From the Salem Gazette, April 8, 1834. Mr. Editor,-Instead of availing myself of my right to answer Mr. Cheever again at length, I would refer the reader to your advertising columns where his attention will be directed to the pamphlets which contain my previous replies to the articles in your paper signed "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth." They will be found to contain what appear to me to be sufficient answers to almost every thing he has since published over that much abused signature.

I have too much respect for your readers, and for myself, to traverse the same ground over and over again.

I must, however, inform them, as some nay not be aware of the fact, that in Mr. Cheever's last series of communications he has reprinted, besides what he has acknowl. edged, a considerable part of the third volume of the Spirit of the Pilgrims. Four uccessive numbers were made up in this way, with the exception of one or two conecting paragraphs. The articles thus coied out from that printed book, were not vritten by Mr. Cheever, as he himself obcurely intimates; but still the same Il-fated Lover of Cudworth and Truth" 3 made "to bear the burden and the hame."

In the Gazette of Feb. 28th, for intance, there are nearly five columns, beginning with "COMMUNICATION," and endng with "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth." These are the only words in the vhole article which Mr. Cheever wrote.Every syllable between them is to be found n the Spirit of the Pilgrims" vol. 3, p. 7-17! Is there an individual among your subscribers who suspected when he ead it that not a single syllable of it was written by Mr. Cheever? The deception was indeed complete.

"

There are, in fact, no indications whatever, throughout the piece, that it is borrowed from another writer; and it bears as nany marks of originality as any which have appeared. This is indeed an easy way o conduct a controversy! It enables a writer to continue to print indefinitely after he has become utterly exhausted! And if you, Mr. Editor, had thought it expedient o lend your columns to a discussion, carried on in this manner, I know not how it

could have been brought to a close until all the books in the country had been republished in the Gazette.

If Mr. Cheever had confined himself to original matter, and relied upon his own resources, he could not have drawn me out again; and I wish the reader to bear in mind that the few pieces I am now to submit to his perusal, are intended principally as a reply to the arguments of those authors whose productions he has republished in such a manner as to lead the great body of his readers to consider them his own. I shall avail myself of the opportunity to promote the diffusion of more correct views on some topics brought into notice in his articles. I have no disposition to prolong the discussion with a person who can condescend to such practices as he has adopted in this controversy.

In one of his pieces he thought to terrify me with the idea of a prosecution. This is a delicate point for him to introduce, and all that it is necessary for me to say in reference to it is, that if the civil guardians of society are of opinion that the seat of justice should be held sacred from outrage, he will have to answer, before the proper tribunal, for such an assault upon our highest Court as has never been committed before in Massachusetts.

It would weary your readers, and cover your columns, were I to relate, in detail, the misrepresentations, misquotations, and various literary frauds he has perpetrated in the course of the discussion. They have been continued without abatement to the close of his last pieces. I fully expected that his offences would have become the occasion of such disciplinary proceedings as Evangelical churches have usually not been slow to institute when any of the "brethren" or "sisters" have been guilty of indiscretion. But perhaps it is considered that their ministers can do no wrong, and are above the reach of the lay members. It was not always so in the Howard street church. But they have a pastor now who is infallible, and that alters the case.

Knowing the entire disapprobation with which Mr. Cheever's conduct was viewed by the orthodox community, in general, I was confident that their feelings would be so clearly made manifest, as to rescue them

from all responsibility for his proceedings, especially after he had denounced, repeatedly, in the Gazette, the course of his brethren in reference to the series of Lectures got up by the "deluded" young men of "Salem." But it seems that here too I was mistaken. Although they disapprove of his offences against truth, and of his innumerable attempts to deceive your readers, still they do not require any apology or repentance, but appear to regard them in the same light as he did the publication as his own, of whole columns from the New York Observer. They are merely "unfortunate mistakes" !!

I claim the right, therefore, of occupying the columns of the Gazette, with a view to the diffusion of what I deem correct sentiments and principles, so long as he continues to abuse the Unitarians, until his course is decidedly condemned and distinctly disavowed by the Orthodox. Then, but not till then, shall I agree in considering what he may print beneath my notice.

I shall now proceed in a very brief space to notice all that can seem to any one to require further answer.

If Mr. Cheever will but read Lardner's Credibility, B. 1. c. cxiv., he will find the following extract from Jerome's Preface to his commentary upon the Ephesians. After enumerating the Epistles of Paul, he

says:

"But the Epistle, called to the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, because of the difference of the argument and style; but either Barnabas's, as Tertullian thought; or the Evangelist Luke's, according to some others; or Clement's, afterwards Bishop of Rome, who, as some think, being much with him, clothed and adorned Paul's sense in his own language."

He will find, if he reads the whole chapter from which he has quoted, that Jerome expresses the idea that the present epistle is a translation into Greek of what perhaps Paul wrote in Hebrew; he will also find that Jerome speaks in great doubt on the subject; that he affirms that the Latin churches did not in general receive the epistle as written by Paul, just as many of the Greek churches did not receive the book of Revelation; and upon the whole, if he exercises his judgment upon the evidence, as collected by Lardner, he may see cause to agree with me in coming to the conclusion that Jerome did not believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews, at least in its present dress, was the production of Paul.

66

was

I should be sorry, however, to have the impression received that I do not think most highly of this epistle. It was, no doubt, written in the apostolic age, by a person of great authority. As an argumentum ad hominem," addressed to Jews, it is a matchless production. It is one of the strongest arguments that ever written against the Trinity, and, more distinctly than any other book of the New Testament, states that our Lord, in his highest nature and in his prophetical, priestly, and kingly offices, is "the man Christ Jesus." one of our species, and "made like unto his brethren." And I shall ever regard with grateful veneration the sacred book to the critical study of which, more than to any other cause, I ascribe my firm belief in that precious faith which Christ tanght to his followers and delivered to the saints, but which some men still "call heresy."

When Mr. Cheever disappeared from your columns, more than a fortnight ago, he had given occasion to no further reply than I have now made. What he wrote is thus answered. The writings of others, to which the signature of "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth" was attached, will receive some additional notice.

I have a word to say on the subject of controversy. Several communications have appeared in other newspapers in town, deprecating all those who "cavil at their brethren" and "calumniate" other denominations. If such language had been held by those same presses last July we should not have been troubled with this controver sy. A short time since we were entertain ed with some extracts from a pamphlet said to have been written by a clergyman of this vicinity in which among other equally elegant remarks we are informed that" the Unitarians repeatedly have been driven

yelping from the field, with their tails between their hind legs; and so have the Orthodox !"

= While I cannot subscribe to the extraordinary sentiments contained in these extracts, any more than I can approve of the taste and decency exhibited in the sentence have quoted, and think that the writer himself would not subscribe them now-for they go to the whole extent of abandoning the pursuit of truth and the correction of error-1 would express my regret at the necessity which has compelled us to protect ourselves from outrage in the columns of a newspaper. When this controversy is alluded to, in terms of reproach, by writers in other papers, it seems to me that justice requires that it should be stated that the Unitarians were driven iuto it by the most unmeasured and unprovoked assaults not only in the pulpit, but through the press. At any rate, let the newspapers say what they will, we wish it to be understood, once for all, that whenever and as often as, we are assailed we shall defend ourselves, and it becomes those who dislike controversy, to refuse to countenance, and refrain from applauding any attacks upon us in future.

While I am altogether willing to retire from a newspaper discussion, I must express the hope that in case any writer through either of the presses in the place, undertakes to involve me in the reproaches to which my opponent has exposed himself, some friend of truth and justice will be found to call upon that writer to point out, if he can, any instances in which I have misrepresented the truth or misquoted my authorities, or exhibited an unbecoming spirit. If such instances can be found, let them be pointed out-if they cannot be found it will be expedient for the contributors to our newspapers to be careful how hey involve themselves in difficulty by attempting without evidence, and against the facts of the case, to bring upon me the reproaches which belong to another.

I know full well that it is quite a prevalent sentiment that controversy is undesirable and discreditable to those who engage n it. A quarrelsome temper, and a contentious disposition are injurious to all who are subject to them, and exceedingly disagreeable and disgusting to all who witness them. But that a zealous, and earnest discussion of important questions on all

proper occasions is to be shunned and frowned upon is what I am not ready to admit. I trust that the patron of the Gazette

are in general as much interested in the truths of religion as they are in the political debates, almost exclusively upon one topic too, with which the newspaper press has been burdened, for many months past; and I must be permitted to express my belief that the extracts upon the noblest and most important subjects, which have been presented from the wisest, greatest, and most eloquent men who ever wrote, such as Channing and Cudworth, have been as valuable and interesting to them, to say the least, as the best of our Congressional and legislative debates would have been.

In denouncing theological controversy, we ought to remember that we denounce the great champions of the reformation, and of the gospel in its purest primitive age, cast reproach upon all the prominent and most effectual benefactors of the church and the world, and speak evil of that agent to the operation of which we must, in a great degree, look for the future progress of truth and light.

I am strongly persuaded that an occasional discussion, under a controversial form, conducted with zeal and earnestness, in good humor combined with energy and strenuous fervor, would be found productive of the most beneficial effects.— At all events I hope and trust that the humblest denomination in the land will be prompt to protect itself, whenever assailed as the unitarians were by our last 4th of July orator, and to vindicate the cause committed to its care. If such assaults are instantly met and repelled they will not often be made, and the peace of society will thus be preserved from violation, and the first page of our newspapers, rescued from theological discussions, may forever be occupied by columns of advertisements, fictitious tales, and such other matters of interest and moment as an intelligent and religious community may prefer.

It is quite remarkable, and, if connected with any other signature, it would be surprising, that the principle contended for by the writer in the "Spirit of the Pilgrims" is directly hostile to that maintained by Mr. Cheever. The latter rests the charge that we are infidels chiefly upon our rejection of his views of the person of the Saviou; while the former asserts that he calls no

man an infidel" for this reason!

Under other circumstances I should perhaps, have felt called to refute the arguments, as I presume he considered them, of this writer in the "Spirit of the Pil

grims." But after the recent demonstrations of public sentiment "in Salem" I am satisfied that such refutation is not needed. When the Course of Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity was first proposed, and it was ascertained that the Young Men had determined to invite all the ministers in town to cooperate in carrying into effect their laudable purpose, Mr. Cheever came out with the following declaration in the newspapers. "It is very true that Evangelical ministers of the Gospel of Christ CANNOT consistently with their belief,meet the preachers of another Gospel as ministers, whether to PREACH THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY or to urge its reception in the heart. It would be an UNHOLY amalgamation." In the face of this impertinent and unbecoming denunciation uttered as it was in advance, and repeated as it has been since, the other orthodox ministers and societies of Salem have co. operated in the arrangements of the Young Men, have met the preachers of the several denominations as fellow champions of christianity, and thus the clear and imperative decision of public opinion has been unequivocally and finally pronounced.— Why continue to argue the point after the verdict has been rendered and recorded ? "In such a place as Salem" it will be in vain to attempt to disseminate intolerant, persecuting, and inquisitorial principles. For instance,the Society of Friends, every body knows,is very respectable in this place, and the booksellers' shops exhibit evidence that converts may be made to their cause. Now, suppose that Mr. Cheever's Presbyterian brother, Rev. Dr. Cox of New York, who has recently printed a book entitled "Qua-. kerism not Christianity," should be translated to Salem, and should avail himself of the next " religious celebration of the 4th of July" to reiterate his outrageous abuse of the followers of Penn and Barclay, and should pronounce them "a community of infidels" and their system "another gospel," and should call their peculiar garb a mere WRAPRASCAL Costume-he would have no better success than Mr Cheever has had. He would not lessen, but on the contrary, would probably increase the influence of the persecuted Friends.

The people in this place are sufficiently enlightened to know that the principles of christian liberty require that, while sects and individuals are left free to believe and to preach as they see fit, all attempts to reproach and asperse and vilify each other

should be effectually frowned down. If any man undertakes to persuade them that all except those of his own denomination and creed, are infidels, they will answer him, in a tone not to be misunderstood, and however often he might advertise to preach from Gal. v. 11, they would still rebuke him in the language of "John Howe."

“And now, sir, if that be your conscience, that supposing there be never so many thousands in a christian nation that cannot worship God in your way, you would have them paganized, made as Heathens, and publicans, God bless me from your conscience"!

The satisfaction and triumph with which a certain judicial decision pronouced in a subordinate court in England has been received by such persons as Mr. Cheever, convinces "the people of Salem" that another sentiment of John Howe already quoted in this discussion, should be written indelibly upon their minds.

To judge other men's consciences is of so near a kin to GOVERNING them, that they who can allow themselves to do the former, want only power, not will or inclination, to offer at the other too."

In a previous communication, I expressed my conviction that it would be evident to a careful reader of the "4th of July address" (the production which contains "eight pages" of such " unanswerable arguments" as "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth" in the overflow of his boundless admiration for its author, has pronounced them) that Mr. Cheever contemplates with pleasure the prospect of the establishment of orthodoxy by law in this country. That conviction must, by this time, have been carried to every man's mind.

In the Gazette of March 14, (as he has since found it necessary to acknowledge) Mr. Cheever published as his own, the principal part of a letter written in London by a hired correspondent of the New York Observer, and printed in that paper a few weeks before! That writer speaks of his "native state" of Massachusetts, and in referring to England, where he was composing his letter, speaks of it as 'here' and of America as there,' italicising the terms to make them more distinctive,Mr. Cheever reprints it, italics and all, without reference or acknowledgment, without note or comment, and writes the same unblushing signature, "A Lover of Cudworth and Truth," at the bottom of the whole!

The writer in London, dead to every sentiment, recreant to every princi