together of the impreffions that grace has made upon their hearts, very forward and zealous in thewing their contempt and spite against the true grace of God,

We fhall clofe our view of this paffage with obferving, that Jefus, paffing through the midft of them, went his way, and came down to Capernaum; where he preached for fome time, and healed many; and thence proceeded in like manner through the other cities of Galilee. Thus he gave evidence to his own difciples of his divine power to rescue himself from death, and difappoint all his enemies. And thus he continued to diftribute his favours among those who were confidered among the wifer or more enlightened part of the nation as fitting in darknefs, and under the fhadow of death. And thus he forefhewed, how he would withdraw his favour from the Jewish nation, who claimed a relation to God beyond others, and beftow them freely on the Gentiles, who were not looking for them. Thus ended the long acquaintance which had fubfifted between Jefus and his fellow-citizens of Nazareth. For we do not hear that he ever visited them any more.-So fatal is a mistake about the divine grace! And in fuch disinal confequences does it iffue?

AS we have received the following letter but just time enough for infertion, we are under a neceffity of poftponing to answer it till our next number. In that we hope to fatisfy the writer upon those points which he defires to have clearup, and mean while we beg to remind him of E 2

ed

a piece

a piece of inattention for which we are at a lofs to account, in one who profeffes to make critical remarks. He can correct it in future, if he fhould again favor us with his correspondence, by remembering that our work is carried on not by a fingle Editor, but by a number. Of this we gave fuch plain intimations in our first number, that the public cannot but notice his mif take, otherwise we fhould not have remarked

at.

EDITORS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE

ADVOCATE OF REVEALED TRUTH, AND INSPECTOR OF THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.

MR. EDITOR,

Dublin, January 11, 1804.

I HAVE read the firft number of your magazine with fome pleasure, and I think profit; at the fame time I am not fatisfied with all which it contains, and as in your introductory address (page 3) you have expreffed your wish to have the principles you fhall bring forward difcuffed, I prefume to think my remarks will not be ungrateful. But let me not be esteemed an enemy to your undertaking because I use this freedom. I really am not, and never fhall be while it remains "The Advocate of Revealed Truth."

Favour me, Mr. Editor, with your precife meaning in those words (page 6) beginning at line 23. "Yea, if we take in the notion of Deity, which the Scripture is writ to exhibit, we

muft

muft fay, that the love manifested in the atonement, is the only true God, and there is no God be fides that love."-That God is love" I admit; but that love is God," I cannot: because, in my apprehenfion, this would be to deify an Attribute and dethrone the great Spirit. Thofe words in the conclufion of John's firft Epiftle, "This is the true God and eternal life," do not, I conceive, fo much refer to what he had written of divine love in the course of his Epistle as to the Lord Jefus Chrift, of whofe incarnation and glorious work he makes mention in that twentieth verfe; and then, in thofe concluding words, afferts the eternal Godhead of Chrift, and that he is the "eternal life" of his people. "This is the true God," viz. this Son of God, Jefus Chrift, which is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, &c. This Jefus-not this love" is the true God and eternal life.”

In page 7, line 13, &c. you mention the facred obfervance of the Lord's Day among the inftitutions of the New Teftament. But in what part of the New Teftament do you find this? that Chriftians obferved that day (at leaft in general) from the refurrection of Jefus Chrift. I readily admit, and think it meet and right that we should obferve it too-yea, I confider it a fpecial privilege to obferve it; but that the obfervance of it is injoined in the New Teftament I am not convinced.

In the fame sentence you speak of the "feveral ordinances wherein the first Christians continued ftedfaftly on that day," as being regarded facred by charity, " as all these have the truth evidently ftamped upon them." But, Mr. Editor, I think thofe expreffions are too general,

and

and much too ftrong; for, (unless I mistake your meaning in the term ordinance) did not the firft Chriftians continue ftedfaft in fome ordinances which are little attended to now? did they not join in their "feafts of love" every fabbath? Diftribution of property appears to have been made alfo on that day, early in the apoftolic age-washing of feet and mutual vows, were also among their ordinances; but I wish for information on this head, and am open to conviction if I am wrong.

From the next fentence (page 7) I conclude you are no epifcopalian, (at least your charity is not) for furely you will admit that many "inftitutions of worship," in that denomination, ❝ are founded on traditions or commandments of

men."

In the last line of page 10, of your work, you call the doctrine of the faints perfeverance a "popular doctrine," in a tone which implies your disbelief of that doctrine-is it really fo?

You fay (page 18) that charity can never make a bad subject, &c. while it binds [a man] to venture his life at the command of those in authority;" but, Mr. Editor, what proof do you bring from Scripture that charity does bind a man thus? In your remarks on Dr. Miller's fermon, (page 41, of your Infpector, line 21, &c.) you fay, we cannot but think it had been quite fufficient to fatisfy the most conscientious of the Doctor's hearers, to fhew that Chriftianity permits the profeffion of a foldier. I think fo too, Mr. Editor, and I also think it had been enough for you to fay "charity permits" (and that not in every cafe)-not " binds a man to venture his life at the command of those in authority;" but in afferting the latter you go far beyond the

thirty

thirty-feventh article of the established church, which is content with avowing the lawfulness of a Christian man, at the command of a magiftrate, wearing arms and serving in the wars; but you make fuch a compliance with the magiftrate's command effential to the Chriftian character, in telling us that charity" binds" us to fight at their bidding.

You add, that "charity will not fuffer any Christian society to retain a member who is difaffected to the fovereign." Mr. Editor, I love my king as much, and am as zealous to fupport his government as any man: fome, indeed, think I have shewn my zeal too much this way; but I cannot join in the fentiment expreffed in those words. If a man will not bridle his tongue, but will speak evil of dignities, or otherwise oppose himself to government (excepting where to obey the pofitive commands of God he must oppofe it) fuch a man, if he remains incorrigible after the fecond and third admonition, ought to be expelled any Christian fociety; but private judgment in these matters is the right of every man, and no perfon, or fociety of perfons profeffedly Chrif tian, has authority from God's word to excommunicate a man because he differs in opinion with government, objects to its procedure, and perhaps thinks another form of government preferable to that under which he lives: fuch a man is certainly difaffected to the fovereign (and I am fure fo was Paul to Nero); but if he conducts himself as a peaceable member of fociety, and fubmits to the powers that be, charity, I think, may fuffer him to remain in a Chriftian fociety.

I read the report of the London Miffionary Society, on which you have animadverted with

fo