terpret Christianity as these writers do, though we profess to interpret it by the same principles which they profess, and though we do as firmly as they, believe in the divine mission of Jesus, and the miraculous origin of the Christian system, yet we are, notwithstanding the most solemn declarations, industriously and pertinaciously charged with infidelity! There are in this publication two or three articles on German Rationalism, (which is stated to be blank and professed Deism) in which the writer after several insinuations, that under the name of Unitarianism, the same thing, i. e. Rationalism, is to be dealt with in this country, boldly comes out, at length, and says if we would pull off" the mask "-yes, sir, the MASK, it would be seen, that the advocates of Christianity had the same foe to contend with here! It is the same writer, I think, who considers the title Unitarian as dishonestly used on our part; a word in current use, a word in the Dictionary, a mere denomination, constantly applied by all parties-used for purposes of deception! What will he say of the word Orthodox? It means, according to the etymology, a right faith: according to usage, it means the majority. Now, what would be said, if we charged the Calvinists with deception for taking so freely to themselves the title of Orthodox?

But a worse misrepresentation remains to be noticed. Unwearied attempts are made in this work, to throw upon Unitarians the odium of being an irreligious body of men. It is not merely that these writers undertake to cut them off from a standing in the Church of Christ, which amounts fully to the same thing; but we are constantly represented, by every species of statement and innuendo, to be cold on this great subject, dead, and indifferent to re

ligion, accommodating our requisitions to the taste of worldly, bad men, &c. There is a letter in the 7th No. written, it is said, by a man who was formerly a clergyman, a Unitarian in regard to the Trinity, and on other points, Orthodox. Let some portions of this letter speak for it, and for the character of its author. Nothing need be said by me of either, after the following extracts are perused. Speaking of Unitarianism, he says, "But, sir, it will prevail. It must spread, till arrested by divine agency. It is studiously and ingeniously adapted to the feelings and wishes of unprincipled and impious men and such men are pleased with it, give it their support, and readily enlist for its defence. A young man of popular talents, pleasing address, and Chesterfieldian politeness, becoming a candidate for the Gospel ministry, has, in many places, no need of piety, no need of particular respect for religion. Piety would rather injure than assist him. He must write, speak, converse, and bow handsomely, make himself agreeable, tell of his charity, rail at Orthodoxy, dine with Herod, praise his wine, admire his situation, and, instead of John's imprudence and folly in telling the Governor, he must not marry a brother's wife, be more polite and extol the charms of Herodias, and be enraptured with her divine daughter-the most enchanting figure ever seen on a floor! He will soon be settled handsomely, and Herod will find him wine." This is enough, though there is more to the same purpose. Of course, I do not quote this foul passage, in order to reply to it. It needs no comment; that, I fearlessly trust to the feelings of the community. But I quote it for the sake of observing, that these are the men, THE CONDductORS OF THE SPIRIT OF THE PILGRIMS-who could have

introduced the letter, of course, for no purpose but that it should be believed-that these are the men, I repeat, who fill their papers with the most greivous complaints of misrepresentation!! I quote the passage, also, to give it circulation-that THESE MEN may as fast as possible take their place in society! Since this gall was in them, I am glad it is out. I suppose we are to take it as one evidence of their belonging to the only true and uncorrupt Church. And it will prepare us to sympathize with them in the distress they feel for the small and persecuted body of the Orthodox Churches,-for that is the way they talk-situated, they say, like the early Christians among the Heathen, urged, like them, to depart from the steadfastness and exclusiveness of their faith.

It

This last passage, I must confess, Mr Editor, has quite neutralized all the desire I had to comment on the "Spirit of the Pilgrims." As I am not likely very soon, again, to lay myself under the temptation to speak of this publication, I had noted some articles for strictures. would be easy to find the topics, if one could find patience, after the disclosures above stated. There is a letter, for instance, on the question "which Society will you join, the Liberal or the Orthodox?" in which the writer after setting out, with a profession of impartiality, goes on with a series, either of insufficient tests, or garbled statements, or insinuations and innuendoes, all of which, are evidently designed to lead the inquirer, of course, to a certain result. All I say is, he had better not have professed, "simply to state the criteria of truth." There are some remarks on what Dr Channing says on the word, hell, and in saying which he evidently spoke of the original Greck,-which, if the writer had considered

(and how could he help it,) he would have been saved from his indecorous triumph. If the writer be a young man, and ignorant, he should blush; if neither of these, he has still deeper occasion. There is, also a crude and boyish Review of the "Letters on Revivals," extending through three Nos. in which it is remarkable, that not one statement, contained in the Letters-not one statement of matters of fact or their pertinency, is called in question. The youthful writer of this articie (such I should think him) seems to have got so far in his Logic, as to have found out, that there is such a thing as begging the question, and forthwith he most absurdly parades this objection against the Letters. For the question is not begged. Because, admitting total depravity, and eternal punishment, it does not follow that Revivals are the best method of delivering men from them. And, in fact, this point is somewhat discussed, in "the conversation in the stage-coach." But if it were not, how absurd would it be, to demand of a traveller, who was making comments on the character and manners of a people, that he should first go into a discussion of all the grounds, philosophical, moral, and political, which all the sects, professions and parties in that country might allege for their character and manners. He would never get to his book, at this rate. He could not drop a remark on the hardships of the "climbing boys," but the masterchimney-sweepers would rise up, and say he had "begged the question," whether the chimneys were not so constructed that they could not be cleaned in any other way. The Reviewer, also, makes much ado, to as little purpose, to rescue Lightfoot from the charge of denying sudden conversion. It is not pretended in the Letters,

that he denied it. All that is done is to adopt a criticism from Lightfoot, which criticism the Reviewer does not deny, nor does he attempt, as was his business, to controvert the use that is made of it. As to the sentiments of the old Calvinistic writers, on sudden conversion, the Reviewer finds it convenient to pass over the qualification made in the Letters, and therefore what he says about the misrepresentation of them, deserves no regard. .The most of what follows, is a misrepresentation of the Letters, of the following nature. He quotes the Author as censuring certain things in the general, which, in fact, he only censures in particular aspects and instances. Thus, the author does not censure the priesthood, as an institution, not "the employment of evangelists," nor "meetings for inquiry," nor "private visits to converse and pray in families," nor "of visiting and warning and praying with a young and tender female on a sick bed,"

-but the particular manner in which these things are often conducted.

The argument of the Reviewer is, in one respect, a sweeping one. He says that Revivals are the true, just and practical result of Orthodox principles. But does he not know, that out of the narrow borders of New England, there have scarcely been such things as Revivals," in all Christendom? What will he say of the Pilgrim fathers? They had no Revivals. What of the Orthodoxy of England, of Germany, of the Reformers, of Luther, and Calvin ? The Reviewer blunders equally, in another respect. He seems to take it for granted, that the only persons who question the expediency of Revivals, are Unitarians. He makes it a question, yes, and a dividing point, between the Orthodox and the Unitarians.