monies of their religion. This discrepancy, I apprehend, is more in form than in substance, and to be accounted for by the natural inequalities of the human mind, and not from any want of distinctness and harmony in the subject itself. Weak and undisciplined minds are always apt to make the ornaments the "finis ædificatæ domús ;" and weak minds, when disciplined, are ever apt to pursue their ideas into the extremes of metaphysical absurdity. With one exception, all Christians (if they can be called Christians who deny the divinity of Christ) assent to certain fundamental principles in doctrine; such as the fall of man, and the necessity of the operation of the Holy Ghost upon the heart. But from the different light in which the understanding of men, whilst clouded in this flesh, must look upon the same subject, there will be different degrees of apprehension, and widely different states of knowledge. It would, therefore, be impossible to make even a compendium of the whole doctrine of the Scriptures, in a form of words according with the notions of all people: one would suffer the spirit to escape in grasping the letter, whilst another would overlook the letter in soaring after the spirit.

This observation is also, in some measure, applicable to that branch of the church of Christ, which, by Divine blessing, has been planted in this country. As there are specific distinctions,

which divide the members of a common genus, so there will be individual peculiarities, among those who belong to the same species. When, therefore, you ask where a summary of the doc-. trine of the Church of England is to be seen, you will not, I hope, think that I give an unsatisfactory answer, when I refer you to the Catechism, the Liturgy, the Articles, and the Homilies; for although some of these are supposed to be hypothetical, and others are attempted to be adduced in the support of different tenets, yet they all embrace the same essential principles, and owe their apparent incongruity to the "mind's eye," through which they are viewed, which is seldom untinctured with prejudice, and unbiassed with habits and associations of thought. And from this inequality of view in the sight of men, had a line of doctrine or discipline been drawn with too great precision, it would have included but a comparatively small number of conscientious adherents; the proof of the doctrine of Scripture being more of the nature of an assurance than a demonstration; for if any one will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine, if it be of God*; and no man, assuredly, has a right to find fault with his brother, for showing his respect to God, by standing in the holy presence, when his own feeling of humility and reverence would throw him on his * John, vii. 17.

knees. Indeed, I must admit, that the very nature of the subjects connected with our relation to God is such as to exclude the possibility of that uniformity of opinion, or precision of statement which you appear to require, when you ask, "Why, in the scheme of Christianity, the primary points of doctrine cannot be as definitely stated as the first principles of physical science ?"

In our Catechism, Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, the doctrines of the Church are definitely stated, although not in a scientific form.

You also ask me to point out some popular work, which contains such a systematic arrangement; and I truly wish it were in my power to do so for it would prevent the necessity of adopting the other alternative, which, however disguised in the delicacy of your language, you have imposed upon me. I had much rather have placed in your hands the labour of some author more qualified for the task; but as I know of none who exactly speak my sentiments on the subjects, upon which you ask for information, I will attempt to express them myself. But I cannot be persuaded to embrace the whole extent of your wishes. It will be sufficient that I show, that the relation which man holds with the Deity is a religious, and not a moral, relation; that the revelation of God is altogether distinct from, and unconnected with, the

systems of the light of nature, and moral philosophy; and that I offer some observations explanatory of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. As I proceed, I shall attempt to answer some objections which have so often, and so triumphantly, been advanced; and which, although often learnedly and laboriously confuted, have seldom been met with so decided and clear a negative as the argument admits. Certain unphilosophical concessions, especially respecting the light of nature, and the law of morals, have tended to obscure the subject, and clog the pure spirit of religion with laws, and principles, and relations, which hang upon her wings, and confine her to the earth. Were I sufficiently dexterous, I would for ever disunite them, and consign those remnants of pagan philosophy to their proper sphere of metaphysical abstractions.

On your part, I must stipulate for one concession. You must concede to me the authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures, that we may refer to them as a common source of information, and mutually appeal to the Bible, and to the Bible only, as an infallible test of truth. With you, that holy book is a fact supported by a certain chain of evidence, the whole, or any link of which, is open to your investigation: but, in a discussion of the kind in which I am about to engage, it would be as unfair to

object to the credibility of any part or passage, as it would be foreign to my present purpose to defend the authenticity of the whole volume. I must, therefore, have a thorough belief, without wavering or reservation. "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God;" they, therefore, admit of no hesitation, nor doubting: every word is truth, or we know not what part is to be credited.

I am aware of the difficulty and importance of the undertaking in which I am about to engage; and trust that, although the integrity with which I proceed, cannot prevent my failure, it may at least excuse the many imperfections, which, I am conscious, will attach to the performance. *

I am, &c.

*Lest the meaning of the author respecting morality, as expressed in the following pages, be either misapprehended or misrepresented, he thinks it advisable to say, that, whilst arguing that moral works, whereby he means, works performed neither from a religious motive, nor for a religious end-have no religious merit, he has unequivocally insisted upon the performance of good works, — i. e. such works as arise from a religious motive, and are performed for a religious end, as the fruit of faith, and the only test, whereby men can be assured of their acceptance with God. As an authority for this distinction, the author names the 12th and 13th Articles of Religion. (1) It is hoped, therefore, that no one will be so weak, or so wicked, after this explanation, as to say, that because the author denies religious merit to moral works, he, either by argument or inference, advocates immorality.

(1) Vide Bishop Burton's exposition of them.