and that every system opposing it, is not only ungodly but irrational. I admit that difficult questions may be pressed on various points, which I cannot answer but with an honest avowal of my ignorance, because the scriptures do not inform me on the subject. But I say that the philosophers are unreasonable and unfair in urging these difficulties against the truths of scripture: for it would be easy to show that whatever system they embrace, is pressed with equal difficulties. The objections, for instance, which most derive from questions about the origin of evil, about the consistency of the creature's responsibility with the divine foreknowledge, &c.-these objections, legitimately followed up, would lead the objectors into downright Atheism; and I am sure that with that they would find themselves embarrassed with as many difficulties as they have attempted to escape. Instructed in all that I need to know, as a sinful creature, for my guidance and support, I am content to be ignorant about a great many matters of curious inquiry, and acknowledge the divine wisdom, as well in the limits of revealed discovery, as in its extent.

CX.

TO MRS. T

Aug. 6, 1825.

THOUGH Scriptural principle will not allow me at present to address you as a sister in Christ, yet I am ready to reply to your letter of the 25th ult., and to acknowledge that I am pleased with the general sobriety of mind which it manifests. I had heard of the distractions at C; and am quite uncertain whether, if I were there to-morrow, I could unite with any of the little parties that remain. The breaking up of the church there I did not wonder at, as I know the state in which it had been for some time. When once a church is turned into a debating society for the agitation of curious questions, under the pretence of seeking increased knowledge in the good ways of the Lord, the sooner it is broken up the better. The adversary (often in the form of an angel of light) has succeeded in turning away their ear from the truth. They have become tired of the heavenly manna. To have "nothing at all besides that manna before their eyes," (Num. xi. 6.) seems to them a poor thing; and, therefore, they seek out many inventions! This is the continual propensity of all our hearts. But when an individual or society is left to that mind, they are as much walking after the flesh, while engaged (as they think) in prosecuting scriptural inquiries, as if they were walking in drunkenness and adultery. I have never thought of C for some years without a sigh: but" the Lord knoweth them that are his;" and will in his own time make them manifest.

Your carnal policy in maintaining religious fellowship with your husband, while he denied a divine command which you acknowledged, -in short, in loving him more than Christ,-has been rebuked. You seem to see that it has; and therefore I pass to the other subjects to which you call me. As to a believer's marrying an unbeliever, I do think that there is no rule in the New Testament against it; and I abhor the sin, of which I was guilty with others, of making a law which Christ has not made. And yet I am sure that the principles of Scripture mark the general inexpediency of such a connexion, if it can be avoided. That the marriage connexion is a civil or earthly connexion, and not a religious, -(though it is the most lasting and intimate of all mere earthly connexions)—is certain from this;-that the connexion continues in unabated obligation between those who can have no religious fellowship. The unbelieving husband is declared to be sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband: that is, the marriage connexion with the unbelieving party is lawful to the believing. (I Cor. vii. 14. see also 1 Pet. iii. 1.) And herein appears as plainly the difference of the law under the Gospel of Christ and under Moses. The Jew was bound even to put away a heathen wife with whom he had cohabited. But can we wonder at this, when we know that the Jews were debarred by their law from civil intercourse, from eating and drinking, with the unbelieving world. And those false teachers, who would refer us to the Jewish law in this and other matters, ought consistently to call a Christian husband to put away an unbelieving wife. The only passage of the New Testament Scriptures-(and to them alone Christians are to look for their rule)-which I formerly thought warranted the opposite inference, is that in 1 Cor. vii. 39. -" she is at liberty to marry whom she will, only in the Lord." As if this meant-provided it be to one who is in the Lord, that is, to a fellow-disciple. But this in fact was inserting in the text what it does not contain. And the expression in the Lord, or the liberty which we have in the Lord,-is sufficiently illustrated by a reference to Eph. vi. i. and Gal. ii. 4. v. 13. At the same time I wish to say distinctly, that if a disciple act in this matter, of choosing a partner for life, in the Lord, (that is, as a disciple of the Lord, with an eye to his will and his glory)-I am sure he will choose a believing partner, if he can obtain any such at all suitable: and this, from the considerations which you justly suggest, especially those connected with the bringing up of the children. But I am obliged to put in the "if"-that I have inserted. For I must say that a Christian man may be so circumstanced, that he would be bound by the authority of the Lord to marry an heathen woman. He might be in a heathen country, where he had not one fellow-disciple; or, if he was in a church of fellow-disciples, none of the females might be unmarried; or none of the unmarried females might be willing to take him for a husband; or none of them might be such as would make a wife at all suitable for him. And as to those who would say -'let the Christian man in those circumstances remain unmarried;' -they are only acting consistently in setting aside a divine law, in order to establish their own tradition. The Christian man, so cir

cumstanced, may be bound by the divine law to marry. (1 Cor. vii. 9. Heb. xiii. 4.) But this divine law worldly religionists think of less authority than a law of worldly prudence, and of pretended superior purity, which they substitute. I pass to the other subject to which you call. On this general question about the distinction of the law into moral and ceremonial, which the divines run upon, I would briefly remark that, as they apply it-I think it only calculated to darken counsel by words without knowledge. In the ordinary scriptural use of the phrase" the law"-we are plainly to understand that law which was given by Moses"—generally-without any such distinction as they would introduce: though it is certain that, in the law given by Moses, there is included that law called moral, the work of which is written in the hearts and consciences of all men, charging them with guilt for doing evil. But, to come to the point for which you seem to introduce the other question, I acknowledge not any religious observance of the first day of the week obligatory on Christians, but that of coming together on that day, as the first disciples did, to shew forth the Lord's death in the Supper, and to observe the other ordinances of Christian fellowship. I was too long deterred from speaking a plain language on the subject, partly from being myself infected with the popular doctrine on it,-(though I could never rightly make out the scriptural authority for a Christian Sabbath day) and partly from worldly policy, unwilling to shock the prejudices of the world. But I must now say that the idea of a Christian sabbathday, succeeding the Jewish sabbath, and to be observed by cessation from the ordinary business of life, is one which is utterly destitute of scriptural authority, and which the man of sin has introduced. Here also full well do the corrupt professors of this day, like the scribes and pharisees of old, set aside the commands of God, that they may keep their own traditions. Look at one of them, on the first day of the week, running to this or that religious meeting, to hear this and that preacher, or perhaps himself to preach; but altogether deaf to the instruction and reproof of the word as to the real observance of the day. The hypocrite challenges you for letting your children play on that day. (I do not know that even a Jewish child was restrained from that on the Jewish sabbath.) But I suppose he would be still more shocked if he saw you darning your husband's stockings on Sunday. And what has he to offer in support of this? Nothing, but a human tradition! Under the Christian dispensation there is a change of the sabbath from the last day of the week, which was appointed to the Jews, to the first day of the week; and now the first day is to be observed by Christians as the last day was by the Jews, and they must do no manner of work on that day;-not even (as the tip-top professors say) so much as to shave themselves.' Well: if a poor disciple of Christ may ask the question, I would beg to learn from these good gentlemen what ground they have for asserting this change of a sabbath day, and the continued obligation of any Sabbatical observance to Christians? 'O! as to the change, all the divines are agreed-Dr. Doddridge, and Dr. Watts, and (I suppose) Mr. Kelly, and all the good people, that the change must have been made by divine appointment: and

though the New Testament Scriptures are silent upon the subject, yet it was probably made between the resurrection and ascension of the Lord. And as to the observance of a Christian Sabbath none but enemies to all religion and godliness can disregard it.' Thank ye, gentlemen; my blessed master was ranked in that class before me. A Christian standing in the light of the truth and adhering to the word of the Lord, can need nothing more to embolden his rejection of the current tradition on this subject, than to find that it has no foundation in the Scriptures of the New Testament, and that they plainly declare the cessation of all Jewish observances, on account of the accomplishment of that good thing, which these shadows typified— the Redeemer's entering into his rest on the completion of his work. Those who believe the testimony of that, have a Sabbath indeed; but not on any one day of the week more than another. Though I do not think any further remark on the subject necessary, yet I would briefly add that, according to the popular system, we must suppose that two different sabbath days were observed in the first Christian churches nothing is more certain than that the Hebrew Christians continued to observe the law of Moses, and assuredly this special precept of it. They kept the sabbath, of course, on the only day on which it could be kept-the last day of the week. But the Antichristian divines would persuade us that the Gentile Christians had another sabbath, which they kept, and were bound to keep the first day of the week. So that, in fact, the Jewish disciples were weekly breaking the Christian sabbath, and the Gentile disciples the Jewish sabbath. This absurdity may be swallowed by the besotted followers of the man of sin: but Christians are called to maintain the one observance of the first day of the week, which was delivered both to Jewish and Gentile converts-the coming together on that day into one place to eat the Lord's Supper. This, and all the Christian fellowship connected with it, appears a contemptible thing in the eyes of worldly professors. But they really despise Him whom God hath crowned with glory and honour. You see I have readily set about replying to your inquiries. I have done so, because you seem to make them with a view to scriptural re-union with the disciples of the Lord. The last pieces I have published, are "Seven Letters on Primitive Christianity;" and "A Sufficient Reply to Mr. J. Haldane's Strictures" on that work. If you have not seen them, I believe they may be had at Tims's, 85, Grafton Street, Dublin. If not, I would endeavour to forward you copies.

I remain yours in the hope of the Gospel,

P.S. I received a long time ago a letter from J. D—, to which I did not reply, because I could not without making myself a party in a division, upon which I had heard only one side. It seems a very dubious ground for any man's departing from a Christian church, that they do not manifest enough of love. He seems pretty plainly to say "I manifest enough of love."-That "great I" is a great devil.

CXI.

TO THE SAME.

Dec. 20, 1825.

DEAR MRS. T——,—A few days ago I received your note of the 9th instant, and now send you two copies of the Letters on Primitive Christianity, the Reply to Haldane, Thoughts on Religious Establishments, and each of the seven tracts. Accept them as an expression of warm affectionate interest. I have an indistinct recollection of Kelly's pamphlet that you allude to; but I never answered it. I was quite satisfied with the evidence which it afforded that we differ on the fundamental truth; and was willing that professors should be left to manifest themselves by taking such side on the question as they thought right. It would be easy to expose the sentiments which Mr. K. advocates, so that probably himself, and certainly others, would have been led to modify their language on the subject. But this I do not think desirable. The greater part of the most specious religious profession in Ireland, has been occasioned by the exposure of antichristian doctrine, obliging its adherents to paint their mask more nicely. I am glad to hear that the mask is (to disciples) taken off from some of the professors in C, by thus openly advocating the popular notion of sanctification as an improvement in ourselves. Concerning some of them who can speak the most plausible language, I have long been quite sure that they are of Antichrist, from their persisting, after many reproofs, in distracting the Church of God by turning it into a debating society. But the sentiment which some of them now avow, leaves no room for any believer of the truth to doubt their character. Whenever a talker about the gospel tells me that he thinks himself a better kind of body than he was before his supposed conversion, or that he hopes to become so, I can be at no loss to conclude that he needs yet to be converted to the truth, and is at present ignorant of it. He is looking with secret complacency at a thing that is all unclean, and is blind to the one object in which the fulness of the divine good pleasure centres. I have sometimes illustrated the subject (I know not whether in any of my publications) by the narrative in 2 Kings vi. 6. When the iron was made to swim and floated on the surface, it was still as much iron as when it had lain at the bottom of the water and this would have been manifested by its sinking at any moment to the bottom, if the miraculous power that raised it had ceased at any moment to keep it afloat. If we suppose the iron indued with consciousness, and imagining (in the contemplation of its swimming) that it was turned into cork, we should have a little image of the delusion of those professors, who have imbibed the popular doctrine of sanctification. I wish you had mentioned the names of some of those in C with whom you are united. Is 2 E

VOL II.