After making such quotations of detached sentences and scraps of sentences, as you thought proper, to shew that the Reviewer had charged you and your liberal brethren with a "hypocritical concealment of your sentiments," you proceed to notice the proofs upon which he rests this charge. These, as you state, are "a Letter from Dr. Freeman, and the letter of Mr. Wells to Mr. Belsham." These Letters you very dexterously despatch; excepting that you quote from that of Mr. Wells a particular passage, for the purpose of shewing "the method," as you say, "in which it is distorted by the Reviewer." This letter the Reviewer gives entire, and I believe correctly; but afterwards he does quote the passage in question with some variation. The quotation however is made, not, as you represent, for the purpose of supporting the charge of hypocritical concealment, not in any connexion with this topick; but most plainly for the purpose of making out a list of epithetical and encomiastick descriptions, given by Mr. Wells of gentlemen of the liberal party; and the passage is so shaped, as to be the more conveniently arranged in the list. This alters the case materially. The Reviewer does not bring forward a passage in a "distorted" form, for the purpose of proving a charge of hypocritical concealment. But you have accused him of doing this; and to give the accusation the deeper impression, you utter yourself in the following remarkable terms: "An unperverted mind turns with sor"row and disgust from such uncharitable and disingenuous dealing; and why all this labour to distort what is so plain? the object is, to fix the character of knaves and hypocrites ❝on a large class of christians and christian ministers. I might here be permitted to dip my pen in gall; but I do not write for those, whose moral feeling is so dull, as to need indignant comment on practices like these."—And certainly, Sir, this passage of yours needs no "comment" of mine. I can only deplore and deprecate the state of mind from which only it could have proceeded.

I mean not, dear Sir, to deny that the Review does charge ministers, and perhaps others, of the party called liberal, with want of openness and clearness in avowing and explaining their sentiments; nay, with designed concealment" and cul

pable disguise. Nor will I dissemble that I have felt no little regret, that its language on this subject had not been in a style of less repulsive freedom and apparent asperity. I am fully aware that this is tender ground; and I feel most deeply the difficulty and the delicacy of the subject.

It does, however, appear to me very clear, that Dr. Freeman, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham did suppose, and that in the documents on which the Reviewer principally relies as his Vouchers, they do represent, that liberal ministers and other liberal gentlemen have judged it proper, not to make ordina→ rily a free and full disclosure of their sentiments: that they have in fact thought it expedient to temporize. Whether, in this opinion of you and your brethren, those gentlemen are correct or not, you must have been apprised, that the opinion is not peculiar to them, but very extensively prevalent: prevalent, not among those only, whom you would consider your adversaries, but also among your friends. Hundreds and hundreds of times have I heard it uttered from various quarters, and with various expressions of approbation and disapprobation; and never, in any debate or conversation, as I recollect, have I heard the truth of it denied, or called J question. It seems indeed to have been received as an estr lished, uncontested fact, that ministers of the liberal class were not accustomed to be unreserved and explicit in the publick avowal and declaration of their sentiments. I confess to you, Sir, that I had so received it; nor did I ever imagine that in so receiving it, there was any thing injurious or uncharitable; for I did suppose that you and your liberal brethren held it as a maxim, founded upon reasons satisfactory to your own minds, that a degree of reserve and concealment, greater or less according to circumstances, was prudent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy. In this supposition I have been from time to time strengthened, by conversations with respectable individuals of the class, and not a little confirmed by what I have occasionally heard from the pulpit. I have now in very fresh remembrance some sentiments to this effect, delivered in a sermon which I heard at an ordination in Boston a few months ago; and in which the preacher very distinctly, and with considerable amplification, held forth

that, though in some places it might be well, and "contribute "to the faith and virtue of the people," for a minister openly and plainly to declare his sentiments, yet in other places it would not be prudent or proper: and in regard to this, the gentleman then ordained was affectionately and earnestly advised to regulate himself, according to the habits of thinking and feeling, the prejudices or freedom from prejudice, which he should find to prevail among his people.

Judge then, Sir, of my surprise, when I read, in your Letter, what I understood to be intended as an absolute denial, that any such reserve or concealment had been practised. After some reflection, however, I discerned, or thought I discerned, very clearly, the foundation of the apparent contradiction. The primary question between you and your opponents on this subject is, What is to be understood by a minister being open, clear, and faithful in the avowal and declaration of his sentiments? Upon this question there is evidently, between you and them, a real and material difference of opinion; and this difference is very manifestly the foundation of the apparent contradiction between you and them on the question, whether you are open, clear, and faithful, or concealed, indistinct, and unfaithful.

You are perfectly aware, that the ministers, called orthodox, are accustomed generally to preach out their sentiments without reserve, perhaps sometimes without prudence. They do not shun to declare unto the people all the counsel of God, as they understand it. They do not avoid preaching any doctrine, which they find to be revealed in the word of God, either because that doctrine is mysterious, or because it is denied by some and doubted by others; but the very circumstance of its being denied or doubted, is with them a reason why they should be the more particular, and the more earnest, in shewing its truth, in obviating the objections against it, and in so instructing their hearers upon it, as to promote the increase of their knowledge and the establishment of their faith. These ministers, therefore, are accustomed to use great plainness of speech, endeavouring to make themselves well understood upon every subject: to let it be distinctly known what they believe concerning mankind, their fallen

state, their native depravity and practical sinfulness, their guilt and their condemnation; concerning Jesus Christ, his person, his offices, his atonement, and the nature and the way of the great salvation by him; concerning the Holy Spirit, his personal divinity, his official power and grace, and the nature and importance of his work in renewing, sanctifying, and sealing the heirs of salvation; and concerning the Gospel generally, its infinite importance as "the wisdom of God and the power of God" for the recovery of lost mankind, its doctrines, its precepts, and its institutions.-Accordingly these ministers are understood; and in general their people and others are left in no doubt as to what their sentiments are.—This, Sir, is what they understand by ministers being open, and clear, and faithful in the avowal and declaration of their sentiments.

It is otherwise, however, with you and your liberal brethren, as appears most clearly from your Letter.

1

In repelling the charges of the Panoplist Reviewer, yon first make what would seem to be a Confession of Faith; and then proceed to shew the manner in which you and your brethren perform your ministry.-To your friend Mr. Thatcher you say, p. 7, "We both agreed that a majority "of our brethren believe that Jesus Christ is more than "man, that he existed before the world, that he literally "came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other "offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and "that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with "the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment "of our brethren." You then mention "another class of liber"al christians, who, whilst they reject the distinction of three "persons in God, are yet unable to pass a definitive judg"ment on the various systems, which prevail, as to the na"ture and rank of Jesus Christ;" and "another class" still, "who believe the simple humanity of Jesus Christ."—"As "to myself," you say, p. 12, "I have ever been inclined to "cherish the most exalted views of Jesus Christ, which are "consistent with the supremacy of the Father; and I have "felt it my duty to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps "every sentiment which is peculiar to him on this subject."

Then, including yourself with your brethren of the three classes, you say, p. 13, "We are accustomed to speak of the Father "as God, and of Jesus Christ as his Son, as a distinct being "from him, as dependent on him, subordinate to him, and de"riving all from him."

Such is your Confession of Faith: and for this Confession I, dear Sir, for one, most sincerely thank you; and hundreds and thousands of christians, I am persuaded, will thank you. It will serve to relieve us from much of the uncertainty, and much of the embarrassment, which, until now, we have felt in relation to you and your liberal brethren.-One great point is clear:-You hold Jesus Christ as "a being" entirely "distinct from God," and, like all other creatures, entirely "dependent."-Of course, you will, doubtless, not hesitate to acknowledge what I have certainly very great sorrow in stating, that the doctrines of atonement by his death, and justification through faith in his blood, as held by orthodoxchristians in all ages of the church,-together with all the truths and sentiments-all the powerful motives to repentance, faith, and holiness, depending on those cardinal doctrines, at once fall to the ground before you! Thus much is plain; thus far the matter is settled in regard to yourself, and in regard also to your liberal brethren, in so far as you were authorised to speak for them. To what extent you were thus authorised, I know not; but would devoutly hope, not to the extent which your manner of speaking would seem to import. Yes, Sir, most devoutly would I hope, that there are some among those whom you would wish to include in your liberal party, who will revolt from your statement; who will protest against being numbered with you; who will yet awake from the enchantment, more fatal than that of Armida, under the power of which they have too long been held.

Still, however, I find in the terms of your creed, a great want of clearness and precision; great indistinctness and ambiguity. What are we to understand by "Jesus Christ being more than man?”—by his "literally coming from heaven to save our race?" What is he more than man, and how does he save? What "other offices does he sustain than those of a teacher and witness to the truth?" Upon these, and oth