judgment with himself; obferving only, that should the editors of the Christian Observer have a good reafon to give, for their determined perfeverance in afcribing fentiments to the author of "a Guide to the Church," which he has unequivocally difavowed, and which are calculated, fo far at least as their credit extends, to lower the character of a minister of that church, of which they profefs themselves members; they will not fail to give it. At the fame time I would afk, in the language of an amiable and able divine,* “what course can they take, who love and esteem every zealous fervant of the LORD for his works' fake, and are ready to bear with such as differ from them, to rejoice in all the good they do, and to concur with them in the joint labours of the fame ministry, but are unwilling to be cast out from all part and lot in the matter for the fake only of such differences? Muft they fit ftill, when every effort is made (by depreciating their inftructions) to withdraw the hearts of those committed to their pastoral care? Must they filently permit themselves to be held out to the world as men, who are either ignorant of Gospel truths, or averfe from all found doctrine?"

*Archdeacon POTT, "Confiderations on the Chriftian Covepant." Page 61.

Instead of multiplying proof on this subject, for the purpose of convincing my reader, that the diftinction between a true church and a pure one has been a diftinction maintained by fome of the foundest and most eminent divines of the proteftant church, I fhall confine myself to the authority of Bishop HALL; in the confidence, that the known piety of his character will fecure me against all misinterpretation of those sentiments on this fubject, which I have the fatisfaction to know were the fentiments of

that truly fpirittial man. The defign of his apologetical advertisement, prefixed to "The Reconciler,” is evidently to point out the neceffary diftinction between the true vifibility of a church, and the foundness of it. This the bishop has exemplified in the cafe of the church of Rome, which he maintains, with JuNIUS, to be a truly living (though fick) church. "The Popish church, (faith he) in that it hath in it that which pertains to the definition of a church, is a church. In the church of Rome then," concludes the Bishop," a true vifibility may and doth stand with a falfe belief:" a position in direct contradiction with that laid down by the editors of the Christian Obferver in the following decifive words; "that purity of doctrine is in fuch a fenfe effential to the

very being and conftitution of the vifible church, that without it the visible church could not exist as fuch." The scale of judgment is in the hand of the reader. To direct his decifion, I fhall leave only one remark on his mind, which, it is prefumed, must have presented itself to him, on this unneceffarily controverted subject, which is this; that the distinction here made between a true church and a pure one ought not to give offence to any found members of the church; because it is evidently not intended to depreciate the effential importance of fpiritual worship, which constitutes the perfection of a church, and without which the end of its inftitution cannot be effectually anfwered; but to guard against that plaufible but dangerous error, which leads fome Chriftians to conclude, that purity of doctrine fuperfedes the neceffity of attention being paid to all other ecclefiaftic distinctions. Thus, to conclude on this head, with the pious Bishop immediately before me, in a defire to ftand but fo right as I am in all honeft judgments, I have made. this speedy and true apology; befeeching all readers, in the fear of GOD, to judge wifely and uprightly of what I have written; in a word, to do me but justice

* Bishop HALL'S Works, tom. ii. page 423.

in their opinions, and when I beg it, favour. And may God make us wife and charitable."

I should not think it neceffary to enlarge further upon this part of my fubject, were there not fuch pains taken, and fuch means employed, to render the government of the church, of which you profess yourself to be a member, a matter of infignificance, as are calculated to impofe upon the uninformed reader. You are pleased to fay, that it was "the decided opinion of every man of our church, who has been at all distinguished for piety and learning, that the spirituality of Divine worship was effential to the very being and conftitution of the church, and that the form of ecclefiaftical government is altogether of fecondary and inferior confideration; and that you have fullyproved this in the course of

Page 189.

your Letters."

Taking this pofition in its proper and limited sense, there might be no difference of opinion upon it. But if by this we are to understand, as according to the tenour of your book it is to be concluded, that all these distinguished men of our church thought that it was a matter of indifference, so long as the spirituality of Divine worship was kept up, whether Chriftians conformed to the established church of

their country or not; and that the difference between the church and meeting-house was only a difference of mode and place of worship; I will venture to say, that you have not only not proved any fuch thing, but that it is not in your power to prove it. I will fay further, that the distinguished men of our church were decidedly of a quite different opinion upon the fubject of church communion, from what you would represent them to have been; and if they were alive to speak for themselves, they would tell you, that they never faw the fubject in the light, in which the reader is given to understand they did fee it: and I am perfectly fatisfied that Bishop REYNOLDS, whom you will allow to be both a pious and learned man, fhall be the fpokesman for the whole body.

With respect to the judicious HOOKER, to whom you refer me, I have read him, probably, with as much attention as yourfelf; but I have never been able to find that meaning, which you appear to have drawn from him. HOOKER's excellent book, if I understand it, was written, as he himself says, page

2,

to maintain things that were established, against those who wanted to unfettle them;" an object (I am forry to fay it) the very oppofite to that which fome