much worse man, or, to speak plainer, may do a great deal more mischief by his doctrine, than the immoral man may do by his example. For besides his propagating dangerous erFours, subverting souls, it is farther to be considered, that he sets himself up as a rival teacher, in opposition to the faithful ministers of Christ. He weakens their hands, frustrates their pious labours, perverts their flocks, gives the common enemy a handle to insult and blaspheme, raises a kind of flame and war in the church, and remotely administers, to all immorality and dissoluteness of manners, by taking off the influence of the best instructions. Religion is not a personal thing, which every man may new model or alter for himself. It is the joint patrimony of the whole community; and every man more or less is accountable to his neighbour for any waste made in it. That corrupting the faith is not an innocent practice, but a very ill thing, every one knows, or ought to know. I speak not of mere mistakes in judgment, but of espousing and propagating them; corrupting the faith in important articles, and diffusing such corruptions. A life so spent, is a wicked life, if opposing divine truths, undermining the gospel, and subverting souls, be wicked attempts, as they undoubtedly are."* "Be not deceived, my brethren; those that corrupt families by adultery, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If therefore they who do this, according to the flesh, have suffered death; how much more shall he die, who by his wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which Christ was crucified? He that is thus defiled, shall depart into unquenchable fire, and so also shall he that hearkens to him."† The Unitarians, however, according to you, are in no respect wanting in christian character, and have nothing to fear from the judgment of men or of God. We regard other christians," you say, p. 14, "as brethren, but can in no degree recognize them as superiours in the church of our common Master. We do not dread the censures which they may pass on our honest opinions. We rejoice that we have a higher judge, whose truth it is our labour to learn, obey, an maintain." Who are these other christians, whom you regard as brethren? Are they the orthodox, whom you have

*Waterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Triuity, Chap. v.

+ St. Ignatius. Epist. to the Eph. The blessed martyr, it should seem, had "learned," even so early as the apostolick age, what you say I have learned-to "awaken men's feelings, by addressing their fears." He learned it, I suppose, from the apostles themselves, as the apostles had learned it from Christ.

75

condemned as "the most injurious of mankind," "breathing venom from their lips?" Again, p. 20, "It is not because we exalt reason above scripture, but because we revere the scriptures, that we maintain Unitarian principles.”*—P. 25. “it is truly astonishing that christians are not more impressed with the unbecoming spirit, the arrogant style, of those, who deny the christian character to professed and exemplary fullowers of Jesus Christ. P, 28. Do these oppose what they know to be the doctrine of Christ and his apostles? Do they not revere Jesus Christ and his inspired messengers?” P. 33. This practice of denouncing-exalts to supremacy in the church, men, who have the least claim to influence. IIUMBLE, MEEK, and AFFECTIONATE christians, are least disposed to make creeds for their brethren, and to denounce those who differ from them." Who those arrogant and proud ones are, who, in your estimation, have the least claim to influence, we have before seen. They are the orthodox christians." The "exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, the humble, meek, and affectionate christians, who have the highest claim to influence, and ought to be exalted to supremacy in the church," are the Unitarians. They," you affirm, p. 25, "They are deficient IN NONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, which were required in the primitive age." Orthodox christians, will readily concede, that they have no pretensions to claims like these. Deeply conscious of many and great deficiencies," they are far from considering themselves as having already attained, or being already perfect. We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."

* In this passage, you allude, as in the connexion, you do repeatedly, to the statement which I made in my Second Letter of the sentiments and practice of Unitarians, respecting the scriptures; and you treat the subject in that sort of evasive and equivocal manner, to which you are egregiously addicted. You do not, you will not, you cannot, deny the correctness of the statement; yet you obliquely, and querulously refer to it, as if it were incorrect, and varying the aspect of it, would seem to deny it.

In this commonwealth, you, and your "liberal" brethren are already in "the chief seats." To what other "supremacy you would wish to be "exalted," or can well be exalted, until you increase your numbers, or establish a hierarchy, I do not readily see. In other parts of our country, and of the christian world, it must be confessed, it is otherwise. In England, Dr. Priestly, it should seem, ought to have been bishop of St. Asaph's, instead of Dr. Horsley, Mr Lindsay or Mr. Belsham, bishop of London, instead of Dr. Porteus, Mr. Wakefield, archbishop of Canterbury, instead of Dr. Moore; and the present dignitaries of the establishment, as they "have the least claim to influence," ought to resign their places to the Unitarians,-such, and so many as can be found.

76

In the latter part of your remarks, pp. 36-49, you present a frightful picture of the consequences, which you imagine must result from what you call "the system of exclusion and separation:" that is, the system of non-communion be-tween orthodox christians and Unitarians. It would have been natural to conclude, from the descriptions which you have given of these two classes respectively, that you could neither have wished, nor thought it possible, that any thing like christian fellowship should subsist between them. How can you indeed wish, how can you think it possible that fellowship should subsist between the humble, meek, affectionate, exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, and the proud, the arrogant, the impetuous, the worst of persecutors, and most injurious of mankind, whose venomous breath secretly blasts what they cannot openly destroy! Can the wolves and the sheep dwell together within the same enclosure, in concord, amity, and peace?

You state, however, that "the system of excluding professed disciples of Christ on account of opinions, is incompatible with the great principles of Congregationalism." In this, as you cannot but be sensible, you differ most widely from the founders of the Congregational churches, whether we consider as the founders the apostles and primitive ministers, of Christ, or the leaders of the Puritans in England and in this country. The apostles certainly established the primi-. tive churches upon this system; and upon this system the leaders of the Puritans, and the churches founded by them, uniformly acted. Look into the platforms of these churches, the Savoy, the Cambridge, and the Saybrook; turn over the ecclesiastical records of the primitive times of New England, and proof will accumulate upon proof. The Congregational churches all had their creeds, their confessions of faith, and all held it as their right and their duty, to withhold and withdraw fellowship from all who denied or corrupted the essential articles.

Yet you say, "This system will shake to the foundation. our religious institutions, and destroy many habits and connexions which have had the happiest influence on the religious character of this people. The annual convention of Congregational ministers of Massachusetts, that ancient bond of union must be dissolved. The association of ministers in our different counties must in many cases be broken up.

77

Neighbouring churches will be mutually estranged. In the same church angry divisions will break forth. Many religious societies will be rent asunder, their ministers dismissed, and religious institutions cease. Discord will be carried not only into churches, but into families. The family altar must fall." Such are the direful consequences on which your feverish imagination broods, and to which it has given the most dismal colourings.

Are you not aware, Sir, that this same sort of objection, or of argument, might have been used with equal force, and actually was used, by the Jews against preaching the gospel and establishing christian churches in Judea,—by the Pagans against propagating christianity in the lands where their gods were worshipped, and by the Papists against the doctrines of the Reformation, and separation from their church. It is a sort of popular argument, which has always been urged against disturbing the corruptions of the world, by the exhibi tion and defence of the truth. The awful words of our Lord here force themselves into serious recollection. "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household."-Ultimately indeed I shall establish peace in every sense of the word," and "shall make wars to cease in all the world; but at present, and indeed for many years to come, I shall not bring peace, but a sword upon the earth. The promulgation of my religion will be productive of much dissention, cruelty, and persecution, not only to you, but to all those who, for many ages afterwards, shall preach the gospel in purity and truth. The true cause of this will be the wickedness, and the ferocious passions of men; but the occasion and the pretence for it will be the holy religion, which you are to promulgate. In this sense, and in this only, it is that I may be said to bring a sword upon the earth; but they who really bring it, are the open enemies or pretended friends of the gospel.""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." "That is evidently when the nearest and dearest relations come in. competition with our belief in Christ, and obedience to his

78

commands, our affection for them, and deference to their opinions must give place to love for our Redeemer and attachment to our Maker."*

But why must these dreadful consequences now ̈ ensue? The "system" from which you say they must result, is not a new one. It has been in practice from the first ages of the gospel. It has been in practice in our churches from the first settlement of our country. The orthodox churches of New-England, of Massachusetts, have always held it right to separate from those who essentially corrupt the gospel; at no period of our history have they supposed that they ought to be in communion with avowed Unitarians; and if at any time they have been in communion with them, it is because those Unitarians have not been publickly avowed and open.

No Sir; we are not introducing or proposing a new system. We stand upon the "foundation" of our fathers;-the venerable founders of our churches, to whom, under God, we are indebted for our "religious institutions," and the invalu

* Matt. x, 38-37. Bishop Porteus's Lecture on the Chapter.

† You say, indeed, that "we are threatened with new tribunals, or consociations," that "it is a melancholy fact, that our long established congregational form of church government is menaced;" and taking your note from the "Layman," you blow the trumpet of alarm with all your might. Were this the proper place, I should feel myself entitled to speak upon this subject with a degree of freedom and confidence. If I have ever made myself known for any thing, 1 have for my firm adherence to the principles, my zealous attachment to the liberties of our Congregational churches. In defeuce of them, my pen was early employed; and in the same cause my feeble voice has been raised in ecclesiastical Councils, in the General Association of Massachusetts, and in the Convention of Congregational Ministers. My opinion and feelings upon the subject remain unchanged.

The "Layman" has committed a mistake. He states that "an obsolete manuscript of Dr. Cotton Mather, is now attempted to be imposed upon the christian churches of this state, as the rule of their government." The truth is, that, by the Report of the Committee of the General Association, to which you and he refer, that ancient document was entirely set aside; not a scrip of it was retained: and it was set aside for the very reason, that it contained principles incompatible with the rights and liberties of the churches; principles, which, sooner than attempt to impose them upon the churches, the members of that Committee, some of them at least, would have resisted unto blood. All therefore that the Layman has said on this subject, falls to the ground; and with it, what you have said, as you have followed him both in sentiments and words, also falls.

The plan of Consociation, presented by the Committee, I have considered with earnest attention,-have examined and re-examined with anxious scrutiny; and I am free to declare, that I can see nothing in it repugnant to congregational prin ciples, to the Platform, or to the liberties of the churches. On the contrary it does appear to me well calculated to revive congregationalism in its purity, to re store the Platform to its legitimate use, to guarantee to the churches their rights and liberties, and to secure them from those invasions, infringements, vexations, and usurpations, to which, since the Platform has gone so generally into disuse, they have been continually exposed. I may be in an errour. The Report how ever, agreeably to the express intention and desire of the Committee, is before the publick for free consideration and discussion. To denounce it as you have done, is more easy than wise. I sincerely hope it will be examined with all the fairness and candour, together with all the faithful scrutiny, and jealous care, which its nature and importance demand. If you or any other man shall make it appear to be uncongregational in its principles, or dangerous to the liberties of the churches in its provisions, I pledge myself to exert whatever I may possess of talent or of influence, to prevent its adoption.