guished individuals, and involving more extensive and important interests than almost any other that has been offered against them. Is it then authorized and so imperiously called for? Where are the facts that can justify it? Are the eminent individuals whom the church has entrusted with the conduct of these great enterprises, characterized by such an "apathy to truth" and "criminal indifference to all religious opinions," as to merit these sweeping imputations? Are any proofs of it to be discovered in their public acts? in the constitutions themselves of the societies, whose objects they are appointed to accomplish? in their instructions to their agents or missionaries? in the reports of their operations, or their addresses to the public? Let then the documents be produced. Have they exhibited any such disregard to the high duties of their station, in the selection of those whom they have sent forth to convey the gospel to distant and perishing nations; of Hall and Newell, Mills and Judson, Parsons, Fisk, Goodell, or any of the long train who have followed in their steps? Are any Unitarians, Universalists, Pelagians, Roman Catholics, or any other errorists, to be found among them? Is there a solitary individual in the long catalogue, who is not utterly above suspicion in respect to all fundamental articles of faith, and attachment to truth? Is there one whom these societies would not dismiss in an instant from their service, if found capable of offering as grievous an injury to the church as is involved in this gentleman's accusation? Did any of those especially whose names I have recited, whose singleness of heart, self-sacrifice, and martyr-like constancy, have reflected lustre on the church, and exhibited a happier image of the piety and devotedness of the first ages of christianity, than had before for a long time been beheld,

leave behind them, when they quit their native shores, any better men than themselves; more happily "imbued" with truth, fraught with a nobler zeal, a holier self-denial, or a more heroic courage? Not certainly among those who cannot even sustain the trials of orthodoxy in this land of toleration, ease, and abundance; to whom the task of “unbending adherence to doctrines has become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne ;" who need the perpetual incense of applause to nerve their courage and sustain their fidelity, and wilt at every disappointment of hope, or just rebuke of error.

Has it been discovered or surmised that any of these missionaries have ever exhibited a disregard to truth in their instructions to the heathen, or others? Is it not the universal conviction, that the reverse is most clearly and commendably the fact? that it is one of the most obvious and happy characteristics of their ministry, that they have employed themselves in the annunciation of the great and essential truths of the gospel, without the intermixture of the metaphysical speculations which are so usual in the regions of nominal christianity? This is, indeed, from the extreme ignorance of the great mass of those whom they are called to address, almost as much a matter of necessity, perhaps, as of duty. They would exhibit a perverse and pitiable spectacle truly, were they, like some whom they left behind them, to make it the business of their office to drill their unlettered hearers into the belief that the truths of the gospel itself have no adaptation to turn them from sin to holiness, and can have no instrumentality to that end; or that the essence of revelation lies in the dogma that God creates all their actions. In the east, indeed, some of them have found all necessity of inculcating this latter theory, had they otherwise been disposed to dwell on

it, superseded by the speculations of native philosophers; and its belief wherever held, an insuperable obstacle alike to the access of the gospel, and the excitement of an effective sense of obligation. In place of perverting their office, nd disfiguring christianity by the inculcation of these or kindred errors, they have employed themselves solely in making known the great facts, truths and requirements of the gospel,-the existence and character of God, the obligations and guilt of men, their destiny to a future being and judgment, the gift of a Saviour, the great events of his ministry and object of his death, the mission of the Spirit, the necessity of reconciliation to God, and mode of pardon and acceptance, the duty of penitence, humility, faith, love, prayer, learning the scriptures, observing the sabbath, obedience in short in all things to God and benevolence to men. And in thus confining themselves to the simple annunciation of "Christ and him crucified,” which they have found to be "mighty to the pulling down of strong holds," and the only effectual instrument of saving men, they have exhibited an example of wisdom and fidelity that should not only shield them from rebuke, but teach a useful lesson to those at large who are employed in the sacred office. One of the great and happy effects, indeed, that may be anticipated from these enterprises is, a propitious reaction on the church at home, recalling her members to juster views of the nature, and her teachers to wiser methods of enforcing the gospel; a reverberation under the influence of these powerful causes, of the voice of christianity from the isles of the Pacific, and the shores of India, freer of the jarring intermixtures of human invention, and discordant accompaniments of sectarian art, that shall atract the ear, not only of our own country, but of Europe,

and charm by its symphony, their dissonant elements into concord.

The observations which he offers to demonstrate the necessity of a purer orthodoxy in the conduct of these benevolent enterprises, are fraught with a singular incompatibility with the assumption of that necessity, and are as absurd as his imputations on these enterprises themselves are unjust. "Combinations of truth and error," he informs us, even in plans of benevolent enterprise, are of very doubtful tendency." In place of transcending in this asseveration, the views that are generally entertained of the importance of truth, he falls immeasurably below them. Not an individual probably can be found among the multitudes whom his accusations affect, who does not regard error in all degrees and "combinations," as, not of “doubtful" or uncertain "tendency," but necessarily dangerous, and fruitful especially of evil in all enterprises like these, that possibly are to fix the character of churches, and perhaps of nations, for long periods in the regions where they are the instruments of first planting the gospel. Still more difficult would it be to find any among them so lax in doctrine, or indifferent" to all religious opinions," as to subscribe to the extraordinary sentiment that truth may go with error, as far as, according to his account, error is willing to go with truth. "Error has always been

far as truth will go with

willing to go with truth, just so error; whereas, truth ought to go with error, no farther than error will go with truth." How the corrective here proposed, to "a strange apathy to truth," is to remove or diminish the evil, it is a matter of some intricacy to discover. "Truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth." Even his orthodoxy then, it

66

seems, in place of proscribing error, only requires that truth should " go with error no farther than error will go with truth," though "even in this apparently safe companionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame.” To what extent then, it is of the utmost importance to know, is error "willing" to carry this "companionship?" "Just so far," he assures us, 66 as truth will go with error." "Error has always been willing to go with truth, just so far as truth will go with error." But if truth may go with error as far as error will go with truth, and error is always willing to go with truth as long as the latter will submit to her company; then clearly truth may "always" go with error! The " orthodox spirit," with which "this zeal for Christian enterprise" is to be "more deeply imbued," thus turns out to be nothing else than a blank indifference to all religious opinions." Truth is to relax the conscientiousness and delicacy which she has hitherto cherished, and learn to become as little scrupulous of the "companionship" of error, as error, which "has always been willing to go with" her, is of the company of truth. This is verily baptising christianity into orthodoxy. "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness?" saith the Spirit of inspiration; "whereas," saith the preacher, "truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth," and "error has always been willing to go with truth!" A single example will lift the veil from this doctrine, and develope its full import. The truth that God exists, may go with the error that denies his revelation, as far as this error will go with that truth, and that is into the central regions of deistical unbelief; and the truth that man exists and is a voluntary agent, may go with the error that