REGARD) may be thus expressed: Every man who cannot "admit as a doctrine of scripture, THE GREAT DOCTRINE OF

65 "THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD, WHICH I AND OTHER OR

"THODOX CHRISTIANS EMBRACE, BELIEVES AN OPPOSITE “ “GOSPEL, REJECTS THE TRUE GOSPEL, despises the authority "❝of Jesus Christ, IS OF COURSE A MAN WHOLLY WANTING IN “ "TRUE PIETY AND WITHOUT CHRISTIAN VIRTUE; and may

in perfect consistency with christian love be rejected as un"worthy the name of a christian."" Here, Sir, I suppose you to have applied the "rule" of construction which I have twice before noticed,-that of the "impression" which happened to be made on your mind, without duly considering the meaning of the words, and the scope of the argument. And here I record my final and solemn protest against your use of this rule.

In vain, Sir, will any one search in my Letter for what you would make me say. I did indeed think it right, not studiously to magnify" the points of difference between us, which you seemed studiously to conceal; but distinctly to state them, and set them in a fair and clear light. In doing this, I contrasted Mr. Belsham's sentiments with the doctrines held by orthodox christians; (not however making you answerable for those sentiments, any further than as you plead for their being held in general christian fellowship;) and I did pronounce that "one or the other of these schemes must be what St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against which and its abetters he solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema." This is the most that I have any where said. I did not draw the inference, that "every man" who rejects the orthodox doctrines and embraces Mr. Belsham's sentiments, "is of course a man wholly wanting in true piety, and without christian virtue." This, Sir, is your own inference; I have said no such thing. I do not, however, complain of your making the inference, though you protest against the practice: but since you have made it, you will permit me to hold you to it. By making this inference, you give it to be understood, and in effect concede, that in your own judgment every one who does embrace another gospel, than that which Paul preached, "is of course wholly wanting in true piety, and without christian virtue."-Now, Sir, will you deny the

1

premises? Will you deny, that either Mr. Belsham's system, or that called orthodox, must be another gospel? Will you deny that these two systems are essentially different, from the foundation to the topstone? We are here, as you will certainly perceive, to lay out of the question the doctrines of natural religion, and confine our attention to such as are peculiar to the gospel. Do not, then, the Unitarians, whose sentiments are set forth by Mr Belsham, reject every doctrine of the gospel, as held by orthodox christians? I am persuaded, Sir, you will not deny this. Your own inference, then, is that either those who embrace Mr. Belsham's scheme, or those who hold the doctrines called orthodox, are "of course wholly wanting in true picty and without christian virtue." I now refer it to you to say further, whether they can consistently meet together at the table of the Lord.

But you make me say, not only that the Unitarians who hold with Mr. Belsham, are "wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue," which I have no where said; but also that "every man" is so, "who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox christians embrace." So far, however, from having said this, I have not even asserted the premises from which such an inference could be drawn. No where have I said or intimated, that every one who does not admit the doctrine of the Trinity as I hold it, "rejects the true gospel, and believes an opposite gospel." For stating that I have said this, you have not the shadow of a warrant.

Dr. Samuel Clark's views of the Trinity, as I before intimated, are very different from mine and those called orthodox, and in my judgment very erroneous, and of dangerous tendency. Yet I am by no means prepared to say, that every one who adopts his views of the Trinity rejects the true gospel, embraces another, and is devoid of christian faith and virtue: for I can suppose that a person may adopt those views, and yet be a sound believer in the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death, and of justification through faith in his blood. As much as this I am also ready to say respecting other views of the Trinity very different from mine, and in my opinion

very erroneous and dangerous. Let me repeat it, and let it be remembered, my concern in this debate is with those who deny the essential divinity, and the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. These doctrines I certainly do consider as constituting the very foundation of the gospel; and I feel no unwillingness to have it understood, that in my judg ment every one who rejects these doctrines does reject the true gospel, and must either embrace another gospel, or be a Jew or an Infidel. If you say, as you have before infered, "then all who deny these doctrines are wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue;" I will leave you in the quiet possession of the inference, and would earnestly recommend it to your very serious consideration.

For myself, however, I think it sufficient at present, to refer the deniers of these doctrines, as I would all others, in regard to their inward piety and their final state, to HIM who searcheth the heart, and to whom it belongs to award the retributions of eternity. Always, Sir, would I feel, and deeply feel, that I am a "frail, fallible creature:" and if for this reason I should "shudder at the awful temerity" of adjudging to final perdition, "men of the profoundest understandings, of the purest lives, and of unwearied devotion to the study of God's word;" no less should I shudder at the no less awful temerity of adjudging to eternal life, men, however fair their characters in the eyes of the world, however renowned for what the world calls wisdom, however distinguished among the friends of science, or of sacred literature, who, nevertheless, deny the blood of atonement, degrade the Lord who bought them to the condition of a mere creature, and, not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God, go about to establish their own righteousness. I did not, therefore, when writing my former Letter, nor do I now, think it incumbent on me to determine how much of divine truth a man may reject, and yet have saving faith: or what is the precise point or degree of errour, beyond which there can be no hope of any one's salvation. With questions of this sort, I have not at all intermeddled: not only because I am consciously incompetent to decide upon them; but also because I do not consider them as belonging

to the present discussion: and I have wished that the discus sion might not be incumbered or perplexed with any thing extraneous or irrelevant.

The question now at issue is, whether visible christian fellowship ought to be maintained between orthodox christians and Unitarians. There are cases, indisputably, in which it may be right to maintain visible fellowship with individuals, respecting the sincerity of whose christian profession we may have very strong doubts; on the other hand, there may be cases in which it were right to decline visible fellowship with individuals, of whose christian sincerity we have very strong hopes. When, in the regular exercise of discipline, a church passes the sentence of excommunication upon a peccant member, it does not by that act pronounce the excluded person to be "wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue." Leaving that decision to the omniscient Judge, it is sufficient for the church to decide, that the person is so disorderly in his walk, or so corrupt in his sentiments, that the purity and welfare of the church, the honour of religion, and fidelity to the cause of truth, require his exclusion. This decision should be made, only in the spirit of charity, and in the fear of God. Upon the same general principle, a church may withdraw fellowship from another church, without meaning to pronounce that every individual in that other church is utterly graceless and in a state of condemnation. The Protestants did not pronounce this, when they separated from the church of Rome:-but they did pronounce that the errours of that church were subversive of the gospel, and most dangerous to the eternal interests of mankind; and they felt it incumbent on them to come out and be separate from all communion with those errours, and to bear their publick, decided, and most solemn testimony against them.

Nothing more than this, Sir, has been proposed in the present case. It is our solemn conviction, that the errours of the Unitarians are subversive of the gospel, and most dangerous to the eternal interests of mankind; and we think it right and indispensably incumbent on us, clearly to develope them before the world, fully to display their enormity and their pernicious tendency, and faithfully to bear our

testimony against them, and to warn all people to beware lest they be deceived and misled by them to their final ruin. This we believe to be an urgent dictate of that charity, which supremely seeks the glory of God and the salvation of men: a dictate, which we are fully persuaded we may obey, without justly incurring the charge of "awful temerity,”— without pronouncing any "sentence" more "tremendous" than we are warranted by the word of God to pronounce,-without taking upon ourselves any "responsibility," which it would not be treacherous and most criminal, in those who are set for the defence of the gospel, to decline.

Such, Sir, are my views; such are the principles on which, in my former Letter, the remarks and arguments on the subject of separation were founded; and with these views and principles, all which is there advanced is in perfect and most evident coincidence.-Your statement, therefore, of the "import of the concluding part" of my Letter is most palpably incorrect and unjust. And though I attribute this incorrectness and this injustice, not to any injurious intention, but to that habit of thinking and feeling of which I have before taken notice; yet after what I have now stated, I think I have a right to call upon you,—and I do solemnly call upon you, to retract this flagrant misstatement. I know indeed, you have given it to be understood, that you shall not write again; but, Sir, the publick disputant who makes this resolve ought to be careful, not merely, not to put down ought in malice," but to write nothing which justice to his opponent and to the cause of truth,-nothing which the sacred principles of christianity will require him to retract.

It is upon the ground of this incorrect and injurious state ment, that you have founded the earnest and impassioned appeal, in which you seem to have put forth all your powers of rhetorick, and by which you evidently designed to make your grand and decisive impression against me. But as the ground is removed, the whole splendid shew must dissolve, like the baseless fabrick of a vision.”—As to what you say, in this connexion, with reference to my statement, that "the Saviour whom you acknowledge is infinitely inferiour to ours," a very brief remark may be sufficient. I did suppose