صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

however there are many who do read and will read both sides. The points in discussion are among the most important, that could be offered to the attention of the christian community. Though some ill effects may ensue, as, in a world like this, is always to be expected, when any thing is attempted for the cause of truth; yet the persuasion, I believe, is continually extending and gaining strength, that the good effects will greatly preponderate.. And though I have been accused of being a volunteer in this service, as I would certainly wish to be, in a cause so deeply interesting to the honour and kingdom of the Lord Jesus; yet as I have girded on the harness, whether prudently or imprudently, the time does not seem to have arrived for me to put it off.-What I have now to offer will be disposed under several distinct heads.

I. In the outset of your Remarks, you re-urge the charge of "bad spirit and intention." To this I am compelled briefly to reply. My conscience bears me witness, that my design has been not to excite popular or party passions and animosities, already in a flame when I first took my pen, but to assauge them; not to promote a violent disruption, or an irregular denunciation in the christian community, but to give such a direction to the controversy, as would lead to sober and conscientious inquiry, and to a right understanding of truth and of duty. It has long been well known, that I have not been the advocate of rash measures, of hasty separations, or of a rigorously restricted system of fellowship. You have yourself been pleased to say, that you had "regarded me as a man of candour, moderation, and liberal feelings." Though you have seen fit to alter your opinion, and to represent me as a man destitute of candour, and possessed of a bitter, malignant, and persecuting spirit; yet I suppose it will be obvious to others, if not to yourself, that this latter opinion has been formed under circumstances not the most favourable to an impartial and correct judgment; and I am sustained in the confidence, that candid men will pronounce, that for your sudden change of opinion, and your consequent criminations, so hastily expressed, and so pertinaciously reiterated, you had no sufficient reason.

To a candour, indeed, which confounds the distinction between truth and errour,-to a moderation which regards both the one and the other, as of little consequence,-to a liberality which places them on equal terms, in regard to christian character and christian communion, I make no pretensions. I do hold, that belief in the truth is essential to christianity; and that "the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth," and the ministers of Jesus Christ, who are set for the defence of the gospel," have not only a right to inquire, but are under obligations of infinite responsibility to inquire, concerning the faith as well as the practice of individuals and communities, claiming christian fellowship: -to inquire, however, with candour, and meekness, and charity, making a difference between ignorance and disbelief, and between circumstantial errours, and fundamental. This is

my heinous offence,-my unpardonable crime. It is on account of this persuasion, that you have "considered my letter unworthy of me as a christian and a christian minister," and "thought that I have discovered a strange insensibility towards my brethren," and written with a bad spirit and intention. say, this is the reason of your abundant criminations of me: for you have pointed to no other, but to this you have distinctly and repeatedly pointed.

I

What you think of me, or what I think of you, is in itself of little importance to the publick, and can have nothing to do with the merits of the cause in debate. It may be, however, of considerable consequence, to remark the grounds on which you are so ready to pronounce a man to be destitute of candour, and charity, and all good motives and feelings, and to impute to him a bitter, malignant, and persecuting spirit; as it may serve to explain the nature of that charity on which you lay so great a stress, and to which you make such lofty pretensions. Let it here then be distinctly noted, that, according to your representations, if a man demur as to christian fellowship, on account of any errour in sentiment, he is destitute of charity, and a persecutor; if he regard no errour as any bar to fellowship, he is a charitable man, and a liberal christian. This topick I shall have occasion to consider further in another place.

II. You give it to be understood, that the reason of your appearing again before the publick, was my call upon you to retract a misstatement. You had stated that "the obvious import of the concluding part of" my first "Letter might be thus expressed: Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox 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 unworthy the name of a christian."" I did pronounce this "a flagrant misstatement," and solemnly call upon you to retract it. In reply you say. "I intend to shew, that in giving this interpretation, I followed the natural meaning of Dr. Worcester's words, that I put no violence on his language, and that no other sense would have offered itself to an unprejudiced mind.” You then proceed to "state the passages" of my letter "which led to the representation which you had formed."

I did propose to requote all those passages in their order, for the sake of shewing in a strong light the strange state of that mind which could assert, and in the face of the clear exposition of my sentiments and views, given in my Second Letter, reassert, that "the natural meaning" of them is given in your contested statement. But I feel a strong repugnance to filling the pages of my present letter with quotations from my former ones; and a repugnance, not less strong, to bestowing so much attention upon a point so personal. One principal passage, therefore, may suffice. "Is it," I ask in my first Letter, p. 32, "Is it then a violation of the great law of love for the friends of truth to decline communion with its rejecters? We have nothing to do here with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about modes or forms, or iuconsiderable points of faith or practice. Our concern is with differences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist. between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this point you have yourself fairly reduced the present question.-Yes, Sir, the simple point here at issue is, Whether it be a violation of

the law of love for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ to separate from believers in another and an opposite gospel? If yours is the true gospel, then ours is another; if ours is the true gospel, then yours is another. In either case, the great question respecting fellowship remains the same." This is the passage on which you seem mainly to rely; and it is undoubtedly the strongest passage of the whole, and includes in it the principal ideas, of any aspect to your purpose, contained in the rest.—But, Sir, do I here say, that "Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox chrisfians embrace, believes an opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, and is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue!" Is this "the natural meaning of the words?" and does no other sense offer itself to an unprejudiced mind!” I put the question, Sir, to your conscience.

Please to observe. In the first place, in this passage, I state the question at issue: "Is it a violation of the great law of love for the friends of truth to decline communion with its rejecters?”—I then, that the question may be disembarrassed, state by way of explication, that "We have nothing to do here with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about modes or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or practice:" such as those might be thought to be, which exist between orthodox christians and some whom you would call the higher Unitarians. Our concern," I further observe, "is with differences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this point you have yourself fairly reduced the present question." You certainly had reduced it to this point. You had contended, that Unitarians, not of the higher degrees only, but even of the lowest degrees, ought to be held in christian fellowship. I therefore, fixed upon Mr. Belsham's creed, as something tangible and definite, by means of which the merits of the pending question might be tried; and, reduced to this point, the question, which otherwise might have been attended with embarrassment and perplexity, became to my mind a very

plain one. Accordingly I had a little before said, "The question then is a short one. Is not Mr. Belsham's gospel, as set forth in his creed, another gospel than that which Paul preached? If you are not willing to admit this; yet surely you cannot hesitate a moment to admit, that it is another than that which is held by orthodox christians,-which is preached by orthodox ministers:-essentially different in every particular from the foundation to the topstone. One or the other of these schemes then must be what St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against which and its abettors he solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema." To this statement I distinctly refer in the passage under consideration. Having thus simplified the question respceting fellowship, by restricting it to Mr. Belsham's scheme, I then proceed to restate it in these words: "Yes, Sir, the simple point here at issue is, whether it be a violation of the law of love for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ to separate from believers in another and an opposite gospel. If yours is the true gospel, then ours is another; if ours is the true gospel, then yours is another. In either case the great question respecting fellowship remains the same."-Was it possible for the question to have been more clearly or definitely stated? Was it possible for it to have been more plainly expressed, that the issue to be tried was precisely between the believers in Mr. Belsham's gospel, and the believers in that called orthodox? Mr. Belsham's is here called "your gospel, for the very obvious reason, that it is the one which, in the statement of the question, is opposed on your part to the one on our part.”

Now, Sir, I ask again, do I in this passage say, that "Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one, which I and other or thodox christians embrace, believes in an opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, and is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue." No, Sir: it is not here, or any where else by me, said, that "every man" who does not embrace the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity either "believes in,” or “abets, an opposite gospel," or "rejects the true gospel, or despises the authority of Jesus Christ," or "is

« السابقةمتابعة »