of pure religion, and of establishing the rights of chris tian freedom, becoming daily more extensive. The Editor expresses his belief, that "mankind are, and ever have been, strangely and obstinately prone to take their religion upon trust, without once thinking for themselves; and that this propensity has been the means of perpetuating error, nourishing superstition, and contributing largely to the complication of misery and mischief, which has attended religious persecutions in all ages of the world." With these views, he states it "to be his aim, by the encouragement of free inquiry on subjects connected with our holy religion, to promote the cause of christian liberty-and to vindicate the rights of the humble and sincere disciples of the cross, of whatever sect or denomination."

WE neglected to state in our last number, that Bishop Clayton's Speech, as there published, was not the whole of what he delivered before the Irish House of Lords. Our object was to select those parts, which relate more particularly to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

CORRESPONDENCE.

As no anonymous writers are responsible for their articles, we desire it to be understood, that all communications of this description must be submitted entirely to our discretion and judgment. The nature of this work renders such an understanding absolutely necessary. We wish to start thus fairly with our correspondents, that they may hereafter have no reason to complain, if they find their articles inserted with alterations or abridgments.

Communications have been received from C. F. and E. F. and will appear hereafter.

Remarks on the Introduction to Dr. Miller's Letter to the Editor.

THE Rev. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, has published what he calls a "Reply to an Attack," in our third number, on his Ordination Sermon. In this place, we are only to notice some of his prefatory observations. He seems much disturbed, that we should have declined publishing his article in the Miscellany. We have little to say on this point, as we think the reasons given in the letter, which he has taken the liberty to publish, are perfectly satisfactory. It is proper for us to add, however, that Dr. Miller forgot to state, in his preface, the condition on which he requested us to publish his piece, namely, that it should all be printed in one number.This was a consideration of much importance, as its length would have excluded almost every thing else. And we do not suppose, if our consciences had consented, that our subscribers would have thanked us for filling our work with an article, like the one in question. It would, moreover, have been a precedent, which no reasonable man could think we would establish. If it were understood, that we feel ourselves bound to pub lish articles of this description, the bounty of our ortho

dox brethren would, no doubt, soon supply us with materials for a work very different from the one, which we propose in the present publication. Besides, Dr. Miller professes to submit his Reply to the "Christian public;" and it is certainly very unreasonable in him to complain, that we should decline our agency in forcing it upon a class of persons, whom he holds not to be Christians.

Dr. Miller charges us with inconsistency, and questions our "wisdom," because, as he says, we acted contrary to our profession of willingness to receive articles from any party, "written with moderation, candour, and a spirit of charity." But in this, as in many other things, we have the misfortune not to agree with him.— As to our "wisdom," it does not become us to be confident; but we feel at least, that we acted with perfect eonsistency. We know not what Dr. Miller's standard of "moderation and charity" may be; nor, indeed, can we imagine, if he verily believes, that either of these are exhibited in his Reply. We have never expressed a willingness to publish what Dr. Miller, or any one else, may think consistent with "moderation and charity," unless we can ourselves discover some slight marks of these virtues. We confess we have never been more unsuccessful, than in our endeavours to make such a discovery in the present instance.

We have to complain, that this gentleman should talk so much about an "attack" from us. This charge we do not admit. We have made no attack, in this work, on any person or sect. We have often replied to attacks, which have been made on our opinions and principles, but never once been the aggressors. We have no room for attacks, if we were ever so much disposed to make them. Our opponents are determined we shall be kept busy in defending ourselves. They seem to prefer, that

we shall be employed in showing the strength of our own cause, rather than in exposing the weakness of theirs. We do not promise always to be contented with this employment; but while we are, it is but fair to allow us credit for the moderation, which we actually possess. To any one, who has read Dr. Miller's sermon, it must certainly have the appearance of burlesque in him to characterize our strictures as an attack, when the most we have done, has been an humble attempt to vindicate ourselves against some of the heaviest charges, which could possibly be made against us.

It is no wonder, that Dr. Miller, after denying to us the name of Christians, should be puzzled in deciding what to call us. "There is a real difficulty," he says, in giving a convenient name to these persons as a general body." We beg leave to tell him, that this is a difficulty of his own making. We have never asked him to be at the trouble of giving us a name. We are perfectly satisfied with the one, by which we have always chosen to call ourselves; and really we cannot see, why he, or any one else, should think it so great a tax upon his courtesy and condescension to give us the "distinctive title," which he says, and which we allow, we have "assumed." The difficulty of giving us a name, he informs us, arises from the circumstance of our "differing so materially among ourselves." Does he mean by this, that Trinitarians do not differ equally as much? The truth is, the differences among them are vastly greater, than among Unitarians, not only in regard to the distinguishing doctrine of their faith, but all the leading doctrines of Christianity. And yet, we have never found any "difficulty" in giving them a name, because we are entirely willing they should have the one, which they have "assumed." Whether it be, or be not, a title,

which designates their opinions, is no concern of ours. It is enough that they choose to adopt it. If they misname themselves, it is an affair of their own. We do not see in what respect we have any ground of complaint, or any right to interfere.

Dr. Miller finds the difficulty so great of selecting such a name as would please him, that, either to save trouble, or out of pure good nature, he finally concludes to let us have our favourite title. This he undoubtedly considered an act of extraordinary condescension.He exhorts his readers, however, that when they call us unitarians not to "admit the thought, that we (trinitarians) worship more than one God, or that they (unitarians) alone are worshippers of one God only." With this understanding, he obligingly gives his consent, that we may be called unitarians. He may think, perhaps, that we ought to thank him for being so liberal in his conditions. This we would do with all readiness, if there were any thing in them novel or peculiar. But he must be ignorant, indeed, of the writings and principles of unitarians, if he supposes they ever claimed the name on any other terms. "When the orthodox use this title," he adds, "they consider it as only designating those, who reject all belief in that mysterious threefold mode of existence, in the one Supreme and Eternal Jehovah, which the scriptures, as we think, plainly teach." In other words, the orthodox use the term unitarian to distinguish all, who do not believe in the trinity. Now this is precisely the sense, in which unitarians themselves employ the term, and wish it to be employed by others. And why Dr. Miller should profess to meet with so much difficulty in finding a name, when he acknowledges the one we have selected is exactly to his purpose, we cannot devise. We should