names under which they pass, nor any desire to charge the evils which may belong to the system on all who have discovered a partiality in its favour, or who have defended particular parts of it. I shall only take a brief review of the spirit which is of God, and compare that of Mr. SANDEMAN, and the generality of his admirers, with it.

First, The spirit of primitive christianity was full of the devout and the affectionate. Of this there needs little to be said in a way of proof, as the thing is evident to any one who is acquainted with the bible. The psalms of David are full of it; and so is the new testament. Primitive christianity was the religion of love. It breathed grace, mercy, and peace, on all that loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Among such it would not break a bruised reed, nor quench the smoaking flax. Its faithfulness was tempered with brotherly kindness. It had compassion for the ignorant, and them that were out of the way; and while siding with God against the wicked, it wept over them, and was willing to do or suffer any thing, if by any means it might save some of them. But is this Sandemanianism? You will scarcely meet with terms expressive of devotion or affection, in any of its productions, unless it be to hold them up to ridicule. It appears to be at war with all devotion and devout maa. Its most indignant opposition and bitterest invectives are reserved for them. Its advocates would have you think, indeed, that it is blind devotion, like that of the pharisees, at which they sneer: but where are we to look for that which is not so, and with which they are not at war? Is it to be found out of their own connections? Every thing there which has the appearance of religion is

pharisaism. It must therefore be amongst themselves if any where. But if the spirit of love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, &c. prevail in their assemblies, it is singular that the same spirit should not appear in their writings. Who that has read them will say that their general tendency is to promote the love of either God or man? Toward worldly men indeed, who make no pretence to religion, the system seems to bear a friendly aspect: but it discovers no concern for their salvation. It would seem to have no tears to shed over a perishing world; and even looks with a jealous eye on those that have, glorying in the paucity of its numbers!

Whether the advocates of this system perceive the discordance between their own spirit and that of David, or whatever is the reason, it is common for them to apply to Christ a great deal of what he manifestly wrote of his own devout feelings. Christ, it seems, might be the subject of devotion, without any danger of self-righteous pride; but we cannot and therefore must have little or nothing to do with it.

It is amongst people of this description that religious feelings and affections are ordinarily traduced. There are, no doubt, many enthusiastic feelings, which have no true religion in them. There is such a thing too as to make a saviour of them, as well as of our duties. But we must not on this account exclude the one any more than the other. President EDWARDS, in his Treatise on Religious Affec-tions, has proved beyond all reasonable contradiction that the essence of true religion lies in them. In reading that work, and Mr. SANDEMAN's Letters, we may see many of the same things exposed as en

thusiastic: but the one is an oil that breaketh not the head; the other an effusion of pride and bitterness. The first, while rejecting what is naught, retains the savour of pure, humble, and holy religion : but the last, is as one who should propose to remove the disorders of the head by means of a guillotine.

It has been observed, that every religion which, instead of rising from love to the truth, has its origin in dislike or opposition, even though it be to error, will come to nothing. You may sometimes see the principal inhabitants of a village fall out with the clergyman, perhaps on account of some difference on the subject of tythes, and proceed to build a place for dissenting worship: also dissenting congregations themselves will sometimes divide from mere antipathy to the preacher, or from offence taken at some of the people: but did you ever know such undertakings productive of much good? When we adhere to a system of religion from opposition to something else, we do not so much regard it for what it is, as for what it is not. Whatever good therefore there may be in it, it will do us no good, and we shall go on waxing worse and worse. remarkable that the SADDUCEES, according to PRIDEAUX, professed, at their outset, the strictest adherence to the written word, utterly renouncing the traditions of the elders, which the pharisees had agreed to hold. In a little time however they rejected a great part of the word itself, and its most important doctrines, such as the resurrection and a future life. This was no more than might have been expected; for the origin of the sytem was not attachment to the word, but dislike to the pharisees.

It is

How far these remarks apply to the religion in question, let those who are best acquainted with it

judge. It doubtless contains some important truth, as did Sadduceanism at its outset; but the spirit which pervades it, must render it doubtful whether this be held for its own sake so much as from opposition to other principles. If truth be loved for its own sake, it will occupy our minds irrespective of the errors which are opposed to it, and whether they exist, or not. But by the strain of writing and conversation which prevail in this connexion, it would seem as if the supposed absurdities of others were the life of their religion, and that if they were once to cease, their zeal would expire with them. It is the vulture and not the dove, that is apparent in all their writings. Who will say that Mr. SANDEMAN sought the good of his opponents, when all through his publication he took every opportunity to hold them up to contempt; and with evident marks of pleasure to describe them and their friends as walking in a devout path to hell? The same is manifestly the spirit of his followers, though they may not possess his sarcastic talents. But are these the weapons of the christian warfare? Supposing FLAVEL, BOSTON, the ERSKINES, &c. to have been bad men, was this the way to deal with them? Is there no medium between flattery and malignity?

Mr. SANDEMAN would persuade us that Paul was of his "temper. Paul was certainly in earnest and resisted error wherever he found it. He does not treat those however who build on a right foundation, though it be a portion of what will be ultimately consumed, as enemies to the truth.f And in his conduct even to the enemies of Christ I recollect no sarcastic sneers tending to draw upon them the contempt of mankind, but every thing cal⚫ Epis. Cor. p. 9. 1 Cor. iii. 11-15.

culated to do the good. If however it were not so, he must have practised differently from what he wrote. "The servant of the Lord," he says in his epistle to Timothy, "must not strive (as for mastery); but be gentle unto all men; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves: if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Paul would have instructed and intreated those whom Mr. SANDEMAN scorned.

There is a calmness I acknowledge in the advocates of this doctrine, which distinguishes their writings from the low and fulsome productions of the English antimonians. But calmness is not always opposed to bitterness: on the contrary, it may be studied for the very purpose of concealing it. "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his sayings were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords."

The only thing that I know of which has the appearance of love is, that attachment which they have to one another, and which they consider as love for the truth's sake. But even here there are things which I am not able to reconcile.-Love for the truth's sake unites the heart to every one in proportion as he appears to embrace it: but the nearer you approach to these people, provided you follow not with them, so much the more bitter are their invectives. Again, Love for the truth's sake takes into consideration its practical effects. It was truth embodied in the spirit and life that excited the attachment of the apostle John. "I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in the truth."** But that which excites their love

* 2 John, iv.