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 judgment 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 discussion 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 statement, 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

you would yet acknowledge JESUS CHRIST to be your SAVIOUR. Your declaration, however, if it has any pertinency, plainly imports that you do not. How can your then sit down at HIS table in communion with those who do acknowledge HIM as their SAVIOUR,-and who with undissembled gratitude and devotion unite in the holy ascription,-Unto HIM that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; TO HIM BE GLORY AND DOMINION FOR EVER AND EVER. We worship, Sir, THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. Do you worship this same GOD?

You "did look" to me, you are pleased to say, "for a healing spirit." Happy, indeed will he be, who shall be instrumental in "raising up the foundations of many generations," and justly be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in." But wo to him, who would heal the hurt slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace!" Few men can have greater inducements, than I have, to listen to the enchanting voice of peace; few could have engaged in this controversy with greater reluctance, or have brought to it greater heaviness and sorrow of heart. But the servants of HIM who endured the cross, despising the shame, must not confer with flesh and blood: must never forget the solemn declaration, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me.

You charge me with "studiously magnifying the differen ces" between orthodox Christians and Unitarians; and with "studiously overlooking the points of agreement." There is certainly no occasion to magnify the differences; they are in themselves sufficiently great. To me, however, it has appeared vastly important, that people should "learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism." This you recommend in your "Note;" and in this recommendation I cordially join. Upon this, however, you proceed to some discussion, as if with a design to shew the "distinction;" and you finally represent it as being little, if any thing more

than a mere "SOUND." Elsewhere, also, you speak of it as being only a difference which relates to the obscurest of all subjects, to the essence and metaphysical nature of God." And throughout both your Letter and your Remarks you seem to have laboured, assiduously, to conceal the points of difference betweeen us, and to make the impression that these points are few and of very little importance. This mode of treating the subject appears to me exceedingly improper, and of most deceptive tendency. Is this the way, Sir, to promote the knowledge of truth? Is it thus that you would conduct that candid and impartial research," which according to your Letter, is to "guide mankind to a purer system of christianity, than is now to be found in any church under Heaven,”—and to bring about a "glorious reformation of the church of God?"

In opposition to this system of concealment, I have thought it right and important to endeavour a developement, and to lay the differences between us open to the publick in their true light. On our part we have no dread of this; no dread of a clear and full developement. It has long been our earnest desire, that your sentiments as well as ours, might be known; and that all christians and all people might well understand the points on which you differ from us. On this account we devoutly rejoice that the subject has been brought before the publick. In our view, it has come forward in a way to answer an important purpose. A general discussion" of the differences between us, would have been of little avail, while people were utterly unapprised that such differences really existed, and were fast asleep in regard to them. It was first of all desirable that these differences should be disclosed; that people should be made to see them to be not imaginary, but real; not of trivial consequence, but of essential importance; and that their attention would be strongly drawn to them.

It was under impressions of this kind, that I was induced to make the statements, exhibited in my former Letter; and under the same impressions, I now proceed to a still more distinct and detailed statement.