the Gofpel; concluding with obferving to me, that "it is much to be lamented, on my own account, that I do not suffer myself to reap the benefit of their ministry. Among thefe teachers, Mr. JAY, minister of an Independent Congregation in Bath, and a Mr, GREEN, who had fet up an Independent Chapel of his own, as I understand, in the fame place, were recommended by name "as found and feady members of the Church,"

To fuch recommendation my answer was obvious; "that I was forry Sir Richard had not found a tutor for me in the Church of England; but having learnt that we must not do evil that good may come, I could not think the advantage to be obtained by my attendance on Mr. JAY's miniftry, would compenfate for the fin I fhould commit in becoming a member of a fchifmatic congregation." Appendix, p. 389. Now, when it is confidered, that Sir Richard Hill profeffedly maintains the tenets of Calvinism, as conftituting an effential part of the doctrines of Grace; and that my writings have been offenfive to him on account of their not coming up to that standard, which he confiders as a touchstone by which Evangelical doctrines are to be tried; the obvious conclufion to be drawn from his recommendation of fome particular teachers for my inftructors was, that I fhould receive a leffon on that particular fubject, in which, according to Sir Richard's ftandard of perfection, I was judged to be defective.

When, therefore, in my concluding Letter I took occafion, by way of refreshing the reader's memory, briefly to recapitulate the fubjects which before had' been particularly handled; I brought forward a pasfage from Sir Richard's publication, in which he'

66

befeeches me to lay afide my prejudices against falvation by Grace, and the preachers of it," my attention, it is obvious, muft have been directed to those preachers pointed out to my immediate notice by Sir Richard as perfons from whom I might fo effentially benefit. With these preachers therefore in view, I remarked, in anfwer to Sir Richard's' recommendation, that it was one of the hackneyed' phrafes of the day, calculated to lead weak people' by the ear, and draw them away from the Establishment, that the Clergy of the Church were not Gospel Ministers." Whilft on the prefumption that the Minifters of Sir Richard's recommendation main tained the fame doctrines with himfélf, I proceeded to obferve, that thofe "whom he distinguished by the exclufive title of Preachers of Salvation by Grace; fhould rather be called Preachers of abfolute Decrees, Predeftination, Election, and Faith with out Works." I then go on to fay, in allufion to thofe irregular and itinerant preach rs, whofe general practice it is to draw people away from the Eftablishment, by speaking disrespectfully of its ministers; "To spread or preach the Gofpel, has of late years become a favourite topic with a certain clafs

9

af people, who would fain have it believed, that without them there would be no more Gofpel in Britain than among the wildest Indians. But till you have proved the peculiar tenets of Calvinifm to be the doctrines of the Bible, (which I am inclined to think you never will) you muft excufe me, if I do not fubfcribe to the truth of that title, which your favourite preachers arrogate to themselves."-Appendix, p. 622.

If my reader will now take the trouble to compare the above paffage, as it ftands in my writings, with the one Mr. O. has given to his reader as taken from the p. 622 of my Appendix, he will perceive that my language has not only been unfaithfully re ported, but also improperly applied. Had the words in my book been, what Mr. O. has thought proper to give for mine in the 15th page of his publi cation, they might perhaps have been confidered as defigned to refer to those minifters, whofe caufe Mr. O. pleads. "Gofpel Minifters," it is true, are words to be found in the paffage referred to; but in connection with the words which Mr. O. has made to precede them, namely, "those who are diftinguifbed Gofpel Minifters," a connection which, to curfory readers, gives the paffage the appearance of referring to Mr. OVERTON'S Evangelical Minifters, the words are not to be found. In fact, the paffage taken apparently from my writings, and for which I: am made refponfible in the judgment of Mr. O.'s:

readers, does in his edition of it convey a meaning totally different from that intended to be conveyed by its author. The firft part of it, in its original and unadulterated state, the reader will readily perceive, was not meant to refer to any diftinction that might prevail among the regular Clergy themfelves; but was exclufively expreffive of the opinion propagated by irregular preachers, relative to the infufficiency of the Clergy at large, for the purpose of drawing away hearers from the Established Church. Whilft the latter part of the paffage which Mr. O. has applied to those distinguished Gospel Ministers, against whom I am supposed to have been writing, as preachers of abfolute decrees, &c. applies, according to its most obvious fenfe in my page, not to the Clergy of the Establishment, but to preachers of that irregular kind whom Sir Richard had particularly recommended to my notice.

A very moderate share of difcernment might, it is prefumed, have enabled Mr. O. to difcriminate between his edition of my language on this occafion, and my own. Should he, therefore, through an over degree of eagerness to fubftantiate his charge, have inadvertently made me the traducer of his brethren, I have only to fay, "Qui capit ille facit." If a cap have thereby been put on the heads of those Ministers whose cause he pleads, which evidently was not made for them, Mr. O. certainly has but himself to blame, fhould it hurt them in the wearing.

Having thus ftated the cafe, and I trust fairly, the reader will judge how far in this inftance alfo Mr. O. has been governed by the principles laid down in his Preface. How far, " in what is here given as a quotation from my writings, the words of the author have been carefully diftinguithed," and "the iniquity of quotation guarded against." P. 8.

To confirm the idea, however, which it appears to have been the object of Mr. OVERTON to establish, and thereby make up as it were in the grofs what might prove defective in the detail, he concludes his extracts from my pages with the following general character of my publications; which, as I ftop not at little things, I fhall leave to have its own weight with my reader:-"In fhort, (fays Mr. O.) to prove the herefy of perfons of this description, and his own churchmanship, he has favoured the world with feveral volumes." P. 15.

The next ground Mr. O. takes, and on which he appears to tread with confidence, relates to the subscription to Articles; in which his reader is given to understand, that a marked diftinction between the Clergy whom he represents and their fuppofed opponents, ranged under the names of Doctors Paley, Hay, Croft, Daubeny, &c. is to be traced. With this view, a variety of references are brought for ward from the publications of different authors, for the purpose of proving what their fentiments were on the fubject of fubfcription. And then from the