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? Is there a Unitarian 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 him? None of those certainly which are exhibited in his Unitarian creed.

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 reserved, 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.

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 this 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 grieved 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 error 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 uport 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

crime?—a belief in the truth to be no virtue? Or does he limit the remark to infidelity?-which in your Sermon before referred to, you allow may sometimes proceed from "vice." What is his meaning when, in his commission to his apostles and ministers, he says, "He that believeth," (in the truth undoubtedly) "shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned!" What is St. Paul's meaning, when he says, "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion to believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?" And St. Peter's, when he says, "There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." If this language sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust, Sir, you will have the goodness not to impute the fault to me; and that you will not on account of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse to give attention to the momentous sentiment contained in it.

Did the apostles, then, studiously "avoid controversy?" Did they "seldom or never refer to any different sentiments embraced by other" professed "christians?" Never "attempt to refute" errour? Never assail any "system which they did not believe?" or any "denomination that differed from them?" Did they refrain from preaching high and mysterious doctrines, lest they should "perplex, and needlessly perplex a common congregation, consisting of all ages, capacities, degrees of improvement, and conditions in society?" Did they, "in compliance with a general system" of conduct, adopted by them, cautiously "exclude" from their preaching all controverted points, give up as unimportant and unprofitable every doctrine which any individuals, or bodies of professed christians had ventured to deny or oppose, and "persuade themselves that the best method of promoting the holiness and salvation of mankind" was, "to urge on them perpetually those truths and precepts about which there was little contention?" Had they done so, possibly they might not have been "made the offscouring of all things," and been exposed

to "death's oft;"-but have "enjoyed singular prosperity," "found themselves respected by all classes of society," and been "distinguished by the eminent," and by those whom the world would call "the enlightened and the good." But did they not act upon an entirely opposite "system?" Did they not preach, "with much contention," a doctrine which was to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness," -a doctrine which was "every where spoken against?" Were not their Epistles all of them controversial, in a greater or less degree, and some of them almost entirely? Did they not zealously contend for sentiments which were denied and opposed,—and the more zealously in proportion as the opposition was more powerful and determined? Did they not earnestly "denounce" false doctrines and false teachers? warn the churches and all men against every prevalent errour? and with the utmost solemnity say, "If we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!”

Though the apostles were invested with an extraordinary authority, yet you will certainly admit, that, in their love and zeal for the truth, and (due allowance being made for change of circumstances) in the manner of performing their ministry, they are examples for all the ministers of Christ.-If then, my dear Sir, you and your liberal brethren have chosen to adopt "a general system" of conduct in the ministry, altogether different from theirs, we must entreat you not to think it strange, if there are some who cannot accord to you all the "praise," which you have thought that you deserved." And notwithstanding the assurance and the pathos, with which you make your "appeal" to your people, you must not expect that the minds of all will be entirely relieved from the painful apprehension, that both you and your people may be under some deception; or from the distressing doubt, whether, at the appearing of the Lord Jesus, you will be able in his presence to say to them, "We take you to record this day, that we are pure from the blood of all men; for we have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."

III. "The Reviewer," you say, "having charged us with holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritically