is no reason to think they were, it is more than a thousand to one that those seven persons who were chosen were not the persons whom every individual member first proposed. What then can we suppose them to have done? They might discuss the subject till they became of one mind; or, which is much more likely, the lesser number, perceiving the general wish, and considering that their brethren had understanding as well as they, might peaceably give up their own opinions to the greater, "submitting one to another in the fear of God." But supposing a hundred of the members had said as follows:- Without reflecting on any who have been named, we think two or three other brethren more answerable to the qualifications required by the apostles than some of them : but, having said this, we are willing to acquiesce in the general voice.'-Should they or would they have been excluded for this? Assuredly the exclusions of the new testament were for very different causes!

The statements of the society, in St. Martins-legrand on the subject are sophistical, self-contradictory, and blasphemous. "Nothing (say they) is decided by the vote of the majority. In some cases indeed there are dissenting voices. The reasons of the dissent are thereupon proposed and considered. If they are scriptural, the whole church has cause to change its opinion; if not, and the person persists in his opposition to the word of God, the church is bound to reject him." But who is to judge whether reasons of the dissentients be scriptural or not? the majority no doubt, and an opposition to their opinion is an opposition to the word of God!

Humility and love will do great things toward unanimity; but this forced unanimity is the highest refinement of spiritual tyranny. It is a being compelled to believe as the church believes, and that not only on subjects clearly revealed, and of great importance; but in matters of mere opinion, in which the most upright minds may differ, and to which no standard can apply. What can he who "exalteth himself above all that is called God," do more than set up his decisions as the word of God, and require men on pain of excommunication to receive them?

Yours, &c.

LETTER XI.

Of the kingdom of Christ.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

You are aware that the admirers of Messrs. GLASS and SANDEMAN generally value themselves on their "clear views of the gospel, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom;" and I doubt not but they have written things concerning both which deserve attention. It appears to me however that they have done much more in detecting error than in advancing truth; and that their writings on the kingdom of Christ relate more to what it is not, than to what it is. Taking up sentence of our Lord, "My kingdom is not of this world," they have said much, and much to purpose, against worldly establishments of religion, with their unscriptural appendages; but, after all, have they shown what the kingdom of Christ is; and does their religion, taken as a whole, exemplify it in its genuine simplicity? If writing and talking. about "simple truth" would do it, they would not

the

be wanting: but it will not. Is there not as much of a worldly spirit in their religion as in that which they explode, only that it is of a different species? Nay, is there not a greater defect in what relates to "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" amongst them, than will often be found in what they denominate Babylon itself?

A clear view of the nature of Christ's kingdom would hardly be supposed to overlook the apostle's account of it. The kingdom of God, he says, is "not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." From this statement we should expect to find the essence of it placed in things moral rather in things ceremonial; in things clearly revealed rather than in matters of doubtful disputation; and in things of prime importance rather than in those of but comparitively small account. We certainly should not expect to see the old error of the pharisees revived, that of "tithing mint and rue to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God."

We should also expect the most eminent subjects of this kingdom would be men who, while they conscientiously attend to the positive institutions of Christ; abhor the thought of making them a substitute for sobriety, righteousness, and godliness; men who need not a special precept for every duty: but, drinking deeply into the law of love, are ready, like the father of the faithful, to obey all its dictates.

And as the kingdom of God consists in peace we should expect its most eminent subjects to be distinguished by that dove-like spirit which seeks the things which make for peace. They may indeed. be called upon to contend for the faith, and that *Rom. xiv. 17.

earnestly; but contention will not be their element; nor will their time be chiefly occupied in conversing on the errors, absurdities, and faults of others. Considering bitter zeal and strife in the heart as belongeth to the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but which is earthly, sensual, and devilish, they are concerned to lay aside every thing of the kind, and to cherish the spirit of a new-born babe.

*

Finally, The joys which they possess in having heard and believed the good news of salvation may be expected to render them dead to those of the world; so much so at least, that they will have no need to repair to the diversions of the theatre, or other carnal pastimes, in order to be happy; nor will they dream of such methods of asserting their christian liberty, and opposing pharisaism.

Whether these marks of Christ's subjects be eminently conspicuous among the people alluded to, those who are best acquainted with them are able to determine; but so far as appears from their writings, whatever excellencies distinguish them, they do not consist in things of this nature.

It is remarkable that the apostle, after representing the kingdom of God as being "not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," adds, "for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."* This not only shews what the prominent features of Christ's kingdom are, but affords a striking contrast to the kingdom con. * James iii. 14, 15.

$

tended for by Sandemanians, which, instead of recommending itself to both God and man, would seem rather to have been copied from the religion of that people who "pleased not God, and were contrary to all men.”

The substitution of forms and ceremonies for the love of God and man is one of the many ways in which depravity has been wont to operate. What else is paganism, apostate judaism, popery, and many other things which pass for religion ? And whether the same principle does not pervade the system in question, and even constitute one of its leading features, let the impartial observer judge. If it does not place the kingdom of God in meat and drink, it places it in things analagous to them, rather than in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

It is true the forms contended for in this case are not the same as in many others, being such only as are thought to be enjoined in the scriptures. That many of them arise from a misunder standing of the scriptures, I have endeavoured to shew in a former letter; but, whether it be so, or not, if an improper stress be laid upon them, they may be as injurious as though they were not scriptural. When the brazen serpent became an idol, it was as pernicions as other idols. The tithing of herbs, though in itself right, yet being done to the neglect of "weightier matters," became the very characteristic of hypocrisy.

It has been said that obedience to the least of God's commands cannot be unfriendly to obedience, to the greatest; and if it be genuine, it cannot; but to deny the possibility of the great things * Rom. xiv. 18, 19.