BY the great vanity which you discover, and the self-important airs which you assume thro'out your slanderous Essay, I conclude you supposed that I would either enter the lists with [...] as a shrewd polemical writer, or else be wholly silent, from a conviction of my inability to defend the sermons which you have attack'd in so heroic a manner. But if you imagined either of these things, you was under a mistake. If ever I enter into a formal controversy with any per­son upon such points, it shall be with One, who appears to me to have both a better head, and honester heart than you have discovered in this specimen of your abilities, and zeal for what you call orthodoxy. And yet I do not think it convenient to be quite silent upon this occasion. Tho' my sermons need no elaborate, argumentative de­fence against your ratiotinations, and impertinent criticisms; yet so much rudeness and insolence, so much misrepresen­tation and slander, falsehood and forgery as your libel contains, should not, methinks, be passed over without some animadversions: Especially since it is probable that this will be read chiefly by those who have never seen the sermons aforesaid; and who may be so ignorant of you, as to imagine you had too much integrity and honor to misrepresent and falsify them. It is partly upon this consideration, that I give you and myself the present trouble; my principal aim being, not to dispute with, but to chastize and admonish you, for your real good; and to make you an example and warning to others. If in doing this, I should transiently touch upon the merits of [Page 4] the cause, theologically considered, you are not to flatter yourself, that I mean to controvert such points with you; whom I consider as a person wholly unworthy to be rea­soned with about them, any farther than is requisite to shew your dishonesty and wickedness with reference to them.

If I had really published any material errors in point of doctrine, let me tell you, Mr. Cleaveland, that you was one of the most unsutable persons in the world, to undertake a confutation of them, or to set yourself up for an author, tho' you say, p. 4, that you have 'an un­doubted right' to do it. I am sensible that British sub­jects have a legal right to expose themselves in print, on politics, divinity, or any other subject: And if this is what you insist on as an invaluable privilege, I would by no means have your liberty, or that of the press restrained. But you speak, p. 3. of 'Divines of indisputable ability for such an undertaking', as that of vindicating the truth against me. Can you then possibly think it became you, an obscure person from another province, and one so un­letter'd as you are; an out-cast from the college to which you was a disgrace; for some time a rambling itinerant, and promoter of disorders and confusion among us; so raw and unstudied in divinity; one hardly ever heard of among us, but in the frequent reports of your follies and extravagances, and at length set up as a minister to an assembly of separatists;—Can you possibly think it be­came you to turn author upon this occasion; and to take this supposed necessary work of defending the most im­portant principles of the protestant religion against me, out of the hands of our Divines of indisputable ability? What unaccountable vanity and infatuation was this! And you have presumed to pass an implicit censure on those Divines also, by saying, p. 3. ‘I marvel that none of our divines of indisputable ability for such an undertaking, have attempted to vindicate the truth against him’ —Is not this a proof, that none of our able Divines thought there was any occasion for opposition to me? And do not you shew the utmost assurance, in thus setting up your little self in opposition to their opinion, as well as [Page 5] to my sermons? Poor, unhappy man! You doubtless thought to emerge from your obscurity, and to appear as a person of some consequence, by this vain attempt. But you have great reason to wish, you had continued as unnoticed as ever: For it were much better to remain as unknown as heretofore, than to be only more infamous; as you are at least in a fair way now to be, by means of your libel.

If it were my intention to write to you as a scholar, logician or divine, I would take some notice of the con­fusion and want of method, so apparent thro'out your Essay; the needless and numberless repetitions therein; and your running the proposed heads of it into each other: So that one had almost as good look for what you pro­pose under any particular one, under any of the other, as that. This is particularly observable with respect to the three latter of them, which are the principal. And even under your first, the design of which, you say, is, to men­tion several things in which you "agree" with me ^*, you mention near as many, I think, in which, you say, we disagree. But it is as much beneath me to play the critic on such a performance as yours, as it would be par­ticularly to expose the vanity of your criticisms on my sermons. Let me here only just observe by the way, that if I agree with you in so many things as you say I do, this is a better presumptive evidence, that I am under some mistakes, than any which you have produced. For I can hardly suppose it possible for any one to be of your opinion in many points of doctrine, without being in the wrong with respect to some.

But I will now proceed to the main business of this Letter, which is, to set your falsehood, and iniquitous proceedings with reference to my sermons, in some order [Page 6] before your eyes; and to administer the reproof and cor­rection which you deserve; or rather a part thereof. For it is only they that hold the sword of public justice, that can legally punish such wickedness to the extent of its demerits. Your villainy in this affair appears written, as one may say, even upon your forehead; I mean in your title-page: In which you have the assurance to represent me to the world, as an enemy to 'the most important principles' of the protestant religion; particularly 'the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice and atonement', &c. On which, you there say, I cast 'injurious aspersions'. After the word atonement, you indeed insert these clauses, viz. ‘as being absolutely necessary to the pardon of sin, con­sistently with God's infinite and unchangeable rectitude’; —that you might have an hole to creep out at. But this will not serve your turn. You know, Mr. Cleaveland, in your conscience, that I did not deny any necessity of atonement, arising from wisdom, fitness, the ends of go­vernment, or the moral character of God; but rather said what implies it, as will hereafter appear to your confusion, unless you are past all shame. How then could you have the confidence, because my expressions concerning atone­ment do not exactly correspond with yours, to represent me to the world, as casting 'injurious aspersions' on it? by which you doubtless intended something beyond a sim­ple denial of it. But it must be observed, that I am charged, in this villainous title-page, with injuriously asper­sing other important doctrines of the gospel, besides that of Christ's atonement; unless you will say, that there are some 'most important principles in the protestant reform­ed system of christianity', which are not themselves real and important doctrines of the gospel; and therefore that I may be supposed to asperse the former, tho' I maintain the latter: Which, I conclude, you will not say. Indeed, nothing is more manifest, than that it was your formal in­tention to asperse me, as an enemy to some of the most fundamental doctrines of the christian religion; which you accordingly essay to defend against the supposed injurious aspersions cast on them in my sermons. You must be sensible, that this is a very high charge to be brought a­gainst [Page 7] one who is, at least by his station and profession, a minister of the gospel. But I have the less reason to be any ways uneasy at your dislike of my sermons, be­cause I think it pretty evident that you do not well like the text itself, in its plain, literal sense; or, in other words, that you do not really believe, 'The Lord is good to ALL, and his tender mercies over ALL his works.' Had you believed this to be strictly true, I do not think you would (I am sure you could not consistently) have made such a tragical out-cry against those discourses.

But having made these cursory remarks on the iniquity of your title-page, as well as the vanity of your intro­duction, and the impertinence and confusion of your first head; I shall now pass on to your second: which is thus expressed in your libel, p.9. ‘To take notice of the Dr's evident design.’ And this, you immediately add, was, ‘To represent the divine goodness in such a light as to shew, there was no absolute necessity for the sacrifice of Christ to make atonement, or to satisfy ^* divine jus­tice, in order to God's forgiving the sins of men con­sistently with his moral goodness.’ Upon which let it be remarked in the first place,

That if I had, in express terms, asserted the non-ne­cessity of atonement or satisfaction, in order to the forgive­ness of sin; this would have been no more than some eminent protestant Divines have done; even Calvinistical Divines; whom, I conclude, you account the most reform­ed of any. I will particularly mention but one of them; the famous Dr. Twisse, who was in such high reputation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, that he was chosen and served as Prolocutor, or Chairman of that venerable assembly. And his opinion ought, perhaps, to [Page 8] have almost as much weight as that of Mr. Cleaveland of Ipswich. The Dr. has nine folio pages in his Vindiciae Gratiae &c. upon this point; beginning p. 198. under the head De Electione; the eighth Digression, as he terms it: ‘In quâ probatur posse Deum per potentiam absolutam vel CITRA SATISFACTIONEM peccata remittere, simulque ad Lubberti & Piscatoris contrasentientium rationes respon­detur’. Which, for the sake of you, Mr. Cleaveland, and my other English readers, I here translate— In which it is proved, That God can forgive sins by his absolute power, even WITHOUT SATISFACTION; and also the reasonings of Lubbertus & Piscator, who think other­wise, are answered. It immediately follows, ‘Posse Deum vel citra satisfactionem peccata remittere, juxta potentiam ejus absolutam, adeo manifestum mihi videtur, ut extra controversiam ponendum esse facile censerem.’ i. e. That God can forgive sins even without satisfaction, by his abso­lute power, appears so manifest to me, that I should think it a point which ought to be placed beyond all controversy. Afterwards, ‘Si Deus non possit peccata sine satisfactione remittere; tum vel quia non potest per potentiam, vel quia non potest per JUSTITIAM. At neu­trum horum dici potest,’ &c. i. e. If God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction; this is either because he cannot, with respect to power, or because he cannot, in respect of JUSTICE. But neither of these things can be affirmed, &c. From hence it is manifest, that this eminent Calvinistic Divine, in high repute with the Westminster Assembly, for which you express so great a veneration, was full and positive in his opinion, that sin might have been forgiven without any satisfaction; and particularly, that the justice of God did not indispensibly require it. This he thought so plain a point, that it ought not to be called in question. If, therefore, I had as expresly asserted the same thing, did it become you,—I say, you, Mr. Cleaveland, to inveigh against me for it; and to load me with so much obloquy? Could you not differ from me in opinion, and yet observe some sort of decorum and modesty in your opposition?

But let me remind you in the next place, that I did not assert the possibility of forgiveness without atonement. [Page 9] So far from it, that the manner in which I expressed my­self upon this point, rather implied a moral necessity there­of in order to forgiveness: And surely you will not assert any other kind of necessity, or a natural one, as contradis­tinguished from moral. At least, I am persuaded that no man who understands what he says, supposes any other: What you may do, I cannot say.—That I denied not such a necessity, but rather supposed it, will fully appear here­after; together with your wilful fals [...] [...] iniquity with reference hereto.

IN the mean time, I shall make a [...] on the method which you take to prove that I had the design aforesaid. You infer this from what I said of divine justice, considered as a branch or mode of goodness; which opinion of mine you suppose, without any reason, to be inconsistent with the doctrine of atonement. But what an iniquitous method of proceeding is this? Upon supposition I was mistaken about divine justice, (which I am persuaded no man can prove) is this a sufficient ground to charge me with such a design as you speak of? This is the same kind of dishonesty, that it would be in any one to accuse you of deism or atheism, because he supposed some of your principles, being pursued into their just consequences, would terminate therein; which probably may be the case. But yet I should think it injurious to charge you with a design to propagate deism or atheism, while you profess the contrary; even tho' you have shewn so little regard to truth and integrity, as you have done in many parts of your libel. One instance hereof may indeed be found in this part of it, p. 9. Where you insinuate that I hold every act of punitive justice in God, to be intended for the good of the individual, on whom it terminates. You say, ‘Now if justice, even punitive justice in God, is only a mode or modification of his goodness, or kindness and beneficence towards his creatures, then the great end (as the Dr. says it is) of God's exercising punitive justice, must be "the good of his creatures," and even the good of those that it is exercised upon; and hence every act of punitive justice must be an act of kindness, "for it is goodness [Page 10] itself that gives the blow."’ Here you refer to Serm. p. 21. Now would not any one who never read my ser­mons, and took you for an honest man, conclude from hence, that I supposed it would be unjust for God to pu­nish any sinner more than would be for his own good? Indeed you say expresly, p. 10. that according to my prin­ciples, ‘God would not be perfectly good but cruel, if he should punish them’ [sinners] ‘any farther than would be for their good or happiness’ —Now are you not a­shamed, Mr. Cleaveland, of such prevarication as this? I did indeed compare God's acts of punitive justice to those of a wise and good earthly parent or sovereign; who has always some good or benevolent design in punishing. But then I expresly guarded, as you know, against the suppo­sition, that all acts of punitive justice, whether in God or man, are acts of kindness to the suffering individuals. That those who have never read my sermons, may see it is not without good reason that I accuse you of dishonesty in this respect, I shall here extract a few passages from them, out of many to the same purpose.

SPEAKING of the motive from which a wise and good parent punishes his children, when he is under the influ­ence, not of mere passion, but of reason only, I say, ‘Is it not in order to reform, and do them good?—or at least with a view to the benefit of his other children, or those of the houshold;—that they may be kept under due subjec­tion, &c.—So that in a good parent, as was said before, there is no such quality as justice, really distinct from goodness; not even in punishing: For it is goodness itself that gives the blow,’ Serm. p. 21. This last clause you dishonestly introduce, as if I had not only used it expresly concerning God; but had thereby intended to assert, that he never punishes a sinner, but for his own good, in distinc­tion from the public or common: And is not this a wicked, wilful perversion of my evident meaning? Again:

SPEAKING just after, of a wise and good earthly sove­reign, I expressed myself thus,— ‘Neither does he inflict any punishments, but what he considers as needful for the support of his government;—if not for the particular [Page 11] good of those that suffer, as in capital cases, yet for the good of his people in general, by way of example and terror, that good order may be preserved. So that even in this case of excision, or capital punishment, the justice of the sovereign is no real quality in him, distinct from goodness. It is goodness, or a regard to common good, that takes off the head of the traitor,’ &c. p. 21, 22. It is afterwards observed, that God is often represented to us in scripture under the characters of a Father and a King; 'the wisest and best Father, the wisest and best King,' p. 23, 24. And after quoting Heb. XII. 6—12. where God is represented as chastening us 'for our profit,' I go on thus, p. 25. ‘No man will deny, but that God is at once just and good in these chastenings. Goodness and justice in him, therefore, are not to be considered as opposites: They may, in all other cases without exception, be co­incident; the latter being, perhaps, only a particular modification of the former, and tending to positive good, at least the public or common.’ And you your self, Mr. Cleaveland, know, and have often acknowledged, particu­larly p. 15. that I speak of the future punishment of wicked men in the language of scripture, as eternal, ever­lasting, &c. How then could you have so much dishonesty and impudence, as to represent it to the world as my doctrine, or at least implied in my doctrine concerning divine goodness, that every act of punitive justice in God, is an act of kindness to the individual punished; or that God's end therein is the good even ‘of those, that it is exercised upon’? Was not this very foolish also, as well as injurious? For do you think you can make the world believe that I either asserted or supposed, it was for the good of sinners themselves to be eternally punished? For shame, Mr. Cleaveland; what do you think of yourself? Or what opinion do you suppose the world can have, either of your sense or honesty in this respect? You proceed upon the same known false supposition, when you so pertly demand, p. 10. ‘And if God's punitive justice is positive kindness, or if all his acts of punishing, are acts of positive kindness, how could the sufferings of Christ, the just for [Page 12] the unjust, be an effect of God's love, mercy and grace? Is it an act of love, mercy and grace, to withold from sinners an act of positive kindness?’ Fye! Mr. Cleave­land. You know that, according to my principles, sinners may be justly punished by way of terror and example to others, for the support of government, order and common good, tho' themselves are not benefitted, nor designed to be benefitted thereby. And Christ's atonement, or his suffering, the just for the unjust, or in the room, place or stead of sinners, (which I suppose the true, natural import of that expression) was not in order to their being exempt­ed from any disciplinary correction, or medicinal punish­ment, for their real good; (for thus the saints are corrected, or punished, notwithstanding Christ suffered for them) but in order to their being exempted from that punish­ment, to which they might otherwise have been subjected, in order to vindicate the honor of Gods law and govern­ment; for the support of order, and therein for the good of the universe, which essentially depends thereon. And if these ends may be answered by the sufferings of a me­diator or substitute, as I suppose, I hope you will allow it to be an 'act of love, mercy and grace,' to appoint a me­diator to suffer thus, in order to prevent our suffering per­sonally, by way of example and warning, as malefactors do in the case of capital punishment; tho' it would not be an act of love, mercy and grace, ‘to withold from sinners an act of positive kindness,’ or any punishment which is for their good; as you, at once with equal folly, effrontery and malice, suggest it would be, upon my principles.

YOU go on with your imaginary proof of the design imputed to me; but really, only in further exposing the naughtiness of your heart. You say, ‘This design farther appears from what the Dr. says in p. 64 and 65; where he plainly intimates, that there was no necessity of the atonement of Christ, in reference to any such divine justice in God, that must be satisfied by the sufferings or death of Christ, that men might be pardoned or saved; "such idea of divine justice, must be wholly and forever ex­cluded.’ —Libel, p. 10. The last clauses here, with [Page 13] double comma's, you cite as mine; tho' they are altered, so as not to give your readers a true idea of my meaning. You have here the confidence to insinuate, that I denied the atonement of Christ had any reference to the justice of God, the honor of his law and government; or was designed to exempt sinners from that punishment, which must otherwise have been inflicted upon them. This is your manifest intention; and yet it is absolutely false, and you know it to be so. You know that in the places, to which you refer, I did not speak of divine justice in general, as if Christ's sufferings had no reference thereto; but only of a particular notion of justice, as if it were in nature wholly and absolutely distinct from goodness; for which, I suppose, there is no foundation in reason or scripture. But, instead of fairly quoting my words, you had the dishonesty to mutilate them in such a manner, as to give your unwary readers quite a wrong conception of my meaning; as if I had, in general terms, denied any justice in God, to which the satisfaction [atonement] of Christ had reference, in order to the pardon of sin. Are you not ashamed of such a wicked artifice as this, at once to slander me, and impose upon your readers?

YOU proceed in the same page, viz. 10. to cite me thus▪ in order to prove your point: I shall transcribe the sen­tence just as it stands in the libel—"We are assured (says he) in the holy scriptures, that God forgives the sins of men thro' this great sacrifice (of Christ) intervening, rather than without any." This is your pointing; here you make a period for me, where I made only a comma, the sense being incomplete. It immediately follows in the sermon, p. 64. after the comma at the word any,— ‘not because he is deficient in goodness, or not perfectly merciful, but because he is infinitely wise as well as mer­ciful; taking such a method herein, as is in its nature admirably adapted to ‘magnify the law and make it honourable,’ i. e. to beget and preserve in the minds of reasonable creatures a just sense of God's authority, the dignity of his laws and government: Which, as was in­timated before, is evidently best even for themselves.’ [Page 14] Now, had you quoted the sentence intire, instead of muti­lating it in the shameful manner you have done, it would probably have convinced every discerning and unprejudiced man, that you had injuriously represented my design. No person, surely, that understands himself, will say, that the appointing a mediator to atone for sin, and forgiving us thro' him, proceeded from any want of goodness or mercy in God. Nor can any thing be said more hono­rary to the atonement, than that God provided it, 'because he was infinitely wise as well as merciful; taking such a method,' &c. But all this latter part of that long sentence you dishonestly leave out, making a period at the word any; and go on to comment upon the former part thus: ‘q. d. There was no absolute necessity of this sacrifice intervening; God might have forgiven sin without any; but of the two, he chose rather to do it with than with­out any.’ You quote and point that part of the sentence just in the same manner, I think, ten or a dozen times in your libel; and often give the like comment upon it: As if I intended, that God might, consistently with the sup­position of his infinite wisdom, and his moral perfections, (all summarily comprehended in goodness) have forgiven the sins of men, in a method not wise and good, or at least not so wise and good as that which he actually chose. You pretend to give my sense thus,—'of the two he chose rather to do it with than without any': Which evidently amounts to this, that of the two, God chose to act as be­came an infinitely wise and perfect being, rather than to act as did not become such an One! My expression does not any more suppose that God might, consistently with his perfections, have forgiven the sins of men without the atonement of Christ, than it does, that he might in any, or all other respects in general, have acted a part different from that which is the wisest and best. And do you find neither nature nor grace inclining you to blush, Mr. Cleave­land, when you see your perverseness and dishonesty thus exposed to the world! If either of them, I am perswaded it is the former, corrupt as it is; for a reason which I leave to be conjectured—You go on thus, p. 11. 'But why [Page 15] did God chuse to do it with a sacrifice, rather than with­out any?' What impudence is this! Did I not plainly inform you why, both negatively and positively, in that part of the same sentence, which you so felloneously left out?—viz. 'not because he was deficient in goodness, or not perfectly merciful; but because he was infinitely wise as well as merciful; taking such a method herein, as is in its nature admirably adapted to magnify the law, and make it honourable.' Is not this a sufficient reason,—that this method was infinitely wise, and admirably adapted to answer the most important ends in the divine government? What would the man have? It might perhaps have pleased you, who, it seems, have so little regard either for wisdom or goodness, or even common honesty, (in writing) if I had said that the atonement had not its foundation in, or rise from, infinite wisdom and goodness. For it seems, that to say it had, is, in your depraved opinion, to cast injuri­ous aspersions upon it: In which, it is to be hoped, that no wise and good man will agree with you.

BUT it seems you would farther infer my design to shew the non-necessity of Christ's atonement, from my words quoted by you in the last-mentioned page. Speaking of that passage, Heb. II.9, 10.—It BECAME him, &c. I said, ‘It became his wisdom, it became his goodness—There was a fitness and congruity in it, as the wisest and best method of saving sinful men, without any kind of refe­rence to that common, but yet strange supposition, of divine justice being intirely distinct from divine goodness.’ —Therefore, to be sure, I supposed there was no moral necessity of atonement, with reference to divine justice in any sense! This is evidently what you design to make your readers believe, p. 11. after citing the passage aforesaid.

NOW the dishonesty of this appears divers ways: Ac­cording to my idea of God's goodness, it is ‘always to be considered as inseparably connected with his wisdom; and regulated thereby in all its operations. It is not to be considered as a sort of blind instinct, or good-nature; detached from reason and right, or a regard to fitness and propriety.’ (Serm. p. 14.) And being thus considered, I [Page 16] supposed that it comprized the whole moral character of God, even his justice. These things you knew; for you have quoted many passages to this purpose, only to pervert them; as may appear hereafter. You therefore doubtless knew, that when I said, it became the wisdom and goodness of God to forgive the sins of men, thro' the sacrifice of Christ, I did not speak of his goodness in the common restrained sense, but as including his justice; in a sense analogous to that, in which the goodness of a wise prince or parent in­cludes justice. So that if the atonement of Christ had any reference to goodness in this sense, it must necessarily have some, indeed a particular reference to justice. And this evidently appears to have been my meaning, because I expresly speak of it, in the same passage, as a method 'admirably adapted to magnify the law, and make it ho­norable,' &c. which could not be said with any propriety, if the atonement had no reference to justice and law. What then became of your honesty or your senses, Mr. Cleaveland, when you wrote as you did? Besides; this very passage, which you have used so villainously, is intro­duced in a manner, which plainly supposes I allowed a sort of moral necessity of atonement, in order to the for­giveness of mens sins. For it is an answer to this ob­jection, which, I thought, some might possibly make against the doctrine delivered by me— ‘What occasion was there for any atonement, upon these principles?—Whereas the scriptures constantly suppose the need of it in order to the pardon of sin.’ Now, that the scriptures really suppose a need, or necessity of it in order to our forgiveness, I plainly allowed: And accordingly went on to shew, whence that need or necessity arose, upon my own principles; viz. that the law of God might be magnified and made honour­able; that a just sense of his authority, the dignity of his laws and government, might be begotten and preserved in the minds of reasonable creatures; which is evidently best even for themselves. And yet you have such a front, Mr. Cleaveland, as to represent me to the world as having in­juriously aspersed the atonement of Christ as unnecessary.

[Page 17]BUT it is the word rather, as used by me with reference to this point, that seems chiefly to provoke your spleen, and put you upon fibbing and raging in such an ungodly manner as you do. Tho' I used this harmless word but once, I think, you fall foul of it in ten or a dozen places: In all of them giving a specimen of your sense and honesty. For example, p. 43. you quote, paraphrase and remark on my words thus, verbatim, in order to prove me guilty of an inconsistency—'He was just saying, ‘That we are assured in the holy scriptures, that God forgives the sins of men thro' this great sacrifice intervening, RATHER than without any.’ q. d. ‘He might have done it with­out any, there was no absolute necessity of his doing it in this way, or not all.’ ^† ‘And yet immediately adds, There was a necessity of God's doing it in this way; otherwise he could not maintain his own authority, nor the dignity of his laws and government.’ This were doubtless a very palpable contradiction; such an one as few besides yourself could be guilty of. But, Mr. Cleaveland, do you not know the old proverb concerning persons of a certain very infamous character?—that it behoves them to have a good memory. In the first place, I neither immediately, nor at all added the words which you say I did; they are none of mine, tho' you have formally quoted them as such, in order to fix an incon­sistency on me. In the next place, tho' I had actually expressed myself in that manner, I should not have been guilty of the least inconsistency. For I never denied a moral necessity of Christ's atonement, in order to God's maintaining the dignity of his laws and government, while he forgives the sins of men; tho' you have the front to insinuate that I did. Thirdly, your allowing, as you here do, that I assert there was a necessity of God's forgiving the sins of men thro' Christ's atonement, if he did it at all; since ‘otherwise he could not maintain his own authority,’ &c. Your allowing this, I say, intirely overthrows the grand indictment brought against me, in order to support which you have told so many false­hoods; [Page 18] viz. that of having injuriously aspersed the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice and atonement, as not being absolutely necessary, &c. Unhappy man! I beg that, at least for your own credit, you would rub up your memory, before you publish any more slander to the world.

BUT I must take a little farther notice of your cruel per­secution of the innocent word rather, against which you rave thro' so great a part of your libel. In p. 77. (a pas­sage which will be further noticed hereafter, with another view) you introduce me saying expresly, ‘God might have forgiven the sins of men without any sacrifice intervening; indeed it was rather the best and wisest method to forgive the sins of men, thro' this great sacrifice of Christ in­tervening, than without any. The eternal rule of right, and the honor and dignity of God's moral law and go­vernment, are of so small weight, that they did but just turn the scale in favor of an atonement’ —These, you know, you quote as my words; but I will indulge you so far at present, as to consider them only as your paraphrase upon my words, tho' it is beyond dispute, you intended your readers should think them mine. Now the manner of your commenting upon the word rather, as used by me, (supposing this to be designed only as a comment) brings to my mind many passages of scripture, in which the same word occurs: And I have been thinking what a notable expositor, casuist and divine you would appear, if you was to preach or print upon them, observing the same rule and method of interpretation, that you have in expounding my words. It must be hugely edifying to the good people of Ipswich—For example, the Psalmist says, 'I had RATHER be a door-keeper in the house of my God, than dwell in the tents of wickedness.' This you might descant upon thus— ‘There was no absolute, indispensible moral reason or ground, why holy David should prefer the house of God to the tents of wickedness: But of the two, he rather pre­ferred the former to the latter. He might have well and wisely chosen the tents of wickedness: The eternal rule of right, the honor of the divine authority and laws, were of so small weight, that they did but just turn the scale in [Page 19] favor of the holy tabernacle. Mark, O ye dear children of—, ye precious souls! mark well what a slight, su­perficial regard this eminent saint had to the house of — the place where his honor dwells; and how little aver­sion he had to wickedness, and the habitations thereof. O ye dear souls! what glorious encouragement does this give, to think yourselves in a converted, safe estate, even tho' you should not love the one, or hate the other quite so much as holy David did, little as that was!’ Again, it is said, 'Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but RATHER fear him that is able to de­stroy both soul and body in hell.' The pious Mr. Cleave­land upon the place, in conformity to his own method of interpretation: ‘q. d. It is of very little consequence which of these you fear: indeed it is of the two rather the wisest and best to fear the latter; but there is no absolute, indis­pensible obligation to do so; the eternal rule of right, the dignity of —'s moral law and government are of so small weight, that they do but just turn the scale: and whether only your bodies are killed now, or both your souls and bodies are destroyed hereafter, is hardly of any conse­quence’ —It is easy to imagine what practical and com­forting uses you might extract for yourself, and dear christian brethren, from this text so interpreted. Again: It is said, 'Seek not what ye shall eat, and what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall be cloathed: But RATHER seek the kingdom of God'—The learned and pious Mr. Cleaveland in Locum, ‘q. d. The kingdom of heaven, righ­teousness, and life eternal, are indeed of the two rather preferable to good eating, drinking and fine cloaths; this must be allowed: But yet, precious souls! the difference is so inconsiderable, that it is not much matter which ye seek: the eternal rule of right,’ &c. are of so small 'weight, that,' &c. The excellent practical instructions and consolations resulting naturally from such an expo­sition of the place, I need not mention.—Once more: It is said, 'Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; but RATHER reprove them.' The warm and zealous, the clarified and greatly illuminated [Page 20] Mr. Cleaveland upon the place— ‘q. d. There is no ab­solute necessity, dear souls! of your abstaining from the works of darkness and dishonesty, or of discountenancing them in others; you may be justified and saved without this. But yet of the two, it is rather more becoming you to reprove, than to practise and encourage such works. This is all that can be said. The eternal rule of right, the honor of — the dignity of his laws and government, and the credit of christianity in the world, are of so small weight, that they do but just turn the scale,’ &c. What excellent, useful and most comfortable reflexions might the apostle's words afford to some people, being thus paraphrased?

I HAVE here taken the liberty, Mr. Cleaveland, to com­ment for you, in your own way: giving the word rather, in these passages, precisely the same signification and force, that you have given it in my sermon: Upon which inter­pretation of it, the grand argument of your libel turns. I might altogether with as much truth and justice say, that I have delivered your natural, genuine sense of these several texts, as you can, that you have given mine, in your para­phrase. Indeed I might add, that by what I have heard of your wild, senseless and extravagant way of preaching in times past, I can scarce doubt but that you have often expounded scripture as ridiculously, as licentiously and pro­fanely as you would have done, had you actually para­phrased those several passages, in the manner before ex­pressed. And if you continue in the same way, tho' you stile yourself V. D. M. a minister of God's word; it should have rather been V. D. C. a corrupter of his word. Let me add that, by the many gross falsehoods, and wicked slanders in your libel, some of which have been already shewn, (and more are behind) it may be feared, tho' I do not affirm, that you are near as great a corruptor thereof in practice, as you are in principle or doctrine.

IT is needless for me to spend time to brush away the other flimsy, cobweb-reasonings in the second part of your libel; and indeed it was my determination from the first, not to enter into a dispute with such a wrong-headed and worse-hearted wretch, any farther than was requisite to lay open [Page 21] the villainy of this attack upon me. That you have wil­fully misrepresented my design, misquoted my words in some places, and put a most perverse construction upon them in others, is, I believe, very apparent to every impartial and intelligent person, who has ever compared your libel with my sermons. And if any thing, coming from you, could astonish me, (except sober truth, solid reasoning and can­dor) after what I have already observed in your libel, I should be astonished at the effrontery which you discover at the close of your said second head, p. 15. ‘If I have not hit upon the Dr's evident design, I confess it is because I can't comprehend him’ —What do you mean, pray! by not hitting upon, or not comprehending an evident design? If the design is evident, who but an idiot could help hitting upon, comprehending, or at least in general knowing what it is? That you could not comprehend my whole design, may be true; but that you understood more of it, than you was willing to own, and knowingly misrepresented it, is appa­rent; particularly from your misquoting, curtailing, mang­ling and mispointing my words, and by your perverse com­menting on the word rather: Whereas had you acted honestly, it would have at once appeared to your readers, that you was only exposing yourself, by objecting against my sermons, in the manner you have done. No one can help hitting upon your design, in this way of proceeding; and seeing it to be villainous in an high degree. And pray! how much better a design had you, in what you say in the margin of p. 14. about my being ‘full in the scheme (at least as to the fundamental and leading prin­ciples of it) which the Rev. President Clap, of Yale-College, collected out of several authors, viz. Chubb,’ &c. &c. &c? I will tell you what some suppose to be at least partly your design, in introducing that pamphlet, and thus charging me with being in the scheme therein represented: viz. recommending yourself to the author, and the other governors of said College; which, it is said, spewed you out some years ago; (tho' not as a Laodicean, 'neither cold nor hot'—) and so obtaining, by this dishonest means, those academical honors, of which you are at once so unwor­thy [Page 22] and so ambitious: For had not this been the case, you would not, surely, so long have sought them in vain—

THE third head of your libel, from p. 15. to 47. is ‘to give a concise representation of the doctrine of the di­vine attributes, together with some of the natural in­ferences, as held by protestant reformers.’ This tedious medly of inconsistencies and absurdities, which you call a concise representation, &c. I take to be the marrow and quintessence of several of your old sermons, revised and transcribed upon this occasion. You appear in most parts of it to talk without any clear ideas; making as free with your Creator, almost, as if you was his equal, or compre­hended his nature as perfectly as he does himself. I con­sider this as your system of divinity; and a greater piece of confusion and impertinence I hardly ever saw. It is partly such precious, sublime jargon as the wild, rambling exhorters used to entertain the gaping rabble with, seve­ral years ago, when you was one of them. Only by being printed, it appears rather more ridiculous, than if it were fo [...]med out extempore. I shall not mispend time by particularly exposing it. I do not indeed deny, but that there are several important, well-known truths scattered here and there; as particularly when you say, and endea­vour to prove, p. 21. that God cannot lie. And yet, I think, you have much more clearly demonstrated in many places, who can, even without designing to make it appear. Whether you have, or have not done this, even in the next page, I leave you and others to consider. Speaking there of me, you say, ‘We may with greater propriety charge him with a robbing of God, of what he esteems his glory —in excluding the attribute of divine justice.’ Now, Mr. Cleaveland, what do you think of such a representa­tion as this? Did I not often speak of justice, even punitive justice, as a part of God's moral character?—as a branch of his essential goodness, considered in connection with infinite wisdom, a regard to right, fitness and propriety, &c? Why then would you slander me thus, as if I excluded divine justice; especially when I sometimes speak of it, in confor­mity to the common method, as a particular distinct attri­bute [Page 23] of God? If you go on in this way, Mr. Cleaveland, without repentance, I verily believe you will have reason to wish in earnest, that God was not a just Being, either in your own sense or mine—You have interlarded your afore­said system of divinity, with other gross misrepresentations of me, and many rude aspersions, by way of seasoning; that it might go down the better. But I leave you to enjoy the credit of these; not thinking them worthy of any par­ticular notice.

I PASS on to the 4th and last general head of your libel, which you express thus, p. 47. ‘To take notice of some of the Dr's inaccuracies and inconsistencies.’ I can­not but observe here, that your whole libel contains but 108 pages, 61 of which belong to this last head; in which you was to play the critic upon my inaccuracies, and shew your own wit and sagacity. Mr. Cleaveland, I never pre­tended to much accuracy in writing; but, methinks, it is a little merry, that you, of all men, should undertake to shew my inaccuracies. When or where did you learn this curious art of criticising?—in what college? in what univer­sity?—during the little time that you was permitted to continue at Yale-college?—Was you a freshman or sophi­more, or of what standing was you, when you left that seat of the muses? Tho' this was so early, yet what an Aristarchus are you! But it must be observed, that nature had done a great deal for you, without art. For, I think, it will be apparent to any one, that your criticisms actually proceeded from nature; I mean human nature as it is commonly represented—wholly evil and corrupt— To be serious; had you not exposed yourself enough be­fore, in quality of a theologian, and champion for the pro­testant faith in opposition to the injurious aspersions cast up­on it by me, without pretending to set up for a critic too! Should you not at least have learnt the difference between rustic impudence and wit, between lying and criticising, be­fore you attempted to shew your talents in this way? Whe­ther you did, or did not know these material differences, may appear to all who shall think it worth while to com­pare your pretended criticisms, with my sermons. I am [Page 24] far from designing a defence of them against you. I only mean to shame you, if possible, for your vanity and wicked­ness, by taking a cursory notice of some of your criticisms. This being my chief aim, I shall scarce meddle with any of them, in which folly and ignorance bear the greater part; but almost intirely confine myself to those of them, in which impudence and falsehood are the most conspi­cuous. Some indeed may be briefly mentioned, in which it will not be easy to determine, whether the former or the latter are most prevalent.

As to what you object concerning my using the terms attribute or property and quality, as synonymous; I shall only ask you, What would be the material and precise dif­ference between one person's saying of Mr. Cleaveland of Ipswich, that the attribute or property of self-conceit is very conspicuous in him, and another's saying that the quality of self-conceit is so? Which of these would be the greatest compliment, or the most accurate way of speaking? In p. 48. you speak of me as having represented God as ‘a com­pound being, made up of as many distinct self-existent qualities or parts, as he has divine attributes.’ Now what foundation had you for this, besides a passage in which I expresly spake of the impropriety of ascribing parts to God? Speaking of goodness as an 'essential attribute' of God; I add, that it is ‘no borrowed or precarious excel­lency, as the goodness of men and angels is in them, but as necessary as his being. Indeed, one need not scruple to call it a part of God himself, only as there may be an impropriety in that manner of expression concerning the infinite God, in ALL other respects in general’ —Serm. p. 12. Now, after this, what greater dishonesty or villainy could any Critic be guilty of, than you are, in making such a bustle as you do, for almost two pages together, about parts of God? And you have the insolence to say, p. 49. —'see what an accurate and consistent description the Dr. 'gives of the One only living and true God. q. d. ‘God is a compound being, made up of eternal, essential, and equally necessary, self-existent parts: And tho' these parts, &c.’ Now, could you have given your readers such a [Page 25] representation of my doctrine, if you had understood the material distinction which I before mentioned to you; that between lying and criticising? If you take these for synonimous terms, I do not wonder that you think yourself a very masterly critic. — Thus you father your own nonsense and impiety upon me; contrary to my express, declared opinion.

The next of your criticisms which I shall take notice of, is this, That I sometimes speak of justice as a parti­cular moral attribute of God, distinct from goodness; and at other times speak of it as one branch of his essential goodness. Your cavils about this, make so great a part of your libel, that there is no occasion to refer to any particular place. I explained myself so far, respecting this matter, that no intelligent, candid person could mis­take my meaning. For it is evident that when I spake of justice in God, as distinct from goodness or benevolence in the common restrained sense; I considered it as no otherwise distinct therefrom in him, than it is in a wise and good man, whether a parent or a prince. It is com­mon to speak of justice in man, as a moral virtue distinct from charity or love, which is frequently spoken of as another moral virtue. And yet it is certain that love or charity, considered in the largest, or most comprehensive sense of it, includes, not only justice, but all other moral and social virtues. The apostle Paul often speaks of charity in this comprehensive sense; but most expressly, Rom. XIII.8, 9. A passage, of which if you had had any tolerable understanding, you could surely never have cavilled in the manner you have done— ‘Owe no man any thing, says he, but to love one another. For he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself.’ Pray, learned Sir, is not doing justice often spoken of as a particular moral virtue [Page 26] in scripture, as if it were in some sort distinct from loving money, or from charity; and vice versa? And yet does not the apostle here speak of that commandment, loving our neighbours as our selves, as summarily comprehending all the commandments of the second table? and conse­quently justice? And are not christian magistrates and parents bound, by that comprehensive command which the apostle speaks of, when understood in its proper extent, even to punish their subjects and children respectively, for the good of those that do evil, or for the warning and be­nefit of others? But your narrow, dark and groveling mind can perhaps have no conception of punishment proceeding from love, or from any thing besides a spirit of revenge. Not that I by any means exclude the hatred of sin or vice, as if it had not, or ought not to have any place in him that punishes it; whether it be God or man—All the nugatory, flimzy ratiotionations and criti­cisms which you have adduced, respecting my sometimes speaking of justice as if it were a distinct moral attribute of God, and at other times of goodness as if it compre­hended justice, and all divine moral attributes, would hold equally good against the apostle Paul's account of charity, and its various branches. When once you have enough of wisdom, and of the spirit of christianity, to conceive how love is the fulfilling of the law; or how all moral, social virtues are summarily comprehended and enjoined in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self; you will no longer be at any loss to understand what I mean, when I speak of divine justice and divine goodness in the manner I do; nor be so captious as to object against it as an inaccuracy or inconsistency. Whe­ther your criticisms upon this head chiefly proceed from ignorance, or from malice and vanity, I will not pretend to determine: But, that there is a great deal of both dis­covered therein, is undeniable. And you may if you please, in the next place try your critical skill upon the apostle Paul; and endeavour to shew that he did not understand himself, but wrote inaccurately and inconsistently—But I [Page 27] forgot myself in what I have said in this paragraph; by descending to reason with a man, whom I was only to reprove and chastize as a captious, conceited wrangler, &c.

That you deserve no better a character than this, is farther evident from what you offer page 50, 51. in or­der to shew me guilty of an inconsistency, because, tho' I spoke of the goodness of God as infinite, "without measure, without bounds;" yet I afterwards spoke of it as directed, controuled and regulated by infinite wisdom in all its operations; in opposition to its being ‘a sort of blind instinct, or good-nature, detached from reason and right, or a regard to fitness and propriety.’ With reference to which you say, ‘What is controuled and regulated, I thought was bounded and limited!’ A great deal of the like critical stuff is in the pages aforesaid. So that, in your sage opinion, if the divine goodness is di­rected, controuled and limited by infinite wisdom in its operations; and always to be considered in connexion therewith, in opposition to its being a mere blind instinct, it must be bounded and limited, and therefore finite. And if you here mean any thing, in opposition to me, it must be this, that God cannot at once be infinite both in wis­dom and goodness; for if infinite wisdom regulates good­ness, the latter, say you, must be 'bounded and limited▪ The same way of reasoning, or rather of impious trifling, might be applied to the power of God. I suppose all are agreed in general, that the power of God is exercised according to, or regulated by his infinite wisdom; not exerted at random. If so, according to you, great Critic! God's power cannot be infinite, ‘without measure, without bounds:’ because you always thought, that what is directed, controuled and regulated, even tho' it be only by infinite wisdom, 'is bounded & limited,' and therefore finite—What but the most stupid ignorance, or the blindest rage and malice, could lead you to critize in this manner? So desirous are you to prove me guilty of inaccuracies and inconsistencies, that you will run yourself into atheism, or what is next akin to it, by denying, in [Page 28] effect, that God can be both infinitely wise and infinitely good!

With the same pious intention doubtless it is, that you misquote my words, p. 57. "That the truly great, no­ble and excellent end which a good God has in view," &c. These are none of my words, tho' you quote and comma them as if they were. You also misquote me p.58. where speaking of me, you say,—'He argues thus 'to prove punitive justice to be a branch of goodness, viz. "God's end must be either positively good, or positive­ly bad; if it be the creatures happiness, it is positively good; if it be the creatures misery, it is positively bad and cruel," &c. &c.—Now tho' you mark these words as a quotation from me; I assert that they are none of mine. And in that passage in my sermon, which comes the nearest to them, (not very near) p 30. I was not speak­ing concerning punitive justice, as a branch of goodness; but of the almost infinite variety of God's works, or of the universe; and the end thereof—Why will you fib so, Mr. Cleaveland? You discover your dishonesty again, p. 60. where you say, ‘Let us see how the Dr. reconciles God's leaving the heathen world to unavoidable and e­ternal misery, with his being actually kind and merci­ful to all.’ You then pretend to give my solution of this difficulty; adding with an unmannerly sneer— ‘A satisfactory answer this!’ — ‘This is enough to satisfy some I trow!’ —But, you know, I did not allow the truth of the said supposition about the heathen world; nor pretend to shew its consistency with God's goodness to all. It was therefore knavish in you to give such a re­presentation of the matter, saving, ‘Let us see how the Dr. reconciles, &c.’ —But it seems almost as easy for the Aethiopian to change his skin, or the leopard his spots, as for you that have been so accustomed to misrepresentation and fibbing, to write, and represent things fairly. You are at your dirty work again, in several pages following; and particularly page 67. where you say, ‘In p. 45 the Dr. presumes to tell, how God BECAME infinitely, per­fectly [Page 29] good, &c.’ This is another infamously false re­presentation. What I endeavoured to shew in the pas­sage to which you refer, is not how God became infinitely wise or good; but, as it is there expressed, that ‘God being supposed all-knowing, independent and almigh­ty, the absolute perfection of his goodness may be de­duced from hence, &c.’ i. e. clearly argued or inferred. And I expresly guarded against the impious supposition, that God is not eternally and necessarily good. Now are you, or are you not an impudent slanderer, for publish­ing to the world, that I presume to tell how God BECAME infinitely good, &c. only because I shewed an eternal, necessary connexion between omniscience, independency, omnipotence and goodness? Is this criticizing or lying, Mr. Cleaveland? For once, let conscience speak.

But I now proceed to take notice of a wonderful criticism indeed: I mean one of the most impudent, barefac'd and execrable pieces of forgery that, I believe, any man ever commited, without being pillor'd or cropp'd, or suffering some other infamous punishment; unless where proof of the fact was wanting, as it is not in the present case. You have pretended to cite from me, in the most formal manner, a long passage, part of three pages in your libel, not a single compleat sentence of which is mine. You have, indeed, taken two or three scraps of sentences from my sermons, here and there, at many pages distance; fill'd them up with your own nonsense and impiety; put all in such an order as best suited your critical design, and palmed the whole upon the world as mine, without the least distinction; I mean as my very words: And all this, in order to shew my inaccuracies and inconsistencies! For your utter confusion, I shall now set this piece of wickedness in folio before your eyes, and the eyes of the world. Page 76 and onwards, you say thus, verbatim—

‘But I must not pass from this without taking some notice of the Dr's consistency, or rather inconsistency: SAYS HE, ‘A good God from his punitive justice, which [Page 30] is a branch of his goodness, may be obliged to punish transgressors, for the support of order, right, &c. or of the honour of God's violated commandments, and the dignity of his moral government—Christ suffered from punitive justice, and was numbered with trans­gressors (tho' he was without sin, a lamb without blemish and without spot, for he suffered the just for the un­just) when he made atonement by his blood, and there­by supported the honor of God's violated command­ments, and the dignity of his government, in such sort that guilty sinners might be pardoned consistently with the eternal rule of right; but tho' God may from punitive justice be obliged to punish sinners for the support of order, right, &c. and when he punished Christ, the just for the unjust, it was to support the honor of his violated laws, and the dignity of his go­vernment, and that guilty sinners might be pardoned consistently with the eternal rule of right: Yet Christ's sufferings were without any kind of reference to divine justice to satisfy that, for this is absolutely irreconcilable with Christ's dying the just for the unjust, as conse­quential to, and the effect of, God's love, mercy and grace,—And tho' punitive justice in God, regarding the eternal rule of right, and the support of the honor and dignity of God's laws and moral government, in order that we guilty sinners might be pardon'd con­sistently therewith; obliged God to lay on Christ the iniquities of us all, and to bruise the son of his love in our stead: Yet there was no absolute necessity of Christ's atonement in reference to justice being satisfied thereby, such idea of divine justice must be wholly and forever excluded; God might have forgiven the sins of men without any sacrifice intervening; indeed, it was rather the best and wisest method to forgive the sins of men, thro' the great sacrifice of Christ's interven­ing, than without any. The eternal rule of right, and the honor and dignity of God's moral law and government are of so small weight, that they did but [Page 31] just turn the scale in favour of an atonement to be made for sin, by the sacrifice of Christ: And tho' the result was, that Christ was to make an attonement by suffering the penalty of the law at the hands of puni­tive justice, yet this must be without any kind of reference to divine justice, to satisfy that.’ — O Doctor! can God the Judge all the earth, require an atonement to be made, if he is not offended? And can he be offended, and yet not justly offended?’ —

O Mr. Cleaveland! can you read these last words of your own, without trembling? Do not your knees smite one against the other, when you reflect on your own falsehood and villainy, particularly in the pretended long citation from me, immediately foregoing? All that long passage, which I have here marked with double commas, is so marked, and stands exactly thus in your libel. It is also introduced by you in the most formal manner, as a quotation from me, with these words preceding, 'SAYS HE' — Nor is there the least room to doubt, but that you intended your readers, who were unacquainted with me and my sermons, should believe you had extracted this passage from them, word for word. Must they not necessarily have supposed so, if they had been so credu­lous as to think you a man of any truth, honor or con­science? And yet you know in your own conscience, if you have any, that this is a piece of right down forgery; that not one intire sentence of all this gallimafry or hotch potch, is mine. Is not the worst sort of lying and slan­dering, that of writing, and publishing to the world known falshoods, injurious to the reputation of another? It is well, Mr. Cleaveland, if you have not, sooner or later, great reason to wish, that you had never learnt even to write; in which case your guilt might probably have been less than it is. For you could not possibly have used me in so injurious a manner with your tongue, tho' set on fire of hell, and walking thro' the earth, as you have done by writing and publishing this libel; which may be dispersed farther abroad than you might have been per­mitted [Page 32] to ramble in person, without being taken up, and receiving your due deserts. I find, on this occasion, a great strife in my breast between indignation against, and pity for, a person so lost to all sense of honor, virtue and re­ligion, as to be capable of such a piece of wickedness as this— Is it not as easy to prove one man as another guilty of inconsistencies, in your way? — a Newton, Locke, Clarke or Butler, as a Cleaveland! —

Another instance of gross prevarication, and even pro­faneness in you, I find p. 79, so soon after this. After quoting something which I had said concerning the good­ness of God to his creatures in general, in punishing wick­ed men hereafter, by way of example and terror; you wickedly wrest my words, as if I had said, that he would therein be good and merciful even to those whom he will destroy, soul and body in hell. For thus you express yourself— ‘I have no apprehension that tender mercy it­self will manifest and exercise itself towards the wicked in their terrible punishment in the other world— How tender mercy to the miserable is manifested, in making the miserable as miserable as they can be, by executing punishment upon them for their sins — is beyond my apprehension! I believe, if the Dr. was to suffer the punishment of hell, he would have no discovery at all of the tender mercy of God towards him in such a terrible punishment. I pray God that neither of us may ever know what that punishment is, by experien­cing the same in the other world.’ P. 79, 80. Mr. Cleaveland, you know in your own soul, that you here pervert my words and meaning. And are you not ashamed and afraid to trifle thus upon so tremendous a subject, in order to prove me guilty of an inaccuracy, or inconsistency? Do you really believe there is any hell for wicked men?—particularly a lake burning with fire and brimstone, in which all liars are to have their part? If you do, it appears to me that you are chargeable with the worst and most unaccountable kind of inconsistency, in mis-representing and falsifying my sermons, in the manner you have done; and particularly as to this point —

[Page 33]But still you go on to fib egregiously for many pages together, in order to shew me inconsistent with myself. I shall only glance at a few particulars more. You give a sad example of the sin that does so easily beset you, p. 87. with reference to what I said concerning an unwarran­table expression of Mr. Calvin in his commentary on my text. You there say, ‘The Dr. places in the margin of p. 83 and 84 a passage of the learned Mr. Calvin, con­cerning the reprobate, and says,’ ‘That a certain decree of reprobation was the known opinion of that learned man’. These words are there marked by you with double commas, as if they were mine, tho' they are not. Upon which you immediately go on thus, 'And adds, ‘A senti­ment at once unsupported by reason or scripture; nay contrary to both,’ &c. These words are mine; but you here misrepresent me, as denying any 'certain decree of reprobation'. This will appear to any one who consults the passage, to which you refer. After quoting Mr. Calvin's words, I observed that they naturally import, ‘That there are many persons who, by a supposed eternal decree of reprobation, are absolutely precluded from the be­nefit of pardon, or the grace of God revealed to the world. This was the known opinion of that learned man: A sen­timent, at once unsupported by reason or scripture’, &c. Now why could you not quote truly and fairly, Mr. Cleaveland? Can you give any other reason for it, than that it is more agreeable to your depraved mind to fib, cavil and misrepresent, than to speak truth? You go on to exercise your talent, and to shew whose child you are, in the same page; where you say,— 'The Dr. states the doctrine' (i. e. as you evidently mean, the Calvinistic doc­trine of reprobation) ‘in an objection; but discovers him­self disingenuous and abusive in the manner of his stat­ing it; and then vents his indignation against the doc­trine,’ &c. Now it is false, that I stated either the scripture—or the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation, in the place to which you refer, Serm. p. 66. May not one speak of the absurd, impious notions which some persons have of reprobation, but you must presently take it to your self, or say this was aimed against the Calvinists? even [Page 34] tho' you deny they hold it in the manner expressed! Besides; I did not say, that any actually held the impious doctrine, which I there spake of; tho', I believe, I might have truly done so. I spake with great caution, because I would not needlesly give offence to any: Saying,— ‘If any persons really hold such a doctrine’, &c. And even you, Mr. Cleaveland, with all your uncommon stock of assurance, will not dare openly to assert the doctrine of reprobation, in the sense there denied by me. Are you not then an insolent caviller, to talk at the rate you do here? —I hope there are but few persons in the world, who have such strong and sad marks of reprobation upon them, as a certain man whom I could name to you; but one, to whom you are a great stranger, tho' it nearly concerns you to have an intimate acquaintance with him.—

You go on misrepresenting and cavilling, till you come to p. 94. where you again misquote me. You there say, 'And as the Dr. says,' ‘God's knowledge (which formed his plan’) —This is none of my expression. So prone you are to leasing, when you pretend to cite, that you will some times do it, even without having any occasion for it: And what is this, but fibbing for fibbing's sake? Will you never leave off this scurvy trick? You are at it again in the next page. You there represent me as speak­ing of 'the doctrine of original sin', as the grosest of all absurdities, &c. Now you know, I said not this of the doctrine of original sin, but only of that unscriptural opini­on, that infants,— ‘infants of a span long, are justly liable to eternal torments’ —Do all that hold the doctrine of original sin, hold this opinion also? If not, I could not be justly charged in general, with calling that doctrine the grosest of all absurdities: or as speaking of those that maintain it, as persons of a sadly depraved judgment. I am sorry if you have so little conscience, as to feel no re­morse after such base and disingenuous conduct, to say the least of it. You trifle and prevaricate shamefully again, p. 97. by applying what I said so respectfully of those, who have in some respects different conceptions from my own, about justice as a branch of goodness, and the atonement of Christ, to those who hold that infants are [Page 35] justly liable to eternal torments: This you do, in order to shew an inconsistency in me. You captiously and false­ly represent what I say upon these different points, thus— "He has a high veneration for many of Us, as wise and excellent men, that are to be pitied as persons of a sadly depraved judgment."—Many of US!—to be sure, US, if wise and excellent men are spoken of! Many such I know, but who art thou, Mr. Cleaveland? Do you think this discovers your sagacity or your impudence?—What­ever others are, yet that you are a person, not only of a sadly depraved judgment, but heart also, is very manifest: And if you excel in any thing, it is in what all wise and good men of every denomination, greatly detest and abhor.

I must next rebuke you for your irreverence and pro­fanity in speaking of the great God. p. 101. You there say, ‘Why may'nt the judgment of God—be a just and righteous judgment? The Dr. will not say, it was the effect of a sadly depraved judgment in the Almighty!’ I take no notice of the nonsense of this; (that being so common with you, and your libel so much below criti­cism): But you are very culpable for your impiety in speaking of the ALMIGHTY in this light, fleering, flouting manner: Shewing a want of due reverence to him, as well as of all decorum and good manners in your treat­ment of me. Rudeness and insolence towards man, Mr. Cleaveland, tho' inexcuseable, are harmless in com­parison of impiety to God. I fear you have forgotten, or never learnt the third commandment. I therefore advise you to think seriously of, and to remember it. Men of your stamp, are generally much too free with their Maker.

You are guilty of another falsehood, at least an implicit one, when speaking of original sin, you say, p. 101. 'Hence the Dr. does not state the doctrine right, when 'he says, "without any offence of their own". You know I neither stated, nor attempted to state that doctrine; tho' I mentioned what I take to be one great error rela­tive thereto; viz. that infants, before actual sin, are justly liable to eternal torments. And you doubtless designed to impose upon your readers, by speaking of my stating the doctrine, &c.

[Page 36]Thus I have produced a specimen of your way of criticising. I have let pass innumerable scurrilous reflexi­ons, as well as senseless remarks on my sermons; scarce taking notice of any thing in your libel, but what betrays the falsehood and wickedness of your heart. Mere non­sense and absurdity I can overlook in you; but for your dishonesty you ought to be rebuked, and that before all; because your sin, in this respect, is public; you have proclaimed it yourself. However, before I proceed to administer the more general correction which I intend for you. I must take notice of one very singular piece of in­solence in your 104th page. After so much falsehood and forgery, abuse and calumny, you have the front to give me a caution, not to throw dirt at you.— ‘If the Dr. shall think proper to make any reply’, &c —it is justly ‘expected, that he will not debase his noble powers, by raking together, and throwing dirt’ —What matchless im­pudence is this! Whether you speak of my 'noble pow­ers', by way of irony, as I conclude from the whole tenor of your libel, or by way of compliment, is a matter of great indifference to me. I equally despise your clownish, unmannerly sneers and scoffs, and your pane­gyricks. Or rather, the compliments of so insignificant, false a person, as you appear to be by this libel, would be more nauseous and dishonourable to me than your foulest invectives; which are, in one respect, the highest encomiums that you can bestow. And yet, for your own sake, I am sorry you should discover so much insolence, and causeless virulence against me, (to crown all the rest) as to caution me against throwing dirt at you. You was doubtless conscious, that you deserved a severe chastisement. But know, unhappy, shameless man! that to administer proper reproof and correction to such an one as thou art, is not throwing dirt! And tho' the chastizing a Thersites is not thought a matter of much glory; yet it has ever been accounted a useful service to the public at least, if not eventually to the brawling, wrangling wretch himself, who is the subject of the discipline.

Mr. Cleaveland, your guilt is really great, very great; and it's proper you should be made sensible of it. What [Page 37] is the ground of your public quarrel against me? Does it really amount to any thing more than this? I think divine justice is comprehended in divine goodness, in a way analogous to that in which justice, and all other social vir­tues are comprehended in the love of our neighbour: you think it is not. I think God forgives the sins of men, thro' the atonement of Christ, because this was wisest and best; what most became a God of infinite wisdom and good­ness: you seem to think otherwise. I do not think God has decreed to damn men, but for their unrepented sins; neither dare you assert that he has, tho' you have reviled me with reference to this matter. I do not think it consistent with justice to make infants eternally miserable, solely on ac­count of the first transgression: you think it is. This is the sum of the matter. And do you, can you suppose my sentiments in these respects, as expressed in my ser­mons, a sufficient foundation for representing me to the world as an enemy to some of the most important prin­ciples of the christian religion!—Or can it be a credit to any religion, to represent it as mainly founded on such principles as I denied! You reproach christianity by doing so, whatever you may imagine.

Besides; if I was erroneous in any of these respects; yet how unwarrantable a method have you taken? In your very first page, the civil epithets you give me, are, 'bold and dogmatical'—And are not palpable falsehoods, misquo­tations and forgeries, in order to give the world an ill opinion of the principles, and to hurt the reputation of any one, very heinous sins? You and I, Mr. Cleaveland, know very well who has done these things—Is not a good name rather to be chosen than great riches? If so, your endeavouring, by repeated falsehoods proved upon you, and the most vile arts, to represent me to the world as an impious fool and madman, is certainly a much more hei­nous sin, than to have stolen a great treasure from me, or taken it from me on the high-way. I really think the sin you have been guilty of, in writing and publishing this libel, far greater than either of these, or to have burnt my house, would have been. Nor have I reason to think, you would refrain from doing me any kind of mischief [Page 38] in your power, unless more restrained by something else, than either by the fear of God, or a principle of justice— The injury would have been great, in my opinion, if you had palmed upon the world any thing of your own writ­ing, as mine, even tho' you had done your best: What is it then, to palm upon it, as mine, what you wrote when you did your worst; crowding together as much folly, contradiction and impiety, as even you could get into so narrow a compass! This is what you have done, more especially in that long piece of forgery beginning p. 76 of your libel. Now suppose any should be so unac­quainted with my principles, and so ignorant of you, as to think you fair and honest in your citations, and in the representations you have given of my sermons; as possibly some may be: What opinion must they have of me?— Such an one, do you imagine, as they would have from reading those sermons themselves?—How would you like, Mr. Cleaveland, to be treated in this manner yourself?— Make the case your own.—If your conscience is not scared as with an hot iron, you must feel great anguish therein: Or if that is past feeling, still your anxiety must be great, unless you are also lost to all sense of shame, and regard for your reputation.

You undoubtedly sinned against light. For you acknow­ledge p. 8. (perhaps inadvertently, but certainly unluckily for you) that 'lying and unfaithfulness are as really moral evils, as unkindness or unmercifulness.'—How then could you misrepresent and falsify my sermons so notoriously; at once abusing me and the world, after such a concession as this! Is it because you think lightly of moral evils; or ima­gine the practice of them consistent with a state of grace? and that your orthodoxy will cover all?—But if such things are really moral evils even you must own, it is RATHER best of the two, that men should abstain from them; even tho' you should suppose it not absolutely necessary in order to salvation. I do not pretend exactly to know your sentiments upon these points: But if the eternal rule of right, and God's moral law and government are of so small weight, that they do but just turn the scale in favour of truth and integrity, in op­position [Page 39] to lying and unfaithfulness; yet since they actually turn it, I see not but that you must be self-condemned upon your own principles. And whereas you say, that these are as certainly moral evils, as unkindness or unmercifulness; I must remind you, that if you are guilty of the former, you are certainly guilty of the latter also. For what could be more unkind or unmerciful in you, than to father your own nonsense and impiety upon me!—And this, not when you did your best, but worst! How unmerciful, as well as false and perfidious was this, Mr. Cleaveland!

You are the more inexcuseable for this outrageous assault upon me, because of the cautious manner in which I expressed myself as to divine justice and goodness, and the atonement; (which are the chief ground of your quarrel.) Speaking of divine justice as included in goodness, and of my intention briefly to explain my-self on that point, I said, ‘This I would do, at once with all reverence to God, and with all due respect to those who have different conceptions of the matter,’ Serm. p. 20. Again, p. 24. ‘From whence, I think, (tho' it doth not become a mortal man to speak confidently in such cases) that it follows, That there is not really in the great and glorious God, any such distinction betwixt goodness and justice, as has been objected against.’ Again, referring to the same point, and to what I had been briefly saying about atonement, it is subjoined— ‘Tho' by the way, these things are not said by me, but with an high veneration for those many wise and excellent men, who either have, or seem to have, different conceptions of this matter.’ p. 65. Was not this peaceable, modest and candid; tho' you may call it 'bold and dogmatical'? Had I not a right to speak my sentiments upon these points? If you disliked them, could you not content yourself with preaching your own? Or if you must needs publish them; would it not have been more decent and expedient for you to do it, without engaging in a personal controversy with me? Would not any valuable end which you could propose to yourself, have been answered as well, tho' you had never mentioned my name? There was, as I am well informed, but one copy of my sermons in your parish; and that in such hands, that there was no danger of its being lent about [Page 40] to corrupt your parishioners—Or if you thought the care of all these churches was upon you; and that it was incumbent on you, I say, upon you! to stand up in defence of the most important principles of religion against me, (while ‘our di­vines of indisputable ability’ were silent) should you not at least have paid a strict regard to truth, decency and moral honesty?—

Moreover: this furious attack appears to have pro­ceeded from malice prepense: it was a deliberate piece of wickedness. Your libel, by the many references, quota­tions, misquotations, and studied perversions which it con­tains, shews a great deal of malicious pains in the author; and, as confused and immethodical as the composition is, (I scarce ever saw one more so) I conjecture it must have employed a person of your abilities near half a year in the writing. And even after it was finished, it lay by several months, before you could get either man or angel to help this lame offspring of your brain into the pool, I mean the press; there having been, as I am informed, but one sub­scriber for your libel in Boston. Here you had time for recollection: And this want of subscribers was an hint to you, tho' you would not take it, to desist from your wick­ed purpose; as it shew'd that you had not the public ap­probation. Besides: there were extracts from my sermons published in the same paper with your proposals; plainly shewing the iniquity of your undertaking, as to the main point—But persist you would and did; even tho' you was forced to come under obligation yourself, to take off about half the whole impression, (for want of subscribers) be­fore you could perswade the printer to undertake this dirty job. A charge which, I suppose, you was ill able to bear; tho' possibly your prudent intention was, to sell these copies to your parishoners at a moderate advance; I know not— In the mean time, it is said, you took a journey of more than 200 miles, into Connecticut, in order to get a degree from that College, in which, for some nameless reasons, it was thought improper for you to stay the usual time;—that you might gratify your vanity, and recommend your libel, by annexing A. M. to your name. But failing in this de­sign, you was resolved to go on, and take your revenge, [Page 41] by adding three letters to your name (V. D. M.) instead of two; which might answer the end as well, perhaps, with most of your readers. And indeed, I must own, there are some Arts, of which you have shewn yourself an undoubted Master in this performance, without a de­gree; tho' such Arts as entitle a man much less to aca­demical honors, in my opinion, than to something which I shall not mention—But not to digress farther; all these things shew, how deliberate and resolute you have been in the perpetration of this piece of wickedness; which is a great aggravation of it.

I may take the hint of another aggravation, from the three great Capitals aforesaid, annexed to your Name, with the following title, Pastor of a church—Such gross falshoods, misrepresentations and forgeries as your libel contains, would have been highly criminal in any man; But, in a pretended minister of Jesus Christ, in whose mouth there was no guile;—in a man, who should not only preach truth and righteousness, but be an example thereof to others;—in one who pretends to extraordinary zeal and sanctity;—an uncommon concern for the puri­ty of religion;—in one who, in his first page, expressed his apprehension that my doctrine was ‘not only subver­sive of the orthodox faith, but even of morality, or true virtue;’ —in such a man, I say, this conduct is so incon­sistent, impudent and abominable, that words are want­ing to express the foulness and infamy of it! Bishop Til­lotson, whom you doubtless think a grand heretic, speaks of some persons who have got a scurvy trick of lying for the truth. And if the truth of God will the more abound thro' any man's lies, I will not deny but that you, Mr. Cleaveland, may prove a very eminent instrument of pro­moting it— But can you think it proper to oppose those whom you think hereticks, by such wicked arts as you have used? Is orthodoxy, supposing you to be in pos­session of it, to be defended and propagated by defama­tion, slander and forgery? Have these methods any ten­dency to put supposed Arminians out of countenance? [Page 42] or are they any credit to the cause in which they are em­ployed? Does it not shew the most consummate effrontery, impiety and hypocrisy, for any one who sets himself up as a zealous champion for the cause of God and his truth; and pretends a great concern for the salvation of precious, immortal souls, to be so regardless of his own, as to do such things under the cloak of religion, as a common hea­then would blush at? Let me tell you plainly, Mr. Cleaveland, I had much rather my soul should be in a pagan's soul's stead (even a very immoral one's) than in your's, if you allow yourself in such wicked practices in other respects, as I have proved you guilty of in this, not­withstanding all your supposed orthodoxy, gospel-light, or any other light. It will doubtless be more intolerable in the day of judgment, for those who live and die with a LIE in their right hand, under the gospel-dispensation, than for wicked heathen. I hope this will not be the case with you. I do not despair of you: For I am told, one excuse you made to the printer for not coming seasonably to take off the copies of your libel, which you stood en­gaged for, was, that many people in your parish were under great spiritual awakenings; so that you was obli­ged to attend upon, advise and comfort them. It may therefore be hoped, that it will soon be your own turn to be awakened, convinced and brought to repentance. Con­versing with persons under great concern of soul, and deep impressions of the evil and danger of sin, may, by the blessing of God, be one means of bringing you to a pro­per sense of your own sins, in so slandering and abusing me; and when you are a true penitent yourself, you will doubtless be better qualified to comfort and strengthen your brethren.—I do not condemn you as a wicked man on account of your opinions, though I think some of them very absurd; nor presume to judge your heart, in a way unauthorized by scripture, as many per­sons of your stamp used to do some years ago. No! In whatever I say of you, I observe the rule—'By their fruits ye shall know them.' You came among us in sheep's [Page 43] cloathing; which being turned a little on one side, no sheep, but a ravenous animal is seen under it. I have plucked and examined some of the fruit which you bear; and found it to be corrupt and evil—sour grapes: What then must the tree, what the vine be? When the grapes are grapes of gall, and the clusters so bitter; probably the vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrha—

You are in the opinion of many people, the more in­excuseable in writing and publishing such a wicked libel against me, on account of the time when it was done — when I was engaged in a public controversy of great im­portance to the churches of New-England, as well as to the American heathen, and those British colonies which are almost destitute of the administration of God's word, worship and sacraments: and when I was employing my mean abilities to the utmost, to serve them—A work which I was repeatedly solicited to engage in by several Divines of the first reputation among us, some years before that incident took place, which finally determined me to under­take it. At this very time, you was planning or pub­lishing mischief against me, as an enemy to the most impor­tant principles of the protestant religion; and consequent­ly, not only to these churches, but to christianity itself! You have joined your slanders to those of my anonymous episcopal defamers; you have brought the like accusation against me, and made use of the like dishonest arts to hurt my reputation. By publishing your libel at such a time, you have, to the utmost of your power, defeated the de­sign of my writing on the subject before referred to; and thereby disserved, as far as your influence reaches, the good cause I was labouring to promote; in which you was also interested yourself. Some, I know, are of opi­nion, that episcopal influence had a share in bringing out your scandalous pamphlet at this time; and that either you, or those with whom you have close connexions, have been tampered with, set on, and encouraged in the pro­secution of this wicked design. I particularly remember [Page 44] that in one of the many libels published against me by that party, there is something said about you and your then proposed pamphlet, apparently with this view.—And what reward do you expect from that quarter, for this fu­rious attack upon me?—Perhaps to be made a BISHOP in America!—

If you suppose you are likely to gain any credit with 'our Divines of indisputable ability,' by this wicked piece of work; I have good reason to think the contrary. Some of them, (Calvinistical Divines) have spoken of you and your libel to me, with great contempt and indig­nation; and seem'd quite astonish'd at your assurance in setting up for an author; but more especially at the in­famous arts which you had used to injure my reputation. Some of them said, they did not own you nor your ortho­doxy. Even your Rev. friend (or patron, shall I call him?) in Boston, who corrected the press for you; a gentleman who has finallized his zeal against some mini­sters accused of arminianism ▪ who has encouraged the cal­ling of counsels against them, and had a principal hand in their ecclesiastical death; and, let me add, who has more than once, in a pretty public manner, discovered his particular spleen against me; even this Rev'd gentle­man, I say, was something shock'd at your unfairness at least, before your libel got through the press; when he came to perceive how grosly you had misrepresented and falsified my sermons; particularly in that most remarka­ble instance which has been taken notice of—Some per­sons of a more delicate conscience, or nicer sense of honor, would probably have had nothing to do with you or your libel, after such a discovery as this; but immediately put the affair out of their hands, lest they should be con­sidered as accessaries. This Rev'd gentleman, however, went on with the honourable employment which you had assigned him; not having, as I am informed, either so much concern for his own reputation, or so much real friendship for you, as to send you word what he had dis­covered, in order to prevent the disgrace that was likely [Page 45] to come upon you—But, that even this warm gentleman is now no advocate for your libel, or the most distinguish­ing principles of it, I can assure you upon good grounds. —Judge then, what Credit you are likely to gain among people in general, clergy and laiety; whether they do, or do not agree with me in certain points of doctrine.— The zealous gentleman, to whom I referred, who has such a thirst for unorthodox blood, (I do not mean literally) would doubtless have highly extolled your performance, it being against me, had it been but tolerable; but it was too gross an abuse to go down even with him!—So that I do not think you will, on account of this Essay, very speedily have a call to preach the Convention-sermon be­fore 'our Divines of indisputable ability;' as you very probably expected: For I know not what a man of your consummate vanity, may not be supposed to flatter himself with the hopes of!

I am sensible, it is the opinion of many, that you had not the principal hand in composing the libel to which your name is prefixed. Many suppose it to be chiefly the work of a certain lay-gentleman, unhappily bewilder'd for many years past, with law, military affairs, polemic divinity, metaphysicks, superstition, politics and platform, all crowding on his brain at once! — a man of a wily, jesuitical head and heart, at least in some respects;— full of whimsical designs and notions; and one who, to all his other unaccountable fancies, it is said, has added this strangest of all delusions, That he is an eminent saint, and that the churches of this country stand in great need of such an able pilot as himself, to steer them a right course!—It is known that, as distinguished and candid a writer as he has been against ministers, he labours under some small inconveniences as an author, never having learnt to spell; much less to put any thing into tolerable method —Now it is supposed by some, that this truly extraordinary person, not being able to contain himself, and yet labouring under the trivial disadvantages afore­said, put his written, but unspelt, unconnected lucubra­brations [Page 46] into your learned hands, to have those defects supplied: In consequence of which, and some additional strokes of your own, they appear to the world in such a wonderful order and method as is observed in the libel; it having been previously agreed that, as the reward of your pains, you should have the whole honour of being the author of it. — No small piece of self-denial, to be sure, to the said original draughts-man! This may be all mere conjecture, for any thing that I know; but some are confident it is not. And one thing that affords ground of suspicion, is, that the said modest person extols the libel much more highly than it is supposed, he would extol any man's performance, except his own. Now, Mr. Cleaveland, if you have really been led into such a premunire; if you have been made what the vulgar call a cat's-paw, and persuaded to father the ill-favoured, sinful child which you did not beget, but only fostered; it may perhaps be most for your honor to confess the truth, and to bring out this whole piece of roguery. And if you should do so, you may be sure of one advantage on your side; I mean, that tho' you are not better than you should be, yet one will, on this occasion, apply to you the old proverb, That the WORST KNAVE has turned King's evidence. But at present I must take it for grant­ed, that the libel is your's; since you declare it to be so. It is upon supposition that you spake the truth in this re­spect, that I have proceeded in the reproof already given you. If I have not handled you very tenderly, or deli­cately, it was only because your case required some se­verity: You appear not a little hardened. Tho' I abhor falsehood and villainy, and have been treated so injuriously by you; yet I would not have you imagine, that my reproofs proceed from a spirit of malice, or unchristian revenge. According to my principles, you know, chas­tizement should always have good for its proposed end, either private or public, or both. And altho' that which I have administred to you, may and must make you smart for a while, unless you are past feeling; yet, to [Page 47] convince you and the world, that I charitably intend it for your real benefit, I will now close this epistle (which you may possibly think somewhat tedious) with a few friendly and salutary pieces of advice.

In the first place, I advise you to humble yourself be­fore almighty God; and to implore his forgiveness thro' that atonement, of which you have so wickedly represented me as an injurious asperser.

In the next place, I counsel you to acknowledge your sin to the world; by publishing an ample confession of the injustice you have done me, in the news-papers, or otherwise; and thereby giving me reasonable satisfaction —It is my present determination never so much as to read any thing which you may publish hereafter, unless it is written in the penitential way, now recommended to you—After having shewn the world the falsehood and villainy of your first Essay, I shall think my own reputa­tion intirely unconcerned in any thing you may hereafter say of me or my principles—

Thirdly, I advise you to be diligent in your studies, and to take pains in composing your sermons; that there may be both useful matter and method in them;—instead of preaching in that flashy, rambling and incoherent way, that I understand you do; and for which our other mo­dern exhorters have been so famous—Alas! how much precious time did you mispend in writing your libel! All which time, the poor people of Ipswich, I believe, fared miserably enough.

Fourthly, Whatever you do, Mr. Cleaveland, beware of mixing metaphysics with your divinity. Your libel shews that your head is almost turned therewith already; which is the occasion of my giving you this caution. Preach the plain, indisputable doctrines and duties of the gospel, in a plain, familiar way. Do not exercise yourself in things too high for you: Aim at no great refinements, or very nice distinctions▪ Meddle as little as possible with ab­struse, controversial points; for which, I perceive, you have a huge appetite, without a digestion answerable [Page 48] thereto. Your head, if not your heart, is already much affected and hurt thereby; and the consequence of your going on in this way, may be right down phrenzy!

Fifthly, Avoid all censoriousness; all rash judging and condemning of others, whose religious opinions are differ­ent from yours. Preach your own sentiments honestly; but you should not represent all those who dislike them, as graceless, unconverted men; and enemies to the most important doctrines of christianity. A most fundamental principle of true protestantism, (for which you would be thought an advocate) is, that the holy scriptures are a sufficient, and the only rule of Christian faith; and that all Christians have a right to judge of the sense of scripture for themselves. In this imperfect state there will una­voidably be some considerable diversity of opinion, even among wise and good men; among true Christians and true Protestants; and, perhaps, still more diversity in their manner of expressing themselves upon some parti­cular points, than in their sentiments. You should not expect to bring all men to think and express themselves just as you do, Mr. Cleaveland; much less pick a quar­rel with, misrepresent, abuse and defame them, if they do not. Even Calvinists differ very considerably among themselves; as appears particularly by what I cited to you from Dr. Twisse, relative to satisfaction. Christians should exercise forbearance and candor towards each other; and Christian ministers (of whom, it seems, you reckon yourself one) ought to set the example.

Nothing is more unbecoming a minister of the gospel, Mr. Cleaveland, than a narrow and censorious, a captious and wrangling disposition: And they, in whom this evil temper prevails, generally promote it among their hearers; inspiring them with antichristian rage and bitterness against their fellow-christians, instead of the meek, benign and charitable spirit of the gospel. I hope you will beware of this bad Spirit for the future.

If you put these counsels in practice, I am persuaded it will turn to good account;—much better than for [Page 49] you to set up as a writer of controversy. It will be more for your own credit, and for the good of your parishion­ers. I say these things with hearty good-will to you and to them; and request you at least seriously to consider, before you reject, the counsel. I should be sincerely glad, if by acting a part becoming a minister of the gospel (for the future) you should grow in the esteem of the people of your charge; and heartily rejoice to hear that you was serviceable to the cause of pure and undefiled religion in Ipswich;—to your present comfort, and future honor. I wish the divine blessing may attend both my reproofs and counsels, and your labors, so far as both are honest and laudable, or conformable to the spirit and rules of the gospel: And am, notwithstanding the injuries received from, and the needful rebukes given to you,