It may mean a "predominance," not in point of numbers, but in point of influence: and from the connexion this should seem to be its real meaning. After stating, "We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belshams's sense of the word," the Reviewer proceeds to shew the grounds upon which this declaration is made. He adduces the Monthly Anthology, the General Repository, and the Improved Version of the New Testament; publications which, as he supposes, were put forth and patronized by "the most prominent clergymen and laymen of the liberal party,"-men “who have the entire controul of the college." And, after saying what he judged requisite, respecting the Unitarianism of these publications, he concludes thus: "It appears, then, that the "college and nearly all the influence of the liberal party "through the medium of the press are in favour of Unitarian"ism. If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they "are not willing to be classed among his followers; let them "declare their own opinions openly." Here then, we have evidently an explanation of what the Reviewer meant, by "Unitarianism, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word, being the predominant religion of the liberal party:" that it is predon.3nant in point of "influence," having "the most prominent characters" for its supporters and abettors. This, as you will readily acknowledge, might be true, though not one half, not one quarter of the great body of liberal Christians" were Unitarians in this sense. And, Sir, that it is not actually true, nothing which you have advanced goes to shew.

What, however, the real truth in the case is, I will not take upon me to say: but I must say, that I do not see that the Reviewer may not have been perfectly honest in the opinion which he has expressed; perfectly honest in declaring that he "feels himself entirely warranted to say" what he does say. If his opinion is a mistaken one, yet an "unperverted mind” will admit, that the grounds on which it was formed have at least the appearance of some solidity; and it would require, it should seem no uncommon share of "the meekness of wisdom," no extraordinary effort of that "charity which hopeth all things," to refrain from charging him with falsehood.

One other passage, under this head, remains to be considered: "The liberal party mutilate the New Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man." This is the last of the three passages , which you have cited to shew that the "Review asserts, that the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word," and upon which you ground your principal accusation of falsehood. But is it here asserted, that all the individuals of the liberal party actually do the things, and all of them, which the party is said to do? Is this a fair interpretation of the passage? Or if it admits of this, does it fairly admit of no other?

The apostles, Sir, as you very well know, repeatedly charge the Jewish rulers and people, generally, even "the great body" of the nation, with having, "crucified and slain the Lord of life and glory." Yet, as you also know, but a very small part of that great body actually imbrued their hands in his blood. But some of them did; and of the rest, some more, and others less directly, consented to the deed. Hence they were generally involved in the guilt, and brought under the charge; and upon the great body, eventually, "wrath came to the uttermost." Such was the judgment of the apostles; and such the judgment of Him, whose throne is established in righteousness.-And, Sir, if among the liberal party, the things charged by the Reviewer are done; if some of the party do actually "mutilate the New Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man,”—and of the rest, some more, and others less directly, consent to all this; if, as a party, or as individuals of the party, they bear no decided testimony against these deeds, and do nothing effectually to secure, or to purge themselves from the guilt of them; then, is it not true, and right, and proper to say of the party generally, that they do these things? and will they not generally, with all who adhere to them, be held to answer for them at the bar of the righteous Judge?

But are not these things done:-I tremble, my dear Sir, while I put this question to your conscience:-tremble, not because I feel that I am doing wrong; but because I consider it a question of infinite solemnity.-It surely will not be denied, that "the New Testament is mutilated;"-it will not be denied, that "the Saviour is degraded to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;”—nor should it any more be denied, that "nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are rejected." I do believe you will yourself admit, that nearly all the doctrines are rejected, which by the venerable founders of the New England churches were held as fundamental;-which the great body of the Protestant churches, since the Reformation, have held as fundamental.

How great a proportion of the liberal party actually do all this, and to how great an extent the rest of them consent to it, I would be devoutly thankful, that I am not particularly concerned to determine. But I must seriously ask, whether, from the representations made in your Letter, were there no other means of judging in the case, there would not be most fearful reason to apprehend, that you and your liberal brethren generally have done but very little, to secure yourselves from the general charge, or, I must add, to purge yourselves from the general guilt?—It grieves me, dear Sir, to state, that in your Letter, you tell us, in so many words, that "to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime:”—by which I understand, no sin,-no offence against God-against Christ—against the Gospel-against the cause and kingdom of truth and holiness. No sin-no offence, to hold Christ to have been no more than "a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;"-to discard those parts of the New Testament which assert his pre-existence, his miraculous conception, his divinity, and his atonement, as either spurious, erroneous, or extravagantly hyperbolical; to deny that his death was an expiatory sacrifice for sin, that we owe him any gratitude for the benefits which we are now receiving," that "we have any reason to hope for his future interposition;”—to deny the inspiration of the Scriptures generally, and reject all the fundamental, all the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel!-You are also most studiously careful, most exquisitely tender, lest any "state

ment you make should be considered, as casting the least reproach on those amongst us, who believe in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ;" and, of course, agree with Mr. Belsham, if not in all, yet certainly in the most material articles of his creed.-Most studiously careful, most exquisitely tender, lest you should wound their feelings, abridge their influence, or hinder their success in propagating their sentiments! And from other parts of your Letter, it would seem that such has been the uniform feeling, and comformable to it the uniform practice, not only of yourself, but of your liberal brethren in general.

Now, Sir, if such is the real fact, however small a proportion of the liberal party those may be, who actually do the things in question; yet is it not perfectly correct to say, generally, that the liberal party do them. And if so, where is the foundation for the serious charge of falsehood, so vehemently urged against the Reviewer?

You are pleased to say, (p. 7.) "The conduct of the Reviewer, in collecting all the opinions of that gentleman," Mr. Belsham, "not only on the Trinity, but on every other "theological subject, in giving the whole collection the name "of Unitarianism, and in exhibiting this to the world as the creed of liberal christians in this region, is perhaps as "criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the "records of theological controversy." Upon this permit me to ask, Did you overlook that Mr. Belsham exhibits the opinions, thus collected, not as peculiarly his own, but expressly as the sentiments of the Unitarians generally? Have the goodness to observe his phraseology: "The Unitarians generally believe," &c. "The Unitarians maintain," &c. "The Unitarians disavow," &c. Was it not right for the Reviewer to consider Mr. Belsham, at present the head of the party certainly in England, as good an authority for determining what Unitarianism is, in the nineteenth century, as "Dr. Mosheim" or "Miss Adams?" and right also to give the people some distinct information on this subject? Is not the fact well known to you, that Unitarianism is a "name," not opprobriously given to that class of professed christians by their opponents, but eagerly claimed, and strenuously.as

serted by themselves? Are you not also perfectly aware, that after the denial of the essential divinity and the proper atonement of Christ, the descent to the lowest degree of Unitarianism is extremely easy, and often most rapid? That among those, who reject these primary doctrines, a peculiar brotherhood is at once established? And that any differences of sentiment, which may exist among them, are considered by themselves, from the highest to the lowest, as comparatively unimportant, and are so considered also by their opponents, the Trinitarians, who regard the denial of these doctrines as subversive of the very foundations of the gospel? In what then consists the extreme criminality, with which the Reviewer is so warmly charged?

To conclude this head. You have accused the Reviewer of falsehood, in "asserting, That the ministers of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." I trust it has been made clear, that this accusation is unfounded: that he does not make the assertion which you allege that he makes; and that in what he does assert, in the passages cited by you, he is in part justified by your own concession, and in the rest borne out by the testimony of liberal gentlemen, and by principles of fair interpretation,-I frankly confess that I did regret, when I first read the Review, and I do still regret, that he had not expressed himself with more studious care, and more circumspect qualification. But for the heavy accusation, which you have preferred against him, and for the uncommon heat with which it is urged, I am utterly incapable of discerning any solid reason. “A man who is governed by christian principles, will slowly and reluctantly become the accuser of his brethren." This sentiment, Sir, I quote from you with most hearty approbation. Near it, however, is a passage, which I quote with no common sensation of pain. "That he," the Reviewer, "intended to deceive I am unwilling to assert; but the most "charitable construction which his conduct will admit is, "that his passions and party spirit have criminally blinded "him, and hurried him into an act, which could have been "authorized only by the strongest evidence, and the most im