4. Unitarians. In some instances, you have charged the unitarians with pursuing the same measures which I have condemned in the orthodox. But what has this to do with the defence of orthodox proceedings? Suppose you could prove unitarians to be, what your creed pronounces them to be, totally depraved, wholly averse to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil; would this be any excuse for your iniquity? Not only so. There is this entire difference between the two cases. Unitarians do not act as a party; they are bound together by no system of sectarianism; every individual is perfectly independent. I take the Bible for my standard of faith and practice. I acknowledge no master but Jesus Christ. I go to no human being for my interpretations of of his instructions. I am responsible for my own opinions, and my own actions; and I shall defend the opinions and actions of no unitarian any further than I believe them to be true and Christian. The same may be said of every individual in the denomination. If, then, you have any fault to find with unitarian sentiments or measures, name the individuals you think erroneous and guilty. Each one will defend himself, or acknowledge his faults. Do not again be so unjust as to condemn the denomination for the supposed acts of individuals; for I wish I could make you understand what is meant by individual responsibleness, and freedom from party shackles. But this is not all. If you call upon unitarians to defend themselves, you will find their defence very satisfactory. You have mentioned the people of Raynham, as separating from the orthodox. I have given you the reasons of their conduct. Will not all honest men pronounce them sufficient? In almost every place you have mentioned, the reasons are almost equally satisfactory. You have alluded to Framingham. I should rejoice to give you a full statement of facts in this case. It would make you blush for the conduct of your leaders. But I am prevented by one circumstance only; and when this is removed, you may expect an exposure of orthodox management. So I might say of every place you have named. Let the facts in these several instances be given to the public, and the measures of unitarians will receive the approbation of all candid Christians.

5. "Recorder." Perhaps you will ask me, if the Editor of the "Re. corder" has not pronounced your Review able, thorough, and satisfactory; if he has not expressly said, that "the whole subject is thoroughly discussed in the Review, and the Letters are proved to be made up of misstatements, misrepresentations, and distortions of the truth; and in addition to this, of direct and positive falsehoods, even more than he had expected to see?" Such indeed are the words of our "cleanly neighbour," and when we read them, we could not help recollecting the following passage in his favorite Baxter. "Even among many accounted orthodox, pride and selfishness causeth them so far to overvalue their own judgments, as to expect that all should

be conformable to them, and bow to their arguments which have no strength, if not to their sayings and wills without their arguments; and to disdain, and passionately censure and reproach all that dissent and gainsay them." Should he read this evangelical extract "with pleasure and satisfaction" and improvement, perhaps he might be led to examine the evidence I have here presented, and to arrive at an opposite conclusion; even that the "whole subject is thoroughly discussed in the Letters to the Reviewer, and the Review proved to be made up of misstatements, misrepresentations, and distortions of the truth; and in addition to this, of direct and positive falsehoods, even more than he had expected to see." But we should not be too severe upon our "cleanly" Editor. For he is a mere youth, of a somewhat nervous temperament, possessing very respectable talents, and considerable acquaintance with biblical literature, and a great love for the writings of Richard Baxter. And we should not blame him altogether for the character of his paper. For before he commenced his editorial labors, he was much given to boasting of the improvement which would soon appear in its pages; and though with our "patent microscope, by which things invisible are plainly seen," we have been unable to discover this improvement; yet we remember that he is hampered, and fettered, and shackled by his employers; and that his contributors are not always willing to father their own deformed offspring. For his attention to my writings I would give him my thanks. In the mean time, I would direct his attention to the following extract from his favorite Baxter. "It is a dangerous case, especially to young, inexperienced Christians, to fall among those that make it their religion to vilify others as enemies to Christ. When they hear one sect only extolled, and all others spoken of as ignorant, carnal enemies to the church, it is two to one, but this imprinteth a schismatical disposition in the hearers' minds. Conversing only with one party doth usually occasion great uncharitableness towards all others, and sear the conscience, so that it grows insensible of revilings, and opprobrious speeches, against those that differ from them."

CONCLUSION. In the conclusion of your Review, after all your blustering and abuse, you seem to sue hard for peace. These are your words. "It is for intelligent and candid unitarians to decide, whether they will sanction this new mode of controversy; or so much as tolerate it. Are they willing this community should be thrown into a ferment, like that of a boiling caldron, by such a contest?" Your satellite, the Editor of the "Recorder," speaks the following language. "We now desire to ask, whether honorable men, of any party, are prepared to have religious controversy take this turn? Are they willing to have our community kept in a constant flame of discord and ill feeeling?" Now really, gentleman, you have

become wonderfully peaceable all of a sudden. You seem to be greatly alarmed for the quietness of t' is community. You hold, I think, to instantaneous conversion. Such a change you must have experienced, if your entreaties are regarded as sincere. But before we settle the preliminaries of p. ace, let us take a very brief survey of the past.

Sir, who commenced this controversy? Look back some fifteen or twenty years. At that time harmony pervaded our parishes. Many of the clergy had been led by a prayerful perusal of the Scriptures to renounce the dogmas of human invention. They regarded the peace of the community, and accordingly avoided controversial and doctrinal preaching, and confined their dis ourses to the plain and simple teachings of Jesus. Their hearers were satisfied and edified. But not so with a few restless, ambitious orthodox clergymen. They made a bold and reckless attack upon the characters of their ministerial brethren, accusing them of concealment, deception, and dishonesty, and striving to alienate the confidence and affection of their supporters. Thus attacked, the liberal clergy felt hound to state explicitly, that they had renounced all human masters in religion, and that the Scriptures were their only standard of faith and practice. This was satisfactory to most individuals in their societies; but not so to their persecutors, because they had failed in their attempt to sow discord among the members of their churches.

The orthodox leaders then commenced their attack in another quarter. They set up a human standard as the rule of divine truth, and charged all those who would not acknowledge the infallibility of their interpretations, with rejecting the essentials of the Gospel. The liberal clergy again came forward with "extreme reluctance" in self-defence. They proved the human origin of the orthodox fundamentals, and defended the divinity of their own sentiments. They gained a triumphant victory in this controversy, and were then anxious to live in peace, and keep the community" from being thrown into a ferment."

The orthodox leaders then adopted a more violent mode of warfare. They denied unitarians the Christian name, rights, and hopes. They called them heretics, infidels, deists in disguise, emissaries of Satan, and very devils. They violated all the rules of congregational order, and entered the peaceful and united folds of their ministerial brethren. They commenced the work of backbiting, slandering, and reviling, both in private and public. Then your periodical Journal was established, and through its pages the concentrated wrath and bitterness of your partisans have been poured forth on the community. You have assailed unitarians by denunciation and threatening, and used language that would disgrace any humble Christian. All this was met by unitarians in a calm and dignified manner. For your assertions, they returned argument; for your reviling, they adopted reasoning; and for your

denunciations, they observed silence and decorum; and in this way their cause was aided, and their views were spread with an astonishing rapidity and power. There was the appearance of a calm. The prospect of peace was gladly hailed by the whole denomination.

At this very moment, Professor Stuart steps from his professorial chair, and hurls a firebrand into the midst of a combustible community. He changes the mode of attack. He accuses the unitarians of being exclusive, abusive, intolerant, unjust, and illiberal. He puts together some sentences of Dr. Channing, and gives their meaning in his own language. He denies the truth of the charges, and challenges proof. Hear a few sentences from his Letter. "I know that what I have said is incapable of being contradicted, on any grounds of evidence. I do know that the accusations which you stand pledged to support are not true. I aver that they are not, before heaven and earth. These charges are allegations as to matters of fact. As matters of fact, you are bound to support them. According to all demands of propriety and justice, you have no liberty now to retreat. On every ground of equity, you must either support the charges which you have made, as to facts, or take them back. My belief is, that you cannot make your charges good, against any man in this State who bears the name of orthodox. In regard to that class of the orthodox at which you have aimed your accusations, I fearlessly assert, that you cannot possibly make them good. I know that you have wronged them in your charges, and that you are utterly unable to support these charges." Such, Sir, is a bare specimen of Professor Stuart's challenges. He could not believe that Dr. Channing would condescend to notice such a publication. He well knew the delicacy of unitarians on the subject of personalities, and probably thought that no one would attempt an answer to his assertions and accusations. And he doubtless concluded, that the sinking cause of orthodoxy might be propped for a while by such a pillar. One of his late pupils, before the publication of the Letter, wishing to make a proselyte of a widow, assured her that something would soon happen which would produce a great revolution in the Commonwealth. And when pressed to mention what, he told her that Professor Stuart was writing a Letter to Dr. Channing, which could not be answered.

As one

How was this publication to be met? In silence? The more igMust norant orthodox would then call it unanswerable and correct. the facts be published? This seemed the only true course. individual, I felt confident that enough facts existed in the community to substantiate the positions of Dr. Channing, and refute the assertions of Professor Stuart. After waiting to see if any one would undertake this business, and ascertaining that those best qualified for such a work considered it unnecessary, I proceeded to arrange the facts and desirable documents within my control. I did not consider it a very

labor, to take "a muck-rake, in order to rake out the thickest part of the muck and offal, out of all the sinks and sewers of the Commonwealth." But trusting that one who had had formerly some personal experience of such things, would not "find it too strong for his stomach," I proceeded to uncover a few of the "sinks and sewers" in my own neighbourhood. And what has been the consequence? How have I been treated by the orthodox leaders for bringing forward the very facts demanded once and again by Professor Stuart? I have been vilified and slandered by your most godly professors, as no "decent men" have been during the past or present century. I do not say this by way of complaint; for I expected as much. And the only feelings produced, are those of unmingled pity; for all your revilings will never deprive me of one moment's sleep, or give me one moment's uneasiness, so long as I feel conscious of having done my duty. And after all this, you come forward, and beg for peace! Sir, I am for peace; but I can accept of peace only on Scriptural grounds. Obey this command of our Saviour, and “the community will not be thrown into a flame of discord.” “ All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." Unless you come upon this ground, you may depend, that, so far as I am concerned, I shall adhere to the following resolution of Martin Luther: "I HAVE DETERMINED WITH MYSELF TO FEAR NOTHING IN THIS CAUSE, BUT TO CONTEMN ALL THINGS; YEA, THE HIGHER THE ERRORS RISE, AND THE MORE MIGHTY THEY GROW, THE MORE TO RISE UP AGAINST THEM."

Yours, respectfully,

BERNARD WHITMAN.

Waltham, May, 1831.

P. S. Rev. Sir-You perceive that I have noticed all the important assertions and criticisms in your Review. At first I wrote a complete answer to every thing you have said. But I found my manuscript would make a pamphlet of nearly two hundred pages. I accordingly cut out about one quarter as mere quibbles, and another quarter as unnecessary to my defence; for I could not feel willing to make the public pay for your trifling. I would therefore assure you that I am ready, at one day's notice, to furnish a thorough reply to any point you may think essential; and I warn you to be very careful how you assert, that no proper answer has been returned to your statements.

B. W.