IT is with the utmoft reluctance that I addrefs you on the fubject of your late publication. Senfible of the evils which have often refulted to the cause of Chrift from religious controverfies, and from controverfies efpecially of inferior importance, I am forry that an opportunity fhould again be afforded to the enemies of religion to triumph at the increafing animofities and diffenfions of her friends. Confcious also of the neceffity of mutual forbearance, to promote among Chriftians that univerfal charity which is "the bond of perfectnefs," I cannot behold without the deepeft regret, charges the most awful and momentous, exhibited by one body of Chriftians against another, though equally attached to the fame bleffed caufe; charges which, from their peculiar character, are not lefs deftructive of thofe pleafures and advantages which flow from the cultivation of private intercourfe, than totally incompatible with public fellowship.

Extraordinary as was the manner in which you were led to change your views of the Establishment *, and

* See Letter III. p. 27. in which you admit that it was in confequence of an inquiry begun upon your being offered another fituation in your prefent connection, that you finally determined

A

ftrong as may have been your convictions of the propriety of that measure, it appeared to me particularly unbecoming in you, or any of your brethren, to discover fuch keennefs in your oppofition to that Establishment as you have lately manifefted. It was the avowed design of a celebrated fociety, of which many of you are members, and which may juftly be confidered as the parent of your churches, to diffeminate the gospel where the means of inftruction were not enjoyed, or, in your apprehenfion, not enjoyed in purity, and not to form a party for Independents, by dividing the congregations of faithful minifters, either among the Diffenters or in the Establishment t. You ought certainly to have confidered alfo,

to leave the Church of Scotland. Whether fuch also was the fecurity of your brother Mr. Ballentine, before he renounced his Prefbyterian connection, I do not pretend to say. I confider it however as surprising, that for many years before he had renounced his profeffion as a Presbyterian, or even his ftudies, in the view of becoming a Prefbyterian minifter, he should tell us, that "he had clearly feen from the word of God, that churches of "Chrift fhould confift only of converted perfons, and that their government should be what is called congregational," or Independent, and yet have remained a Prefbyterian. See p. 19. of his Obfervations.

* That for propagating the gospel at home.

That fuch was the original profeffion of this fociety, is evident from the regulations which they delivered to their itinerant' preachers and catechifts, and which, fo far as I know, they have never yet publicly retracted. In the 2d and 3d of these, it is declared, that " these itinerants are not to fhew a preference "to any denomination of Christians, either established or diffenting, but exhort the people to attend wherever the gospel is preached in purity. And to endeavour to frengthen the hands "of all faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, of whatever denomina"tion." See Appendix to Haldane's Addrefs. If fuch liberal fentiments however were the genuine sentiments of this society, and have uniformly been adhered to by its itinerants and catechists, how can it be explained, that in every instance where they fucceeded in procuring a congregation, that congregation has invariably

"

that the more formidable the charges which you bring forward against it are, the more striking is your own inconfiftency, in granting the higheft and moft valued privileges of your church to perfons while remaining in this very fociety, if you were fatisfied as to the rectitude of their principles and practice *.

become an Independent church? And efpecially, fince you, and Meffrs. Haldane and Ewing, are so zealous members and patrons of this fociety, Ifhould be glad to know upon what principle you can vindicate your prefent conduct, in writing with fuch vehemence against faithful ministers both established and dissenting, while, as connected with this fociety, you are still folemnly declared to be publicly associated, "to ftrengthen their hands, and encourage "their people to wait upon their labours, and to enjoin all to fhew no greater partiality for your felves than for them!!”

66

* Reprehensible as is the practice of mixed communion, as granted occafionally to the members of other religious focieties by fome of our Diffenters, it seems to be doubly fo upon the principles of your churches. You confider the Church of Scotland in particular, as will instantly be proved, as an image of Antichrift, if not Antichrift itself. But what pleasure can you experience, when you fit down to participate of your feast of love with men whom you regard as fupporters of this adverfary of the bleffed Saviour? or what fatisfaction can they feel, when they reflect that they are joining in this delightful exercise with perfons who, whatever attachment they profess, afcribe to them, in another view, this dreadful character? If I am not misinformed too, it has not been uncommon among you to admit those to occafional communion, whom afterwards, when they applied for stated membership with the very fame views, you would not receive. But where, Sir, is your warrant either from fcripture or reason, for denying the latter, which does not introduce to ordinances more folemn, or privileges more important, to perfons to whom you would not fcruple to grant the former? Yet while you have imparted at first this privilege with the utmost cheerfulness to those pious perfons who occasionally applied for it, you have been known in many instances, if they perfifted in their applications, to remonstrate with them on what you denominated the inconfiftency of their conduct, and most affiduously to insist that they would become ftated members. Does an act however, which, in your opinion,

It is undeniable however, that fuch charges have been advanced by you against it. You yourself infinuate (p. 116.), in terms the most decided, that it is no longer entitled to the character of a church of Chrift. And your brother Mr. Ewing, in a late very extraordinary paper respecting Vows (fee Miffionary Magazine for January 1804, p. 6.), after quoting Rev. xiii. 16, 17. "And he caufed all, both fmall and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right "hand, or in their foreheads and that no man might

buy or fell, fave he that had the mark, or the name "of the beat, or the number of his name"-introduces, in page 36. a note from the annotations of the Geneva tranflators, explanatory of the mark of the beaft; and then fubjoins, "How happy fhould we be that we are happily delivered from so many of the abuses mention"ed above; and that, through the lenity of the govern"ment under which we live, any man is at liberty to reject them all! No clafs of men ought to be more

"fenfible of the value of our civil conftitution than

may be performed without inconsistency for eight or ten times, be/ come inconfiftent if more frequently repeated? And does not the folicitude which you discover, and the importunity which you em ploy, to prevail with thofe who are occafional communicants to be come stated members, disclose a design rather of converting this folemn and invaluable privilege into a mean of increasing your own focieties, than of promoting the mutual love of Christians? And, in thort, according to the principles of your different focieties, every individual, who is admitted as a member, is entitled as a virtual, though not a nominal ruler, to judge and vote in the affairs of the church. If then, according to your uniform practice, you allow a member of the Church of England, or a member from our Establishment or the Presbyterian Diffenters, when you are fatisfied at once with his faith and piety, to eat with you occafionally the facrament of the fupper, upon what grounds, I demand, could you refuse this perfon, even while he remained an Epifcopalian, or Prefbyterian, a right also to adminifter occasionally in your Independent congregations as an ecclesiastical ruler ?

"Chriftians, who cannot in confcience hold communion "with a national church. In thefe times, and in this "country, we may refuse to be fealed with Antichrifl's ❝mark, and be nevertheless suffered to live among men." Here it is plain, that he confiders even the ftrongest of these names, which have hitherto been viewed as appropriated to that church which is called in fcripture, "The mother of harlots, and abominations of the "earth," as applicable alfo to our national church. She too, it seems, in his opinion, is the beaft mentioned in this paffage; and confequently, according to the defcription of this Antichrift, muft fit in the place of God, and exalt herself above all which is called God: and of her alfo it may be affirmed (however contradictory to fact), that fhe has made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications, and has deceived them who dwell upon the earth by the lying miracles which fhe has pretended to perform !!! How ftrange indeed, that perfons who are fuch sticklers for purity of communion, should receive to occafional fellowship the followers of this beaf, and supporters of this Antichrift—the members, in short, of this church, which cannot be confidered as a church of Chrift! How ftill more astonishing is it, that men, who glory fo much in their candour and charity, fhould apply to our Establishment the titles of a church, not one of the awful characteristics of which, whether as already ftated, or more fully described in the facred volume, either can be ascribed to her in themselves, or were ever hitherto afcribed to her in the fame extent, even by her moft inveterate enemies *. See an admirable refutation.

I must here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving the Establishment, in 1777 published a moft violent invective against it, in the form of a fermon. In it he attempts to trace a refemblance between our church and Antichrift, which is reprefented in the Revelation, as a woman fitting upon a fcarletcoloured beast, with seven heads and ten horns. It is remarkable