in the full exercise of benevolence toward all about him, as between one who engages in the chase of worldly applause, and another, who seeking the good of those around him, must needs be respected and loved.

The evil which arises from such interpretations, whatever may be their tendency, does not consist in throwing civil society into a state of disorder; for though men may admit them in theory, yet they will contrive some method of practically evading them, and reconcile their consciences to it. The mischief lies in the hypocrisy, self-deception, and unchristian censures upon others to which they give occasion.

Much has been spoken and written on "observing all things which Christ bath commanded us," and on the authority of apostolic example. Both are literally binding on christians in matters of positive institution, and in things moral, the spirit or design of them is indispensable: but to enforce a literal conformity in many cases would be to defeat the end, and reduce obedience to unmeaning ceremony.

In eastern countries the washing of the feet after the toils of a journey, was a common and necessary refreshment; and our Lord, to teach his disciples "in love to serve one another," took upon himself the humble office of a servant and washed their feet; enjoining upon them to do that to one another which he had done to them. But to conform to this custom where it is not practised, nor considered as necessary to be done by any one, is to defeat the end of the precept by substituting a form in the place of a humble and affectionate service. We may wash the saints' feet and neglect to dry

their clothes, or to administer necessary comfort to them when cold and weary. If in commands of this nature no regard is to be had to times, places, and circumstances, why do Sandemanians allow it to be binding" only when it can be an act of kindness to do so?"

It was customary in the east, and is still so in many countries, for men to express affection to each other by a kiss; and the apostles directed that this common mode of salutation should be used religiously. But in a country where the practice is principally confined to the expression of love between the sexes, or at most among relations, it is much more liable to misconstruction and abuse; and being originally a human custom, where that custom ceases, though the spirit of the precept is binding, yet the form of it, I conceive, is not so.

For a man to have his head uncovered was once the commonly received sign of his authority, and as such was enjoined:* but with us it is a sign of subjection. If therefore we be obliged to wear any sign of the one or of the other in our religious assemblies, it requires to be reversed.

The apostle taught that it was a shame for a man to wear long hair like a woman; not that he would have concerned himself about the length of the hair, but this being a distinctive mark of the Eexes, he appealed to nature itself against their being confounded; that is, against a man's appearing in the garb of a woman.t

In the primitive times christians had their love, feasts: they do not appear, however, to have been t1 Cor. xi. 13-16.

* 1 Cor xi. 7.

a divine appointment, but the mere spontaneous expressions of mutual affection; as when "breaking bread from house to house, they did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." While these feasts were conducted with propriety, all was well; but in time they were abused, and then they were mentioned in language not very respectful," These are spots in your feasts of charity." Had they been of divine institution, it was not their being abused that would have drawn forth such language. The Lord's supper was abused as well as they but the abuse in that case was corrected, and the ordinance itself reinculcated.

These brief remarks are intended to prove that in the above particulars Mr. SANDEMAN and his followers have mistaken the true intent of Christ and his apostles. But whether it be so or not, the proportion of zeal which is expended upon them is far beyond what their importance requires. If, as a friend to believers' baptism, I cherish an overweening conceit of myself, and of my denomination, confining the kingdom of heaven to it, and shutting my eyes against the excellencies of others, am I not carnal? The jews, in the time of Jere miah, thought themselves very secure on account of their forms and privileges. Pointing to the sacred edifice, and its divinely instituted worship, they exclaimed, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these" but were they not carnal? In how many ways, alas, are poor blind mortals addicted to err ! When the reflecting christian considers what † Jer. vii. 4.

* Jude, 12.

contentions have been kept up about things of this nature, what divisions have been produced, and what accusations have been preferred against those who stand aloof from such strifes, as though they did not so much as profess to observe all things which Christ hath commanded, he will drop a tear of pity over human weakness. But when he sees men so scrupulous in such matters that they cannot conscientiously be present at any worship but their own, yet making no scruple of joining the theatrical and other vain amusements, he will be shocked, and must needs suspect something worse than weakness; something which "strains at a knat, but can swallow a camel;" something, in short, which, however good men may have been carried away by it, can hardly be conceived to have had its origin in a good man's mind.

Yours, &c.

LETTER X.

An inquiry into the principles on nhich the apostles proceeded in forming and organizing christian churches.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

You need not be told of the fierce disputes which were first agitated by the leaders of this denomination, and which have since extended to others as well as those who chuse to be called after their names, concerning the order, government, and discipline of gospel churches. To write

upon every minute practice found in the new testament would be to bewilder ourselves and perplex the subject. If we can ascertain the principles on which the apostles proceeded in all they did, it will answer a much better purpose.

Far be it from me to contend for an Erastian lattitude in matters of church government and discipline, or to imagine that no divine directions are left us on the subject, but that the church must be modelled and governed according to circumstances. This were to open a door to every corruption that human ingenuity and depravity might devise. But on the other hand it is no less wide of the truth to consider the whole which is left us as a system of ordinances, or positive institutions, requiring in all cases the most literal and punctilious observance. Such a view of the subject among other evil consequences must introduce perpetual discord; seeing it aims to establish things from the new testament which are not in it.

It may be thought that in reasoning thus I adopt the principles of the episcopalians against the puritans, who denied the necessity of express precept or precedent from the scriptures, which the others pleaded for. Had episcopalians only denied this in respect of moral duties, I should have thought them in the right. It certainly is not necessary that we should have express precept or precedent for every duty we owe to our neighbours, but merely that we keep within the general principle of doing unto others as we would that they should do unto us. And the same may be said of various du ties toward God. If in our thoughts, affections, prayers or praises, we be influenced by love to his

Q