preach much about the necessity of the new-birth, but deny the true nature of it. Some speak much of the abuse of the Sacraments, in order to deny their use altogether, instance the Quakers. So, many feed on the imperfections of good men, to endeavour to establish in their minds, that there is no reality in religion. Some plead for forms of prayer, instead of the spirit of prayer; and others speak against forms of prayers, and hypocritical prayers, and thereby insinuate, that there is no occasion for any prayers or thanksgivings to God.

This devilish subtlety frequently bewilders the simple followers of the Lamb of God, and is the cause of very sore distress to many who know Christ, and the power of his resurrection. Well might Mr. Hart say of a Christian;

"He takes the whole gospel, not a part,

"And holds the fear of God."

"Be

On this ground Christ warned his disciples: "Beware of false prophets, for they come unto you in sheep's clothing, but within they are ravenous wolves." ware of the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Many other exhortations shew how liable we are to be deceived.

Because a "Layman's" distinction between an Arian and a Socinian is perfectly correct, and because it may convey information to many, I shall insert it: "The Arians have the most elevated ideas of Jesus Christ. [But they deny his proper Divinity or Deity.] They consider him as a being pre-existent to his appearance on earth; that he came down from heaven. Many of them believe, that he had an agency in the formation of

this world. In this manner they [endeavour to] réconcile some texts of scripture, which seem to give to the Messiah this exalted character.The Socinians, on the other hand, consider him as an inspired prophet, but purely human in his origin." I must confess, I have always thought the Socinian scheme the most consistent and the most rational; and if I did not believe, that Jesus was truly God as well as Man, I should view him as purely human in his origin. So far from our believ ing that the godhead may be divided, as a "Layman' misrepresents us, we believe in the unity of Christ's person; that he was God and Man in one person; and we say, that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder: yet" they do not believe, that the great Jehovah hath any copartners in his power," and it will certainly injure the cause of the "liberal clergy" for a "Layman" to make such illiberal insinuations. It is a libel on the Protestants to say, "that they maintained the same abominable doctrine of the supremacy of the church, that the Pope had done."

It is a well known fact, that, in every Protestant nation, the civil authority claims the supremacy; and this is the first principle of Protestantism, which they have never departed from, and for which they are reproached by the Papists. See the "Catholick Question in America." It is true, that the interests of christianiity cannot be promoted by a temper and practice, which that religion expressly condemns, and the opposite to which forms its most distinguished glory and praise. But I am obliged to deny what a "Layman" asserts, with a positiveness peculiar to himself, that the points on which the reformers differed from the Popedom, have

not been more fully proved, than the points on which the "liberal clergy" and the orthodox differ." What! has it been proved as truly, that Jesus Christ is not God, as it has been, that the bishop of Rome has no scriptural authority for usurping an ecclesiastical authority over all Christendom? Has it been as manifestly proved, that the doctrine of the Atonement is unscriptural and pernicious, as it has been, that the popish doctrine of merit was the foundation of so much false devotion, penances, confessions, pilgrimages, indulgences, holy wars, and other abominations? Has it been as satisfactorily proved, that the worship we pay to Christ is idolatry, as it has been that the adoration of the host, or of images, was idolatry? Has it been as fully proved, that the eternal punishment of the final impenitent is a “bugbear," as it has been, that the doctrine of purgatory has no foundation in scripture? Finally, has it been shewn that the doctrine of regeneration is as unscriptural, as the prayers offered for souls' deliverance out of purgatory, was fallacious, and of man's invention? I confess that it is time that my eyes were opened to these proofs, if they have been given; for, as yet, I have had no idea, that any thing like substantial proof has been offered. Now is the time for the "liberal clergy" to produce them. A" Layman" promises for them, that they shall expose "those errors." This will be kind of them; we promise them, that if we are in error, we wish to know it, and we shall thank them for their expoBut we beg of them, to meet the question fairly; let them prove, from the scriptures, that Jesus Christ is not the eternal God. Then Calvinism must fall to the

sure.

ground; if that can be proved, our whole foundation is gone; that is the corner stone of the whole building, and if that be removed, we are undone. Mr. Belsham knows that, and therefore he strikes at the root; but by striking so desperately at Calvinism, has he not struck a deep blow at Christianity? If Christ's miraculous conception is a deception, and the account of it an interpolation, what good ground have we to believe any part of the new testament? He has told us, that "it is highly improper to speak of the scriptures, as the word of God, as it leads inattentive readers to suppose they were written under a plenary inspiration, to which they make no pretension, and as such expressions expose Christianity unnecessarily to the cavils of unbelievers." This is seasoning the gospel, to make it as palatable as possible to unbelievers. Again he says, "" To a true Christian every day is a Sabbath, every place is a temple, and every action of life, an act of devotion." To say the least, this is a very loose way of expression for a Christian Divine. It is neither law nor gospel. It is a strange mixture. He appears also to doubt Christ's ascension into heaven, he calls it "being withdrawn from the society of his disciples." But the Evangelist tells us, He assended into heaven, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And he holds, "That, on the subject of demoniacal possessions in particular, he, like the mass of his nation, was involved in gross darkness, and actually believed that to be true, which the wisdom. of modern times has discovered to be false." Such is the Unitarianism which Mr. Belsham wishes to propagate. Wardlaw says, "It is very obvious, that two

systems, of which the sentiments on subjects, such as these are in direct opposition, cannot, with any propriety, be confounded together under one common name. That both should be Christianity is impossible; else Christianity is a term which distinguishes nothing. Viewing the matter abstractedly, and without affirming, for the present, what is truth and what is error; this, I think, I may with confidence affirm, that to call schemes so opposite in all their great leading articles by a common appellation, is more absurd, than it would be to confound together those two irreconcileable theories in astronomy, of which the one places the Earth, and the other the Sun, in the centre of the Planetary System. They are, in truth, essentially different religions. For if opposite views as to the object of worship, the ground of hope for eternity, the rule of faith and duty, and the principles and motives of true obedience; if these do not constitute different religions, we may, without much difficulty, discover some principles of union and identity, among all religions whatever; we may realize the doctrine of Pope's universal prayer, and extend the right hand of fellowship to the worshippers at the Mosque, and to the votaries of Brahma."

We certainly ought to give no place to the devil, and if we do, he will be the first to accuse us. So, if the orthodox Congregationalists have fellowship with the Unitarian Congregationalists, they will by and by accuse them of want of decision and faithfulness. Indeed a "Layman," already accuses Dr. Morse: he says, "We cannot review the state of religious contro