ment, and their inclination? Should any profeffing orthodoxy, affert that -man is fo acted upon by any fuperior force, as to be faved in a way contrary to his judgment, and against his will, Ifhould intirely difavow his opinion, and declare him ignorant of what orthodoxy is. And in you Sir, the fentiment is much more inconsistent.

Theologos. "The orthodox fcheme ❝is fo fhocking, and has fo bad a tendency, that many of the more mo"derate calvinifts, and the greater

part of the methodifts, as I am in"formed, feldom infist upon the doc"trines of abfolute election, and repro

bation, efpecially in their public dif"courfes. This must be owing to their "being fecretly diffatisfied with them;

66

to some latent fufpicion, or confused "kind of feeling, that they are not to *be depended upon."

Amyntas. How can you Sir, fo pofitively affert this to be the cause of their filence on these heads? What, are tall orthodox preachers infincere? Profeffing to believe what they fecretly fufpect is not true? An uncharitable infinuation indeed! Why did our Sa

viour forbear to fpeak many things he had to fay to his difciples, and fpake to the multitude in parables? Did he fufpect the truth of his doctrine? No, he fpake as they were able to bear his words; and for a fimilar reafon, the apostle Paul fed the Corinthians with milk, and not with ftrong meat. Would it not be more charitable to fuppofe thefe judicious calviniftic preachers, (of whatever fect,) copy after these examples, and while fully fatisfied of the truth of their doctrines, yet fo fpeak of them, as they fuppofe may best tend to the inftruction, and edification of the people?

Theologos. "I cannot help wifhing "that perfons of all fects and parties "would ftudy their bible more, and "books of controverfy lefs. But the "fcriptures are little read by most, "and are never looked into but with "minds prepoffeffed with the notions "of others concerning them."

Amyntas. I join cordially with you Sir in that wish, that persons of all parties would attend more to their bibles; and I allow there is much truth in what you fay of the fcriptures be

ing read to confirm preconceived notions; but this fault I prefume is not univerfal; you look upon yourself no doubt as one exception on the fide of the rational scheme, and why should you not, fuppofe there may be fome on the fide of the orthodox?

Theologos. Sir, I fpake with referrence to the generality of mankind, I mean profeffing chriftians who it is ⚫ certain never look into the scriptures, • but with a state of mind that leads them to expect to find their favourite opinions either clearly expreffed, or plainly referred to in every chapter. Now it is well known, that all ftrong • expectations tend to fatisfy themfelves. Men easily perfuade themfelves that they actually see what they have abfolutely depended upon feeing. Could men be prevailed upon to read the fcriptures for themselves, they could hardly avoid receiving the deepest impreffions of the certainty and importance of the great and leading principles; and their particular opinions having come lefs frequently in view, would be lefs obftinately retained. It was in this manner, I can

truly

truly fay, that I formed the most diftinguishing of my opinions in re•ligion.'

Amyntas. I am quite in your mind. Sir, that men ought to read the fcriptures for themselves, and that the lead・ing principles are manifest therein; yet, notwithstanding I have read the scriptures perhaps as diligently as you have done, and with as little prepoffeffion, your ideas and mine, of what we fuppofe to be leading principles, I obferve are very different. But pray Sir give me leave to afk, what was it that first put you upon reading the fcriptures with more than ordinary diligence and attention? Herein I appeal to your confcience. Was it not from a fufpicion that the doctrines of the bible were corrupted, and that error was impofed upon us in the place of truth? And did you not then read with a strong expectation to difcover fome mistakes or mifrepresentations? Now it is well known fay you

that all ftrong expectations tend to fatisfy themfelves, &c.' What wonder then dear Sir, you should fuppofe you actually faw what you fo much depended upon feeing. I therefore.con

clude

clude that what you call your distinguifhing opinions, are very far from being the leading principles in the bible. Nay more Sir, they do not appear to me ever to have been formed from the bible, or to have any foundation in that facred book.

pre

And now Sir, as one that wishes your everlasting welfare, I would give you a word of friendly advice. You feem pretty confident that your fentiments are right, and that the rational fyftem is in moft refpects preferable to the orthodox; but you will allow that it is poffible (at least) that the orthodox may be right, and you may be mistaken, as you make no pretenfions to infalli bility. And let this confideration vail with you, to give your bible another reading, and if it be poffible, read it, as you recommend it to be read. Remember, men learned, judicious, and pious, have embraced the orthodox fcheme, and if charity can fuppofe them not to have been deceivers, and hypocrites, have lived, and died in the full perfuafion of the truth thereof. I mention not this as an argument in its favour, but as a confideration to

leffen