have been fubftantiated; by confidering how far the quotations adduced by him have been justly interpreted, his premises fairly ftated, and his conclufions legitimately drawn.

Mr. O.'s publication appears to proceed on a different plan; little being left for the reader, but to coincide in judgment with its author. Now nothing we know can be more inconfiftent with the established rule of justice, than that a man fhould be both witness and judge in his own cause. "And if in a civil judicature, there be required fworn and able judges, just laws, clear evidence, felect jurors, recorded proceedings; how much more ought this to be expected in those pleas of religion which concern the eternal ftate of the foul, the fafety of the Church, and the glory of our Creator and Redeemer?"

Yet this plan of felf-awarding judgment, appears to be the plan on which almost every chapter of Mr. O.'s publication is manifeftly conftructed. The opinions in which the fuppofed opponents of Mr. O. are made to differ from him, are first brought before the reader; and after having been placed, by his own comments upon them, in that point of view, in which Mr. O. has been accustomed to fee them; they are then configned to the fentence, which it is the object of each chapter to leave impreffed on the mind of its reader, of their being in a greater or lefs degree at variance with the evangelical doctrine.

To fuch treatment, had it concerned himself, Bishop Hall, it is probable, would have applied the language to be found in one of his chapters on Chriftian moderation. "What I will own, is mine; what is caft upon me, is mine adverfary's. And if I by de

ductions be fetched into fuch error, the fault is not in my faith, but in my logick; my brain may err, my heart doth not. Away then with this unjust violence; let no man bear more than his own burthen: Press an erring brother, if ye pleafe, in way of argument, with fuch odious confequences, as may make him weary of his opinion; but hate to charge him with it as his own: frame not imaginary monsters of error with whom you may contend."

of

Had any intelligent reader of Mr. O.'s publication delivered that decifive fentence that is to be found in page 397 of his work, where he fays, by way conclufion to his fubject, "We then are the true Churchmen; and whatever astonishment certain critics may express at the affirmation, in a very fundamental and important fenfe of the word, Mr. Daubeny and his affociates are Diffenters from the Church of England;"-I should have thought such sentence a subject for ferious confideration. But when the fentence is confidered as pronounced by the party supposed to be accused, against the party here made to stand in the character of accufer; no weight of evidence can attach to it; on the established principle, that in cafe of trial between two parties, what either party fays for

himself to the crimination of his opponent, muft, in the eye of judgment, pafs for nothing more than affertion unproved, and perhaps incapable of proof.

The title Mr. O. has given to his work, is that of "The True Churchman afcertained; or an Apology for thofe of the Regular Clergy of the Establishment, who are sometimes called Evangelical Minifters." This title appears to me objectionable on more accounts than one. The true Churchmanship of the regular Clergy of the Establishment no more requires to be ascertained, than do the Evangelical Minifters of the Established Church ftand in need of an apology. All ministers of the established Church are profeffedly Evangelical Minifters; and woe be to them, if they do not preach in conformity to their profeffion. But if by Evangelical Ministers are to be understood chiefly, if not exclufively, thofe among the Clergy, who confider certain peculiarities of opinion to constitute part of the Gospel, which others think themselves juftified in confidering as peculiarities not to be maintained, and not worth contending about; the exclufive appropriation of a title to themselves, which implies a notorious dereliction of duty on the part of their opponents, is certainly not to be admitted. It is prejudging a caufe, which remains yet to be tried. The profeffed object of Mr. O.'s publication being, in a degree at least, to plead the cause of Calvinism; the title of his book, if any diftinction were neceffary to be made between those who profess

to teach the fame doctrine, fhould have been; "An Apology for thofe Regular Clergy of the Eftablish ment, who maintain the Articles of the Church of England to be Calvinistic, in oppofition to the great body of the Clergy who do not fee them in that light." In fuch case an invidious distinction, respecting the effential object of their profeffion, between minifters of the fame church would have been avoided; and the point at iffue, as relating to a mere difference of opinion, would have been placed on its proper ground. Such a title would have conveyed a clear and intelligible meaning to every reader; and might poffibly have led the author to a more perfpicuous and fyftematic arrangement of his fubject, than his publication at prefent exhibits. For the general fallacy which appears to pervade the whole of Mr. O.'s work, is occafioned by a want of proper difcri. mination having been made between the peculiar tenets of Calvinifm, and thofe doctrines of grace, which our Articles were meant to fecure. To have enabled his reader to form a proper judgment on these two distinct subjects, Mr. O. should have furnished him with particular definitions of what was to be understood under each of these heads; which might have prevented an affociation of ideas, which, to those who have been accustomed to precifion of language, may not appear to have any legitimate connection,

But as every author has a right to treat his fubject in his own way, it must be my object to meet Mr. O.'s publication on the ground on which he himself has placed it; at the fame time that it will be my endeavour to do him all poffible justice.

The preliminary obfervations to be found in the Preface, refpecting the manner which Mr. O. profeffes to adopt in the profecution of his work, cannot but be generally approved. "It is not (he fays, page 4,) the writer's intention, that a fingle paffage should be applied to any divine, who does not profeffedly hold the doctrine advanced in their works; or that they thould be refponfible for the doctrines of each other, any further than they profeffedly agree." A leading characteristic of the subject treated of by him being this, "to advance nothing without proof; to claim credit for nothing which is not either founded in argument, or fupported by teftimony; and in the use of his testimony, to admit of nothing at fecond hand, but to bring forward the vouchers to speak for themselves." Page 7. "And whatever is not proved by a whole body of evidence, rendered ftrong and invincible by the harmony and fupport of all its parts, and interpreted as it would be by plain honest men of found understanding and fufficient information, shall be confidered as not proved at all." P. 8. Such a mode of investigation will be admitted on all hands to promise most fairly for the attainment of