primitive churches, though not composed of inspired men, yet thought themselves warranted to judge of doctrines whether they were true or false; and accordingly, in conformity to apostolick example and direction, withdrew themselves from those who rejected, or essentially corrupted the gospel. Some of them indeed were more faithful in this respect than others; and in his solemn addresses to the churches in Asia, "He who walketh in the midst of the golden candlesticks," particularly commended the more faithful, and severely rebuked the more negligent. And I hold it to be a fact, which ought not to be controverted, that, in all succeeding ages, the purest and best churches, those which have shone as the brightest lights in the world, have been the most steadfast in the apostolick practice, the most faithful in keeping separate from those, "who would pervert the gospel of Christ." Yet you say, p. 27, "It is truly wonderful, if excommunication for supposed errour be the method of purifying, that the church has been so long and so wofully corrupted. Whatever may have been the deficiencies of christians in other respects, they have certainly discovered no criminal reluctance in applying this instrument of purification." And in this connexion you employ an elegance of imagery, worthy of being applied to a much better purpose, together with a vehemence of reproach, similar to what is often to be met with in the writings of the avowed enemies of christianity. For myself however, I am firmly persuaded that it is to be attributed, not to undue strictness, but to a criminal laxation of discipline, that "the church has been so long and so wofully corrupted." Owing to this laxation, the corrupters of the gospel have found it easy to introduce and intrench themselves within the sacred pale; and seizing upon the gates and fortresses of the holy city, have made themselves strong, have cast down the truth to the ground, have worn out the saints of the Most High, and have practised and prospered, until they have "rendered the records of the christian community as black, as bloody, as revolting to humanity, as the records of empires founded on conquest and guilt."

You contend nevertheless, p. 28, that mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge which one denomination has now a

right to urge against another, and you ask, "Do we find that the apostles ever denounced mistake as awful and fatal hostility' to the gospel, that they pronounced anathemas on men, who wished to obey, but who misapprehended their doctrines." It is already, I trust, sufficiently evident, that the nature and general character of mankind are not so different now from what they were in the apostles' days, as you seem to suppose; that there is no such difference between the cases of those professed christians, who then opposed and perverted the gospel, and those who now do the same, as you represent. If mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge, which they justly incur now, it is the heaviest which they justly incurred then.-Do you imagine, Sir, that those whom the apostles "denounced and excluded," made no pretensions to sincerity, no professions of "a wish to obey" the gospel? Do not the apostles testify that the false teachers, on whom "they pronounced anathemas," transformed themselves into the apostles of Christ? And is it not abundantly manifest, that they made very lofty pretensions to sincerity and virtue, and by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple? Even the immediate opposers of Christ, on whom he pronounced his heaviest woes, claimed to have God, even "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," for their Father, and in their zeal for God, opposed and rejected his doctrines as blasphemous. There is no evidence to show, nor reason to believe, that the adversaries of the truth were not as sincere, as candid, as virtuous, and as respectable, in the first days of the gospel, as they are in the present age; and might as justly claim exemption from every charge, heavier than that of mistake in judgment."

This however was not the heaviest charge which was urged against them. To those who claimed to have God for their father, and who were fair and beautiful" in outward appearance, the mild and benevolent Jesus said, “I know you that ye have not the love of God in you. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour which cometh from God only?" And he declared that they had both scen and hated both him and his Father." All this, you

will please to observe, was said of the pharisees, rabbins, rulers, and priests, those who "devoted themselves to the study of the scriptures,” and were regarded by one another, and by the world, as "the eminent, the enlightened, and the good."

I quote these testimonies of the "faithful and true Witness" as a specimen, not to intimate that "fallible men" should rashly apply or use similar language, but to shew in what light He who knows what is in man," views an obstinate disbelief of the truth. Far from regarding it as mere mistake in judgment, he traces it home to an evil heart. Accordingly he declares in general terms, that "men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." The inspired Paul also says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." And he represents natural men as having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts." To this evil source, this moral depravity, the scriptures constantly refer disbelief and rejection of the truth. Nor do they at all limit this affecting representation to the early times of the gospel. On the contrary, the spirit of prophecy most abundantly foretold, that errours, proceeding from the same corrupt source, would abound in times then future and distant; and that the last ages of the world would, in this respect, be eminently perilous: that men would turn away from the truth, not enduring sound doctrine:" and that false doctrines would be propagated in such a manner, by such men, and with such pretensions, as would "deceive, were it possible, the very elect."

And is it not most evident, that all which is proud and haughty, and corrupt, in the nature of failen mankind, will, in every age, resist the truth of God?-particularly those humbling doctrines which declare, that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," that men can be justified no otherwise, than "freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom

God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood;" and those which transcend the comprehension of human reason, the trinity of persons in the Godhead, the union of the divine with human nature in the person of Christ, and the expiation of the sins of the world, by his one offering of himself. And is it not equally evident, that all that is selfsufficient, and arrogant, and subtile in man, will employ all the resources of "philosophy and vain deceit," to corrupt, to discredit, and to subvert doctrines to which the heart is so decidedly adverse?

Still, however, you strenuously insist, p. 29, "Whatever may be the right of christians as to bearing testimony against opinions which they deem injurious, I deny that they have any right to pass a condemning sentence on the characters of men whose general deportment is conformed to the gospel of Christ. Both scripture and reason unite in teaching that the best and only standard of character is the life: and he who overlooks the testimony of a good life, and grounds a sentence of condemnation on opinions, about which he as well as his brother may err, violates most flagrantly, the duty of just and candid judgment, and opposes the peaceful and charitable spirit of the gospel."

By the condemning sentence" of which you here speak, I understand you to mean the sentence of excommunication, or non-communion; and the principal sentiment of the passage, stript of its adventitious circumstances, is, that christians have not a right to exclude any from their fellowship on account of erroneous opinions, or, in other words, on account of their corrupting or denying any doctrines of the gospel. It is, however, an indisputable fact, as has before been shewn, that christians have always, from the days of the apostles to the present, held and exercised this as a right and as a duty. And I ask you, Sir, do not even Unitarians, do not you yourself claim and exercise this right? Is there no case in which you would exclude a man from christian fellowship on account of erroneous opinions? In your remarks on my second letter, p. 19, you say, "We are convinced from laborious research into the scriptures, that the great truth, which is the object of christian belief, and which in the first ages con

ferred the character of disciples on all who received it, is simply this, that Jesus is the Christ, or anointed by God to be the light and Saviour of the world. Whenever this great truth appears to us to be sincerely acknowledged, whenever a man of apparent uprightness declares to us his reception of Jesus in this character, and his corresponding purpose to study and obey his religion, we feel ourselves bound to give him the hand of christian fellowship."-Be it even so. There is then, however, one article of faith, which you hold essential to christian fellowship; an article which you have ascertained by laborious research." Should one, who denies the great truth that Jesus is the anointed by God to be the light and Saviour of the world, request the privileges of fellowship in your church, however fair his character in other respects might be, he could not be admitted. He would be refused simply on account of his opinion. And for the same reason, should a member of your church, a man of apparent uprightness, avow his disbelief that Jesus is the Christ, if you and your church acted consistently with your declared principle, he would be excluded from your fellowship.

But why should you exclude him? why exclude a man for his errour in this one particular? I suppose the plain truth to be this: You would hold that he may be a good man, and go to heaven, though he disbelieve that Jesus is the Christ,* and deny divine revelation altogether. Yet you would say, that he cannot be a christian, unless he believe that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed by God to be the Light and Saviour of the world. But why not? He may acknowledge, as many infidels have done, that Jesus Christ was a man of preeminent excellence of character, and the best moral teacher or philos opher, that ever appeared in the world; may "declare, with apparent uprightness, his corresponding purpose to study and obey his religion;" and may wish to call himself, and to be called a christian, for the same reason that the followers of Plato were called Platonists, and others have been called after the names of the philosophers or teachers, whom they have respectively chosen for their masters. Still, however,

iny

Notwithstanding Jesus has said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die your sins."

.