INTRODUCTION. The following article was written principally at the time it is dated; and the writer's design of offering it for publication in the Salem Gazette was then mentioned to the Editor; but his absence soon after delayed its being sent to the press at that time. Further remarks have since been added, on some things advanced by the calumniator of Unitarians, as his observation on the inspiration of the Scriptures, &c. There is a singular coincidence in the syllogistical reasoning of this piece, and that in the late publication of "Unitarian," to shew the sophistry of Mr. Cheever and his coadjutors, by which they endeavor to prove Unitarians to be infidels. But what is here stated was written long before the last publications of " Unitarian,”—nor did the writer of this article ever see any of "Unitarian's" pieces till he saw them in the Gazette, or know that he had made use of that syllogistic reasoning to expose the sophistry of his opponent. Neither does "Unitarian" know of this article being written and sent to the press; nor of the writer's intention to write on the subject. What both have written naturally rose out of the subject, as the controversy progressed. The above statement is made, lest any one should suppose there is a confederacy of design between them. The writer of this article would not have employed his pen on the subject had he *not thought himself somewhat implicated in some observations in the writings of " A Lover of Cudworth and Truth." REMARKS. FEBRUARY 23. In the rhapsody published by Mr. Cheever in your Gazette of Feb. 21st, (I beg his pardon, I mean the rhapsody of the " Lover of Cudworth and Truth," the eulogist of Mr. Cheever,) is the following sentence, viz: "We recognize in his ("Unitarian's") pieces the same sophistry, the same destitution of logic, the same incoherence, and insipidity, and darkness, that we find in such abundance in the pages of the Christian Examiner." I was surprised at reading such a vituperation against this work, which has been so long patronized by many persons of good sense, and of scientific and christian knowledge, by men of letters-I will not say so learned as the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth"-but who, I should have thought, would not have countenanced and encouraged this work, if it be such as this writer says it is. It would seem by his description of it, that the patronizers of the Christian Examiner have been mistaken as to the nature and character of it; and it is now set fully and kindly before their eyes, that they may see their own folly and stupidity in having upheld it so long ;-and set before them, too, by such a profound critic, and investigator of truth, as the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth"! The castigator too, of any persons, be they ever so eminent in the literary world, who presume to write on religious subjects, or publish any religious opinions which do not coincide with his own. Alas for the poor Christian Examiner! It must now cease to be published-it must die, and go "to the tomb of the Capulets!"-Sentence is pronounced upon it as a poor and insipid publication-The thundering bull is issued against it, ex cathedra, by an infallible judge of sense, merit, and truth! This we have reason to suppose he thinks himself to be, from his manner of treating some literary men, eminent for learning and piety, in his writings. Proh Pudor! The "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" states in this rhapsody, that the communica- . tions of" Unitarian" "remind him pleasantly" of some lines in the sarcastic poem Hudibras, which he quotes as applicable to him. This reference to Hudibras "reminds me pleasantly" also of some lines in the same Hudibrastic metre, which I think very applicable to the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth," and which it might be well for him to consider. "When a spectator 's got the jaundice, Though naturally red or blue." Prejudice is the jaundice of the mind, which makes sentiments and facts appear very different from what they really are. When the mind is infected with this disease, it views things through a colored and false medium; and it must be in such a sickly state of his mind, that the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" reads the Christian Examiner. For men of clear, unclouded and healthy minds, see in this work, of which he speaks so opprobriously, sound and correct reasoning, instead of "sophistry, a destitution of logic and incoherence";-they see good sense, pleasing and sometimes pungent thoughts, instead of "insipidity"-and instead of "darkness," a clear and strong light shining to irradiate truth; and which may enlighten any one, who reads it without prejudice, and with a desire to learn the truth. But I would observe that all unitarians do not adopt all the speculative opinions which appear in the Christian Examiner, or any where else, which are written with a view to a free inquiry after truth. The "Lover of Cudworth 4 and Truth" seems to feel very sensibly for his wounded friend, Mr. Cheever, if we may judge from his so frequently bringing up to view and quoting the charge brought against him (Mr. Cheever) by his opponent," that he quotes authors whom he has never read"not less than seven times in one piece, Nov. 5th, and often in several others." Hæret lateri lethalis arundo." This is the arrow that sticks in his side, and he has done nothing effectually to draw it out. For what has all his farrago of quotations from different authors, to do with the question, whether he quoted authors whom he had not read, or not? Mr. Cheever had not been able to prove that he did not make incorrect quotations, such as presented the author he quoted in a wrong point of view. If the Rev. Mr. Cheever cannot find a better associate than the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth," and a more able advocate for his cause, a better logician, and a more delicate flatterer of his vanity and presumption, it will be well, or better for him to give it up. For the more his present coadjutor writes for it, the worse he makes it appear, in the garbled sentences he quotes from authors, and his avoiding the main point in the controversy. In his last piece in the Gazette, Feb. 21st, instead of meeting fairly the statement and reasoning of his opponent, he endeavors to drown the subject of the controversy in a deluge of words without argument, assertions without proof, or calling on "Unitarian" for further evidence of his assertion, without showng the correctness of his own quotations and the queer way of reasoning, which he, and Mr. Cheever, and "Sigma" his defender, have used to prove that Unitarians are infidels! Let us look at their logicWhen it was asserted that Unitarians are Infidels," (and the names of Dr. Priestley and Dr. Channing were mentioned) to repel the charge, it was said in answer, that they, and other Unitarians had written in favor of Christianity; to this it is answered, that so have deistical infidels written in favor of Christianity, therefore Unitarians are infidels !—What may not be proved by such sophistry? Let us apply this reasoning to another class of Christians, thus, some Unitarians, as Priestley and others, have written in favor of Chris tianity, and some Orthodox ministers have written in favor of Christianity, therefore such Orthodox ministers are Unitarians—or thus-some deistical infidels have written in favor of Christianity, and so have some Orthodox divines, therefore, such orthodox divines are infidels !—It is bad reasoning that applies as well against a cause as for it; and such reasoners weaken and injure the cause they attempt to strengthen by it. They "remind me" of the hog, when in the water, at a distance from the shore, in attempting to swim, in swimming generally cuts its own throat. In the Gazette of Nov. 26th, the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth," in his address to "Unitarian," makes use of a simile, in the following words,-" When you have got within hailing distance of the outer sentinel, and just as he is levelling his gun at you, then you shout out in a terrible panic for your life, that you have a friend in the fortification, Dr. Ralph Cudworth."-I also will make use of the same simile, and say the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" is a gun in the hand of the Rev. fowler, from which he fires his shot at Unitarians and Unitarianism; but his gun bears wide of his mark, and he does not hit it. And sometimes, (to use the Hudibrastic metre again) it is like "An o'ercharged gun when fired at plover, The "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" in his piece Feb. 21st, speaks of the Christian Examiner as being "destitute of logic." I hope it is, and ever will be destitute of such logic as he, and "Sigma," and Mr. Cheever, make use of. I should be ashamed to find such there. The association of the Rev. gentleman with the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" "reminds me" also of the fable of the Gardener and the Bear, who associated together for mutual services of protection and defence against their enemies to guard and assist each other in times of danger and attack. While the Bear slept the Gardener watched, and while the Gardener slept the Bear watched, that no harm should come to either while sleeping. It happened one sultry day, when the Gardener was sleeping under a shading tree, that a fly came and lit upon his forehead, which a little disturbed his slumbers. The Bear repeatedly endeavored to drive it away; but the fly constantly returned to the same place again. The Bear becoming angry at the fly's perseverance, took up a large stone, and threw it at the fly to kill it but he missed his object-the fly flew away, and the stone knocked the Gardener's brains out. And thus it often happens with unnatural as sociations and alliances-when weak, or ignorant allies are called in to aid a cause, they = generally do it more hurt than good. A FRIEND TO THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER, AND A LOVER OF TRUTH. P. S. It is pitiful to read the lamentable dole of the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth," in his complaint against Unitarian, as endeavoring "to destroy the influence of Mr. Cheever as a christian minister," considering his (Mr. Cheever's) conduct respecting the Unitarian ministers in this town. I ask, who introduced the subject of the controversy about Unitarianism, which has been carried on here? Undoubtedly Mr. Cheever, in his 4th of July Address. He came here, it seems, to disturb the harmony which subsisted between the orthodox and unitarian ministers in this town, and to reprove his orthodox brethren in the ministry here, for their imbecility, lukewarmness, and neglect, in not opposing Unitarianism, and declaring open war against it, as he now intended to do-and has he not endeavored by his preaching, and publications, to destroy the influence of the Unitarian clergy among their hearers, by denouncing them as heretics, and holding them up to public view as infidels? Mr. Cheever ought not to have let his friend put forth such a complaint as he has against "Unitarian"-for he (Mr. Cheever) undoubtedly sees all the pieces of a "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" before they are published. He must have known (foolish and imprudent as he sometimes is,) that such a complaint might be thrown back upon his own head, as he was the first to begin this contest, by speaking invidiously of the Unita rian clergy. Perhaps he will say that he did not mean to fight, but only to strike a blow at them and their cause-and "There is no fight, 'tis very plain, He should not have uttered a complaint which can be so justly retorted upon himself— but "nemo omnibus horis sapit"-no man is wise at all hours. At such a complaint, from such a writer as the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth," under the circumstances in which Mr. Cheever had placed himself by his attempt against the Unitarian clergy, I should say, if the subject were not too serious to be laughed at, "risum teneatis amici"? can ye friends refrain from laughing? Undoubtedly Mr. Cheever and his friend think that the Unitarians ought patiently to have "bared their backs to the smiter," and silently have received the stripes put upon them, as the chastisement was given for their own good. But it is seldom that the smiter and the smitten are of the same opinion in such a case. It is very unfair in the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" to connect the Unitarians as infidels with Voltaire and other deistical writers; or with the German Theologians, whose extravagant opinions he knows, or ought to know, are not approved of, or believed by the Unitarians in this country. It is unfair also to call them Socinians-for he must know, if he has read the Fratres Poloni, or Racovian Catechism, or Toulmin's life of Socinus,or any other work which treats of his opinions, that the Unitarians in England and here do not adopt several of them, but refuse the name of Socinians.* I can see no reason for his calling them Socinians, but that as a calumniator of the Unitarians, he places them on the same ground, to make them odious in the eyes of his orthodox friends, as the name of Infidel and Socinian have always been hateful to them.† It is a base insinuation, and goes to show that he has not thoroughly and attentively read the Unitarian authors he quotes, and that he quotes such passages only, separate from others, which will show them in such a light as will answer his purpose of condemnation; or that he wilfully misrepresents the Unitarians here, to answer his purpose of destroying their influence, putting this Jesuitical salvo on his conscience that "the end sanctifies the means. He asserts that they deny the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, whereas they do not, as a body, deny their inspiration in general; but only in those parts where inspiration was unnecessary and in those facts and circumstances which were known to the writers, and could be stated without inspiration; and in some instan ces where there are discrepancies in those writers, if they do not contradict each other; and where they dispute about some things, whether they belong to the system of Christianity or not. The Unitarians here believe in all the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and in all the directions of our Lord; and in many of 6 those of his apostles respecting the churches set up in different places, for the discipline and conduct of the members, in the New Testament. And they believe also that man things in the Old Testament were written by inspiration--but that some things were written in both Testaments without any peculiar aid of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul says he was inspired to write about some things, and not others. "This I command," says he," yet not I, but the Lord." And in some other cases he says, " to the rest I speak, not the Lord." Some writers have been advocates' for the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, and believed that every thing written in the Bible, even to the very words made use of in the account of things, were written under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. And the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" seems to suggest that he is of this opinion, by the manner in which he writes against those who do not believe in plenary inspiration. But can he think that Moses wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit, what he says of those persons and events in which he was himself personally concerned? or that the "the Lord, who stirred up the spirit of Cyrus to return the things which Nebuchadnezer had taken away from the house of the Lord, at Jerusalem," taught him by inspiration, how to count the nine and twenty knives, mentioned in the list of articles returned, lest he should mistake and call them twenty eight.If every thing recorded in the Old Testament was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how is it that we read in the 1st of Kings, 4, 26, "and Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots ;" and in 2 Chronicles, 9, 25, "and Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots!" Could the Holy Spirit dictate both numbers? The inspiration of superintendency seems to be wanting here. Or, in the New Testament, does he believe that what St. Paul says about "men's wearing long hair" was written by the direction of the Holy Spirit* or his advising Timothy drink a little wine for his stomach's sake, and often infirmities"—or directing him "to bring his cloak, books and parchments, which he left at Troas"-or the direction to Philemon to prepare a lodging for him "as he expected to come and see him"? "Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus, vindice nodus," says Horace; "nor let a God interfere unless the difficulty be worthy of such an intervention." to The "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" endeavors to fix the charge of infidelity as to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, on the general body of Unitarians, by quoting some passages from some Unitarian writers, and leaving out other passages of their writings in favor of inspiration, and sometimes part of a sentence, to make it appear, as he says, "that they, (Unitarians in general) reject the four Gospels as having no claim to inspiration." This "reminds me" again of the story of a clergyman, who having had a long contest in the law, and lost his case, preached the Sabbath after from these words" hang all the law"-leaving out the context. The words by themselves have a very different meaning from what they have in connexion with the words going before and after them" On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." I know of no Unitarians who go to the length he states in "rejecting the four gospels as having no claim whatever to inspiration." The advocates of plenary inspiration say, to justify their belief in it, "if you do not believe that all in the Bible was written by inspiration, where can you stop; where fix the bounds, and say what is inspired, and what not?" The answer to this is obvious-stop when and where you see no need of inspiration to make the thing known; no necessity for such an interposition as inspiration between the understanding and the common means of knowledge; or when inspiration would in no way conduce to any important object. The Divine Being uses no uncommon means to communicate to us the knowledge of any thing which we may acquire by making use of the common means he has given us. The "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" speaks highly of Cudworth and Howe, as "excellent men," as they were,--but he ought not to have mentioned their names as he has done in one instance, in juxtaposition with the very often repeated charge of "Unitarian"--that his friend Mr. Cheever quotes authors whom he had never read." For had he read those authors thoroughly, he must have seen that they disapproved, of and condemned that censorious and uncharitable temper with which some of the writers of that day wrote against those who differed from them in religious opinions. Had the "Lover of Cudworth and Truth" read their pointed disapprobation of such vituperations, it might have led him (as he has such a high esteem for those eminent men) to suppress, * See note. C. at the end. |