It seems, however, that such Associations are forbidden by that least forbidding of all the Christian graces, _Charity_. “Christian charity (you tell us) no where recommends associations of discordant principles, combinations of men professedly at variance and in hostility with each other: but Christian charity enjoins that which renders all these elaborate societies useless; it teaches and _obliges_ Christians to be _like-minded_, to have one faith, one baptism, one speech, and one hope of their calling.” {21a} Now, Sir, though I am far from thinking that you are singular in your notion of Christian charity; for the church of Rome entertained the same opinions, and does, I dare say, entertain them to this day—yet I think you will have a difficulty in turning this notion to any important use. The fact is, that Christian Charity, much as she may _enjoin_ an uniformity of opinion upon questions of a controvertible nature, cannot succeed in effecting it without the aid of those _compelling_ means, of which she has been so long deprived. From the time that some prototype of Lord T. prevailed upon the church “to throw away that natural defence” of whips, and screws, and faggots, “which God Almighty had given her,” {21b} Christian Charity has assumed a new character, and taken up an employment the very opposite to that in which she had been for ages before engaged. Her attention is now turned from the _heads_ to the _hearts_ of men; and when she cannot succeed in making them _like-minded_, she tries to make them _love one another_. She is said to have actually disclaimed all the sentiments and measures which were ascribed to her during her alliance with the Holy Father. The account which is given of the matter, is plausible enough; and as it does not appear to have reached your ears, I will give it you just as I received it.