forth in this creed, another gospel, than that which Paul preached? If you are not willing to admit this; yet surely you cannot hesitate a moment to admit, that it is another, than that which is held by orthodox christians,-which is preached by orthodox ministers:-essentially different in every particular from the foundation to the top stone. One or the other of these schemes, then, must be what St. Paul denominates "another gospel," and against which, and its abettors, he solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema. The leading doctrines of Mohammed are not more diverse from the orthodox views of christianity, than are those which you would have us hold in our fellowship. The followers of Mohammed believe in Jesus Christ as a good man, and a great prophet; and are accustomed to regard him, I believe, with as high veneration, as are the lower Unitarians.

Does it not then infinitely behove both you and us, instead of uttering vague declamations, and impassioned appeals, most seriously to weigh the very forcible declarations of the ingenuous Mr. Belsham himself: "Opinions such as these can no more harmonize with each other, than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite, cannot be fellow worshippers in the same temple. It was expedient that they should separate."

Another of your evident assumptions is, that every separation between professed christians is unjustifiable; a criminal "schism," the guilt of which is chargeable upon those who insist upon it as requisite. Schism, Sir, in the scriptural sense, I certainly hold to be no light matter. But what is schism in the scriptural sense? Is it not a rending, a disruption of the body of Christ, or of his true church? But are all who call themselves christians really members of the body of Christ? Do they all hold the Head? Do the scriptures teach this? Do the scriptures represent that all separation from those who call themselves christians, all withdrawing of fellowship from them, is schismatick, is "heretical?" Do they enjoin upon the churches to hold in their fellowship all who profess to be christians, however corrupt in sentiment they may be?-Do they not on the contrary constantly insist on belief in the truth, as the very foundation of christian charac

ter and of christian fellowship? and as solemnly warn the churches to keep clear of errour as of other sin? as earnestly exhort them to be steadfast in the truth, as in that holiness of heart and practice, to which the truth is conducive and absolutely necessary?

If then, in obedience to the scriptures, and with the spirit, and in the manner, which the scriptures enjoin, churches that are sound in the faith, separate themselves from such professed christians as deny all the fundamental, all the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, are those churches justly chargeable with the guilt of schism and heresy? Is an orthodox church to be charged with schism and heresy, for withholding fellowship from a church professedly of the sentiments of Mr. Belsham's creed? or for excluding from its communion, in the regular way of christian discipline, individual members who professedly hold the same sentiments? Or are members of Unitarian churches to be charged with schism and heresy, if, in the meek and faithful spirit of the gospel, they ask for dismission, and regularly withdraw from a fellowship which they believe to be not that of the apostles and prophets?

How, indeed, is the fellowship for which you plead to be maintained? Upon this point you and your liberal brethren have taken care that we should be pretty fully informed. The orthodox churches must give up their creeds and covenants, their Psalms and Hymns and Doxologies; must cease to insist on, as important, the great doctrines which they now hold to be fundamental and essential to the christian faith; must exclude from their pulpits all mysterious and all controverted doctrines, all that are not included in what is fashionably called liberal or rational christianity; must consent, in a word, to have their preaching and worship conducted on such principles, and in such a manner, as will not disturb the minds of liberal christians, or Unitarians of any class! Is not this, Sir, precisely the way most distinctly marked out, and most strenuously insisted on, in your pericdical publications, in your ordination sermons, and in all your discourses and conversations on this subject? If the orthodox ministers and churches will only consent to all this, the thing is done; all will be love, and peace, and fellow

ship. That is, if they will consent to yield up as unscriptural or unimportant the doctrines of faith and the principles of worship, which they now hold most essential to christian character, devotion, and practice,-to hold it "no crime to.. believe as Mr. Belsham believes," and, to worship as he worships; and thus cease to be orthodox, or in any respect materially different from those called liberal christians; all the difficulty will be removed, and the way will be open and easy for an established and permanent fellowship, between them and Unitarians of all degrees.-Yes, Sir: and if Unitarians would cease to be Unitarians, and become orthodox christians, the way would be equally unobstructed.

But here lies the difficulty. The orthodox ministers and churches will not consent thus to yield up their faith and their worship: and from the earnest and abundant labour and pains which you and your liberal brethren have employed, to bring them to these terms, it is manifest that, unless they will consent, you do not yourselves suppose there can be fellowship between you and them. Because they do not consent, you continually charge them with being bigotted, illiberal, uncharitable; and now seem disposed to charge them even with schism and heresy. But, Sir, if on account of their steadfast adherence to their faith and worship a separation and non-fellowship ensue, does it not deeply concern you, ast well as them, very seriously to consider on which side the guilt will lie? Unquestionably, notwithstanding any thing which you have said of your own, or quoted from Dr. Campbell, it must lie on that side, which the Redeemer and King of Zion shall judge to have removed itself from the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Your last assumption which I shall particularly consider is this: That it can be only from a bigotted, uncharitable and malignant spirit,-a "proud, censorious and overbearing temper," that a separation can be proposed.-In this, as well as in what you say on the subject of schism and heresy, you seem to forget that your liberal brethren in England have not only proposed a separation, but have actually carried the proposition into effect; and that your heavy charges against your opponents here, recoil with all their force upon

your transatlantick friends. This, however, is no concern of ours.

We have been, my dear Sir, so long accustomed to hear the vehement charges of uncharitableness, illiberality, and bigotry, vociferated against us from your quarter, that we have ceased to be greatly disquieted by them. We "hear the angry thunder murmur at a distance, with as little concern as if it were the thunder of the pope, from whom it seems indeed to be borrowed.”—The reason of these charges has been explained in the foregoing remarks. Your modesty and consistency in them are notable. You set out with asserting, that religion consists in charity; in charity, to be sure, in your own sense of the word; you then claim all this same charity as belonging to yourselves, and allow none of it to us: and thus, in effect, you deny that we have true religion. Yet the very reason why we are thus "denounced" as destitute of charity is, that we do not, as you allege, allow the genuineness of your religion. You may then deny the genuineness of our religion, and yet be most charitable; but if we entertain any doubt of the genuineness of yours, we must be utterly destitute of charity!

There is no word more abused than charity. Its scriptural meaning, as you very well know, is love; holy love to God and men: that love which is "the end of the commandment" and "the fulfilling of the law." In this sense it is indeed the essence—the sum of religion. Is it then a violation of the great law of love, for the friends of truth to decline communion with its rejecters?-We have nothing to do here with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about modes, or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or practice. Our concern is with differences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this point you have yourself fairly reduced the present question.-Yes, Sir, the simple point here at issue is, Whether it be a violation of the law of love, for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ, to separate from believers in another and an opposite gospel? If yours is the true gospel, then ours is another; if ours is the true gospel,

then yours is another. In either case, the great question respecting fellowship remains the same.

You will certainly agree with me, that whatever tends directly to the maintenance and promotion of truth, cannot be incompatible with love to God, or love to men. Jesus Christ came into the world to bear witness to the truth. His apostles were appointed to be witnesses to the truth; which they were to propagate at every hazard, and which they, like their divine Master, finally sealed with their blood. His church was established to be "the pillar and ground of the truth." The great design of the christian ministry in all age is, to maintain and promote the truth. It is by means of the truth, that the glory of God is advanced in the world; and that mankind are guided into the way of peace, and sanctified for the kingdom of immortal glory. Love to God and men then requires, as a duty of primary obligation, that the churches of Christ, the ministers of the gospel, and all christians should do what they can for the promotion of truth.

We advance then to another question: would it conduce more to the promotion of truth for the believers in the true gospel, to hold fellowship with the believers in another gospel, than to separate from them?-We have seen in what way only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to be maintained, the principal doctrines of the gospel must cease to be clearly preached; divine worship must cease to be conducted on principles distinguishingly christian; every principle or truth which is controverted, must be yielded up, as no longer to be urged or defended; and the friends of truth must conform to the abetters of errour. All this must take place to a degree proportionate to the extension and closeness of the fellowship. But is this, Sir, the way to maintain and promote the truth in the church and in the world? Is it not rather the way to extinguish at once the light of the ministry, the light of the church, the light of the gospel? to throw back the children of light into darkness and the shadow of death, and to leave the prince of darkness to triumph in an unlimited and undisturbed empire?-Would not the first and most certain effect be, the general prevalence of the opinion and the feeling,-already, alas! too