, 1879-04-01

4inners; and sel his assertion wns that IL merely
i've m prsposi.ons IL rart iii. oi his work' m % and IT,.
rnted their correctness a. soma length. Ills logic
sas faulty, md OIL his wrong foundation he had
Ing thu meaning OF words In hin eIort 10 build his
moral influence theory. In Conclusion. The re.
bes as ne In Of r II gh
o! reason and sophttTy It waa not work, in
his opinion, for Christian minister to send Out 10
tlent That d. Bushnells sceond work was m in.
portant modification Of Ills frat TIC reviewer had
failed 70 md change In Jingle position taken b.
Dr.. Thomas said lie had been nskcd Mt n forn,cs
,nectin9 to annY ts'at ~ IT, @ Sashnel llsd teeanted
ske @ ~ Il .as ns Va. ,hn ho unsssaoa Ia. p
Bushnell had modified eon,o portlona Of Ills former
work. Since then lie had racelvod rcpy to a Let.
ter Of Inquiry ho had sent to pastor VI Hartford
church, ,whirt! rcply hal been publ!thca lie did
not quito understand, however, how i was that
e. pn.s a III IL enenx ~ ~ d.
Tho Rev. Sit. rarkhurat remarked that the state
mont had been tnRdo IN tho religious pnpcrs. and
was matter OF common impress Ion loNg bc{ura
Or. hcChesncF mads his sta:ement.
D. T9ans replis that t,!s nnawer Of tho Hart.
" s5 w. 10 a tbnt S ss VI ,s
secaHtcA. unless II might 10 IN he Introduction 10
tlse second book and ths was no Foundation at all
some yeatn ago In rct9ious pnpcs. Othcrn ttssl.
fed that they had see,. 7; an4 ony TIP other day
,r. hfbbasd came IN and snid II was the common
reeant biz former opinions II WINS very singular
TINT, II th!s assertion was q ntsrcpscsenatlon-
That i,a did not deny II and contradict il. The 3D.
scttiAcment to tho aecnnd hook aupnortod sha ~.
sertton, ana the introduction wnn equally tho sams
way; - wetc also several passages which hc pro-
.Df: Thomas s4!d tn dtd not nt'resr q. defender
"t r. Bnsnnsl b!t he tsyed In t,ssttaE
when that man was tcud. Looking at t!.e utrG.
aaet!en u the sesont work. nt Thomas found
/ only undertake 10 hl the vacant spacca made By
them with l,otter matethl. )" According 10 MS own
book. there VA. no to,nJntlon In the facts Of the
case for the aebertfoE regatdfng q r1cantatson,
whatever might be tht lntptceslons Of DA uib.
bard Or any one else.
ly compared tho Two boks and had fu!ea 10 ilnd
prspa5sa t. aE5ss WE s. Thon'as e. this po;1t.
bushnell hail Eccnted oFegretted his frst pub!lca.
tlon was Of much mattes, forlt was most com.
"a @ a ,nt sa a ass dsy.
somothng no had previously said. 1lo regarded
I,uslnella doctino, howcsuf. ~ al e,naasaatcd
es eoaiy dosttnss sud II t.. Bbe "''
pr. Mcchcsncy Insisted that The advertisement
and Introduction 70 the book supsmrtet tho vlow.
that there had been FecantatiOu, and challenged
anybody TO hud anything In the drst book ike cur.
tain passages which occurred III tho second and
.Dr. Thomas al a,iticd tllat there was modinca~
ton In tho second hook, and adlc that II d., Me-
Ghcsney had uscd that term instead q sasng that
ner buck and hopcd TO Tive long enough 10 undo
Tho harm It hnd doae everybody would have bcc1
prepared to HErec with him.
was no medium ground totweea tho moral.inh.+
nsy renafking that he had never been called 70 a.
Sg , s instf tss h. n.s Of 'n wD; T.
Tllam4n In ths statement that thsss ras no middle
ground.