159

LETTER IX.

On certain new testament practices.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

THAT there are serious christians who have leaned to the Sandemanian system I have no doubt; and in people of this description I have seen things worthy of imitation. It has appearedto me that there is a greater diligence in endeavouring to understand the scriptures, and a stricter regard to what they are supposed to contain, than among many other professors of christianity. They do not seem to trifle with either principle or practice in the manner that many do. Even in those things wherein they appear to me to misunderstand the scriptures, there is a regard toward them which is worthy of imitation. There is something even in their rigidness, which I prefer before that trifling with truth which often passes under the name of liberality among other professing christians.

These concessions however do not respect those who have gone entirely into the system, so as to have thoroughly imbibed its spirit; but persons who have manifested a considerable partiality in favour of the doctrine. Take the denomination as a whole, and it is not amongst them you can expect to see the christian practice of the new testament exemplified. You will find them very punctiJious in some things; but very defective in others. Religion as exhibited by them resembles a rickety

child, whose growth is confined to certain parts! it wants that lovely uniformity or proportion which constitutes the beauty of holiness.

Some of the followers of Mr. SANDEMAN, who formed a society in his life-time, in St. Martin's-le-grand, London, and published an account of what they call their christian practices, acknowledge that the command of washing one another's feet is binding. "only when it can be an act of kindness to do so," and that though there be neither precept nor precedent for family-prayer, yet "it seems necessary for maintaining the fear of God in a family." They proceed however to judge those who insist on family-prayer and the first day sabbath, while they disregard the feasts of charity, the holy kiss, &c. as persons "influenced to their religious practices, not by the fear of God, the authority of Christ, or the spirit of truth." It is easy to see from hence what kind of christian practice that is by which these people are distin. guished.*

A punctilious adherence to the letter of scripture is in some cases commendable, even though it may extend to the tithing of mint and cummin; but in others it would lead you aside from the mind of Christ; and to pursue any thing to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God, is dangerous in the extreme.

It has long appeared to me that a great many errors have arisen from applying the principle

* I have not seen this pamphlet, but have taken a few quotations from it, contained in BACKUS's Dis course on Faith and its influence

which is proper in obedience to positive institutions to moral obligations. By confounding these, and giving to both the name of ordinances, the new testament becomes little more than ritual, and religion is nearly reduced to a round of mechanical exercises.

The distinction of obedience into moral and positive has been made by the ablest writers of almost every denomination, and must be made if we would understand the scriptures. Without it we should confound the eternal standard of right and wrong given to Israel at Sinai, the sum of which is the love of God and our neighbour, with the body of "carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation." We should also confound those precepts of the new testament which arise from the relations we sustain to God and one another, with those that arise merely from the sovereign will of the legislator, and could never have been known but for his having expressly enjoined them. Concerning the former an inspired writer does not scruple to refer the primitive christians to that sense of right and wrong which is implanted in the minds of men in general; saying "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.' But concerning the latter he directs their whole attention to the revealed will of Christ-" Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all

things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you-I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, &c.*-The one is commanded because it is right; the other is right because it is commanded. The great principles of the first are of perpetual obligation, and know no other change than that which arises from the varying of relations and conditions; but those of the last may be binding at one period of time, and utterly abolished at another.

We can clearly perceive that it were inconsistent with the perfections of God not to have required us to love him and one another, or to have all lowed of the contrary. Children also must needs be required to obey their parents; "for this is right." But it is not thus in positive institutions. Whatever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever discernment in us, we could not have known them had they not been expressly revealed; nor are they ever enforced as being in themselves right, but merely from the authority of the lawgiver. Of them we may say, had it pleased God he might in various instances have enjoined the opposites; but of the other we are not allowed to suppose it possible or consistent with righteousness for God to have required any thing different from that which he has required. The obligation of man to love and obey his creator must have been coeval with his existence; but it was not.till he had planted a garden in Eden, and there put the man whom he had formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a positive law.

* 1 Cor. xi. 2, 28.

The use to be made of this distinction in the present controversy is, to judge in what cases we are to look for express precept or example, and in what cases we are not to look for them. Mr. BRAIDWOOD very properly observes, "That which is morally good in its own nature is a bounden duty, although it should not be particularly commanded nor exemplified in all the word of God.' In obedience of this description there is not that need of minute rules and examples as in the other; but merely of general principles which naturally lead to all the particulars comprehended under them.

To require express precept or example, or to adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those precepts which are given us, in things of a moral nature, would greatly mislead us. We may by a disregard of that for which there is no express precept or precedent, omit what is manifestly right; and by an adherence to the letter of scriptural precepts, overlook the spirit of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong.

If we will do nothing without express precept or precedent, we must build no places for christian worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor, establish no schools, endow no hospitals, nor contribute any thing toward them, nor any thing toward printing or circulating the holy scriptures. Whether any person who fears God would on this ground consider himself excused from these duties, I cannot tell: it is on no better ground, however, that duties of equal importance have been disregarded; especially those of

* Letters, &c. p. 42.