Even  the  essay  "  on  religious  controversy,"  the  design  of
which  I  certainly  commend,  and  which  more  than  justifies
me  in  all  my  publications,  breathes  ^.^  spirit  as  relentless
against  all  who  even  doubt  the  policy '*t  utility  of  religious
controversy,  as  ever  disgraced  the  most  violent  polemic.
Hitherto  theological  combatants  have  persecuted  each  other.
You  summon  them  to  shake  hands,  and  to  turn  wrathfully
upon  those  who,  as  mediators,  would  persuade  them  to  lay
down  the  weapons  of  theological  warfare.  One  would  have
thought  that  this  essay  at  least  should  have  exhibited  a  spe-
cimen of  that  cool,  that  decorous  manner,  that  charitable
allowance  for  human  prejudice  and  passion  (which  enthral,


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  21

alas !  the  best  of  men)  by  which  controversy  might  be  made
to  subserve  the  holy  interests  of  truth.  No ;  the  "  pretence
that  religion  is  a  concern  too  solemn  and  sacred  for  the  pas-
sions of  controversy,"  you  pronounce  not  only  an  "error"
(which  every  considerate  person  will  acknowledge,)  but  an
"  error  without  excuse^''''  like  the  profane  "  pretence  with
which  some  justify  their  restraining  prayer  before  God."*
Nay,  "  no  medium  can  be  assigned  between  receiving  and
rejecting  the  truth.  If  rejected,  we  seal  our  perdition  "j" —
Involuntary  errm  is  no  palliation — perdition  is  the  certain
doom  !  And  yet  the  Christian's  Magazine  was  to  chastise
my  arrogant  and  uncharitable  pretensions  !

In  your  essay  on  "  liberality  in  religion,"  the  liberal
Christian  is  "  pursued,  hunted,  and  urged  over  the  preci-
pice "J  with  an  overbearing  and  intemperate  violence,  which
must  tend  to  divert  from  him  that  sentence  of  just  censure
which  sober  reason  would  otherwise  pronounce  on  him.
