3d. That "Unitarians" hold all the opinions which the Panoplist selects from Mr. Belsham's creed.

4th. That the Unitarianism which has been secretly spreading in Boston, and of which they had often warned their readers, that which was held by men distinguished in church and state was "such Unitarianism" as Mr.

་

Belsham's.

5th. That Mr. Belsham's book applies to the "state of religion in Boston and its vicinity."

6th. That Unitarianism (which we have shewn they had before defined to be Mr. Belsham's) was the predominant religion of the ministers and churches of Boston.

7th. That the predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. And lastly, they implicitly admit, that they did charge the liberal party with holding Mr. Belsham's opinions, and justify it.

Let us now see, whether the whole of Mr. Channing's assertion in his first proposition, and especially the one I advanced, is not supported; viz. that the Panoplist asserts, that the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians, are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word.

Dr. Worcester not only has failed to defend them successfully on this point, but he has most unhappily plunged himself into the same difficulty, by justifying in one line what he denied to exist in a preceding one.

It is where he defends this malicious sentence of the Panoplist," the liberal party mutilate the New-Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man."

Dr. Worcester first attempts to shew, that it does not ean the whole party; that the whole is sometimes used for

a part, that it was therefore wrong in Mr. Channing to apply it to all of them. He has scarcely finished this piece of fine reasoning, before he proceeds in three long pages to shew, that every one of the party are liable for the deeds of every other one! That the Reviewers had a right to consider Belsham's opinions as applying, to all Unitarians since he spoke in the name of all; thus the doctor exhibits a new species of reasoning. He denies a fact, supports his denial with much argument, and then proceeds to justify that fact as an acknowledged and admitted one.

The Calvinists certainly will do us a favour by selecting Dr. Worcester as their advocate, but we sincerely rejoice that he is not on our side of the question: we could not stand such a defence, though we fear no attack from any. quarter.

The second point is, "Did the Reviewers in the Panoplist charge the clergy or ministers, who doubt the doctrine of the Trinity, with base and hypocritical concealment of their opinions?"

Here Dr. Worcester is a little more cautious. He deals in general denial, he brings forward but one passage, which I shall examine: But he does make one or two assertions that astonish me. One is, that of all the quotations made by Mr. Channing, he thinks "he may safely assert there is not one sentence or scrap of a sentence which appears in the letter of Mr. Channing, with the same aspect and bearing as in the Review." This charge, if true, goes deeply to the moral character of Mr. Channing; but it is utterly unfounded.

It will appear to be one of the most singular mistakes or misrepresentations by clerk or layman. It is distressing to be obliged to apply such expressions to a divine, but if a man will fight with poisoned arrows, he must expect to be treated as out of the pale of civilized warfare. The facts

I am now about to state, and the exposition which I am about to present, will be thought to bear still harder on the fairness of Dr. Worcester as a theological combatant.

If that reverend gentleman intended, in the manner of some of the subtleties I have so fully detected above, to justify his assertion by saying, that after these sentences and scraps of sentences were transferred to Mr. Channing's letter, they did not stand in the same typographical order or relation to each other, and to the context in the Panoplist, let him enjoy his triumph, such as it would be. But if he meant, as he did, to convey the idea, that those sentences, and parts of sentences, were not correctly applied by Mr. Channing, I shall prove it to be otherwise.

The "aspect and bearing," and the only "aspect and bearing" which they have in Mr. Channing's letter, are expressed in three short words, "We are accused;" and if we examine the text which was the occasion of introducing this note, we shall find, that the persons to whom Mr. Channing refers as accused, are the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and others of the liberal party. Now if the ministers of Boston are distinctly accused of all the things stated in the extracts, then the aspect and bearing are the same in Mr. Channing's letter as in the Review, for they are a part of the persons accused, and a part stand for the whole. See Dr. Worcester and the Panoplist passim.

We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of the "systematical practice of artifice." In page 2d of the new edition of the Review, there is the paragraph cited below. I shall in every instance give the whole context in order to convict the reverend Dr. the more fully. After asserting that the editors of the Panoplist had long known and often apprized the christian world of this dark secret, Unitarian defection, they say, "But as the work of errour was carried on for the most part in secret, as many well-meaning people were

led in the dark, and as proselytes were made principally by suppressing truth, rather than by explicitly proposing and defending errour, it was a difficult matter so to expose the evil, as to present its character, extent and design in full view, before the eyes of its friends and enemies." [Here follows the clause selected by Mr. Channing.] "It has "been an artifice practised systematically by a majority "of the clergymen who have led the way in this apostasy "from the faith of the Protestant churches, and (as we "believe we may safely add) in this apostasy from chris"tianity, to inculcate the opinion, that they did not differ "materially from their clerical brethren through the coun"try."

Now we ask whether the words, "artifice practised systematically," taken in connexion with the rest of the Panoplist and with the contrast of the word country, do not apply to the Boston clergy. Whether they are not as clear as if they had named Lathrop and Channing, and Thacher, and others? There are but two evasions I can think of. One is, that Mr. Channing says, "we are accused of the systematical practice of artifice," and the Review only says, "an artifice practised systematically."

To be sure, laymen would call this a quibble, but as it is in character with some other parts of Dr. Worcester's letter, and as it is on such verbal niceties that many of the Calvinistick errours repose, I should not be surprised to see him resort to it.

It may also be said, that the Reviewers do not accuse all the Boston clergy, nor even all who have led the way in this pretended apostasy; neither does Mr. Channing say they did. He only says, "we are accused," and surely all the Anti-Trinitarian clergymen are accused, except Dr. Freeman, who is praised, and who alone is praised, for his openness.

Case 2d. We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of "bypocritical concealment." In the first place, in page 7, new edition, the Panoplist says, that their readers had long been apprized of the existence of such Unitarianism (which I have proved to be Belsham's) in the metropolis of NewEngland, (this fixes the locality) "but some have not believed (they add) that it was making considerable progress, because they could not persuade themselves that men, Occupying important places in church and state, and standing high in publick estimation, were capable of concealing their true sentiments." This is only, I admit, very broad

sinuation, but it serves to connect other charges, by shewing that they were designed to apply to the Boston clergy. I dare say the doctor would justify this species of calumny, by saying, that it makes no assertion.

In page 10, the Reviewers say, that Belsham has SHEWN us, not that he has merely asserted it, "that many of his order in our country would have one religion for the vulgar and another for the wise, that it is a fundamental maxim among the great body of leading Unitarians here not to expose their sentiments directly to the inspection of the world at large, and to challenge investigation, but to operate in secret."

I introduce this to shew the same general design, and also that the charge is made against the whole body.

All these extracts are produced as introductory to the following in page 11, speaking of the society in Tremont street (King's chapel.) We must say (say the Reviewers) that the conduct of this society and of their minister, in coming out openly and avowing their sentiments to the world, is vastly preferable to an hypocritical concealment of them.

This is a slander by innuendo. It means that other societies did hypocritically conceal. But the Rev. Dr. Wor