LETTER V.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

February 24, 1796.

I UNDERSTOOD there was to be a general convention of our church last fall, at Philiadelphia; but whether there was, or not, I have never been able to learn; of consequence, I have neither seen, nor heard of any thing that was done, in case that there was a convention. Dr. Magaw, in a letter, informed me, a convention was expected, and, probably a revision of the articles would make a part of the business. I have had some anxiety on this head, and should be glad to know whether there has been any revision of the articles of our church, and also to get a sight of the articles so revised.

I have had my fears, that, as our church has been distinguished by the loose lives and ungodly practices of her professed members, so will she be distinguished,

shortly, by proportionable corruptions in doctrine. Indeed, most of the clergy, as far as I can learn, have preached, for a long time, what is little better than deism, notwithstanding our old articles were so pointed and clear on the peculiar doctrines of the christian religion: such as the Trinity-the Godhead or Divinity of the Redeemer-the incarnation of the son of God -the atonement made by his death, &c. But should Unitarianism, Socinianism, &c. once creep into the articles, and give a sanction to that useless kind of preaching, so long in vogue, we may anticipate worse times than ever we have yet seen. I say, the articles, for should any thing derogatory to the Divinity of the son of God-any thing to insinuate even a doubt respecting his incarnation, atoning sacrifice, and the merits of his blood and righteousness be introduced, I should not call such our articles, but would reject and renounce them in the most decided terms and public manner.

You have heard, no doubt, of that wonderful democrat-that fire-brand in church and state, Dr. Priestly. You have heard of his unitarian principles, and of the sham answer he has written to a book, called the Age of Reason, said to be the offspring of that poor, unfortunate, disap

pointed statesman, Thomas Paine, which he begat in a state of durance, and sent abroad in order to please Robespierre, Brissot, and other atheistical leaders of the then reigning faction in France, and hereby release his neck from the perpetual terrors of the guillotine, and procure his enlargement. Whoever reads Priestley's answer to hapless Paine's libel against his Maker, will be at no loss to decide, that his intention was to betray the cause, which he pretended to defend. And yet such is the eclat attending Priestley's name, that it is to be feared he will have too much influence in poisoning principles both religious and political. I have also seen another pamphlet against the Age of Reason, as is pretended, written by one Wakefield. But I verily believe Wakefield was in reality, a greater deist than Paine. If Paine was in fact a deist, and if his real sentiments are expressed in his Age of Reason, he must have been but a young convert, for we find very different sentiments recorded in his books, called Common Sense, and the Rights of Man, the latter of which was published but a short time before he took his flight into France. The only real answer to Paine, which I have read, is written by Elbanan Winchester. S

This is an answer indeed; it is sensible, decent, plain, convincing, and directly in point; as he effectually wipes off and does away the ridicule and false misrepresentations, (which Paine had wantonly and prophanely lavished on the scriptures) by quotations from the scriptures themselves: so that whosoever reads this answer, with an unprejudiced mind, must be convinced on which side the truth lies, not by vague and fine-spun arguments, but by occular demonstration and, at the same time, must be induced to hug the Bible still closer to his heart, not only on account of its inimitable beauties and Godlike sublimities, but especially on account of the native tendency of its doctrines and precepts to enlighten, instruct, and diffuse universal happiness among all orders of mankind.

The unitarian Doctor Priestly, has had a very masterly answer, by one Mr. Gowan; but I have not seen it. But the plainest, and best adapted performance, I have read, for establishing christians in the sublime doctrine of God manifested in the flesh, or the divinity of our adorable Redeemer, was written by the reverend Sinclare Kelburn of Ireland. The book contains five sermons on that interesting subject, preached and published originally at Belfast in

Ireland, but lately reprinted in Philadelphia, with a recommendatory preface by the reverend John B. Smith. If you have not read it, I could wish you may read it, as I think you would be pleased and edified thereby.

Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, in their mad attempts to support an hypothesis, greatly obscure the principal and distinguishing glory of the gospel, and sap the foundation of a poor sinner's comfort. For my part, I find I stand in need of an Almighty Saviour-an Almighty Helperan Almighty Physician-an Almighty Shepherd. If I am one of his people, and of the sheep of his pasture, then I am an individual of a very numerous flocka flock wide diffused and scattered on a thousand hills throughout the habitable world: And if my shepherd be not possessed of attributes unlimited and incom municably divine, I should fear being overlooked amidst the multiplicity of objects and concerns which must engage his attention. But if Jesus, my shepherd, be the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah, as David's shepherd was, then my fears depart-suspicious glooms disperse, and cheerful hopes of safety and protection dawn and revive. I see in my