FOR THE SALEM GAZETTE, DEC. 20, 1833. Mr. Editor,-I shall now proceed to bring this controversy to a close, so far as the name of Ralph Cudworth is connected with it, and to this end shall adopt a method which, however unexpected it may be to my opponent, ought always to be pursued in like cases, and will apply with equal justice to both sides. Indeed, if this method be not resorted to, when the occasion calls for it, a debate like the present can never be terminated.

I have repeatedly in the course of the discussion suggested to "a Lover of Cudworth and Truth" the expediency of surrendering at once, and thus avoiding the necessity of exposing himself more than he had already done. As the discussion refers, in its principal point, not to doubtful opinions, but to a matter of fact, to a book that is written, and printed, and in the hands of several persons in this place, and of which the language cannot be altered or evaded, and as my opponent is in the wrong, it would have been much wiser in him to have yielded promptly and with a good grace to the necessities of his situation.But he had chosen to struggle on in a desperate contest, and clinging to the vain hope

ment. And in the presence of this whole community I CHALLENGE and DEFY "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth" to produce the passage in which it is expressed. And I give place to him in your next paper that he may have an opportunity to do it if he can. He must quote the entire paragraph and must give the volume and the page.

Before he attempis it, however, it is proper to make a few observations to save him from unne cessary mortification, and also to enable the public to pass judgment upon the point into which this controversy is fortunately at last narrowed down.

The following passage is taken from p. 125, vol. 3d, of Birch's edition of the Intellectual System.

"Notwithstanding which, there is a manifest disagreement also betwixt the Platonic Trinity,as declared, and the NOW RECEIVED doctrine in the Christian Church; consisting in a different explication of the two latter points mentioned. First, because the Platonists dreamed of no such thing at all, as one and the same numerical essence, or substance of the three divine hypostases. And secondly,because, though they acknowledged nonc of those hypostases to be creatures, but all God; yet did they assert an essential dependence of the second and third upon the first, together with a cer tain gradual subordination, and therefore no abso ̄ lute coequality. At the close of the paragraph of which the above is the commencement we find the following language, yet that the most refined Platonism differed from the NOW RECEIVED doctrine of the Christian Church, in respect to its gradual subordination, is a thing so unquestionably evi

ment (aud no one can feel more deeply than I do. how odious and disgusting it is) of detecting and exposing his misrepresentations, he has perversely continued to perpetrate them, and has advanced from one degree of bold perversion to another, until at length. he has committed himself irrecoverably, and fallen into a predicament where he will find himself compelled either to acknowledge himself in the wrong, or to retire forever from the contest.

In his article of Nov. 22, I find the following assertion. Speaking of Cudworth

palliated, or excused."

Upon looking at the passage I have extracted from my opponent's article of Nov. 22. it will be seen that the portion of it which he marked as quoted is the same as that part of the extract just made from Cudworth's book which I have left in italics. And the reader might at the first glance conclude that this was the place from which in his usual blundering manner, he obtain ed the idea he has expressed. But he will not dare to adduce this paragraph in answer to my chaklenge. There is not in the whole of Cudworth's book, there cannot be, a greater demonstration of the correctness of my proposition, and the folly of my opponent's attempt to dispute it than this passage affords.

The reader will observe that both at the beginning and the end of the paragraph, the author carefully distinguishes and defines the doctrine which was repugnant to that of the Piatonists, not as the CHRISTIAN doctrine, as 'a Lover of Cudworth and Truth' has it, but as the NGW RECEIV ED doctrine in the Christian Church.'

Let it then be borne in mind that after thus stating, in the strongest terms, that in holding to the '.subordination' and essential dependence' of the second and third persons upon the first, the Platonic Trinity was repugnant to the doctrine then received in the Christian Church (which is the same as is held at the present day by the orthodox,) Dr. Cudworth proceeds at length and most clearly to

show that in that very particular the Platonic Trinity was right and true, and of course, that the doctrine of the modern trinitarians is wrong and false; let the reader reflect that the Dr. declares in defence of the Platonic subordination and dependence of the second and third persons upon the first, that the generality of Christian doctors, for the first three hundred years after the apostles' times, plainly asserted the same,' and that according to the principles of Christianity itself, there must of necessity be some dependance and subordination of the persons of the Trinity, in their relation to one another ; a priority and posteriority, of dignity as well as order amongst them.' Let all this be borne in mind and it will be seen that the paragraph on the 125th page of the 3d volume of the Intellectual System' is so diametrically opposed to my adversary, and particularly to the sentiment which he has ascribed to Cudworth,that he will not dare to adduce it in favor of that sentiment.

But there is a still stronger reason why he will not dare to do it. In his article of Oct. 29, he committed the blunder of aeferring to this passage in opposition to my assertion that Cudworth held to the Supremacy of the Father. In my communication of Nov. 8, 1 thus corrected his mistake. The quotation from vol. 3, pp. 124 and 125, is taken out of its connection and perverted, (whether wilfully or not he only can tell) from its real and obvious sense. Dr. Cudworth does NOT say that the genuine Platonic Trinity differed from Christianity,' but that it differed from the Christian doctrine, as received in his day, and which, to use his own words, it was the design of that part of his work to model' and rectify.' If the whole passage had been quoted, it would have appeared that the author was not speaking of the true doctrine of the trinity,but as he carefully distinguishes it, both at the beginning and end of the paragraph, of the now received doctrine in the christian church.'

In the above passage I charitably left it undecided, whether the misrepresentation of my opponent was wilfully or ignorantly made. But now after the information I then gave him, it would be acknowledged by all to be nothing better than a deliberate and obstinate violation of the truth for him to pretend to sustain his assertion by this pas sage. What your feeling on the subject may be 1 do not know, but it seems to me, Mr. Editor, that to repeat a misrepresentation under such circumstances, would be an offerce so he nous as to render the person who commits it, and justifies it, unworthy of the privilege of addressing an intelligent and honest community through the colums of a paper so respectable as the Salein Gazette.

This controversy then has reached its crisis-the final issue awaits us-the whole public are the jury and their verdict must shortly be pronounced.

Let every individual again read the passage I have quoted from my opponent's article of Nov. 22, compare it with the extracts from Dr. Cud. worth now given, and view them in connection with the passage just repeated from my article of Nov. 8. Let every man and woman ascertain the facts of the case, as they have now been described, and let them silently and impartially witness the manner in which my opponent meets my challenge, and then let them pronounce their decision accordingly.

He has declared that Dr. Cudworth held a certain specified opinion; and he has pretended to quote a part of the passage in which it is affirmed.

1 DENY that Dr. Cudworth held the said opinion, and I DEFY 'a Lover of Cudworth and Truth' to produce the passage (containing the pretended quotation) in which such an opinion is expressed.

When he has produced the passage, or after giving him an opportunity to do it in your next paper, I shall then claim the right of replying to his late communications I shall do this, not be

cause there is the least danger that any injury can result to the Unitarian cause from the obviously unjust method he has adopted in assailing it, but because such an opportunity to commend our views to the examination of fair and candid men of ail parties, as he has now given, ought not to pass a way unimproved. Let it however be well understood that I do not intend to argue with a Lover of Cudworth and Truth. We are always ready to discuss the grounds of our belief, both scriptural and rational, with any of the friends of orthodoxy who may feel disposed to debate the subject, in a proper manner and spirit. But my opponent, as all must see, does not seek for the truth. His object, evidently is not to ascertain the strongest arguments that may be urged in our favor, and then refute them, which should be the aim of a respectable and skilful controversialist, but to discov. er the weakest positions which any of our writers have ever taken, with a view to ex. pose us on those points, and thus delude his fol lowers into the idea that he has overthrown us, when he has not ventured to approach our line, on any point where its main strength lies. His great object has been not to refute us, but to misrepresent us, and blacken the character of our writers and of their sentiments. To make us appear not as we are, but as bad as he possibly can, he has resorted to perversion, caricature, calumny, and falsehood. His method of quotation has already been sufficiently exposed; and the passages he has brought together not merely from our writers, BUT FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES bear too many marks of mutilation, and a violent dislocation from their connexion, to have the least weight in the minds of intelligent readers. And when the whole case shall have been fully laid before the public, they will, at once, perceive how grossly we have been slandered, and with what deliberate unfairness, and unprecedented profligacy of assertion, 'a Lover of Cudworth and Truth' has borne testimony against us.

But at present my business with him relates exclusively to the passage for which he is now called to answer. I demand the paragrath in which it is to be found, and I presume that ali will sustain me, in requiring either that he produce it, or apologise for the misrepresentation in which he has so obstinately persisted.

In conclusion, I would remind him that this is a serious crisis, and that he must meet it seriously and plainly. The people of Salem are sitting in judgment, and it will be required of him to abandon, if he can, the phraseology and illustrations of 'scavenger's carts,' &c. &c. &c &c. in which his refined imagination and delicate taste take such delight to indulge, and, however unnatural it may be to a Lover of Cudworth and Truth,' the Reviewer of Prof. Norton, the last 4th of July Ora tor in Salem, the Correspondent of the Boston Recorder, or the Pastor of the Howard street Church, use decent language, such as is due to the tribunal before which he is arraigned.

UNITARIAN.

FROM THE SALEM GAZETTE, DEC. 27, 1833. · Mrs Editor.-When I observed the manner in which Mr. Cheever was misrepresenting the Unitarians, by printing mutila ted and perverted extracts from their writers, thus imputing to them sentiments which they never held, it occurred to me that the first step, to be taken in replying to him, would be to compel him publicly to acknowledge that he allowed himself to impute to authors opinions which they never expressed, and to ALTER their language to suit his purpose when quoting them. This was my object in challenging him to. produce the passage which contained a certain sentiment imputed by him to Dr. Cudworth. My object is entirely answered. I defied him to produce an "entire paragraph" in which the said sentiment was conveyed, He has not produced an entire paragraph; he has not even pretended to do it; he cannot do it. There is not a paragraph in all the writings of Cudworth, which fully quoted expresses the sentiment. Mr. Cheever has ascribed to him; and it follows, of course, that he has misrepresented that author. By failing to produce an “entire paragraph" he has CONFESSED that he cannot.

He has also CONFESSED that, while pretending to quote from a particular passage, he has twice, and the second time at least, deliberately, and wilfully ALTERED the language of the author the now received doctrine in the christian church" into "the christian" doctrine! Having acknowledged all this, I would in return for his kind suggestion to me on a former occasion, advise lum to entitle his pieces when he collects them into a pamphlet thus, Unitarianism proved to be infidelity by a writer who Stands CONVICTED, by his own CONFESSION, of ascribing to authors sentiments which cannot be found in any paragraph of their writings fully and fairly quoted, and of ALTERING their language to suit his purpose."

66

But while Mr. Cheever confesses that he altered Dr. Cudworth's language “the now received doctrine in the christian church" into "the christian" doctrine, he undertakes to justify himself by saying that the expressions mean the same thing! Why alter the language, then? Why not quote the whole sentence as it is found in the original author? Again-if Dr. Cudworth intended to convey the idea of "the christian doctrine" why did he not say so, instead of adopting the unusual and rounda

bout expression "the now received doctrine in the christian church"?

But Mr. Cheever does not merely sny that these two expressions mean the same thing, he actually undertakes to prove it. And in calling the attention of the reader: to his method of proof, 1 can promise to exhibit to his contemplation one of the most extraordinary and amusing specimens of reasoning to be found in any language. I quote his exact words.

That by the "now received doctrine" Cudworth meant the Christian Trinity,our readers may judge from the following circumstances. In the Preface, speaking of his comparison of the Pagan and Christian Trinity, he says, "We take notice of a double Platonic Trinity.... the former of which, though it be opposed by us to the Christian Trinity, and coufuted, yet betwixt the latter and that do we find a wonderful correspondence."

Now I ask, Mr. Editor, whether in case a man can reconcile it to his moral senseto omit important clauses in quoting an author, he ought not to be held bound to leave the quotation in such a state as to be capable of being parsed? I think it would be difficult to tell what is the antecedent of former' or of latter' in the passage thus quoted by Mr.Cheever from Cudworth. It is necessary to inform the reader that former' refers to a spurious and adulterated Trinity' and that latter' refers to the true and genuine' Trinity of Plato. Mr. Cheever omitted them both, in hopes that the reader, in the darkness to which he had left him, would refer former' to the 'true and genuine Platonic Trinity,' which was absolutely necessary to prevent his own argument from bearing fatally against himself.