who, in their sober moments, think it more creditable to be accounted members of our venerable church, than a subscriber to the meeting-house?” {6b} And lastly, where do you place those partisans, whether priests or laymen, who, while they contend for the church as the “chaste spouse of Christ,” {6c} confound most unwittingly both her pretensions and her character, with those by which that spiritual harlot is known, who has committed fornication with the kings of the earth? {6d} For my part, I recognise among such _false friends_ as the two first descriptions, and such _injudicious __advocates_ as the last, some of those enemies, from which the church has most to fear. But I think I do you no injustice when I say, that it does not seem to have been your intention to include such characters as these within those “descriptions of the church’s enemies,” upon which his Lordship is blameable for having bestowed his patronage and protection. But, waiving these considerations, let me ask the Country Clergyman, wherein he designs to make the Noble President’s guilt consist. It cannot be in the _bare and simple act_ of bestowing his patronage and protection upon every description of “the church’s enemies.” For such an _act_ his Lordship has the highest precedent, and the least questionable authority. For every time the several denominations of Christians meet to worship God according to their various rites (and they may meet just as often as they will), they enjoy the patronage and protection of that exalted Personage, who, as the guardian of the constitution, is present wherever there are rights to protect, and laws to protect them. Upon this point, therefore, no controversy can arise: and the main question between us will be, whether the _object_ for which this patronage and protection are bestowed be of a nature to favour the assumed hostilities of the different denominations of Christians against the established church. Now that object, as defined by his Lordship, is, “to promote the circulation of the Scriptures at home and abroad;” and this you admit “is an object in which every one, who professes the religion of Christ, must feel a deep interest.” I am glad to find you admitting as much as this; and I hope I do not misunderstand you. Indeed I am so desirous of tracing an agreement between us, wherever I can find a ground for doing it, that I will endeavour to persuade myself, though the delusion should prove never so short, that the circulation of the Scriptures is not among the points on which we differ. But you question whether _this_ be the object; since “the object of a society is not to be known from its public declaration in print;” {8} and yet, shrewd as this remark appears, I cannot but think that “the declaration in print,” of a large body of men, subscribed with their names, is rather better authority for judging of their specific object, than _the insinuation in print_ of an anonymous