(6)

So far as the writer knows his own heart, nothing but a sense of duty would prompt him to enter into a public controversy with a professed disciple of Jesus.

The author of the "Letter" upon which we are about to remark, tells us, (Let. p. 5.) "In the examination which I propose to give, the Scriptures shall be my guide, truth my object, and, as I hope, the love of Jesus the moving cause." His motive, will not probably be questioned; but his manner, it is apprehended, will not be fully justified by the serious Christian.

The first animadversion he has been pleased to make upon the pamphlet, (Med. Kingd. &c.) is upon this sentence" This spiritual temple will continue to rise under different dispensations," &c. This is justly liable to criticism. The writer incautiously did not express his meaning, which was, that the temple of God had been rising under different dispensations, and was still rising, and would continue to rise, until the top stone was carried up.

But he has suggested a charge which ought not to pass unnoticed. Because a plurality of dispensations was mentioned, he has insinuated that the writer inculcated the idea of a plurality of Gospels. A plurality of dispensations of the church, without a plurality of Gospels, is no new idea. The author has himself fully inculcated it, (L. p. 38.) We shall leave it with the Christian reader to decide with what propriety he imprecated the curse upon the writer of the pamphlet: Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed,' (L. p. 6.)

The next thing which it is thought proper to notice is, his styling the arguments in the pamphlet, by way of derision," great arguments." Perhaps he would have manifested more of the gospel temper, to have left the

reader to judge of their magnitude; since he considered them so important as to endeavour to overwhelm them with a flood of witticism.

After coinciding with the writer of the pamphlet, that "the Mediator's kingdom is, in a special manner, the gospel dispensation," and that "Christ, in his mediatorial character, possesses, in an extensive sense, universal empire," and that "Christ's kingdom is not of this world," he then advances to "attack" the positions laid down in the pamphlet. The force of his " attack" will be attended to in the sequel.

The statement which he has been pleased to give of Christ's declaration to Pilate, that his " Kingdom was not of this world," it is believed, will not be very satisfactory to those who delight to see the crown upon Messiah's head.

He informs us, if he is rightly understood, that he claimed this title, only to excuse himself from the charge of rebellion. He gives us the following exposition of the text, (L. p. 9.) "If rebellion had been my object, is it reasonable to suppose that I should have made no resistance?" "All the authority I claim, is that of a religious teacher from heaven." He further says, "Now the design of Christ, in making the declaration My kingdom is not of this world, manifestly was, to repel the charge of rebellious views." (L. p. 23.) Angels have been religious teachers from heaven; but our glorious Redeemer claimed something more than this. He claimed a kingdom, and the majesty of a king, not only at the bar of Pilate, but before his disciples, where he could have no desire to excuse himself from the charge of rebellion. He says to them-"I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." To deny that Christ claimed the dignity of at

king, at Pilate's bar, does not look like giving to him that honour which is due to his name.

Christian brethren; did not our Lord claim a kingdom, and declare that it was not of this world; and, likewise, that his subjects were not of this world? They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world ;" and, "The world hateth them, because they are not of the world."

dren of the kingdom."

"The good seed are the chil

The author of the letter has acknowledged that Christ has a kingdom, although he does not admit that he claimed it before Pilate; and that his kingdom is not united to the kingdoms of this world; but proceeds to prove, that notwithstanding it is not united to the kingdoms of this world, yet it is not opposed to them.

The reader will doubtless perceive, that if he has failed to establish this point, he has failed in his whole attempt to overturn the argument laid down by the writer of the pamphlet; and of course, his foundation is stricken away, upon which most of his other argu

ments rest.

He tells the writer of the pamphlet, (L. p. 10.) "Should you strictly take into view the nature of a converse, you would soon be led to the discovery of your error, in concluding, that a want of union proves, in every case, a diametrical opposition. Can we say that the kingdom of Scotland, previous to its union with England, was always in opposition to it?" "Is there either opposition or union between the empires of France and China?"

He then proceeds to another mode to overturn the argument, and informs the writer, that "The fallacy of your reasoning may be exposed in a different way." "The government of a kingdom cannot, in a religious point of view, be considered as a moral person. It is

a mere instrument, or machine, in the hands of men under God, designed for the accomplishment of certain purposes." (L. p. 10.)

Who ever pretended that a law, written on a piece of paper, abstractly considered, was a "moral person?" But, when moral agents swear to obey laws, then they have no small effect upon the moral world, as they become a rule of life for moral beings.

His conclusion can by no means be admitted, that "the result then, of an administration, (setting aside the over-ruling providence,) would depend on the views and character of the persons to whom it is intrusted.” If those who execute the laws perform their oath, the effect is not so great, whether the persons are good or bad, as whether the laws are good or bad. If the laws are bad, and are executed, the effect upon the community will be bad. If the laws are good, and are executed by bad men, the effect will be good. "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works." It is quite unnecessary to detain the reader any longer, in replying to such reasoning; we will therefore proceed to examine what appears to be his principal argument.

He returns to his "former ground," and tells the writer, (L. p. 11.) "To infer opposition, because there is no union, is a manifest sophism." Although it is readily admitted, that there may be cases of no special union without opposition, yet it is by no means granted in this case. For it is not the kingdoms of Scotland and England, or France and China, which we are examining; but it is the kingdom of light, and the kingdom of darkness.

Now the force of his reasoning here, and we may add

B

every where else upon this foundation, is just in proportion to the force of the parallel between the kingdoms of France and China, and the kingdoms of Christ and Satan. The former are both earthly kingdoms, and are formed of like materials; but the latter are as unlike as heaven and hell. But this is not the greatest objection to his reasoning; it directly contradicts the declaration of the Son of God himself, "He that is not with me is against me.”

If his arguments have failed, then those points laid down in the pamphlet remain unmoved upon the foundation which God has laid in Zion; and the "Letter" might be dismissed, so far as it respects this question, was it not proper that some other parts of it should be exposed.

It is necessary, before we proceed any further, to notice a very heavy charge which is brought against the writer of the pamphlet, because he represented Satan as the prince of this world, and the world belonging to his empire*. He has expressed his "abhorrence" of an attempt to limit our Creator's power," (L. p. 15.) and (in p. 12.) he says, "The character of God is here arraigned, his providential government denied, a limita

* To prevent mistakes, and that the writer's meaning may not be misapprehended, he would observe, that when he speaks of Satan as being the Prince of this world and at the head of the kingdoms of this world, he means that he rules and influences earthly kingdoms in that sense in which he rules and influences individuals, who are unrenewed in heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. The idea, that the kingdoms of this world are to be changed, and become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, evidently ́supposes that they have not yet become the kingdom of our Lord-that is, the kingdom of heaven. When the laws of the Gospel take the place of the laws of this world, then Messiah will reign, in a special manner, universally.