that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us." "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject." "I know says the Son of God to the church at Ephesus thy works and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them which are evil and thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars."

What power, my brethren, is here given to the churches of Christ through their appointed officers, to fasten on all offenders "the brand of heresy for not being able to believe in the whole length and breadth of that complicated cast-iron creed," which Christ and His Apostles have laid down, and "to banish them heart-broken from the communion of their friends and neighbors, and to send them weeping, into a stigmatized and miserable solitude for life."

And as under the theocratic government of the church, the utmost severity of divine indignation was denounced upon the excommunicated Jezebel-woman, mother and wife though she was-so do we find our Savionr in opposition to all the sentimental liberalism of Unitarian gallantry, uttering denunciations against the church in Thyatira, "because it suffered that woman Jezebel,"-some female heresiarch,-"who called herself a prophetess to teach and to seduce his servants," "Behold, says Christ, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit spiritual adultery with her by embracing her corrupt doctrines,' into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to his works.”

How certain is it, my brethren, that Unitarianism, which reduces the whole teaching of the Bible to a few "simple and intelligible principles" which "will not stagger the common reason and moral sense of mankind," being dismembered from all the "narrow cast-iron and complicated doctrines of Calvinism," and which neither brands with heresy nor delivers unto Satan any man, though like Theodore Parker, he glories in the shame of open infidelity,-how certain, I say, is it that this system though it call itself the gospel, is not the gospel of Christ, but is another gospel and yet not another. How true is it that the gospel may be so perverted as that a man may believe it and yet be no christian,-that while a false glory is given to it which attracts the reason of men, all its real glory may be taken away, and that the church of Christ may be so opened to this

ingress and membership of "maidens, wives, and lay and clerical" worshippers, "who receive not the truth in love of it," that were Christ to enter again into His earthly courts, He must make a whip of cords and drive them out of it.

I will now however, proceed to make some remarks on the sermon of Dr. Gilman. And in the first place, from what I said on the discourse of Dr. Humphrey, it will, I think, be apparent to every candid mind, that this attack upon the Presbyterian Church was unprovoked, there being in the discourse of Dr. Humphrey no allusion, direct or indirect, to the system of Unitarianism. It appears to conflict with that meek and quiet spirit which has ever adorned the walk and conversation of its author and with that humility, charity, and all comprehending liberality which he attributes to the system he defends, and for which he comes forth as a champion.

Secondly, I beg leave to remark on this attack of Dr. Gilman, that it was as inappropriate as it was unprovoked. This remark I hope I may be permitted to make without intending thereby any discourtesy to Dr. Gilman, any question of his perfect right to canvass, confute, or even denounce both "our theology and its developments,”—or any feelings of retaliating harshness and severity on my part. Dr. Gilman I have long and well known. Our social relations have been most kind and agreeable, and not the less so because he was and is sensible of "the profound and conscientious aversion which I entertain" for the system of Unitarianism as claiming to be the gospel, and because I am sensible of similar feelings on his part towards the theology called Calvinism. Profound conviction is always tolerant and charitable. Dr. Gilman can receive the strongest expression of argumentative condemnation of his system, in the same spirit in which he so powerfully utters it against ours. And even while I feel that "woe is unto me if I stand not up for the defence of the gospel," my heart's desire and prayer to God for him is, that he may be saved.

Allow me then, in this spirit, to say that this attack of Dr. Gilman was, in the way in which it was conducted, as inappropriate in him as it was unprovoked.

Dr. Humphrey had made war in his discourse, upon a portion of the Episcopal, upon the Romish, and to some extent upon the Methodist Churches. To these he had, therefore, thrown down the gauntlet, and from these he had fairly provoked retaliation. But he had fraternized with all other denominations and with Congregationalism, to which Dr. Gil

man professes his attachment, in particular. Was Dr. Gilman then called upon by any claims of duty or propriety to become the champion of a creed which was unassailed and of a system of polity which was by name approved?

He is, however, most generous in his chivalry. He undertakes the defence of "our Episcopal churches," of the Methodist, of the New School Presbyterians,-of all deposed and excommunicated ministers,-of all "unprotected maidens,""beloved and respected wives," of "his non-Calvinistic Protestant brethren,”—and of "Protestant brethren of all denominations." Like another David come forth to victory, he bids them all be still, throws over them the ægis of his protection, and singly and alone meets the dread Philistine.

Whether "his Protestant brethren of all denominations" will acknowledge the relationship and approve his "forward zeal on their behalf" it remains to be seen. Certain it is, that hitherto, in speaking among what are termed Evangelical churches of "other denominations," they would never have been supposed to allude to Unitarians. And whatever may be the views of these denominations at the South, the Congregationalists with whom he claims special fraternity as "OUR OWN Congregational forms," have, even in his own New England, been considerably reluctant to admit the consanguinity. There was indeed a time when Unitarianism constituted a part of the Congregational denomination of New England. But it was only so long as it continued latent and unavowed. As soon as it became known to the churches "the sacred ties of christian fellowship between sister churches were severed."

*See the New England Puritan-"He," says the writer, "who dispassionately considers the differences subsisting between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism, cannot fail to perceive and allow that it is due to consistency and to the holy cause of truth, for the advocate of the first system to protest against and refuse communion with the last. To expect any thing less than this, is the height of illiberality; it is to ask one to lay himself on the ground, and as the street, for his opponent to pass over-to renounce self-respect, to prove a traitor to the cause of his God, and the highest interests of his race, as they commend themselves to his understanding and heart. There are some principles which all must admit are essential to christianity. Our Fathers, in accordance with the prevailing sentiment of the church in all ages, placed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ foremost among the essentials of revelation. It was, therefore, but a necessary part of their belief to refuse fellowship with those who rejected this truth. And in this they acted not only upon a proper, but upon a necessary principle. No man can have a serious faith in christianity, without embracing certain essential ideas involved in it; and no man can do this without refusing his fellowship to systems which exclude and oppose these ideas. We honor, therefore, those men who bore a full aud unwavering protest against what they regarded as an essential departure from christian truth. We honor them for consistency, for their fidelity to the cause of truth, to themselves and to us."

"Unitarianism," says the New Englander for October, 1846, p. 505, "can no more be identified with the form of Congregationalism, than infidelity with republicanism. When Unitarianism appeared in the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, instead of being retained in the existing system, it was compelled to come out and stand alone. It was thrown off or withdrawn from. Truth would not keep fellowship with it, would not live under the same covering. But the lovers of truth separated from it-or the heresy separated itself from them by an instinctive and a mutual repulsion and came out alone that it might die."

A third remark which I would make in the same spirit on this discourse of Dr. Gilman is, that while it breathes much of the odour of gentle and unwilling rebuke, nevertheless it is to a very great degree unfair and uncandid in its statements of the doctrines, order and practices of the Presbyterian Church, or otherwise through his avowed "disgust" towards our "repulsive" system, he has not taken sufficient pains to inform himself as to what we do believe.

The slightest examination or inquiry would have led Dr. Gilman, as it did a gentleman of another communion, who was staggered by the same declaration of Dr. Humphrey,—that "the purpose of God is the cause of sin,"-to discover that it was undoubtedly an oversight in the language or views of the individual author, and that it was not the doctrine of our standards. But not only did Dr. Gilman not refer, as did the gentleman to whom I allude, to our standards before publicly assailing our doctrines, he even exaggerates the statement of Dr. Humphrey into the fearful declaration that "we were purposed to be sinners for the glory of God, and that we would be punished with eternal torments for the very sins thus occasioned." Indeed, the whole of Dr. Gilman's statement of the doctrines of Calvinism is a caricature,-in some parts, a misrepresentation bordering on what sounds to us, as blasphemy,and altogether it is a creed which none would revolt from with more aversion than well instructed Calvinists. And when he declares that "the reprobation of the nonelect and their condemnation to everlasting death" is one of the vital and important Presbyterian dogmas, and that "it is in the power of the Presbytery of Louisville to call before them" Dr. Humphrey, and to "charge and convict him of heresy," and "by a majority of one to cashier him from his office and send him home to his people an unfunctional and ruined man," for omitting this

dogma in his statement of doctrine-when, I say, I find Dr. Gilman making these assertions and affirming that the omission of this dogma leaves Dr. Humphrey's "whole statement singularly open to the charge of lurking Universalism," I can hardly feel justified in saying less than that this is a very flagrant violation of the ninth commandment. The only reason why I do not so charge it, is the hope that these utterances were made in undue excitement, and in ignorance of our standards. Such a doctrine as that of reprobation, (a term which is never employed in any of our standards,) and the everlasting punishment of any member of mankind, except "for their sins," "the sinfulness whereof" proceedeth only from the creatures "who harden themselves through their own lusts and in the exercise of their free wills," is unknown to our standards or to any recognized system of Calvinistic divinity.

There are several other instances of gross and inexcusable misrepresentations of our doctrines and of our discipline which we might adduce. But as this part of our duty is in the highest degree unpleasant and invidious, I will leave them unnoticed,† except the statement that "serious fears had been entertained" "that the Presbyterian Church in this country was making rapid strides, and aims to usurp the control of the government." These fears were entertained, I presume, only by those who dreaded a strict observance of the Sabbath, and the stoppage of Sabbath mails, to promote which Presbyterians, in common with many others, took a very active part. These fears will now, it seems, be revived by "these perpetual attempts to show that our church is peculiarly republican in its tendencies." The logic or the charity which can deduce such conclusions from

He regards our system as involving taxation without representation. Dr. Gilman certainly does not "understand our system aright.' In regard to all temporalities and the choice of a minister, all pewholders in our churches have an equal voice. And in regard to all spiritual matters, that is which relate to the communing members of the church, ALL who are members have an EQUAL voice. We have, therefore, a President, Standing and other Committees chosen by all pewholders in the congregation, for superintendance of its temporal affairs, and ruling elders who may cease to act, or be requested if unacceptible to cease to officiate, and who as they only act with the minister in the conduct of spiritual affairs, are elected by all the male communicants. Dr. Gilman's affecting picture of aggrieved parties, is at once destroyed by the fact that an appeal can be taken by the humblest member, against any improper or unjust decision of the church session, to the full and impartial judgment of a Presbytery or Synod or Assembly. Neither are the decrees of our General Assembly "omnipotent imprescriptible, irreversible," as was evinced by the late Assembly compromising on principles of peace and harmony, in contrariety to decisions of former Assemblies. A General Assembly cannot bind any future Assembly, nor contravene the will of the church at large, as this may be indicated by its representatives in any future Assembly.