that the Son, who was sent, was the very God who sent him, or by speculating on the infinite evil of sin, and on the necessity of an infinite atonement, in order to illustrate the fitness of such a mediator. Thus, then, we preach. Whether our preaching be nothing more than the inculcation of "natural religion," let our hearers determine.

Dr. Worcester, to render our mode of preaching odious, asks, if the "apostles avoided controversy," and never "attempted to refute errour," &c. &c. We think the answer very obvious. In the first place, we wonder that any can confound the situation of ministers in a christian country, where the gospel has long been known and acknowledged, with the situation of the apostles, who preached a new religion which the multitude derided and opposed, and which their new and ignorant converts were continually corrupting with Jewish and heathen mixtures. We sincerely believe, that the great principles, for which the apostles contended, are now received with little dispute in Christian communities, and we conceive that the great business of a minister is to urge those truths in their primitive simplicity on the hearts and consciences of men, instead of making them subjects of controversy.

There is another important remark on this point. We do not pass sentence like apostles on many subjects of controversy among christians, for this very plain reason-that we are not apostles. We are, what we labour never to forget, uninspired and fallible men, and we are apt to distrust ourselves, when persons of intelligence and piety see cause to

differ from us in the interpretation of Scripture. We dare not preach like apostles on points which have perplexed and divided men of the profoundest thought and the purest lives; and we know from the genius and leading principles of Christianity, that these points are not, and cannot be essential to salvation. We dare not imitate the bold and positive language, in which the darkest doctrines are sometimes urged as undoubted and essential; and in which the sentence

of excommunication is pronounced on serious inquirers after truth, by some who discover no superiority of intellect or virtue.

I now come to a part of Dr. Worcester's letter which, if I were to consult my feelings rather than my sense of duty, I should pass over in silence. I refer to his insinuation, that we have adopted a style of preaching opposed to that of the apostles, because we wish to avoid the sufferings which those holy men encountered, and wish to secure the favour of the world. Dr. Worcester's language is sufficiently soft and guarded, and by certain rules of criticism it may perhaps be proved to mean little or nothing. But I am accustomed to judge of writings, which affect moral character, by the impression which they make on the, mass of readers; and the impression produced by Dr. Worcester undoubtedly is, that we are guilty of base compliances, and of shunning to declare the whole counsel of God from regard to human applause. I have already intimated, that I am not disposed to notice the sarcasms, verbal criticisms, and halfhumorous expressions of regard which are scattered

through Dr. Worcester's letter, and directed against myself. But reproaches cast on my friends and brethren, on men whose piety and virtues entitle them to respect, I shall always repel, let them come from what quarter they may. Dr. Worcester owes it to himself, to cast away these dishonourable weapons. It does not become him to strengthen the hands of those, who are assailing the honest reputation of his brethren-Besides, is it very clear, that we, above all other ministers in this country, are swayed and corrupted by human opinion? Is it not notorious, that we have espoused an unpopular cause? Is it not the boast of the Reviewer, that from Connecticut to Georgia all "orthodox christians" deny us communion? Is it not notorious, that beyond a narrow sphere our names are loaded with reproach? It is true, we receive marks of affection and respect at home, far, far beyond our consciousness of desert. But do aspiring men confine their views to their homes? And is it not a fact, that unwearied pains are employed to rob us even of this limited esteem, to alienate from us our friends and societies? If we indeed prefer applause to principle, why is it, that we do not accommodate our language to the system of our opponents, adopt a few popular phrases, call ourselves Trinitarians, on the ground of our believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and thus turn from us, (as we easily might without giving offence to our hearers) the torrent of reproach and denunciation. It is a little remarkable, that gentlemen, who, as they boast, have all the colleges of the

country on their side with one solitary exception, who have at their command literary honours, seats in conventions, in general assemblies, and in the largest religious associations, should take credit to themselves for self-denial, and for preaching unpopular truth, and should lay at our door, as peculiarly ours, the sins of compliance with the prejudices and passions of mankind. I make this remark, not from any desire to cast back the charge of Dr. Worcester on himself or his friends, but simply with the view of shewing the inconsistency of the insinuations by which the reputation of my brethren is to be blasted.

I now come to what appears to me the third great object of Dr. Worcester, in his letter. I refer to his attempts to render our sentiments odious, and to justify those who, on account of our sentiments, would exclude us from the christian church. To render our sentiments odious, he again and again intimates, that Unitarians, of course, reject all the great and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death. Is it possible that Dr. Worcester has not read so common a writer as Dr. Samuel Clarke, the most popular perhaps of all Unitarian writers, and in whose works the doctrine of atonement, as commonly held, is insisted on with great frequency and force? Has he be not learned from so common a book as "Bible News," that many Unitarians sincerely believe, that the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining forgiveness must be inexpressibly greater upon their system, than upon the system of the Trinitarians, which

makes the sufferings of Jesus nothing more than the sufferings of a man. There is one sentence of Dr. Worcester on this subject which amazed me. He says to me," you will, doubtless, not hesitate to ac“knowledge, what I have certainly great sorrow in "stating, that the doctrines of atonement by Christ's “death, and justification through faith in his blood, 66 AS HELD BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN ALL AGES "OF THE CHURCH, fall at once to the ground before "you." Astonishing assertion! If I were not assured that Dr. Worcester is a man of respectability, I should be tempted to say, Astonishing hardihood of assertion! What does Dr. Worcester really believe, that I will acknowledge. without hesitation, that I reject these or any other doctrines, as they were held by "orthodox christians," in the age of Christ and of his apostles, or as held by " orthodox christians" in any age of the church? I sincerely believe that this strange assertion is not to be ascribed to bad intention, but to haste and inadvertence. I regret however that a sentence, so adapted to awaken popular passions, should have escaped from his pen. I am not disposed to protract this controversy by stating what I conceive to be the prevalent sentiments of liberal christians on the subject of Christ's mediation. I will only say, that had Dr. Worcester known them better, he would have spoken on this, as on some other subjects, with much greater caution.-Before leaving this head, I would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of fastening on his opponents the consequences which