never have found a place with you, but for the unpropitious habit to which I have referred, and of which probably you have been too little conscious.

Have we yet to learn, that the spirit of persecution is the offspring, not of any particular system of religious sentiments, but of that corruption of our fallen nature, which, if not subdued by divine grace, will exert itself against the true spirit of the gospel, sometimes in the form of a fiend of darkness, sometimes in the guise of an angel of light, according to circumstances. It ought not to have been mentioned in the present controversy. On neither side are we pleading for persecution. In regard to this spirit, its atrocity or its hatefulness, there is no question between us; and to fix the attention upon this, as if it were mainly or in part the subject matter in debate, can serve no other purpose, than to excite passion, inflame prejudice, embitter feeling, mislead the judgment, and bar the mind against argument and truth. It is time, and more than time, that every thing of this sort should be utterly discarded, by enlightened and liberal men, and by all who would bear the christian name. Though we differ, and widely differ in our opinions;-though we engage in debate on most important and interesting points;— though we should find occasion even to separate as to christian fellowship; yet there need not be, there ought not to be, and if our tempers were right there would not be, any bitterness, or wrath, or anger, or clamour, or evil speaking on either side. The gospel teaches us to exercise unfailing charity and good will, not only towards those whom we receive to christian fellowship, but towards all men.

Another of your means for giving to your Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer is that of representing my Letter as being light and "trifling." You speak repeatedly, and not a little contemptuously of "verbal criticism," and of "humour and sarcasm." Of the criticism, I shall have occasion to take some notice in another place; upon the rest, my remarks will be short. If, Sir, I have used lightness, if my Letter was not serious, I was greatly deceived and greatly to blame. The subject I certainly considered a very momentous one; and I did really apprehend that the seriousness

with which I treated it would be offensive to many.

If, as you say, particularly in regard to the last head, "the view which I took of the subject gave me a field for my powers of humour and sarcasm," I believe that you and every reader must suppose that my powers of this kind are extremely limited and feeble. I confess I was forcibly reminded by your remarks, that a writer, whose name I will not mention in any connexion with yours, chose to call the book of Proverbs "Solomon's Jest Book," "Let us open the book," says the Bishop of Landaff in his answer, "and see what kind of jests it contains."

Another of the means by which you have given to your Remarks the appearance and effects of an answer is that of diverting attention from the point and the argument; and in such a way as to have the effect of suppressing the truth, Besides what is general of this kind, in imputing to me a bad spirit and a light manner; there are particular instances, some of which it may be proper to consider.

In regard to my first head, you very candidly acknowledge, that I have "pointed out an inaccuracy in the language which you employed to express the charges contained in the Review." This pointing out of a slight verbal inaccuracy you represent as being all that I have done; and to this head entire you seem to refer in your repeated mention of "verbal criticism." Thus by noticing a trivial circumstance, and giving to the whole a light name, you divert the attention from the main point and argument, and conceal the truth in the case.—You had brought, Sir, against the Reviewer, the heavy charge of "falsehood." This charge I sincerely believed to be unfounded; and I attempted, not merely by pointing out a small verbal inaccuracy, but by fairly examining those parts of the Review to which you referred, to show that it really was unfounded. I do not rest on my own judgment only in the persuasion which I feel, that in this attempt I was not unsuccessful. But you say, "the question is not what a verbal critick with a dictionary in his hand may make out of the Review, but what are the impressions which readers at large receive from it." Here, Sir, I again protest against the "rule" of construction which you have repeatedly applied; at least against your man

ner of applying it. You surely cannot be unapprised, that people receive very different "impressions" from "writings" and discourses, especially on controverted points, according to the different tempers, or states of mind, with which they read or hear. If, as you intimate, you have not met with a single individual who did not receive from the Review, impressions, coincident with the charge which you made; I, on the other hand, have not met with a single individual who did receive such impressions: and I really believe there were very few who did, before their minds were prepared for it by your Letter. Your "way," then, "of settling the dispute" is not so "short a one" as you seem to imagine.

I was far, Sir, from believing that you intended to prefer against the Reviewer a false and injurious charge. I really did suppose that, owing to some unpleasant state of mind, you had received from the Review an incorrect impression; and did hope that you would see, and rejoice to see, that it was incorrect, and do honour to yourself and to our holy profession, by frankly retracting the accusation, and redressing the wrong which you had unwittingly committed.And here I must say, that I am more fully persuaded, if possible, than when I wrote before, that your first charge against the Reviewer is entirely unjust; and that had you duly attended to the scope of his remarks, you would have seen, that where he speaks of "Unitarianism, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word, being the predominant religion of the liberal party,” he meant not to determine any thing in respect to numbers, but only in respect to prominence and influence. His reference to the college and to the principal publications of the party, makes his meaning sufficiently plain.

You say, p. 14. that I "again and again intimate that Unitarians, of course, reject all the great and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death." And upon this you ask, if it is "possible that I am unacquainted with the writings of Dr. Samuel Clark, and with Bible News," in which books the doctrine of atonement is asserted. I have before noticed the implied charge in this of misrepresentation on my part; what I would now notice is your turning the attention from the

fact and the proof, and concealing the truth in the case. I know very well that, in the writings here referred to, the doctrine of atonement is asserted; and I also know, and all who are conversant with this subject know, that the Unitarian writers of the present day generally deny this doctrine, as do all who agree with them in denying the essential divinity of Jesus Christ: and if Dr. Clark's works and Bible News are "popular" among them, it is not because they assert the doctrine of atonement; but because they serve to unsettle the minds of people in regard to the Trinity, and to start them from the rock down the steep and fearful declivity of Unitarianism.

"There is a part" of my Letter you say, p. 19, "according to which our charity towards the lowest Unitarians not only proves our indifference to truth, but makes us partakers in their sentiments and deeds." To divert attention from the point and the argument here, you instantly direct it to Calvinists, and Hopkinsians. "It is well known," you say, "that the old fashioned Calvinists regard the new divinity of "the Hopkinsians with great horrour; but it is also true "that a peculiar brotherhood is established' between these "two classes of christians in New England. The Calvinists "here have never, as a party, borne testimony against Hop"kinsian peculiarities, have never purged themselves from "the guilt of them,' but walk with Hopkinsians on as friend"ly terms as we do with the lowest Unitarians." Admit all that you here state to be true; does it prove that "the liberal party" are not guilty of "mutilating the New Testa ment, rejecting nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and degrading the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man?" Not in the least. But there is an egregious errour in your statement. It is a well known fact, that what you call the old fashioned Calvinists in New England, have borne their earnest, decided, and publick testimony against what they consider as errours in the Hopkinsian theory; and the Hopkinsians, on their part, have borne their testimony, equally carnest, decided, and publick, against what they regard as errours in the old Calvinistick system. But while they have done this, they have not, on

either part, held these errours to be fundamental, as they do hold the errours of the Unitarians; but have mutually regarded each other as being orthodox and sound, in the great essentials of christian doctrine. And, Sir, however grievous it may be to their common opponents, the acknowledged fact that they do "walk together on friendly terms," notwithstanding their minor differences and disputes, and all the attempts from your quarter to sow discord between them, is highly honourable to their principles and feelings; and affords most decisive proof that, in the allegations so continually and vehemently urged against them, as if they were entirely devoid of charity, and would acknowledge as christians none who differ from them in any point, they have been slanderously reported. Had "the old fashioned Calvinists of New York" been as well acquainted with the sentiments and characters of the different classes of orthodox christians in New England, as these are with one another, they would never have given the recommendations which they have given to such a book as Ely's Contrast.

Another of the means by which you have given to your Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer, is that of misstatement. Let me distinctly premise that as, in the preceding articles, I have not intended in any instance to impeach your motives, so here I mean not to insinuate that you have designedly misstated. The misstatements which I am about to point out, and which are only a part of what might be pointed out, I attribute to no bad intention, but to the vague and indiscriminating manner of treating subjects, to which you seem to be habituated.

"It may next be observed,” you say, p. 9, "that the common disputes about the great doctrines of the gospel have not related so much to their TRUTH and IMPORTANCE, as to some inferiour points connected with them." Now, Sir, in direct opposition to this statement, I should feel the utmost safety in affirming, that "the disputes about the great doctrines of the gospel have related," and do relate primarily and "chiefly to their TRUTH and IMPORTANCE.” This unquestionably is the fact in regard to the doctrines directly in question in the present dispute: the doctrines