hand, or by adopting the belief that weakness and scrupulousness of conscience constituted Christian liberty on the other. I hope I have now shewn, distinctly and unambiguously, that the scriptures are not, even in this most difficult of all questions, either deficient in clearness, or in the evidence they afford of the intentions of the Divine mind. I have already shewn, (First Lett. p. 53, &c. Second, p. 69, &c.) that our church government, as episcopal, is of apostolical appointment, as are also the different orders of presbyter or priest, and deacon: to which, in this your "Rejoinder," you have offered no reply in the shape of argument, while you have been unusually diffuse on other matter of far less moment. 1 shall take it for granted, therefore, that you have nothing very cogent to offer. I have also shewn, that our liturgy is scriptural in its sentiments, and that what you have objected to is either frivolous or ungrounded. On the antiquity of liturgical services I shall have something presently to offer. I have also shewn that your objec 7 In p. 96, of your Rejoinder, you tell me that you could hardly suppose the man to be in his senses, who imagined the few cases of variation pointed out by me in the service of the liturgy, could invalidate your objections; because you want a variety as copious as the various precepts of the bible, &c. I answer, I was not quite so far gone as to imagine that I should satisfy my respected friend: it was quite enough for me to shew, that his charges were ungrounded: and this, I now affirm, every man not quite out of his senses cannot but see. You instance your meaning still further in the next page. We had no form prescribed, it should seem, for the purpose of celebrating the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies. Ah! where were you?" ejaculates my pious friend. I reply, giving thanks, it might be, with just as much fervour and sincerity, if not with so much publicity, as the Dissenters were. At any rate, I doubt whether any Dissenter has a right to judge me by any rule set up by himself;-this, I think, is an instance of want of forbearance,--a thing, I fear, inherent in Dissent. tions to certain practices found among us, go, as far as they have any real grounds, to the existence of certain abuses, which, I agree with you, ought to be put an end to. I only argue that, as these are abuses, that is to say, abuses of the system to which we adhere, I do not see how any one can be justified in rejecting a system—in itself good, and against which nothing wrong can be proved-because some men, no matter how many they are, are found wicked and base enough to abuse it. You might as well have told me, that because abuses exist in Christianity, and have always existed in it under every form which it has assumed, men are therefore bound both by reason and conscience to give it up; or, to use your own words, to "come out and be separate." What you suggest in your "Rejoinder,” (p. 105) viz. that still the abuse of the system Is the system itself, appears to me to be so far removed from the dictates of common sense, that I deem it unworthy of con : 8 Again, in p. 100, I am rather unceremoniously accused of " an unworthy attempt to conciliate those who never will be conciliated; men possessed of dignity and power," &c. because I had said I did not approve of extemporaneous prayer in the pulpit. I will not treat this as it deserves. I will only say, It is a principle with me to flatter no man, as it also is to give offence to none. In this controversy I have, to the best of my power, adhered to my rule and I know I have not intentionally transgressed it. What I had said, pp. 41, 42, respecting a certain omission in the burial service, has also been said by Bp. Hoadley, (Defence of the Reasonableness of Conformity, § 7.) and by him stated to have been the opinion of Archbishop Sancroft. I am told that Prideaux and others did not understand the term "most religious king" in the sense ascribed to it by me. I answer, my good friend could not, I am sure, have imagined that any man in his senses would ever mistake this for an argument. One of his most favourite and delusive general objections to the liturgy is, It has not been commanded by God, and, therefore, ought not to be imposed by men : forgetting that every appointment of Dissent is liable to the same objection, and that Dissent itself is in principle altogether opposed to God's commandments. sideration. If, indeed, all you meant was, as the Rejoinder states, that abuses are so frequent, so great, and so numerous, that the purer system might be said generally to be superseded by them; then my answer is, Nothing can be more evident than that it is not the system, but only the abuses against which you were contending; which brings us back to the same point; leaving me, as before, to pursue my obvious duty of adhering to the system, and endeavouring to the best of my power to correct the abuses; and yourself unjustifiable in proscribing one thing, while you manifestly meant another. SECTION IV. On the duty of Christian governments, with reference to the establishment of religion generally. Hitherto we have been considering the difficulties which necessarily beset human inquiries in general, those of the scriptures in particular; and lastly, how those cases of conscience ought to be dealt with, which will occasionally present themselves to every thinking member of Christ's church. And we have seen, that although difficulties may be imagined without end, and men may, if they choose so to do, eternally perplex themselves and others with them; it is the bounden duty of every well-informed Christian carefully to consider, and diligently to imitate, the doctrine and example of the apostle Paul on this important subject; well to acquaint himself with the principles inculcated by him; and then,-whatever difficulties may present themselves, and while he takes especial care not to offend the weaker brethren,—he need not fear that he shall greatly err: and our conclusion was, that, although perfection was not to be expected, truth would ultimately prevail; legislation be regulated by its requirements, and that, as individuals, and as a nation, we should be found duly serving the Lord Christ. We now come to another, and not less important question, namely, the doctrines of holy scripture as to the duty of Christian kings, rulers, and governors; and to inquire whether these demand that revealed religion be publicly and nationally inculcated and maintained or not. I called upon you, in my last, to prove your positions on this point from some portion or portions of scripture. In your "Rejoinder," (pp. 13, 14) you advert to this call in the following words: "You address me, (thus) You (i. e. Dr. Smith) go on to say that this all-comprehensive duty is to be discharged in accordance with the principles of the gospel dispensation,' &c. Very true; but cannot you (i. e. Dr. S.) shew me how these conspire to determine what the legitimate exertions of civil governors' are? And also, where the limit of that which addresses itself to the reason and conscience of man' ought to be fixed? how the reason and conscience of man are to be so informed, guided, and controlled by these principles, as to judge correctly on this subject? How is it, I ask, that all these primary and essential questions have been left untouched? You tell me, the king is only a trustee, &c. I allow this: but why have you omitted to define the nature of the trust? The only question being, whether the New Testament does, in any one instance, so limit the civil magistrate, that he is to take no part whatever in the appointments necessary for the advancement of true religion." And again, Your first answer is, "I have never said or implied that the civil magistrate is limited as you describe. On the contrary, I have advanced specific proposals and positions, which I have thought might serve as sufficient exemplifications of the duty incumbent on all rulers, for the support and diffusion of religion," &c. You then direct me to pages 27 of your first sermon, 51, 64, of the Reply, and 19, 34, of the second edition of this: and what do I find in all these places? Why, nothing more than statements of what you thought on this subject! In the last you say, "Can even yourself carry higher, or urge more earnestly, the duty, the absolute, solemn, indispensable DUTY of kings and public men of every order, first to BE genuine Christians, and then to act as becomes that character, especially with all exertion and munificence for the rendering of RELIGION the most extensively diffused and effective blessing of mankind? I urge them to do this with what is their own ;—I cannot advise them for these purposes to put their hands also into other people's pockets," &c. I answer, Were I to take the statement of this duty as it stands here, viz. that rulers should first BE genuine Christians themselves; and that then (secondly) they should act as becomes that character, I should have nothing further to urge, or to object to your positions: my main argument being that this is the absolute and indispensable DUTY of all Christian rulers. As far, therefore, as this general statement goes you have not confined, contracted, or limited, the duty of these persons: and I can as safely affirm, I never argued that they should be pickpockets. We have no controversy here, therefore. Let not the unwary reader, nevertheless, be lulled into the notion that, consequently, we have nothing further to differ about. We have still another, and all-important question to consider: viz. What is thus becoming in the character of such Christian ruler in other words, to what extent the Christian duty of providing for, and |