pronounce my mode of arguing to be "savouring of spleen and ill-nature, and evidently designed to fix an opprobrium and disgrace," (p. 134.) the case is altered.

It is right to judge of the disposition of the heart by "overt acts;" that is, by words and deeds: but, where this judgment is directed against Unitarians, it is not right, after all; for it is possible we may judge uncandidly and unjustly! It is right for Dr. T. to disregard the profession of his opponent, when he declares his belief in the unity of God and the humanity of Christ, and expresses that belief in the words of scripture, because he does not "receive these principles in the pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them." But, if we disregard their professions, and require any thing more than a declaration of their faith in the words of scripture, we set up our gospel, or the gospel according to our views of it ;" and act contrary to our professed principles as Protestants, as Dissenters, and as Baptists.

When our creed and worship are such, that they cannot conscientiously join them, they have a right to separate from us ; otherwise they could not "keep the commandments of Jesus pure and undefiled:" but, whatever be their creed, or the tenor of their conversation, or prayers, we have no right to refuse communion with them.

66

If we do not model our professions, preaching, and worship, so as to give no offence to an individual of their principles, we assume a power which no Christian, or body of Christians possesses :' yet they do not model their professions, preaching, or worship, so as to give no offence to us; neither do we desire they should. They do not confine themselves to the words of scripture; nor is it necessary they should. They inquire, whether our professions ac cord with the meaning of scripture; and we claim to do the same. The reason why Dr. T. will not allow of this and other claims, must, I should think, be this: Their views of the gospel are "pure and simple." and ours are corrupt. Thus it is, reader, that he goes about to prove, that he does not "take for granted the principles on which he argues," and that "he assumes nothing!" If Dr. T. can persuade himself and his friends, that he has not shifted the

ground of the argument, has not assumed what he should bave proved, and, in short, has not tacitly acknowledged Socinianism to be indefensible on the ground of its moral tendency, they are welcome to all the consolation such a persuasion will afford them.

All I shall add will be, a brief defence of the principle on which the foregoing Letters are written. To undermine this, is a point at which all my opponents have aimed. The practical efficacy of doctrine, in the present age, is a subject, it seems, which ought not to be discussed, as the test of its being true. They are, to a man, however, against it: a pretty clear evidence this, that it does not speak good concerning them.

Mr. Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce, glancing at The Systems Compared, says," The amount of it is; We Calvinists, being much better Christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must, of course, be true." The Unitarians," he adds, "will not trespass upon the holy ground. We have learned, that not he who commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. And be it known to Mr. Wilberforce, and to all who, like him, are disposed to condemn their brethren unheard, that, if the Unitarians were inclined to boast, they have whereof to glory. And, if they took pleasure in exposing the faults of their orthodox brethren, they likewise have tales to unfold, which would reflect little credit on the parties, or on their principles. But of such mutual reproaches there would be no end."*

Dr. Toulmin alleges, that "It is a mode of arguing very unfavourable to candour and fair discussion, savouring of spleen and illnature, principally calculated to misrepresent and irritate, and evideptly designed to fix an opprobrium and disgrace; that, when our Saviour cautioned his followers to beware of false prophets, who should be known by their fruits, he meant not persons who would teach false doctrine, and whose lives would accord with it; but persons of insincere character, whose doctrine might, nevertheless, be true; and that his brethren have not reasoned against Calvinism from the immoral lives of Calvinists, but merely from the immoral tendency of their principles.†

* Pages 267, 268, 274. + Pages 134, 148, 154.

If the mode of arguing pursued in the foregoing Letters be liable to all these objections, it is rather singular, that it should not have been objected to, till it was pointed against Socinianism. If it can be shown to be a mode of arguing consonant to the directions given by our Saviour, and actually used by the Apostles, the Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, and even by our opponents themselves, their objecting to it in this instance will prove nothing, except it be the weakness of their cause.

*

Our Saviour warned his followers to beware of false prophets, and gave this direction concerning them: Ye shall know them by their fruits. This direction, founded in self-evident truth, and enforced by the Head of the Christian church, appeared to me to furnish a proper criterion by which to judge of the claims, if not of every particular opinion, yet of every system of opinions pretending to divine authority.

Mr. Kentish admitted, that "The effects produced by a doctrine was a proper criterion of its value, but not of its truth." But the value of doctrine implies its truth. Falsehood is of no value : whatever proves a doctrine valuable, therefore, must prove it to be true.

Mr. Kentish further objects: "This celebrated saying of our Saviour is proposed as a test of character, and not as a criterion of opinion." To the same purpose Dr. Toulmin alleges, that "This is a rule given to judge, not concerning principles but men; not concerning the sentiments promulgated by them, but concerning their own characters and pretensions. The persons here pointed at are hypocrites and false prophets; such as would falsely pretend a commission from God. Their pretensions might be blended with a true doctrine; but their claims were founded in dissimulation. They would be discovered by their covetousness, love of gain, and lasciviousness." p. 148.

These writers are, in general, exceedingly averse from judging men, considering it as uncandid and presumptuous, and plead for confining all judgment to things; but, in this case, things themselves seem to be in danger; and therefore men are left to shift for themselves.

According to this exposition, it is the duty of Christians, when ministers discover an avaricious and ambitious disposition, though sound in doctrine, and in time past apparently humble and pious, to set them down as hypocrites. And this is more candid, it seems, and savours less of spleen and ill-nature, than drawing an unfavourable conclusion of their doctrinal principles.

But waving this: The saying of our Saviour is given as a test of false prophets, or teachers; an epithet never bestowed, I believe, on men whose doctrine was true. That false prophets and teachers were men of bad character, I admit, though that character was not always apparent :* but that they are ever so denominated on account of their character, as distinct from their doctrine, does not appear. When any thing is said of their doctrine, it is invariably described as false. If any man shall say unto you, lo here, is Christ, or lo there, BELIEVE HIM NOT for false Christs, and FALSE PROPHETS, bearing witness in their favour, shall arise.-There were FALSE PROPHETS 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.-Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God: because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world.-Every spirit that CONFESSETH NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH, is not of God.-Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, hath not God. If there come any unto you, and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds. ↑

If the false prophets described by our Saviour were such as might teach "a true doctrine," the description given by the New Testament writers, uniformly representing them as teaching falsehood, are at variance with those of their Master.

That there were hypocrites who taught a true doctrine, may be allowed but they are never denominated false prophets or false teachers. Balaam was a wicked character, and is called a prophet;

*2 Cor. xi. 14. Matt. vii. 15.

+ Mark xiii. 21, 23. 2 Pet. ii. 1. 1 John iv. 1-3. 2 John 10, 11.

but, as the subject matter of his prophecies were true, he is not called a false prophet. Judas also, was a hypocrite and a thief, at the same time that he was a preacher and an apostle; but, as what he taught was true, he is not described as a false teacher, or a false apostle.

These things considered, let the impartial reader determine, Whether our Saviour did not mean to direct his followers to judge by their fruits, who were the patrons of false doctrine?

With respect to the use which has been made of this direction, I appeal, in the first place, to the apostles and New-testament writers. I presume they will not be accused of self-commendation, nor of spleen, and ill-nature; yet they scrupled not to represent those who believed their doctrine, as washed and sanctified from their former immoralities; and those who believed it not, as having pleasure in unrighteousness. All those facts which Dr. Toulmin has endeavoured to press into the service of modern Unitarianism, are evidences of the truth of the primitive doctrine, and were considered as such by the New-testament writers. They appealed to the effects produced in the lives of believers, as living epistles, known and read of all men, in proof that they had not corrupted the word of God, but were the true ministers of Christ.† With the fullest confidence they asked, Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Plainly intimating, that truth was well known by its effects. Nor was error less so those who introduced false doctrines, are invariably described as unholy characters.§

To quote the reasonings of the Fathers on this principle, were to copy a large proportion of their apologies. I question whether there be one of them, which does not contain arguments for the truth of Christianity, on the ground of the holy lives of Christians; and which does not infer, or, in some form, intimate, the falsehood of Heathenism, from the known immorality of Heathens. Their opponents having no better answer at hand, might possibly charge this reasoning with vain boasting, spleen and ill-nature: but I do

*1 Cor. vi. 9-11. 2 Thes. ii. 12.

1 John v. 5.

† 2 Cor ii. 17. iii. 1—3.

2 Pet. ii. 1-3. Jude. 1 Cor. xv. 33, 34.