"concealing them, solemnly calls on christians who differ "from us in sentiment, to come out and be separate from us, "and to withhold communion with us."" Upon this topick your zeal rises to its utmost height. And it is, Sir, I confess, a subject most deeply interesting, and of a nature most strongly to excite the sensibilities of the soul. Here lies the danger. Upon this subject, it is extremely difficult to keep the passions still, and to attend with calmness, and meekness, and impartiality to the unadulterated dictates of reason and of scripture. Yet scarcely can another subject be named, which more imperiously demands to be considered with the most dispassionate, docile, and unbiassed mind. I am fully aware that there have been, in all ages, that there are in the present age, rash and fiery zealots, who are never more in their element, than when engaged in strifes and contentions, sowing discord among brethren, and rending the churches of Christ piecemeal. Such spirits are not easily restrained and regulated, by the counsels of the more temperate, and considerate, but not less conscientious, and firm, and faithful. I am no less fully aware, that there have been in all ages, that there are in the present age, zealots of a quite different character, but not less rash and fiery, who are always ready to raise the cry of bigotry, illiberality, fanatacism, and persecution, against every measure and attempt, though conducted with the best spirit, and with the utmost prudence and regularity, for maintaining the cause of truth, and promoting the purity, order, and prosperity of the churches.-It would be lamentable, Sir, indeed, should you descend from your proper elevation, and lend yourself, with all your weight and influence, to give a deeper tone, and a wider extent to a cry so senseless and so unholy.

It is to be lamented, that on a subject of this serious and momentous kind, you should have thought it proper so entirely to dispense with argument, and with all the scriptural considerations which, in relation to this subject, so forcibly press themselves upon the conscience and the heart; and to indulge so freely in vague declamation, poignant invective, and fervid appeal to popular prejudices and passions. I know full well, and too many know, that this is the way to strike the minds of that great majority of mankind, to whom thought and reflec

tion are irksome; the method best adapted for the support of a bad cause. I am fully aware of your advantage in this respect. But, Sir, a minister of Jesus Christ should esteem it a higher honour and a nobler achievement, to enlighten the understanding and correct the conscience of a single individual, than to rouse the passions and inflame the prejudices of thousands. Declamation is always, for a very obvious reason, difficult to answer. Yours however, under the present head, is evidently bottomed on several assumptions, which I deem utterly inadmissible, and some of the principal of which I propose to consider.

In the first place, you manifestly assume, that the points of doctrine, upon which you and your liberal brethren differ from your opponents, are comparatively small and trivial; not "practical," but speculative mercly, and such as do not materially affect christian character.-I trust, Sir, it has been made plain, under the preceding head, that this ought not to be assumed. According to your own concession, the party in whose behalf you plead, generally deny the essential divinity of the Saviour, and hold him to be a being entirely "distinct from God”-entirely "dependent,”-in other words a mere creature.-But, Sir, between a being essentially divine, as by us the Saviour is held to be, and a mere creature however exalted," there is, as you will readily admit, an infinite disparity. The Saviour, then, whom you acknowledge, is infinitely different from Him whom we acknowledge and adore. Your rock is not as our Rock, you yourselves being judges! As your acknowledged Saviour is infinitely inferiour to ours, so too are the offices and the work which you assign to him. You doubtless do not suppose, that by any mere creature, atonement could be made for the sins of an apostate world, of sufficient merit for the pardon, sanctification, and eternal salvation of all who should trust in him; therefore, if you hold to atonement in any sense, yet unquestionably not in the sense of a proper propitiatory sacrifice. Upon this denial of atonement, must follow of course the denial of pardon, procured by the blood of Christ,-of justification solely through faith in him,-of redemption from eternal death unto everlasting life by him. Connected and, gener

ally if not invariably, concomitant with the denial of these doctrines, is a denial of the Holy Spirit in his personal character and offices, and of the renewal of mankind unto holiness by his sovereign agency, as held by orthodox christians. Now, Sir, are these small and trivial points of difference between you and us? The God whom you worship is different from ours; the Saviour whom you acknowledge is infinitely inferiour to ours; the salvation which you preach is immensely diverse from that which we preach. Though you call Jesus Christ master and Lord, and profess to believe in him and to love him; yet you do not, with the disciple who had long doubted, call him your LORD AND YOUR GOD; you do not believe on him for a salvation, meritoriously procured by his atoning blood, his vicarious merits; nor do you love him with supreme affection, or "honour him as you should honour the Father."

Are the doctrines then, about which we differ, merely speculative? Are they not practical, most vitally and essentially practical? Do they not go home to the heart directly, and claim an empire over all the affections and powers of the soul? Is not a doctrine which essentially concerns the object of our worship, practical?-when, if we are wrong in regard to the object of our worship, we can hardly be right in any part of our religion. Are not the doctrines, which affect directly the very foundations of our faith, practical?-When a true faith is the grand requisition of the gospel, and the vital principle of all holy practice, of all the works which are good and acceptable in the sight of God.

Hitherto, Sir, I have proceeded upon the ground of your general statement, and held more particularly in view your higher classes of liberal christians. But it is not to be overlooked, that you make your remonstrance against "separation," not in favour of those higher classes only, but equally in favour of the lowest:-of those who believe in the "simple humanity of Jesus Christ," who agree most nearly with Mr. Belsham; nay, Mr. Belsham himself, and those who agree with him entirely, were doubtless not intended to be excluded. You put in your earnest plea for the whole. The question, then, is a short one. Is not Mr. Belsham's gospel, as set

forth in his 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 separatian 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 periodical 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