any kind of judgment on any man, further than I am called to do so; and, when this is the case, I desire it may always be in meekness and fear; knowing, not only that I also am judged of others, but that all of us, and all our decisions must be tried, another day, at a higher tribunal.

It may be asked, What call have we to pass any kind of judgment upon those who disown the deity and atonement of Christ? I answer, we are called either to admit them, as fellow-christians, into communion with us, or refuse to do so. We are necessitated therefore, to pass some judgment; and this is all that we do pass. We do not pretend to. say, concerning any individual, that we are certain that he is not in a state of salvation; but we say, we cannot perceive sufficient ground to warrant our acknowledging him as a fellow-christian.

We must either admit every pretender to Christianity into communion with us, and so acknowledge him as a fellow-christian; or we shall be accused of judging the hearts of men. The rule by which we admit to fellowship is, a credible profession of Christianity. There are two things which render a profession credible:First: that the thing professed be Christianity: Secondly: that the profession be accompanied with a practice correspondent with it. If a man say he loves God, and lives in malevolence against his brother, all will admit that he ought to be rejected: and, though such rejection may include a kind of judgment upon his heart, none will object to our proceedings on this account. But, if this be judging the heart, we suppose we have a right, and are obliged, to judge it from words, as well as from actions. If the profession which a person makes of Christianity do not include what, in our jugdment, is essential to it, we cannot consistently admit him to communion with us, not acknowledge bim as a fellow-christian.Our judgment must be the rule of our conduct. If we err, so it is; but we ought not to act in opposition to our convictions. To acknowledge a person as a fellow-christian, while we consider him as defective in the essentials of Christianity, would be to act hypocritically, and tend to deceive the souls of men.

Some persons have spoken and written, as though we invaded the right of private judgment by refusing to commune with those who avow Socinian principles. But, if a community have not a right to refuse, and even to exclude, an individual, whose sentiments they consider as subversive of the gospel, neither has an individual any right to separate himself from a community, whose sentiments he considers in a similar light. Provided they would forbear with him, he ought to do the same with them. The principle condemns not only the Reformation from Popery, but all other reformations in which individuals have withdrawn from a corrupt community, and formed one of a purer nature, Under a plea for liberty, it would chain down the whole Christian world in slavery; obliging every community to hold fellowship with persons between whom and them there is an entire want of Christian concord. It aims to establish the liberty of the individual at the expense of that society. Our opponents, however, will be silent in this case. They, with proper consistency, persuade their people to come out from Trinitarian communities.* Were I to imbibe their sentiments, I should follow their counsel, and separate myself from those whom I accounted Idolaters: or, if the community should be beforehand with me, and separate me from them, as one whom they accounted a subverter of the gospel, however such a separation might prove to my feelings, I should have no just reason to complain.

In our view, our opponents have renounced the principal ideas included in those primitive forms of confession, Jesus is the Christ— Jesus Christ is the Son of God: and, as charity itself does not require us to acknowledge and treat that as Christianity, which in our judgment, is not so; we think it our duty, in love, and with a view to their conviction, both by our words and actions, to declare our decided disapprobation of thier principles. We lay no claim to infallibility, any more than our opponents. We act according to our judgment, and leave them to act according to theirs; looking forward to that period when we shall all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ.

*See Mr. Kentish, p. 44. Note.

APPENDIX:

CONTAINING A FEW REMARKS ON DR. TOULMIN'S REVIEW OF THE

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

FIRST Let it be observed, that Dr. Toulmin, by appealing to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, would seem to be an adherent to scripture, and to disregard every thing else in comparison with it. But, if the system which he espouses be so friendly to the scriptures, how is it that they are treated with so little respect. by almost all the writers who embrace it? and why did not Dr. Toulmin answer my Letter on “Veneration for the Scriptures," (No. XII.) in which this charge is substantiated?

:

Secondly Dr. Toulmin proceeds on the supposition, that the history of the Acts of the Apostles is, in itself, independent of the other parts of the sacred writings, a complete account of the substance, at least, of what the Apostles preached, and that it ascertains those principles, the publication of which preceded the conversions in this primitive age. But why should he suppose this? The book professes to be a history of the Acts of the Apostles. As to the principles which operated in producing the great effects of those times, they are occasionally touched; but, that not being the professed object of the sacred writer, it is but occasionally. He does not always relate even the substance of what the Apostles preached. For instance, he tells us, that Paul preached at Troas until midnight,* but makes no mention of any thing that he taught. He informs us of that Apostle's conversion to Christianity, and makes no mention, it is true, of those principles which I have supposed necessary to repentance and faith, as having had any influence in producing that effect; such a conviction of the evil nature of sin, our own depravity, &c. and this silence of the sacred

But,

writer Dr. Toulmin improves into an argument against me.* if we hence infer, that these principles had no influence in conversion, in that of Saul, for example, we must contradict the Apostle's own particular account of this matter, which he has stated in the seventh chapter to the Romans; where he intimates, that by a view of the sprituality of the divine law, he was convinced of his own depravity, and of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and died, as to all hopes of acceptance with God by the deeds of the law.

When any thing is said, in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning principles, the account is very general.—They ceased not to teach and preach JESUS CHRIST. In Samaria, Philip preached CHRIST. Unto the eunuch he preached JESUS, and declared that Christ was the Son of God. The discourses of the Apostles are frequently called THE WORD OF THE LORD, and THE WORD OF GOD.†

To suppose that the principles which are particularly specified in the history of the Acts, were the only ones which were influential in the conversions of those times, would be to exclude, not only those doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistic, but various others, which are allowed, on all hands, to be the first principles of religion; such as, the being of a God, the excellency and purity of his moral government, the divine origin of the Old Testament, &c. The apostles, in preaching to the Jews, did not assert these principles, but they supposed them. It were unreasonable to expect they should have done otherwise; seeing these were principles which their hearers professedly admitted: yet it does not follow, that they had no influence in their conversion. On the contrary, we are assured, that he that cometh to God, must believe that he is; and that by the law is the knowledge of sin. Nor is it less evident, that to embrace the Messiah, includes an approbation of those scriptures which foretold his character and conduct.

Thirdly Though the writer of the Acts of the Apostles does not profess to give us even the substance of the ministry of the

Letter III.

† Chap. v. 42. viii. 5. 35. 37. ix. 20. xiii. 5. xiv. 25, xvii. 3.

apostles, yet he says sufficient to convince an unprejudiced reader, that their doctrine was very different from that of Socinus, or of modern Unitarians. It is true, they spake of Christ as a man, a man approved of God by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him; and taught that God raised him from the dead : and, if we had denied either of these truths, it would have been in point for Dr. Toulmin to have laboured, all through his Second and Third Letters, to establish them. But they taught the proper deity, as well as the humanity of Christ; and atonement by his death, as well as the fact of his resurrection. him as the Lord, on whose name sinners were to call for salvation ;* and declared, that by the shedding of his blood his church was purchased, and believing sinners justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.†

They exhibited

Peter, in his first sermon, addressed the Jews upon principles, of the truth of which they, in their consciences, were convinced : Ye men of Israel, said he, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God-by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, AS YE YOURSELVES ALSO KNOW, -ye-by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Upon these principles he grounded others, of which they were not convinced; namely, his resurrection from the dead,§ his exaltation at the right hand of God, his being made both Lord and Christ,¶ and of remission of sins through his name.** In his next sermon, he asserted him to be the son of God,tt the Holy One, and the Just, the Prince (or author) of life, whom they had killed, preferring a murderer before him. If Jesus was the author of life in the same sense in which Barabbas was the destroyer of it, then was the antithesis proper, and the charge adapted to excite the greatest alarm. It was nothing less than declaring to them, that, in crucifying Jesus of

*Chap. ii. 21. Compare Chap. ix.14. xxii. 16. Rom. x. 12. and 1 Cor. i. 22 + Chap. xx. 28. xiii. 39.

Chap. ii. 22. Verse 24-32. Verse 33. Verse 36.

++ Chap. iii. 13. ‡‡ Chap. iii. 14, 15.

** Verse 38.