did not, in my opinion, bear with it much respect for those signs of God and the presence and power of God. It intimated that it was not of much consequence whether a preacher of the gospel could perform them or not; and that the circumstances under which a modern missionary addressed the heathen did not greatly differ, on that account, from the circumstances of the apostles. Against such an opinion as this, I felt that I ought to protest; and I conceived myself seconded by the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and by the small success of modern missionaries. The advantage given to the apostles by the power of working miracles appears to me too great for estimation. the Reviewer it appears inconsiderable.

To

That this is really his mind on the subject, is evident from an extract which he gives, in a note, from a sermon by the Rev. S. E. Dwight. I will also quote it, that your readers may see how the Orthodox talk on this matter, and may judge whether my own inferences from their manner are, or are not correct.

Christ and the Apostles regularly acted on this principle. -Of all their miracles, not one was wrought merely as evidence of their Divine mission, or of the truth of their doctrines; but every one to relieve some case of distress providentially presented. In many cases too, where, if the gospel has no such evidence, miracles were absolutely necessary, no miracles were wrought. This was true at Sychar, at Thessalonica, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and at Corinth. A remarkable example of this nature occurred at Athens. When Paul found himself in the Areopagus surrounded by the most distinguished philosophers and orators of Greece, instead of working a miracle to prove that he was sent from God, he exposed the folly of idolatry; made known the true God, a future state, and the mission of Jesus Christ; and then in the name of the true God, com. manded them to repent: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now he commandeth all men every where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge in the world righteousness."

One or two questions naturally arise on reading this passage. What does Mr Dwight mean by saying, that not one miracle of Christ or his apostles was wrought merely as evidence of their divine mission? Did not Christ himself tell Philip to believe him for the very works' sake? Is it not said in one place, that 'many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did?' in another, that a great multitude followed him because they saw his miracles?' and in yet another is he not

VOL. III.NO. IV.

35

called a man approved of God by miracles, and wonders and signs?' and in another, is it not said, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost? What does Mr Dwight mean? And what does he mean by saying that every miracle was wrought to relieve some case of distress providentially presented? Was the first miracle which Jesus worked, the changing water into wine, occasioned by a case of distress providentially presented? And what if every miracle had been wrought to relieve a case of distress? Would that have proved any thing more than the benevolence of the worker and of him who sent him, strengthening thereby the proof of a divine mission by the union of mercy with power? Merely as evidence of their divine mission! Was it not more fully and undeniably an evidence of the divine mission of Jesus, that he gave life to the brother of Mary and Martha, rather than to the stones in the streets? that he created bread for the fainting multitude in the wilderness, rather than for the people in the midst of the city, who did not want it?

Let us hear him again. In many cases too, where, if the gospel has no such evidence, miracles were absolutely necessary, no miracles were wrought. This was true at Sychar, &c.' Where did Mr Dwight get his information? Who told him, that on any supposition, miracles were absolutely necessary in those places? Is he not setting himself up to be wise above what is written? I do not undertake to say that Christ and his apostles made no converts but by the aid of miracles. Many doubtless received the gospel on account of its own intrinsic truth and beauty; but many would in all probability never have received it, if they had not been led into belief by the display of supernatural power. Here I feel myself standing firmly on the declarations of holy writ.

But I cannot yet leave the note. Mr Dwight proceeds to say, that the system of doctrines which produces these remarkable effects, is not that system which he describes as ours. 'You may go and preach that system,' he adds, 'to the unchristian nations" until time shall be no longer," and they will not renounce their immoralities or their false religions.' That it will have no effect is admitted by the advocates of the system themselves; for they universally avow, that the conversion of the heathen is impossible. This probably is the true explanation of the never to be forgotten, but in no degree surprising

fact, that no nation was ever yet converted from heathenism to that system of doctrines; as well as of another fact equally deserving of notice, and yet equally incapable of exciting surprise, that the advocates of that system, from the time of the Nicene council to the present day, have never attempted a mission to the Heathens, the Mohommedans, or the Jews.'

Now, as to our avowing universally that the conversion of the heathen is impossible, we avow no such thing. A simple contradiction is answer enough for that part of the assertion. For the rest, I believe the apostles themselves to have been the first missionaries of that system, which Mr Dwight holds in such aversion; but, dropping this contested point, I would ask how Mr Dwight could know, with all his knowledge, that that system. might be preached to the heathen till doomsday, without effect, if not one trial of its efficacy has ever been made? If it is 'a never to be forgotten fact,' that we have never attempted a mission to the heathen, why then, I think, the other never to be forgotten fact, that we have never converted the heathen, might have been omitted, as in no degree surprising,' and the equally never to be forgotten but in a high degree surprising conclusion, that we might preach till we were tired, without converting them, might have been omitted also. And now I have done with the note.

The Reviewer complains that I have given a false impression of the success of foreign missions. I followed respectable authorities, aye, Orthodox authorities, some of them. I said, moreover, and I still say, that I have no disposition to deny or to undervalue any good, that has been effected by missionaries any where.' I only wish that the good was greater, and the boasting less. Whatever can be truly claimed, I will not only allow, but allow gladly; and for the sake of the good, I will not say all that I might of the boasting.

In answer to my explanation of the character and extent of Unitarian resources, contained in what he calls my six pages of statistics,' the Reviewer replies, that he always believed the number of Unitarians to be few, but he spoke of the resources which those few possess.' He then takes us a journey through 'the ten Unitarian churches of Boston,' to the dwellings of their members, 'to their places of business, to their warehouses and their ships, to their banks and their counting rooms.' Stopping to take breath, he turns round, and asks whether here there are no resources? Then he is off to the expensive church

in Baltimore, and then brings us back to Boston, Harvard University, and the North American Review, to show how powerful are our instruments of moral influence. 'Here then,' he says, comes the difficulty. If "the simple, unpretending, noiseless Moravians," had such resources and such instruments of influence, they would do something with them.'

6

This is marvellously taking, no doubt, with those who do not perceive the utter fallacy of it. The Moravians would do something with these resources and instruments! Yes, very probably they would, if they had, or could have them. But I never heard that the Moravians were desirous of having great warehouses, or fleets of ships, or that they intended to enter largely into banking. In short, they are not busy, driving, calculating merchants, because they are Moravians; and the Boston merchants do not devote themselves to missionary enterprises, because they are not disciplined, hermit-like, zealous Moravians. The difficulty,' with me, is, how the Reviewer came to think of comparing merchants with Moravians. He might as well have compared them with Jesuits, or any other body of men who give themselves up, or are supposed to, entirely to religious meditations, offices, and charities. And here I would remind the Reviewer, that the Jesuits are older missionaries than the Moravians, or even the American Board, and have been as ardent, as fearless, and as successful as these latter, to say the least. If the Reviewer denies to them the distinction of being christian missionaries, I must leave him and mother church to argue that point between them.

The Unitarians of Baltimore built a splendid church, because they were then able to do so, and to exert themselves in other ways besides, which they did most strenuously. They have experienced a reverse of fortune, and I grieve for them. But I know them to be still earnest and faithful; and were they now in the situation they once enjoyed, they would be among the foremost in any good and christian enterprise.

Harvard University stands pledged with the public to use no sectarian influence. The same is the case with the North American Review. The two last articles in that work, of a theological character, came from Andover Institution. It is evidently a desperate case with my opponent, when he resorts to such mere shadows of arguments to hide his weakness and to blind unskilful eyes.

He intimates, under cover of a Scotch anecdote, that I as

sume to be, together with the few who are desirous of an Indian mission, the only true kirk.' Here he is sufficiently replied to by a paragraph in my first letter, in which he may find these words; Far be it from me to say, that all well informed, and well meaning, and zealous Unitarians are zealous for foreign missions.' There is more to the same purpose.

That there are many Unitarians who feel no strong interest in Unitarianism, I have asserted, and I still assert. No fact is more palpable. But it is easily accounted for. Some of them, like a portion of every denomination, are not heartily interested in the subject of religion at all. Others are not yet true and consistent disciples of the Unitarian faith; and that there is nothing strange in this, must be evident to all who consider how mighty a sway is exerted by early prejudice over the mind, and how hard it is entirely to escape from its dominion. Again, there are good Unitarians who are not favorable to missions, some because they doubt of their utility, and some because they have been thoroughly disgusted, by Orthodox canting, with the whole affair.

With this summary I conclude; tarrying only, for courtesy's sake, to tell the Reviewer, who thanks me for the good I have done, that he is welcome. Yours, &c.

A SEEKER.

IDLE WORDS.

THE word in the New Testament translated idle, means rather injurious; tending to do harm of any description. But if the common rendering were the correct one, it would still be true enough; for idle talk almost invariably turns upon something injurious to ourselves, if not to others. There is a deep and unsuspected fountain of malice in many hearts, springing perhaps from the rivalships and collisions of life, and it is apt to overflow. Whatever makes against a person, often travels faster than the wind. Hearts beat high to repeat it, tongues are eloquent in sending it on, while the generous defence or disinterested praise dies away on the lips of those who pronounce it. What are these idle words? First, those employed in censuring others; and these are by far too great a proportion of the ordinary language of men. You see friends passing coldly by you, you know not why; you see once intimate associates disunited like fragments of the broken rock, or per