Now, fhould it be poffible, that there may be any reader to whom the conclufion from the foregoing premises, is not fufficiently obvious; for his fake, the following short statement is fubjoined. A national establishment protects and supports, but does not make a church of CHRIST. It was a church of CHRIST previous to its establishment by the state; and it will continue to be the fame church, should the state think fit to defert it. The church of CHRIST in this country is established, because it is the church of CHRIST; but it is not the church of CHRIST, because it is established. To multiply words on this fubject, would be an unwarrantable trefpafs on the patience of the reader.

After what has been faid refpecting the church of CHRIST in the foregoing paffages, and more particularly in page 15, where the object GOD had in view, in its establishment upon earth, is briefly described; I own I can hardly think you ferious, when you fay, "that you are really at a lofs to know what I mean by the church;" and confequently, that to your ludicrous obfervation, in which you affect to delineate my ideas of a church, namely, "that four walls, a steeple, a ring of bells, fome pews, a chancel, a communion-table, a bishop, a priest, and a deacon,

constitute the principal materials of which it is com pofed," no ferious reply is expected.

you

The feveral definitions of the church of CHRIST, that contained in the 19th article excepted, which have inferted in the conclusion of your first letter, in oppofition to the idea fuppofed to be contained in my book on that fubject, appear to me to be foreign to the purpose. The profeffed object of my book is to treat of the church of CHRIST as a vifible fociety, The definitions you have brought, relate to it as an invifible fociety. Allowing them to be true, in the fense in which they were originally applied by their refpective authors, it will not follow from that conceffion, that any argument can be drawn from them in contradiction to a pofition, which they were not defigned to oppofe. The invifible and the visible church of CHRIST, convey two very distinct ideas to the intelligent mind. The invifibility of the church refpects the internal relation, which the spiritual members of it bear to CHRIST. This, as an object of faith, is not a proper fubject for the exercise of reafon. The vifibility of it refpects that external polity, by which the church is distinguished in the world as a vifible fociety. On this, as an object of notoriety, human judgment may be exercised. What

little, therefore, has been faid under its former character, will not apply to it in the latter.

In page 167, fpeaking of the evangelical plan of Divine grace, you fay, that " by the fecret, peculiar, and efficacious operation of that alone, we can ever become the living members of that mysterious body, the church, of which JESUS CHRIST is the exalted head," &c.

Without denying the position, it may be faid, that it does not belong to the subject before me. You are fpeaking of the mysterious body or invisible church of CHRIST, which is made up of CHRIST's living members wherefoever difperfed; I am fpeaking of that visible kingdom or church of CHRIST upon earth, into which Christians are admitted by baptifm. This kingdom or church upon earth contains within it both living and dead members; otherwise it would not correspond with the comparison applied to it by our SAVIOUR, of a net cast into the sea, gathering of every kind, both good and bad; which are to remain together till that final feparation, which is to take place between the wicked and the just, at the end of the world. Matt. xiii. 47.

It will be unneceffary, Sir, to encroach further on your time, by any enlargement on a fubject, which

has been already fo ably handled by a celebrated Divine of our church; whofe difcourfe upon the invifible and visible church of CHRIST you will thank me, I trust, for recommending to your attention. Whatever idea then certain definitions of the invifible church may have given rife to in your mind, pe fuaded I am, that the authors of them never defigned that they should militate against that order of government, by which the church as a fociety is diftinguished, and to which every member of it is bound to pay obedience. For proof of this perfuafion it will be fufficient to adduce one instance.

xi.

The long quotation you have given from Bishop REYNOLDS, applies to CHRIST's myftical body in the invisible church; but in his two fermons on Zach. 7, he fpeaks as ftrongly and as decidedly in favour of that government, neceffary to the support and welfare of CHRIST's visible church, as almost any writer I know. "That Christian policy (fays he) and order, prudent, meek, religious government, is a very great bleffing to the church of GOD, and greatly to be defired; because thereby unity and concord are preserved among the fheep of CHRIST, and, as by a fence or hedge, they are fecured from the irruption

* ROGERS,

of wolves, who would devour and make a prey of them; and all leaven and chaff, which would four the lump, and corrupt the corn, is purged out, and fanned away. When the unruly are admonished, and the weak strengthened, and the feeble-minded Smforted, and hereticks rejected, and disorderly walkers made ashamed; this greatly tendeth both to the honour, and to the health and safety, of the church of GOD."* But the members of an invifible church cannot be fubjects for human government; the good bishop, therefore, is here speaking of that government instituted by CHRIST, and exercised by his deputed minifters, for the benefit of that vifible church, over which they are appointed to preside, Confequently, any paffages taken from this bishop's writings, which may appear to favour your way of thinking, with refpect to independent focieties of Christians affembling for the purpose of Divine worfhip, ought not, in fairness of construction, or in justice to the meaning of the writer, to be taken, but in a confiftent fenfe with the bifhop's explicit opinion upon this fubject.

The object of your first letter being, as I undertand it, to undermine and shake the foundation upon

Bishop REYNOLDS, fol. p. 1972,