crime?- -a belief in the truth to be no virtue? Or does he limit the remark to infidelity?—which, in your Sermon before referred to, you allow may sometimes proceed from "vice." What is his meaning when, in his commission to his apostles and ministers, he says, "He that believeth," (in the truth undoubtedly) shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned?" What is St. Paul's meaning, when he says, "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,-God shall send them strong delusion to believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?" And St. Peter's, when he says, "There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction?" If this language sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust, Sir, you will have the goodness not to impute the fault to me; and that you will not, on account of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse to give attention to the momentous sentiment contained in it.

Did the apostles, then, studiously "avoid controversy?” Did they "seldom or never refer to any different sentiments embraced by other" professed "christians?" Never "attempt to refute" errour? Never assail any "system which they did not believe?" or any "denomination that differed from them?" Did they refrain from preaching high and mysterious doctrines, lest they should perplex, and needlessly perplex, a common congregation, consisting of all ages, capacities, degrees of improvement, and conditions in society?" Did they, in compliance with a general system" of conduct, adopted by them, cautiously "exclude" from their preaching all controverted points, give up as unimportant and unprofitable every doctrine which any individuals, or bodies of professed christians, had ventured to deny or oppose, and "persuade themselves that the best method of promoting the holiness and salvation of mankind" was, "to urge on them perpetually those truths and precepts about which there was little contention?" Had they done so, possibly they might not have been "made the offscouring of all things," and been exposed

to "deaths oft;"-but have "enjoyed singular prosperity," "found themselves respected by all classes of society,” and been "distinguished by the eminent," and by those whom the world would call "the enlightened and the good." But did

they not act upon an entirely opposite "system?" Did they not preach, "with much contention," a doctrine which was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness," -a doctrine which was "every where spoken against?" Were not their Epistles all of them controversial, in a greater or less degree, and some of them almost entirely? Did they not zealously contend for sentiments which were denied and opposed, and the more zealously in proportion as the opposition was more powerful and determined? Did they not earnestly denounce" false doctrines and false teachers? warn the churches and all men against every prevalent errour? and with the utmost solemnity say, "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!"

Though the apostles were invested with an extraordinary authority, yet you will certainly admit, that, in their love and zeal for the truth, and (due allowance being made for change of circumstances) in the manner of performing their ministry," they are examples for all the ministers of Christ.-If then, my dear Sir, you and your liberal brethren have chosen to adopt "a general system" of conduct in the ministry, altogether different from theirs, we must entreat you not to think it strange, if there are some who cannot accord to you all the "praise," which you "have thought that you deserved." And notwithstanding the assurance and the pathos, with which you make your "appeal” to your people, you must not expect that the minds of all will be entirely relieved from the painful apprehension, that both you and your people may be under some deception; or from the distressing doubt, whether, at the appearing of the Lord Jesus, you will be able in his presence to say to them, "We take you to record this day, that we are pure from the blood of all men; for we have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."

III. "The Reviewer," you say, "having charged us with holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritically

"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 councils 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, fanaticism, 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 invectice, 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 advantages 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 merely, 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 créature 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 ever 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