indeed, that it may not be applied indiscriminately to the party called orthodox, among whom," you are pleased savingly to say, "there are multitudes whose humility and charity would revolt from making themselves the standards of christian piety, and from assailing the christian character of their brethren." It does, however, from the very terms of it, apply to all of every nation and age, who have adhered to creeds, and refused fellowship on account of opinions. Where, among orthodox christians, the "multitudes" are to be found, who do not fall within this description, it would not, I believe, be very easy to point out. •

You will not deny that creeds were used in the early periods of the church. What is called the Apostles' Creed, if it were not set forth by the apostles themselves, is however historically traced up nearly or quite to the apostolick age, as having been then used in the churches with little or no exception. It is equally certain, that in those purest and brightest days of the church, it was held by all christians right, and a sacred duty, to note as hereticks, and to exclude from fellowship, those who denied or corrupted the essential doctrines of the gospel. Afterwards the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were used along with the Apostles', generally, and with exclusive effect, in the orthodox churches. In the age of the Reformation, the Protestant churches, Lutheran, Zuinglian, Calvinian, or by whatever name distinguished, all had their creed, and excluded from fellowship those who denied their essential articles. And it has been so with the orthodox churches generally, from that day to the present.

It is also a well attested fact, that, by the great body of christians, from the days of the apostles to the present, the deniers of the Trinity, or of the proper Deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, Unitarians of various names, have been regarded as being eminently subverters of the gospel; and as little doubt has been entertained of the duty of withholding fellowship from them, as from any who have called themselves christians. About two hundred years ago indeed the celebrated Episcopius made it a question, whether they might not, consistently with the gospel, be admitted to the fellowship of orthodox churches. But the question, after ardent,

and powerful debate, on the Continent and in England, was decided in the negative; and in that decision, the orthodox churches, with great unanimity, have ever since rested.

I am then fully warranted in saying, that your condemning sentence applies to the great body of the church of Christ of all ages and nations. Indeed you yourself very explicitly give it this extensive application when you say, with signiflcant emphasis, "Such has been the history of the church." Especially does it apply to those, who, in successive periods, have been the most distinguished in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ," who have contended with the most holy charity and zeal for the faith once delivered to the saints, by whose labours and sufferings the religion of the gospel has been, instrumentally, maintained and propagated,—of whom the world has not been worthy, but whose "witness is in heaven and their record on high."-And, my dear Sir, it is with no common feelings of grief, that I find myself compelled to say, that a heavier sentence than yours, against the disciples of the Lord, against "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," has never, I bėlieve, been pronounced, by the bitterest of enemies, either pagan or infidel.

But why are the servants of the Most High thus condemned? Because they have thought it right not to extend christian fellowship to such as have denied and sought to subvert, what they hold to be the essential doctrines of their holy religion; doctrines on which they have founded all their hopes of salvation to themselves and their fellow men, and which they have been ready to seal, and in thousands of instances have actually sealed, with their blood. Yes, Sir, it is for this OPINIÓN of theirs, that you have passed a condemning sentence on their characters," as "the MOST INJURIOUS OF MANKIND, THE WORST OF PERSECUTORS, BREATHING VENOM FROM THEIR LIPS, AND SECRETLY BLASTING WHAT THEY COULD NOT OPENLY DESTROY! If then, as you say, persecution is à wrong or an injury inflicted for opinions, and assaults on character surely fall under this definition;" I solemnly refer it to your conscience before God, whether you do not stand convicted at your own bar as a persecutor.

If you say that the great body of orthodox christians, whom you have thus vehemently condemned, have not only held the obnoxious opinion, but have also expressed it and acted upon it, I shall not deny the charge. But that they have done it in the bitter and violent manner, which you have so frightfully represented, especially in this country, and still more especially "in this quarter of our country," I do utterly deny; and I challenge you to produce any facts to justify in the least your representation. I affirm, with the most assured confidence, that if in any part, or in any period of the world, a spirit of moderation, forbearance, and kindness, has been shewn towards those who have been regarded as subverters or corrupters of the gospel, it has been in this region, and in the present age. Even you yourself acknowledge, that we "talk to you courteously as friends;" but this, in your charity, you choose to represent as "mockery," with an insidious intention to "rivet your chains," and "more irritating than papal bondage." Of the candour of this representation, I have nothing to say; but have only to remark, that, even in the midst of your violent invectives, you have reluctantly made, at an unguarded moment, an acknowledgement of a fact, known and read of all men: the fact, that instead of the venom and "outrage," which, from the general strain of your declamation, "a stranger" would suppose you had experienced, you have actually been treated by these "most injurious of mankind," with great courtesy and kindness, with great tenderness for your characters, and care for the preservation of peace. But the "coals of fire which have thus been heaped upon your heads," have served, it should seem, only to "irritate.”

If, however, the orthodox have expressed their opinion respecting fellowship, and acted upon it, is it not also true, that those, from whom they have withheld fellowship, have likewise expressed their erroneous opinions, and acted agreeably to them? Doubtless there have always been men who have thought it prudent to conceal their opinions. Only, however, when their opinions have been avowed, and acted out, have the erroneous, on account of their errours, been exeluded. It has been because, that from their opinions, words

have proceeded, which "eat as doth a canker," and deeds which tend to the subversion of the gospel, that they have been placed out of communion.

ment.

But you say, "Both scripture and reason unite in teaching that the best and only standard of character is the life." "The whole scriptures teach that he, and he only is a christian, whose life is governed by the precepts of the gospel, and that by this standard alone, the profession of this religion should be tried." "Jesus Christ says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." I have no difficulty in acceding to this stateI certainly hold, and wish to be understood to hold, that the best and only standard of character, is the life;" that "he, and he only is a christian, whose life is governed by the precepts of the gospel, and that men are to be "known by their fruits." If, however, you mean, as it is evident you do, that in estimating or determining christian character, a man's opinions, his faith or his disbelief, are not at all to be taken into the account; I can assure you, I have not so learned Christ.

The scriptures throughout earnestly and authoritatively insist on faith, humble, hearty belief of the truth, as essential to christian character. The chistian life is a life of faith. The fruits by which the christian is to be known are the fruits of faith. Christians are believers. They are sanctified through the truth. Their hearts are purified by faith. Such is the doctrine of scripture.

If a man discard the gospel altogether, as a cunningly devised fable, however fair and commendable in other respects his life may be, you will hardly yourself, I suppose, find in him the christian character. If then a man acknowledges the gospel to be from God, and even makes a formal profession of christianity, and yet, instead of believing, loving, steadfastly maintaining, and seeking to promote the great and essential truths of the gospel, disbelieves, hates, opposes, and endeavours to discredit and obstruct them; though he may be eminently what the world calls honest, and benevolent, and amiable, and virtuous; yet must not his christian character be materially and eminently defective? Is it not manifest, that his life is" not "governed by the precepts of the gos

pel?"-particularly those leading precepts, which require him to receive the truth in love, to obey the truth, to walk in the truth, to do nothing against the truth,-to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,-to shine as a light in the world, holding forth the word of life? These christian fruits are certainly wanting in him; and fruits of an opposite kind,—fruits as bitter as the "grapes of Sodom, and the clusters of Gomorrah," are exhibited. If he be a professed minister of the gospel, and in addition to the particulars now mentioned, instead of speaking the true gospel of Christ, and declaring all the counsel of God, he preach another gospel, or doctrines subversive of the truth, and employ all the advantages of his publick station, and all the influence of his sacred and engaging character, in counteracting the faithful ministers of Christ, representing their steadfast adherence to the truth as bigotry, their earnest defence of the gospel as illiberality, their labours to prevent the spread of the pernicious effects of errour, as persecution, their zeal for the honour and cause of Christ, as party spirit, and their measures for advancing his kingdom, and extending his salvation, as projects of ambition;-what must we say or think of his life? Is it governed by the precepts of the gospel? “Beware," says He who came down from heaven to guide our feet into the way of peace, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing.-Ye shall know them by their FRUITS."

False teachers would pretend extraordinary endowments of Learning perhaps, or Sanctity, or Picty, and an affectionate concern for the happiness of those whom they should address themselves to. But they might be detected by their fruits. For if their doctrine should be found contrary to the doctrine of Christ, that is conviction at once, and all their glozing pretences are worth nothing. They are false prophets, because their doctrines are false. What can be a plainer proof of it? Neither is it any objection to this, that our Lord afterwards speaks of doing the will of his Father, and of working iniquity: for maintaining the truth, is doing God's will; and corrupting or resisting it, is working iniquity. Therefore, let this be included at least among other bad fruits, other works of iniquity. We will allow that an heretick in matters of mere revelation, is not so bad a man, generally speaking, as an heretick in morality; but still he may be a