ship. That is, if they will consent to yield up as unscrip tural 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, as 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 ages 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 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 onch 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

prevalent, that truth is not worth contending for, that the great doctrines of the gospel are of very little importance? What then would be the consequence?-Shew me a man who cherishes this opinion, this feeling, and I will shew you one, who, far from going to the cross or to the stake, Jike the apostles and the host of holy martyrs, will make no sacrifice, no exertion, for the spread or the support of the truth: nay, one, who is already himself bound hand and foot with the silken cords of errour, and whose "deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" And let this opinion and feeling generally prevail, and where shall we find those who will be "valiant for the truth upon the earth?"

"Whatsoever maketh manifest is light." Would not the separation in question make manifest? Would it not serve to hold up the distinguishing truths of the gospel and to shew their importance, to the greatest advantage and with the best effects. Would it not tend to wake up the slumbering multitude, to excite them to earnest and serious inquiry, and to prevent their perishing for lack of knowledge, "fast by the oracle of God."

Is it then certain, that a proposal, that even an earnest call for this, can only proceed from a "malignant, proud, and censorious spirit?" Is it certain, that such a proposal or call might not proceed from the same spirit of holy charity, which ruled the hearts and fired the zeal of the apostles and faithful brethren of the primitive times, and of the distinguished ministers and confessors of the Reformation? the spirit which achieved such wonders for the honour of Christ and the salvation of men; but which in those illustrious periods, as it has been in all succeeding ages, was violently denounced, as the spirit of fanaticism, malignity, and pride.

Far be it from me to stand forth the advocate of a violent sytsem of denunciation and exclusion," or of rash, disorderly, or uncharitable measures. I am fully aware that there is danger, great danger on this hand. And did it belong to me to assume prelatical dignity, and like you to give, ex cathedra, "admonitions" to my brethren, the sum of my advice and exhortations should be, Brethren, "let all things be done de

cently and in order;”—“let all your things be done with charity." The spirit of christianity is not to be violated; the rules of the gospel are not to be disregarded; the vastly interesting considerations, belonging to the subject on the one side and on the other, are not to be treated with lightness.

But, Sir, the differences which exist between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians are certainly of a nature, to demand the most serious and earnest attention. They concern, most directly and essentially, the glory of God, the honour of the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and the salvation of men. In comparison with these, the difference between Dissenters and Episcopalians, between Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differences out of sight, to conceal their magnitude and momentous consequences; or by a raised cry of bigotry, illiberality, and intolerance, to divert the publick attention from them. They must and will be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered; and ministers and churches, professed christians and all others, must and will be brought to the solemn decision,-whether they will be for Christ or against him,-whether they will receive and hold fast his truth, or despise and reject it,—whether they will bow to his authority and trust in his grace, or refuse to have him to reign over them and contemn his salvation.

In the mean time, Charity, heaven-born Charity must be allowed to weep and lament over the inroads of errour and the desolations of Zion. Yes, Sir, charmed not at all with the so loudly chaunted praises of increased "light,”—abashed not at all by the disdainful sneers at imputed fanaticism,she will weep-that her adored Lord is denied his divine honours, in the beloved city of our solemnities, where our fathers saw his glory, and delighted to celebrate his wonderful works of love and mercy.

Thus, Sir, have I attended, amid various unpropitious circumstances, to some of the principal things in your Letter. There are others which I certainly deem not unexceptionable, but which my design does not require, nor my limits permit me particularly to notice. If in any instance, I have misapprehended you, misrepresented you, or donc any injus