keeping and guiding them continually! Since I have felt any interest about those, who have lately left the Establishment in England, (i. e. since my communications with Mr. K.) I have felt the same solicitude that you express, lest they should remain much astray on the principles of Christian fellowship; nor can I wonder if at present the minds even of believers among them be much beclouded on that subject. As I hope very soon to have the opportunity of sending you one or two pieces, in which my views of the matter are detailed, and am much limited at present in time, I shall here only say that our correspondence in Dublin and the few sister churches connected with us in the country is indeed most unpopular. It opposes all that passes current in the religious world as a charitable and forbearing spirit. While we find much exercise for real forbearance, we consider what goes generally under that name, as an ungodly conspiracy against the divine precepts. We are, in that respect, much like the Glasite or Sandemanian societies, though in other respects we materially differ from them. We conceive that they have retained much of the leaven of clerical domination under the name of Elders; and that, in making the presence of two Elders necessary for authorizing believers to act together as a church of Christ, they err radically in the constitution of a church and the nature of the Elder's office. We are indeed without Elders to the present day from the want of any brethren who meet the scriptural characters marked as necessary. But mentioning (as you have done) Glas and Sandeman, and fully agreeing with you that their works contain most important truths on the characters of the gospel and Christ's kingdom, I cannot omit that we differ essentially from some fundamental principles which S. (with whom I am best acquainted) puts forward. I allude to his sentiments upon the assurance of hope. Precious as his vindication of the truth appears against the corruptions and perversions of the popular divines, we conceive that he himself afterwards awfully perverts and corrupts it, in representing the gospel as calculated to afford a sinner joy at first on believing, only as satisfying him that he may peradventure be saved because any sinner may be saved, but leaving him doubtful whether he believes it or not, till after a course of painful exertion in the work of faith and labour of love he is led to discover in himself some good evidences of his faith, which afford him personal confidence towards God. The glorious truth, that S. elsewhere seems so blessedly to contend for, teaches us to say to any man advancing such a doctrine " get thee behind me, Satan." I must, in justice to the Glasites, add that I know an Elder in one of their societies, (at Liverpool) who seems uninfected with that Antichristian sentiment. But I do believe that in their body it has been a root of bitterness and leaven of ungodliness. I received the other day a short tract written by Mr. Evans, (one of Mr. K.'s friends) which confirms your remark upon the style of high Calvinism, into which some of them have run. It is a style very different from the sobriety of scriptural language, and indeed very different from the language of Mr. K.'s last letter; but I mean to write to him at large on the subject. I find I have almost filled my paper, without saying any thing upon Baptism; and I think it better to say nothing on the subject at present, than to treat it so very imperfectly as I should be obliged to do in this letter. I hope, however, along with the pamphlets which I mean to send you next week by a private conveyance, to send also the copy of a letter lately written in the name of the church here to one of its members in Edinburgh, who has adopted the Baptist sentiments. It comprises in a moderate compass our leading views on the topic; and affords matter for enlargement in our future correspondence, if any points in it should appear to you obscure or doubtful. I am glad to find that you express yourself cautious at present about joining any society of religious professors; while I look forward with hope to our yet proving perfectly joined together in one mind and one judgment upon every thing relating to christian faith and practice. These two things are most closely connected together; and all the corruptions of each introduced by the man of sin would separate what God hath joined. That man of sin it is declared that the Lord will consume by the spirit of his mouth; and this declaration supports my confident hope against all discouragements, that the time shall return when all that believe in every place shall again be together in one, having given them one heart and one way by Him who alone maketh brethren to dwell together in unity. I am aware that they will even then be found a little and despised flock— a sect every where spoken against. But they will then be found maintaining the inviolable sanctity of all the divine precepts, while the ruling principle of their fellowship one with another will ever be that glorious MERCY of God through which they are made partakers of eternal life. I am reluctantly obliged to break off, but hope soon to resume my pen in your service; and shall be very glad to be favoured with renewed communications from you. I remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. MY DEAR SIR,-Your letter of last July was forwarded to me when I was on a visit in Glasgow. Some friends 'there, and several here, have shared with me in the pleasure which it afforded. It is a great joy to any who are of the truth, to hear of others in a distant country taught to speak the same things. That I have been tardy in acknowledging your kind communication, has arisen from what I now believe was a mistake. Different persons in Scotland told me, that no vessel would sail for Halifax till spring: but I have lately heard that there is a general packet from some port of England. If so, I regret that I have suffered so much time to elapse; but I hope that will not discourage you from renewing the correspondence, which I shall be very glad to continue, as long as I find the same mind in you that as yet appears so pleasingly. - Your remarks on the inconsistency of my Address to the Methodists perfectly accords with the views of it I have been led to for some years past, and have since, as far as opportunity served, avowed. My sin (for there can be no sin greater than unfaithfulness to the truth of God) I cannot even palliate by the plea of mitigation you suggest that I used the word brethren only as indicative of the common brotherhood subsisting between man and man. I fear I meant Christian brotherhood, and was led away by a vague hope, that there were a few in the society, who did not really hold the principles which as a society they all profess. But it was a false and wicked hope, partaking largely of that false charity of the world against which you so justly protest. While men profess sentiments contrary to the truth of the gospel, we have no right to suppose that they do not believe what they profess, or that they believe what they gainsay. Indeed, when I wrote that piece, and my Letters to Mr. Knox, the inconsistency of my language was even exceeded by the inconsistency of my practice. I held the awful character of a clergyman in the Establishment, even while I was latterly attempting with a few others to meet on the first day of the week in church fellowship. I may truly own with shame, that I have been a most slow and wayward scholar; while I may own with thankfulness the mercy and patience of the heavenly teacher. It was still many years before the production you first met, that the account of E. C. was published and I can readily conceive (though I have forgotten the particulars, and have not a copy of the piece,) that you must have perceived in that even a greater ambiguity of language. believe my leading object was to set forth sovereign mercy. were some other things formerly published which I would wish burned. I mention this only that you may not judge of my present Yet I There sentiments from my earlier productions, if others of them should come in your way. A friend in Glasgow has promised to send you, by a vessel which is shortly to sail from that port, a parcel of my later pamphlets; and I confess I shall wait with some solicitude to hear from you after you have received them, that I may know more fully how far we are of one mind. The more flattering present appearances are, the more anxiously must I hope (if it be consistent with the Divine will) that nothing may ultimately occur to prevent our scriptural union. The account you have given me of the churches in America is very interesting. I had been led to suppose, that Mr. Sandeman's visit to America had been without fruit. With his writings I became acquainted during the course of my Letters to Mr. Knox; and his memory has ever since been dear to me. Yet, I confess, your disconnection from the Glasite churches in Great Britain appears in my view to have been mercifully ordered. I trust it has been, and will be, the occasion of leading you to prove all things by the Word, more fully than the members of their societies seem to be allowed. I have had some intercourse with them, and I own they seem to me sadly in trammels to a system laid down for them by a man. At all events, you had the scriptures most plainly with you in the immediate ground of your separation. Whenever we cease to love mercy, or act contrary to it, however we may mask our sin, there is an awful departure from the fundamental principles of the Word. Besides your just observations on the sentences you quote from their pamphlet, relative to that rule of discipline, suffer me to remark on the expression-" which has in fact been proved to be hypocritical"-that even in the melancholy case of a brother relapsing into an evil, for which he had before professed repentance, we cannot scripturally say that his former profession of repentance has been proved hypocritical. He that will presume to say this, must suppose himself exempt from the possibility of falling again into any evil, for which he has been given repentance; and ill, indeed, does such a notion become us. The account which you gave me of the practices observed by the churches in your connexion is in general pleasing; and there appears, in most respects, a great similarity between us. But this leads me to notice some things in which, at present, we differ. The churches in this country are still without elders; but we do not on that account forbear acting in every respect-partaking of the supper on the first day of the week, and observing the institutions of discipline-different brethren in rotation presiding at our meeting. A contempt of the ordinance of elders is imputed to us,-but I trust falsely. It is humbling to say, that we have not as yet found any man among us whom we could scripturally call to the service, as manifesting in some degree all the characters pointed out in the letters to Timothy and Titus. In this matter we are yet lacking; and it is indeed a serious want. It may probably be very contrary to your present views, that Christians in such circumstances should observe the Supper: but, from the general spirit of your letter, I trust you will give the subject a candid consideration. To us it appears very plain from scripture, that it is not for administering the Supper elders are designed; that |