state, their native depravity and practical sinfulness, their guilt and their condemnation; concerning Jesus Christ, his person, his offices, his atonement, and the nature and the way of the great salvation by him; concerning the Holy Spirit, his personal divinity, his official power and grace, and the nature and importance of his work in renewing, sanctifying, and sealing the heirs of salvation; and concerning the Gospel generally, its infinite importance as "the wisdom of God and the power of God" for the recovery of lost mankind, its doctrines, its precepts, and its institutions.-Accordingly these ministers are understood; and in general their people and others are left in no doubt as to what their sentiments are. This, Sir, is what they understand by ministers being open, and clear, and faithful in the avowal and declaration of their sentiments.

It is otherwise, however, with you and your liberal brethren, as appears most clearly from your Letter.

In repelling the charges of the Panoplist Reviewer, you first make what would seem to be a Confession of Faith; and then proceed to shew the manner in which you and your brethren perform your ministry.-To your friend Mr. Thatcher you say, p. 7, "We both agreed that a majority of our brethren believe that Jesus Christ is more than ❝man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with "the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren." You then mention "another class of liber"al christians, who, whilst they reject the distinction of three "persons in God, are yet unable to pass a definite judg"ment on the various systems, which prevail, as to the na"ture and rank of Jesus Christ;" and "another class" still, "who believe the simple humanity of Jesus Christ."-"As "to myself,” you say, p. 12, “I have ever been inclined to "cherish the most exalted views of Jesus Christ, which are "consistent with the supremacy of the Father; and I have felt it my duty to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps every sentiment which is peculiar to him on this subject.".

:

Then, including yourself with your brethren of the three classes, you say, p. 13, "We are accustomed to speak of the Father as God, and of Jesus Christ as his Son, as a distinct being "from him, as dependent on him, subordinate to him, and de "riving all from him."

Such is your Confession of Faith: and for this Confession I, dear Sir, for one, most sincerely thank you; and hundreds and thousands of christians, I am persuaded, will thank you. It will serve to relieve us of much of the uncertainty, and much of the embarrassment, which, until now, we have felt in relation to you and your liberal brethren. One great point is clear:-You hold Jesus Christ as "a being" entirely "distinct from God," and, like all other creatures, entirely "dependent."-Of course, you will, doubtless, not hesitate to acknowledge what I have certainly very great sorrow in stating, that the doctrines of atonement by his death, and justification through faith in his blood, as held by orthodox christians in all ages of the church,-together with all the truths and sentiments-all the powerful motives to repentance, faith, and holiness, depending on those cardinal doctrines, at once fall to the ground before you! Thus much is plain; thus far the matter is settled in regard to yourself, and in regard also to your liberal brethren, in so far as you were authorised to speak for them. To what extent you were thus authorised, I know not; but would devoutly hope, not to the extent which your manner of speaking would seem to import. Yes, Sir, most devoutly would I hope, that there are some among those whom you would wish to include in your liberal party, who will revolt from your statement; who will protest against being numbered with you; who will yet awake from the enchantment, more fatal than that of Armida, under the power of which they have too long been held.

Still, however, I find in the terms of your creed, a great want of clearness and precision; great indistinctness and ambiguity. What are we to understand by "Jesus Christ being more than man?”—by his "literally coming from heaven to save our race?" What is he more than man, and how does he save? What other offices does he sustain than those of a teacher and witness to the truth?" Upon these, and oth

er points comprised in your statement of the sentiments of the liberal party in general, you leave us in utter uncertainty. In your statement of your own sentiments, your ambiguity is not less remarkable. Were it not for what you say in another place, we should not know what you mean by "the supremacy of the Father:" whether a supremacy in office, such as Trinitarians admit; or a supremacy in nature, such as that of the infinite, independent Creator in relation to his finite, "dependent" creatures. "I have felt it my duty," you say, "to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps every sentiment peculiar to him on this subject." Might not Dr. Priestley, with perfect truth, have said this? tarian in the world, even the closest follower of Mr. Belsham, who might not say the same? Undoubtedly there is no man living, who does not depart from Mr. Belsham, in every sentiment which is peculiar to him." But what are the sentiments peculiar to Mr. Belsham? None of those certainly which are exhibited in his Unitarian creed.

Is there a Uni

Now, dear Sir, if such ambiguity, such want of distinctness and clearness, such apparent (I mean not to say dishonest) concealment," is found in this Confession of your Faith; a confession, made on an occasion so urgent, when you seem to have felt yourself called upon for a publick and explicit declaration of your sentiments; would it not be reasonable to conclude, that on ordinary occasions you are certainly not less reseryed, indistinct, and ambiguous: nay, that you have acquired a habit of expressing yourself on the doctrinal subjects of religion, in a manner not to be clearly understood. That such is the real fact, is manifest from the representation which you give of the manner, in which you and your liberal brethren perform your ministry.

The sum of this representation, which you have spread over several pages, is this: That you and your brethren studiously refrain from encountering the opinions of any of the various denominations of christians, who differ from you; and are accustomed "to urge perpetually those truths and precepts," which to be sure you call "great," "about which there is little contention." But what are those great truths and precepts, about which there is little contention, and which

you perpetually urge? Certainly not any of the primary, not any of the peculiar doctrines or institutions of the gospel: for not one of these can be named, about which there has not always been, about which there is not still, great contention. The doctrines concerning the Saviour's person and character, his priesthood and atonement, his offices and work;-the doctrines concerning the moral state of mankind,-regeneration by the Holy Spirit,-justification by faith,-pardon and eternal salvation through the merits of the one Mediator,-the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment, the "everlasting destruction of them that obey not the gospel:" all these, as you will readily admit, are subjects of continual and earnest contention among those who profess to be christians. These doctrines then, according to your own representation, you and your liberal brethren carefully refrain from bringing into discussion before your hearers: or, if you mention them at all, yet only in such a manner, as not to come into conflict or collision, with any who differ from you on these great and cardinal points.

1

But, Sir, set these doctrines aside, and what is then left of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What is there left, but mere natural religion-called indeed, in this enlightened age, rational christianity?—If, in your preaching, these doctrines are kept out of sight, or treated only in a manner so general, so vague, so ambiguous, as not directly and manifestly to clash with any of the various and opposite opinions, held by professed christians respecting them; if you dwell "perpetually" on other topicks; is it then strange, that your people and others are left in utter uncertainty, as to what you believe on these momentous points, and that you are considered as wanting in openness and clearness, and as practising reserve and concealment?

"In thus avoiding controversy," you say, p. 15, "we have thought that we deserved not reproach, but some degree of praise for our self denial." For myself, I had understood from the Scriptures, that it required christian "self denial," not to shrink from an open avowal of our faith in the doctrines of the gospel, and from "holding forth the faithful word" in the face of opposition; but cordially to embrace

them, openly to confess them, and meekly and charitably, yet firmly and courageously, to "contend" for them. And you will pardon me, Sir, if I do not yet see that much "praise" is due for your "self denial". You tell us explicitly, that "to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime." In your Sermon on Infidelity, you also say, p. 13, "For these," (reasons previously mentioned) and other reasons, I am unwilling to believe, that infidelity has no source but depravity of heart, and that it can never be traced to causes which may absolve it from guilt. It must be admitted indeed, that you do not regard with quite equal kindness, those who believe in Calvinism; as is manifest from some very strong expressions of antipathy, and from your representation, than which I am greived to say, I have seldom if ever seen a more "distorted" and injurious one, of their sentiments. Is it, however, a crime to believe in Calvinism? when, in your estimation, it is none to believe in the lowest Unitarianism,and may be none to be an infidel. I presume that, notwithstanding the vehemence of your antipathy, you will hardly say it is. But if, in your estimation, errour of all kinds is innocent, then where is your "self denial" in refraining from assailing it, and where your claim to "praise" for "avoiding controversy?”

There is still another point of view, and that a very serious one, in which your self denial," and your claim to "praise," should not fail to be considered. If, indeed, to believe in errour is "no crime," then to believe in the truth is no virtue. But, Sir, is it so represented in the word of God? Did Jesus Christ and his apostles conduct their ministry, and enjoin it upon others to conduct theirs, in the manner in which, as you represent, you and your liberal brethren conduct yours?

Jesus Christ says, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and will not come to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." Is not truth light, and errour darkness? Does then the great Teacher from heaven here represent a belief in errour to be no