here have never heard, and how should they?) I do not question the intentional correctness of his statement, but I have it on good authority that the most important assertion of it is incorrect. But I confess I am not disposed to trouble myself with any inquiry into that. His own shewing satisfies me, that he acted neither like a Christian nor like a gentleman, in disturbing a Christian assembly, by attempting to force himself and Mr. B― upon their meeting; and had I been present, I should have resisted that attempt to the very utmost. Did Paul act so when he essayed to join himself to the disciples at Jerusalem, and they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple? Did he insist upon a kind of ecclesiastical right to seat himself with them, as having been in fellowship with the disciples at Damascus ? Or did Barnabas disturb the assembled brethren by trying to force Paul upon them, on the ground of his own testimony. You see a very different course

described in Acts ix. 27.

You say that you would have sufficient ground for separating from the Dublin disciples, merely in their ejection of Dr. H., under the circumstances he describes. I am persuaded it would not have afforded you any scriptural ground for it; and it is very possible that you may yet have the same ground for withdrawing from us. For if any thing should lead Dr. H. to London, I think it very likely that he would make the same attempt on our assembly; and assuredly it would be resisted. We do not hold him in fellowship with us, though I once saw him in the church in Dublin as a visitor like myself, and though I have never dealt with him in admonition for joining men, with whom I could not retain fellowship. How should I set about admonishing him for this? He had a right to join whom he pleased. He thinks the men that he has received into his fellowship disciples, and indeed he seems to have imbibed much of their spirit. I think very differently of them: but how should I set about convincing him that he has erred in his estimate of their character? If circumstances should lead brother D― to remove from London to a distant part, where you have at present none in connexion with you, and in the course of his residence there, he should receive into communion with him, a member whom he conceived to be of one mind with you, but of whom you knew nothing more, would you consider him as of course admitted into fellowship with you? This is Dr. H.'s language, p. 3 and 4; and so conclusive does he conceive his own act in Wicklow to be on the church in Dublin, and of course all the sister churches, that he encouraged Mr. B. to maintain his right to communion with the Dublin church-unless they were unanimous in excommunicating him-in excommunicating a man who had never been acknowledged in communion with them, p. 7. Now observe-if Mr. B., in the first instance, desired to join the body of disciples in Dublin, he could not have taken his seat among them, but on their unanimous concurrence in receiving him: a single dissentient would be sufficient to bar his junction with them on that day, until the grounds of the dissent should be examined. But one individual director in Wicklow claims the power of admitting Mr. B. into the Dublin church by his

individual act, and of maintaining him in his seat among then! Is it not monstrous? I would not enlarge so much on this subject, but that I think it highly important that the false views should be corrected which Dr. H. evidently adopted, and which I think you have partly yielded to. I must add that I have never been acquainted with Dr. H., and that there are several passages in his narrative which I am wholly unable to understand. Do I say, that if he came to London, and desired to join us, he would not be received? I do not say so; but certainly not as a matter of course and of right, nor till he unequivocally professed repentance for his conduct in Dublin, gave up his disputing in the church, and also gave up the attempt of teaching things of which he knows so little as the millennium, as the locality of the new heaven and the new earth, where the glorified saints shall be for ever with the Lord. So full is he of curious inquiries into that and other subjects, that he plainly considers his views upon them as terms of Christian communion, (see his second paragraph); and I suppose his interpretation of the number of the beast, (whatever it may be) and of every thing else in the book of revelations, he would think himself equally entitled to make a subject of teaching in the church, and to force upon his brethren. O! what delightful discussions we should have then in every meeting. Of his sobriety of judgment in interpreting the scriptures, we have a very curious specimen, in his application of 1 John ii. 19., in p. 6.—Really, one might almost suspect he was making game.

You seem, in one passage, to return to an idea which you formerly threw out, that every thing coming before a Christian church must be treated as a matter of fact, and be introduced at the mouth of two or three witnesses, for the information, and solemn and silent consideration and decision, of the body."

I rather suspect that you have in view the account given in Acts xv., and particularly the 12th verse; and it is indeed importantly instructive. But consider, dear J, that, in this case, the Apostles and Elders were the persons consulted on the question, and who came to consider and decree, though the multitude of brethren were present. These, of course, kept silence, awaiting the decision of those, whose decision was to be binding on them. But when that decision was pronounced, was it delivered at all, as the two or three witnesses in Mat. xviii. testify the fact, "this man has trespassed against his brother so and so; we have laboured to call him to a sense of his sin, but he will not hear us?" Surely, no. The Apostles and elders declared what seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to them: to them who had authority to declare the will of the king of Zion to his people, and whom his people are bound to hear with implicit subjection. But I trust we shall reject with abhorrence the attempt of any man or men to arrogate to themselves such authority now. Every matter of fact, indeed, cognizable by men, and involved in a case of discipline coming before a Christian church, must be brought before them, established at the mouth of two or three witnesses, and so established, that no question is to be admitted, whether the facts be or be not. But that is a very different thing from the authoritative decision by a few, of the question, what the revealed will of the Lord is, and that

stand,

more common.

*

* * Such instances, I suspect, will become Such shakings and divisions as have taken place in Ireland are calculated to try the profession of many, and to overturn it where it has been but a profession resting on notions of divine truths taken up in a natural way, and supported by the countenance and concurrence of many others. That support failing, the professor, who has seemed to run well, is all unsettled, and terminates in avowed scepticism. Well, my beloved brother, faithful is He that "keepeth the feet of his saints." We might, indeed, despair of our own standing and of the stability of the church, assaulted as she is both from without and within, were it not that the most High himself hath established her. She is His; his inheritance, his portion, his chosen habitation. What room, then, is there for fear? `and what a goodly inheritance have we! The everlasting God-in all the inexhaustible riches of his grace and all-sufficiency. When we think of the immensity and glory of this portion, it might well seem extravagantly too much for a sinful creature, were it not for the way in which it comes to us. "Heirs of God"-how? "joint heirs with Christ." His God, our God! His father, our father! The glory given to him, made over to us in Him! He that was rich having become poor that we through his poverty might be rich! The believing Lazarus-the starving beggar-rich indeed: having nothing and yet possessing all things! Does it not well become us to offer the sacrifice of "praise to God continually ?"

CXLIII.

TO MISS J

Oct. 8, 1829.

As to

DEAR SISTER J-My daughter being much occupied, I take up my pen for her in reply to your letter of the 20th inst. any difficulties about baptism, which Mr. B's remarks and book have excited in your mind, I shall say very little indeed. If what has been already laid before you on the subject fails of convincing you that, for any baptism either of adults or of infants practised in these countries, there is not a tittle of either precept or precedent in the scripture, it would be quite vain to continue the controversy. I should remark that those who assert, with the author of The Infant's Case, and assert truly, that the children of believers are " born within the visible church" (see p. 11, 1. 22) are peculiarly inconsistent in contending for their being baptized; the baptism or washing practised in the apostolic days having always marked the transition of the person baptized into the visible Christian church as one who before had not been in it. So that to baptize the new-born child of a believer would be, in fact, to say that it was unclean, in direct contradiction to the scripture. 1 Cor. vii. 14. But the writer who would pen or approve such a sentiment as occurs in p. 8 of that same book,

that God has sent such a child into the world (dying in its infancy) only "to receive that which should make it meet for the inheritance of the saints!" and who urges the necessity of its baptism, lest it should " go out of this world without any visible way of blessing from God" is manifestly ignorant of the first principles of the kingdom of God. He has (as I observe well expressed in the preceding page) set up his calf and dances about it. I almost blame myself for having written a line to you upon this subject, when I see another of such prominent importance calling my attention. In sending us Mr. B's epistle to you, it is very plain you sent it as something you considered very good and Christian-like, as the production of a man who, as you express it, possesses much clearer views of eternal realities" than others. Now, I request you will for the present lay down this sheet till you open his letter, and again attentively read the passage in the first page of it which I have marked in the margin. He continues the subject in the same style through the next page: but what occurs in the first page is sufficient-read it, I say, again attentively, before you return to my letter. Now, I beseech you to answer me candidly, and as before the searcher of hearts, what you think of that passage? What you think of the state and character of the man whose sentiments it expresses, and this, whichever be the case, whether he be rejoicing in that kind of assurance of hope which he describes, or mourning for the want and seeking to attain it? If his sentiments on the subject accord with your present views, I request a candid answer to one other question-were those, or anything like them, your sentiments when you joined our fellowship? If so, I must avow that we mistook your meaning, and that you have quite mistaken ours. Such a mutual mistake very frequently happens, but whenever it is discovered, the sooner the outward connexion which was formed upon it is dissolved, the better. Perhaps you may see the point of my inquiry more clearly when I propose it in this form:-Do you conceive that a man can be sound in the faith of Christ, who is seeking to obtain hope towards God in any way, or to have his hope confirmed by being assured that he produces the genuine fruits of faith? and do you think it any part of the work of the Spirit to testify to a man's mind that he does produce them ? Do not be restrained by any disinclination to change your religious connexion, from answering these questions explicitly and honestly. If you, indeed, think with Mr. B- —, you will be at no loss to find a religious connexion, not only more suitable, but more pleasant to you; and no doubt he will help you in it. If I could, I would have proposed these inquiries to you, without any intimation of my own sentiments, but it was impossible. If you reject his sentiments, and reject them with abhorrence, as all (I will not say disciples, but all) agreeing with me in opinion must reject them, there may then be room for my entering a little more on the subject. But, indeed, I think I have done so in some part of my Sufficient Reply, a copy of which I send you, lest you should not have one. But if you have, I shall thank you to bring mine with you when you come to town, as I doubt whether I possess another. I need scarcely assure you, dear Miss J- that I shall rejoice to be always able to subscribe myself, Your affectionate brother,

CXLIV.

TO THE SAME.

Oct. 31, 1829.

MY VERY DEAR SISTER,- My daughter and I returned about a week ago from an excursion of nearly seven weeks to Dublin and to Buxton. It was not till our return that I received your letter of last August; and I can't tell you with what joy I read it, and the more lively joy, because the first word which caught my eye, Sir," excited in me fear that all was wrong. But when I found you so decisively rejecting the poison in Mr. B's letter, abhorring that which is evil, and cleaving to that which is good,' it did indeed excite in me thankfulness and praise to the God of all grace, "who keepeth the feet of his saints and delivereth them from the snare of the fowler." It has endeared you to me more than ever as a sister and beloved for the truth's sake. Your blessed escape from the snare that was so insidiously laid for you, is (you see) not the fruit of our own wisdom or watchfulness, for you were ready to fall into it; but I trust it will prove the occasion of making you more jealous of that which the scriptures so emphatically and justly term "the deceivableness of unrighteousness :" never is that deceivableness greater and more dangerous than when it appears in a doctrine often approaching most nearly to the truth, but involved with sentiments utterly subversive of it. Such, asssuredly, is Mr. B's notion, that it is the office of the Spirit of God to witness to his conscience that his works are the genuine fruits of faith, and so to give him assured hope and confidence towards God: nor can I conceive a more awful instance of human vanity and satanic delusion, than is exhibited in a man coming to the comfortable conclusion that he is a genuine believer, and shall be assuredly saved, from observing (as he imagines by the aid of the Spirit of God) the abundance and genuineness of the fruits which he produces. The Lord taketh pleasure in those that hope in his mercy, Ps. cxlvii. 11.— in that mercy which is revealed from heaven in the gospel, as reigning through righteousness by Jesus Christ unto eternal life. How different is such a hope from Mr. B's! The thief expiring upon the cross (according to Mr. B- -) must either have died without any assured hope towards God, or must have got some hope by reflecting on the fruits of his faith! And yet Mr. B will talk grandly and speciously of the joyfulness of the gospel to a sinner, whom it finds ungodly and without strength; but it is only talk: for while he maintains that the assurance of faith is separable from the assurance of hope-(and truly he has a goodly company to keep him in countenance in this)-or in other words, that an ungodly sinner may be assuredly persuaded of the truth of the gospel report, and yet be des. titute of any assured hope towards God, the hope that he proposes