A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answer [sic] to the…A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answeer [sic] to the…

Breck are of no small and trifling Nature, but on the contrary that you think them of very great Importance, and suppose you lay as much Stress upon them as we do: And it abundantly appears by the Testimonies that you yourself allow to be good, that he did, after he was a Communicant and a Preacher of the Gospel, and a little before he came to Springfield, very frequently and openly treat some of the most fundamental Doctrines of Christianity with great Contempt, in a haughty and proud Manner, asserting the contrary Errors, preaching them from Time to Time, and in various Pulpits, and that he persisted in it, with abundant Obstinacy, after many gentle Means and Endeavours to reclaim him, or persuade him to desist, ⟨p. 75⟩and thereby greatly stumbled many People: And is there nothing of the Nature of Scandal in all this? Is not here a Wound to Religion, that does properly call for some open self Reflections, in order to its being healed? Supposing it had been some open Immorality by which Mr. B—, or any Body else, had wounded Religion, and laid a stumbling Block before others, would it be sufficient to remove it and heal the Wound, merely for him to draw up a Catalogue of moral Duties, and say he owns these to be Duties, and intends to practice 'em, without so much as owning that he had ever violated one of them? If a Man only treat his Neighbour with public and open Reviling and Contempt, he is guilty of that, which by gospel Rules debars him from Communion in Christian Ordinances, 1 Cor. 5. 11 and 6. 10, And will it be sufficient to remove this Offence, and open his Way again to Communion, for him only to acknowledge his Duty, and profess a Purpose of performing it in the several Branches of it, and those of Love and Honour to his Neighbours among others, without making any Reflections on himself for his Sin, and Wrong to his Neighbour among others, without making any Reflections on himself for his Sin and Wrong to his Neighbour in this Particular, or so much as owning it? If you say tho' Mr. B—did cast open Contempt on the Holy Doctrines of Christ; yet it was not as such, because he did not then suppose 'em to be such: However should not a Man in such a Case, when he comes to see that they were indeed holy Doctrines of Christ, be greatly humbled to think that he has so vilified them, and be ready to show his Abhorrence of himself for it to all the World?