--and whether ered in?

you do not believe that the elect will be finally gath

Con. Touch not the holy doctrines of election, or perseverance! They are for the comfort and consolation of those, and those only, who have the witness in themselves that they are born of God, by bringing forth fruit to his glory. Should any man set down in sin, or cold indifference, resting securely on some old experience, and the doctrine of election and perseverance, it would be an evidence that he never knew nor felt their blessed influence. When you bring forth fruit to the glory of God, and in that way manifest that you are a tree of his planting, you may take courage, and believe that he who is unchangeable will never leave nor forsake you. But again I ask, "where is the blessedness you spoke of "where is the evidence of your adoption?

Prof. I am ready, as I before observed, to acknowledge that I am full of evil; but I still hope that I was renewed by the grace of God two years ago. I thought I took satisfaction in secret prayer; and I don't entirely neglect it now, though I do not attend to it as often as I ought, I am sensible.

Con. You pray in secret!-I know you do; and if you never come into condemnation for any other act of your life, this will be one. It was fear, not love, that drove you to that secret exercise; and I can testify that you went more like a fool to the correction of the stocks, than like a child of God to his heavenly Parent. Secret prayer!—Think of the last time you went to pray alone-how much communion was there with Jesus Christ? Surely he was not there to meet you. This mockery of lip-service is the veil that hides you from yourself, and you cling to it, instead of having a living faith in Jesus Christ. Think of such devotion. A fly crawling on the wall diverted your attention from heaven; a straw tickled you, and you forgot that you were in the presence of God. I tell you, such offerings are offensive to the Majesty of heaven; and again I say, you have no present evidence that you are one of God's children. Repent, therefore, and do thy first works, lest thy candlestick be removed from its place; lest at last it be found that thou hast "betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss" into the hands of sinners, and that it were better for thee not to have been born!

Here the dialogue was interrupted, and I heard no more: so I send you this, with a short exhortation to backsliding professors who may chance to read it, to converse with their consciences a little occasionally, lest they also should betray the interests of the Son of Man, and discover at last that he never knew them, through the sentence, "Depart from me, all ye that work iniquity." May the Lord grant them grace to hear and take warning in time! Farewell. PETER VALDO.

Town of Stupidity, ?

Nor. 22, 1822.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PILGRIM.

SIR,

THE candid" Reply to thoughts on singing," by your respected correspondent, R. W. has been seriously considered. It is certainly the duty and privilege of christian brethren, to communicate to one another in the spirit of meekness, their views on those subjects on which a difference of sentiment exists; to hear with patience and examine with candour, the objections which may be made to our opinions. Truth will bear the strictest investigation. If this is the object of our supreme regard, we shall rejoice to part with every thing which will not accord with its holy standard. We shall come to the light, that our deeds may be reproved, or that it "may be made manifest that they are wrought of God." When controversy is conducted under the influence of the unhallowed passions of our depraved hearts, nothing can be more baneful to our peace, or more dishonourable to our profession: but when we engage in it, as Jesus and his apostles did, in the spirit of meekness, and with a single eye to the glory of God, we may hope, by the divine blessing, to promote our holy union in the truth.

I am happy to observe an accordance between me and my respondent, in some of the essential principles, on which my general remarks were founded. He remarks, "I perfectly agree with him relative to the necessity of faith and holiness, in order to the singing of God's praise in spirit and in truth, or so as to meet the divine acceptance." Again," Wo be to him, (the singer) if he mock God with a solemn sound, which does not originate from a believing heart." The question before us then is resolved into this: Is it proper that the exercise of singing in public worship, should be conducted by any, who, in the very act, mock God? However the question may be answered, I think it is undeniable, that if all the principles advanced in the reply are correct, they equally prove those to have set up an unscriptural rule" who refuse to admit unbelievers to baptism and the table of the Lord, as that those have done so, who disapprove of their uniting in the ordinance of praise: for the writer declares that there is no prohibition against any man's externally performing every duty, which God has enjoined on men; but only against the unbelief, which may attend these performances. External duties all ought to be done, and internal not left undone." Again, "Wicked men are expressly forbidden to take God's name in vain, in the streets, but required to unite, both visibly and cordially, with the worshippers; and their neglecting to do it in the latter is no excuse for their neglecting to do it in the former." Is not this, according to my respondent's own sentiments, the same as to say, that the sinner's neglecting to worship with his heart, is no excuse for his neglecting to "mock God with a solemn sound." And do not the principles advanced imply, that in this very act he performs an external duty?

The manifest impenitence and unbelief of the false worshipper is supposed to be "the concern of the individual, rather than of the church or its rulers." But should it not be the concern of the

church to glorify God, by keeping "the ordinances" as they are
delivered unto them in the Word of truth? Did the Saviour or his
inspired Apostles ever direct the "churches of the saints" to use
the voices of unbelievers, in the worship of God, as the ancient
church was directed to use musical instruments? and is it not true,
that the church possesses equal capacity to judge, whether a person
has the necessary qualifications to praise God acceptably or to com-
mune at the Lord's table acceptably? And may we not with equal
propriety say of the latter ordinance, as has been remarked of the
former, viz. If there could be no communion at the Lord's table till
the church could determine who would do it in faith, it is evident
that the Lord's Supper "would not be introduced into our pub-
lic worship." If all those who appear, from their profession of faith
and holy lives, to be scripturally qualified to commune at the
Lord's table, should unite in the ordinance of praise, would not
Psalmody be introduced and scripturally maintained in our public
worship? The principle, that different qualifications are requisite
for the different ordinances of the church of Christ, I find no where
recognized in the precepts of the divine Word or in the practice of
the primitive church. Indeed, as these ordinances are all designed
to manifest our holy faith and love, and to exhibit the holy nature of
the spiritual house, as they are all "spiritual sacrifices," there ap-
pears to be the same objection against the unbeliever's externally
engaging in one as in another.

Some passages from the Psalms are quoted, (not to prove the duty
of all creatures to worship God according to their capacity, which I
consider the proper import of the passages, for in this we are per-
fectly agreed, but) to prove the propriety of those external acts,
which are acknowledged to be, not only unacceptable to God, but a
solemn mockery of his Holy Majesty, and on account of which acts,
"wo" is denounced on the performers. I think it is evident, from
the book of Psalms, that these passages afford no vindication of the
practice: let us hear that solemn address of the Almighty, in the
50th Psalm: "Unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to
declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy
mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind
thee." Also, Ps. lxxviii. 36, 37, "They did flatter him with their
mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues; for their heart
was not right with him." Has not my friend overlooked the plain
principle, that the exercise of faith and love in the heart is a previ-
ous duty to the profession of it in any external act whatever? We
must certainly admit this, or admit that false professions are duties.
It is indeed an obvious truth, that there are no prohibitions against
any man's performing any duty; but it is equally obvious, that cer-
tain acts which are the duty of believers, are not the duty of unbe-
lievers, while they remain of this character. It is, indeed, the duty
of all men to love the blessed God, and believe in his Son whom he
But is it their duty
hath sent, and then to profess this before men.
to profess to repent and believe, when they do not? We have al-
ready seen, from the divine testimony, how the God of truth views

ד' י

those who come before him and declare, "I love thy holy law, and bind the Gospel to my heart," while their hearts are far from him.

It is observed, that "we have no command nor example in scripture which excludes any from these exercises." Are we not positively commanded to" turn away," to "come out," and be "separate" from such as have only a "form of godliness"? 2 Tim. iii. 5. 2 Cor. vi. 17. Does not the apostle forbid and expose the absurdity of a visible union of believers and unbelievers, in the ordinances of divine worship, in the following passage: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness ?" If, however, there were no express prohibitions on the subject, still I think it must be considered, that as certain qualifications are essential to uniting in these exercises, the very requirement of these qualifications is a virtual prohibition of all who are destitute of them. "How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ?" Does not John iv. 24. also contain such a prohibition?

It appears from Luke xix. 37, 39, that those who accompanied our Lord into Jerusalem and into the temple were disciples: in connection with this, the declaration "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise;" proves that, at least, many of them were believers in him. But supposing that it might be said of some, who joined with his sincere worshippers, as it was said of their fathers, "They did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues, for their heart was not right with him;" are we to believe that he who is "the Truth," approved of such a practice ?

It is admitted that it is" absurd to appoint openly profane and immoral persons, as is sometimes done, to lead the choir;" but how can this be reconciled with the declaration that " there is no prohibition against any man's externally performing every duty which God has enjoined on men; but only against the unbelief which may attend these performances." Does not the profane person in the case referred to, perform an "external duty ?" and "who can tell but what at the moment" he "attempts the external part of any duty, he may have grace given him to perform it aright in his heart?" On what principle can it be proved that it is absurd for a profane person to lead the choir, which does not equally prove that it is absurd for him to follow? Suppose two profane persons stand together in the choir, one strikes the first note, and the other instantly joins him; does the first act absurdly, and the latter rationally? Or, by what principle can it be proved, that it is absurd for a profane person to lead the choir, which does not equally prove that it is absurd for a self-righteous or covetous worldling, who is an idolater, to do so? Are the minds of the latter any more congenial with the truth of God, than those of the former? Are they any less disqualified for the spiritual and humble worship of the heart-searching Jehovah ?

My respondent thinks I " have erred by overloking the distinction between special ordinances of worship and those which are

T

common." He remarks, "Preaching, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, may be called special, or peculiar to professed believers," &c. Now if this distinction can be proved from the Word of God, I am certainly convicted of error. Is there a single passage, is there any thing in the practice of the primitive church, which proves that the above ordinances are any more peculiar to professed believers, than the ordinances of public praise? Is there any thing in the nature of the ordinances which proves this distinction? To say that some ordinances are "peculiar to professed believers," and that others are not so, appears to be equivalent to saying, that faith is essential to the former, but not to the latter. This however is not the case. It is acknowledged that "grace in the heart is ne cessary to qualify persons to attend on these exercises to divine acseptance:" but then, in order to prove that this does not render it improper for the graceless to join in the external act with the godly, it is observed, "we cannot labour, nor eat, nor drink, to divine acceptance, without faith and holiness." Now it is evident, that if this proves any thing in favour of the unbeliever's uniting in the ordinance of praise, it proves equally in favour of his uniting in the ordinance of the Supper: it proves nothing in favour of the "distinction." I would also ask the writer, if he has not himself given up the distinction," by afterwards saying, "There is no prohibition against any man's externally performing every duty which God has enjoined on men; but only against the unbelief which may attend these performances. External duties all ought to be done," &c.

There is, however, a manifest difference between the natural acts of eating, &c. and the false religious professions of unbelievers: the former are not false professions: it cannot be said that they "mock God" in eating, neither is the act of eating any violation of the order of God's house; neither do they commit more sin if they eat, than they would if they eat not, but less: whereas they who "mock God" commit more sin than they would if they did not do so; which proves that "the criminality" does consist, in part, "in drawing nigh to God with the mouth," in this false profession; and also " in having the heart far from him." It is said that "wicked men are expressly forbidden to take God's name in vain in the streets;" are they any more expressly forbidden to do so in the street than in the meeting-house?

I cordially agree with the sentiment, that "we have no authority to forbid, even the most vicious, to attend upon" appointed means of grace. Let it only be proved from the Word of God, that he has appointed the practice we are considering, and it will be sufficient. We find that the Lord has appointed the Gospel to be preached to every creature, and that unbelievers should be allowed to "come in" (1 Cor. xiv. 24,) and see all the ordinances of the church, and to hear the truth of the Son of God; and we should " urge all men" so to do," and to do it with sincere hearts."

It is farther remarked, by my respondent, "If men's not having faith forbids their taking a part in the worship of God, then their not knowing that they have it forbids the same." Undoubtedly, if we