cester triumphs here. He says, there is not a direct charge. He quotes it as far as I have now done; but who will ever believe without consulting the book, that this divine, who charges his brother Channing with mutilation, took this extract and left the words which immediately follow?" Had other societies followed their example, we should long since have known with whom we were contending, and not have been obliged to guard against ambushes instead of combating in the open field." Which those other societies were, is made known by the above extracts from pages 7 and 10, and from the whole tenour of the Review. The other societies in Boston, who are not Trinitarian in their sentiments, are then charged with "hypocritical concealment," and a fortiori their pastors are so charged, who are more than ten times distinctly noticed in the Review.

Case 3d. We are accused of "cowardice in the concealment of our opinions," "of cunning and dishonesty," of acting in a base hypocritical manner, a manner at which common honesty revolts ;" "a manner incompatible with fidelity and integrity."

I put all these distinct cases together, because they are supported by the same evidence.

Speaking of Mr. Wells's letter, page 20, the Reviewers say, that his apology for his cautious brethren, sufficiently indicates his views of their conduct in regard to their publick teaching. This shews of whom they considered him to be speaking, that they were ministers, publick teachers. They then proceed, "Thus it is, and thus it has been for years. Knowing that the cold skepticism of Socinianism cannot satisfy the wants nor alleviate the woes of plain common sense people, its advocates in general have not dared to be open, (here is the cowardice.) They have clandestinely crept into orthodox churches by forbearing to contradict their faith, (this shews who are intended—that it

is the clergy) and then gradually moulded them by their NEGATIVE preaching, to the shape they would wish." In the same paragraph and in the same allusion, again, "Who does not see that there is great cunning, and that there is great policy in all this. [Here the charge of cunning is advanced.] "But then, the honesty! That is another matter. Did the holy apostles act in this manner when they preached to Jews and heathens? Did they teach by negatives? [This shews they mean the persons above referred to.] Let those blush, who profess to follow the apostles, and yet behave in this base, hypocritical manner. Common honesty revolts at it. The idea, that a minister believes the truths of the gospel to be of infinite importance, and still conceals them, is incompatible either with fidelity or integrity."

It makes one blush, to feel obliged to prove so self-evident a proposition, as that these charges were made against Mr. Channing and the Boston clergy. It makes us blush still deeper, to find any persons with the christian name capable of writing such language; and we shudder when we perceive that any man could affect to doubt their intended application.

But if Dr. Worcester had confined himself simply to a denial of the charge, if he had even gone no farther than to charge Mr. Channing with false and unfair quotations, he would not have sunk so much in our esteem. But there is an affectation of fairness, and of sentiment, and tenderness, which doubles his condemnation. He says, that when he read these extracts in Mr. Channing's letter, he was excited in regard to the Reviewer, [meaning that he felt angry] and he was surprised, that he had not felt the same excitement when he first read them in the Review. This is a stroke of art, first, to make the reader believe his candour, and that he should have felt very indignant at such charges;

secondly, To heighten the belief, that the passages in their natural connexion bore no such meaning.

Now what shall we say, when we see that they have the same aspect and bearing in the Review, as Mr. Channing stated them to have?-That his assertion was strictly, literally, and technically true, true in the most rigid construction of law and language, true to learned and true to vulgar apprehension in the hidden and the obvious meaning?

But this is not the worst of the case for Dr. Worcester. He stands self-accused. By saying, that he felt excited, or angry, at the accusations of the Panoplist as stated by Mr. Channing, he implicitly admits them to be calumnies, reasonable causes of offence; and yet this very consistent defender, who felt abhorrent at such suggestions, and denies that the Panoplist made those charges, in the aspect and bearing stated by Mr. Channing, advances in substance the same charges, and seems astonished that Mr. Channing should have felt indignant at them. Let us furnish our proofs.

In page 17 he attempts to shew, that the same charges of hypocritical concealment are true, he first cites the authority of Mr. Freeman, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham, and then adds, "you must be apprised that the opinion [that they concealed their sentiments, and temporised] was very extensively prevalent, prevalent not only among your adversaries, but also among your friends. Hundreds and hundreds of times have I heard it from various quarters, and never have I heard, as I recollect, the truth of it denied or called in question."

Again. "I did suppose, that you and your liberal brethren held it as a maxim, that a degree of reserve and concealment, greater or less according to circumstances, was prudent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy."

And pray, if Dr. Worcester believed all this of them, if he really thought them hypocrites and afraid to avow their opinions, why was he excited against the Panoplist, when he saw the charges collected by Mr. Channing?

Will he say, that he did not look upon concealment as any offence, or any breach of duty? He goes on to describe this failure of openness to be the greatest degree of infidelity to God and Christ.

I shall now say a word or two on the third proposition, that the Rev. Dr. Worcester has either mistaken or misrepresented the course of preaching, which Mr. Channing stated, and most clearly stated, to be that of himself and -friends. Dr. Worcester, in page 22, chooses to understand Mr. Channing as saying, that he did not introduce any great controversial points into his discourses.

Mr. Channing's words, cited at length, and not garbled and mutilated, have a very different "aspect and bearing." "As to that very small part of our hearers, says he, who are attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, while we have not wished to conceal from them our difference of opinion, we have been fully satisfied, that the most effectual method of promoting their holiness and salvation, was to urge on them those great truths and precepts about which there is little contention, and which have an immediate bearing on the temper and life."

A more delightful and rational rule could not, one would think, be adopted.

What is Dr. Worcester's course as to this sentence? He says, there has been great contention about all the great truths of christianity, and therefore against the positive declaration of Mr. Channing, that he does urge certain great truths of the gospel, Dr. Worcester makes the following enumeration. "The doctrines concerning the Saviour's person and character, his priesthood and atonement, his

offices and work; the doctrines concerning the moral state of mankind, regeneration by the holy spirit, justification by faith, pardon and eternal salvation through the merits of the one Mediator, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment, "the everlasting destruction of those that obey not the gospel," are subjects of continual and earnest contention among those who profess themselves christians. These doctrines then, according to your own representation, you and your liberal brethren refrain from bringing into discussion before your hearers."

This is the last and worst quotation I shall make from Dr. Worcester. He affects to believe, that Mr. Channing admitted, that he never preached concerning the person, character and works of our Saviour, nor the moral state of mankind, nor the doctrines of pardon, nor eternal salvation, nor the resurrection, nor the final judgment!!!

Did he believe it to be so? Even charity can scarcely admit it. Such a course of argument would merit a fine or degradation in a Sophomore, but in a minister of Christ, what are we to say of it? Is it to be understood, that the orthodox clergy generally approve of measures, at which all men of sentiment revolt?

I can only say, that if any religion or any doctrines permit or allow of such proceedings, it is a sufficient reason for rejecting them.

Our disposition to fairness induces us to say, that we have no doubt that the Rev. Dr. Worcester had, in the passage to which we refer, a mental reservation, which entirely reconciled this representation of Mr. Channing's preaching to his own conscience. It is however melancholy to reflect, that theological controvertists often have recourse to measures, which appear to laymen who consider a God of truth as an enemy to subterfuge, very improper. The doctor will doubtless say, "have