which my "Guide to the Church" is built; by leading your reader to form a judgment of the church of CHRIST, very different from that which it was meant that he should form, from the confideration of the church of CHRIST upon earth being a visible fociety, under a divinely-instituted government; I have therefore thought myself called upon, in justice to my subject, to be somewhat particular in my reply to it.

There are still some arguments, which belong immediately to this head, to be found in other parts of your book, which I purposely pass over; because, as they appear to me not to have been fufficiently weighed, justice to my readers feems not to call upon me to enter into them.

Such arguments may be regarded in the light of invalid foldiers, against whom no generous enemy will direct an attack: their place is with the baggage. Should they be imprudently brought into the field, they serve only to impede the operation of efficient troops; and render that fuccefs, to which they are unable to contribute, more doubtful than it otherwise might have been.

I have the honour to be,

&c. &c.

LETTER III.

SIR,

ID I not believe the doctrines to which I have

DID

subscribed my affent, and which, in the fincerity of that fubfcription, according to the measure of my abilities, I continue to inculcate on others, I fhould be a difhoneft man; and which, thus cordially believing myself, did I not preach to others, I fhould be worse than difhoneft-I fhould be unfaithful to the most folemn of all human engagements. With fuch a profeffion, and fuch a practice, it is to be prefumed, that whatever openings may be inadvertently left for the drawing different conclufions from particular expreffions, (and it is hardly poffible for even the most experienced writers to be always fo much on their guard, as not to be occafionally misunderflood) the faith delivered by the church to her minifters, as a standard for their public doctrine, remains fecure.

This is a confideration which will have its weight with all candid minds; and, if it do not operate fo far as to remove all fufpicion of infidelity, will at least make the fufpecting party diffident of his opinion on the subject, and consequently reserved in his judgment.

The object proposed to myself, in giving an answer to your Letters, was not so much that of afcertaining and appreciating the propriety of the conclufions, as. the weight of your arguments; leaving my reader, as much as may be, to the decifion of his own judgment. Conscious of my own fallibility, I fhall always read with attention, and with a becoming defire of correcting error, whatever may be written in oppofition to any tenets I may maintain. At the fame time I fhall always, I truft, poffefs that charity, which will difpofe me to give my opponent credit for the best intentions, fhould nothing appear in his writing or conduct, which may justify me in withholding it. On the supposition, Sir, that you read with the fame coolnefs that I write, and can give me as much credit as I am difpofed to give you; the conclufion, I flatter myself, will be, that we differ more in words than in things; and that, zealous as we both are for the promotion of genuine Chriftianity, it is most probable that, whilst our expreffions,

which have been derived from our different habits of education, and the different authors we have refpectively studied, do not appear strictly to correspond, our meaning, upon fome fubjects at leaft, may be nearly the fame.

The fubject of your fecond letter is certainly of most effential importance. It contains, what must on all hands be allowed to be, the ground-work and fubftance of Chriftianity. But my book not being intended to be a profeffed treatife of Christianity, the reader will not expect that I fhould enter further into that fubject, than to give an answer to those observations, by which you have led him to conclude, that the doctrines of the church and of the minister are at variance with each other. As fuch circumstance, if true, muft neceffarily conftitute an infuperable objection to my book, I am called upon, in justice both to myself and my reader, to fet it afide.

"You have found (you fay, page 39) a very material difcord between them in the great points of election and justification." Should this be the cafe, the doctrine of the minifter becomes an herefy, for it is private opinion fet up against established doctrine; as fuch it ought to be condemned.