quires its being withheld from the public, whilft there is any pointed out the general notion relative to the Chriftian religion being a religion more of form than of fpirit, fuppofed to be entertained by the parties here brought before the public, the editors proceed to the formal proof of a position, which, it is presumed, no intelligent member of the church ever meant to controvert, namely, that "GOD as a Spirit must be worshipped in fpirit and in truth;" and that (mutatis mutandis) the circumcifion of the heart, in the fpirit and not in the letter, marks the character of the real Chriftian, as it heretofore did that of the Jew; and confequently, that " every other kind of religion but Spiritual is not only defective but ruinous." To this general reasoning on the fubject under confideration is fubjoined the following expoftulation with the parties, who appear to have given occafion for its introduction. "When will these gentlemen (these professed formalifts, as they are here represented) learn, that He who made that which is without, made that also which is within?" When will they discover a proper concern for forms and ceremonies, without depreciating what it is the grand object of all external institutions to produce, real practical Christianity? When will they see the neceffity of fomething more than the mere outward union with CHRIST through the pro feffion of his religion, which, as HOOKER expreffes the matter, may leave them impious idolaters, wicked 'heretics, and imps and limbs of Satan? When will they be convinced, that no perfons can fupport the character of true minifters or members of the church of England, who do not equally respect her conftitution and her doctrines?" As there is no exception made in this case, the foregoing expoftulation, according to the ufual interpretation of language, must be confidered as applied indifcriminately to all the parties here arraigned for their spiritual deficiency, Mr. DAUBENY Confequently, as one of those parties, ftands accufed, indirectly at least, of not having "difcovered a proper concern for forms and ceremonies, without depreciating real practical Christianity;" and of not " feeing the neceffity of fomething more than mere outward union with CHRIST through the profeffion of his religon;" or, as Mr. OVERTON has plainly expreffed himself, of " treating all as real Christians who affume the Chriftian name, and comply with the external forms of our religion." OVERTON, p. 107. This charge, fo far as I am concerned in it, the editors of the Christian Observer have grounded on the following paffage, originally delivered by them to the public, under the form of a quotation from my writings. "Mr. DAUBENY," fay they, "has maintained that the fpirituality of Divine worship is not effential to the being of the church of CHRIST." Now, fhould an author profeffing thofe fentiments relative to the constitution of the church, and the fpiritual end to which alone it was defigned to minister, which must prevail in the minds of all found members of it, be reprefented as an advocate for mere forms, a patronizer of that blind opinion, which must by degrees annihilate the very effence which the Divine institution of a church was defigned to preserve and promote, by maintaining that falvation was attached to a nominal admiffion into the number of its profeffing members; in other words, that to be baptized into the church was to be faved by it; it would doubtless be concluded, that there must be either great want of perfpicuity on the part of fuch author, or great want of discernment or candour on the part of the reader of his writings, to give occafion to fuch mifrepresentation of his real fentiments. The short question then on this occafion is this-Is the fense which the editors of the Christian Observer have deduced from the paffage under confideration, that sense which the author intended that it fhould convey to his readers? Should this not be the cafe, to fay, or even to prove, that the paffage in queftion is capable of the sense annexed to it by others, is foreign to the 51817 purpose; the author being answerable only for the incider sentiment intended to be conveyed by himself. And admitting, on the ground of furth fentiment not being ftrictly deducible from the paffage in question, that objection might be made to the author's language; ftill, in a court of equity, fuch as Chriftian Obfervers should wish to establish, it is to be prefumed that an author could not fail to be given credit for the sentiment really meant to be conveyed, however defective he might have been in the mode of its conveyance. It was to be expected, therefore, that when fuch fentiment should not only be unequivocally challenged by the author, but moreover fairly made out to be the only one consistent with the object he had before him on the occafion, common juftice would have led the editors of the Christian Obferver to an acknowledgment of the unfounded nature of their charge. With this view a letter was written to them, for the exprefs purpose of pointing out the train of reasoning to which the objectionable paffage in question immedi ately referred: a circumftance which could not fail to lead the intelligent reader to the meaning intended to be conveyed by it. The object the author profeffedly |