not yet grown so ungracious, as to reject the voluntary tender of a mite from a man, who might not have it in his power to make a more liberal offering.

The general tenor of your writings, Sir, has convinced me that we have both one object in view; namely, the promotion of God's honour, and the salvation of our fellow-creatures.

We may be mistaken in the methods we have adopted for our purpose. But this surely furnishes no reason why harsh censures should be pronounced on either of us; for, though there may be instances where even involuntary ignorance may be chargeable with guilt; yet, where the intention is sincere, God, we are given to understand, accepts "according to what a man hath, not according to what he hath not."

As a pious and exemplary Christian, I look up to you, Sir, with respect; I could almost add, veneration; for I cannot but venerate a man, who, in the midst of great worldly consideration, attends to the first and most important duties of life. You appear to look down upon me with pity, if not with contempt; as a good moral man, perhaps, but no Christian.

Now, though I must think you have not done me justice in your publication, I still have to thank you for the occasion it has furnished me with, of reviewing what I have written; and thereby guarding against those conclusions, which either do not necessarily follow from the premises laid down, or at least are consequences which the author did not foresee would be drawn from them.

Knowing that man has no pretensions to infal libility, I shall, I trust, be at all times ready to bow in obedience to rational conviction; and thankful to the person who may undertake to produce it. The object before me is the prosecution and advantage of truth, in the way that leadeth unto peace. At the same time, to make use of the words of Gregory Nazianzen, "Non studemus paci in detrimentum veræ doctrinæ, ut facilitatis et mansuetudinis famam colligamus."

There are points upon which, it is to be expected, ministers of the Church must possess some decided opinion; and which, if they act consistently with their character, they cannot look upon as subjects of indifference. If upon these points they speak as they ought to speak, it does not follow from thence that they mean to pronounce sentence on every Christian who may differ from them in opinion. Whilst they discharge their consciences by keeping back no part of that truth which they think they have received, lest they ❝ suffer sin on their brethren;" they at the same time leave the judgment in all cases to that Being, who, knowing the degree of every man's understanding, and the circumstances of his condition, is alone qualified to pronounce on the innocence or criminality of his conduct; by determining how far the error of his head has been occasioned by the corruption of his

heart.

With respect to the points which are not clearly revealed, and on which some of the best of men have differed in opinion, the less that is said on them the better. Boldness of assertion, except in matters of

clear revelation, is not so much an argument of the truth of a proposition, as of something else. To such points the saying of Zenophanes in Varro is applicable" Hominis est hæc opinari, Dei scire." And though I feel as natural a desire for knowledge, perhaps, as most men, yet there are some subjects on which I think it prudent to say, with St. Augustin," Magis eligo cautem ignorantiam confiteri, quam falsam scientiam profiteri.”

LETTER II.

SIR,

YOUR first letter professes to treat of the original constitution of Church Government. On this subject I should have hoped there could have been no difference of opinion between two persons avowing their sincere attachment to the Church of England, in doctrine, in constitution, and in discipline; and believing her to be the most pure apostolical Church on earth, which is the reason given by yourself, in page 5, for your "communicating with her, and her only.”

But, Sir, it should seem that you are not so perfectly settled in your judgment on this point, as the above declaration would lead us to suppose. I cannot otherwise account for your bringing forward all those hackneyed objections to the constitution of the Church established in this country, which have been so repeatedly done away by writers properly acquainted with the sources from whence they have been industriously drawn. By dissenters we expect to hear the most made of such objections: they are the weapons of their warfare; weapons which have always been employed in