putes, who have never read a book of controversy in their lives, and almost swear that they never will, how does it happen, that they embrace and even make every possible opportunity to calumniate the professors of evangelical piety? The alleged exclusiveness of these persecuted men cannot be the true reason. Because, the Romanists are of all people in the world, the most exclusive. They alone constitute the true Catholic Church! and all who are out of that pale are heretics, the children of the devil and heirs of perdition. Our Episcopal brethren of the high church party, are also sufficiently exclusive to incur odium, if that were the true cause. Our Baptist brethren, too, might come in for their share of reproach on this account; for in regard to the ordinance which gives them their distinctive character, they hold that none are in the Church of Christ who have not been immersed, after a profession of their faith.

But notwithstanding the efforts, foreign and domestic, to promote Popery, notwithstanding the immense sums contributed or extorted to sustain Jesuit missions and build Roman Catholic Chapels, and establish free schools for the benefit (forsooth!) of protestant children, not a whisper is heard, in certain quarters, on this subject. On the contrary, the very men who in newspapers, magazines and reviews, show a partisan activity and bitterness, in denouncing Evangelical Christians, manifest a strong sympathy with Jesuitism as it is working in the United States. The exclusive high church Episcopalians too, are quite in favour with most of the men who set up claims to peculiar liberality. And as far as our observation goes, the evangelical principles and the zeal of the Baptists are censured a thousand times, for once that a rebuke is given to them for their exclusiveness in regard to baptism. Such instances might be greatly extended; but we shall advert to only one fact more. Perhaps there are not in this country more active, restless proselytists, the Jesuits always excepted, than the present Universalists. And unless they have changed their creed to suit the times, their favourite and fundamental principle is, that the merit of Christ in making the atonement is so great, that it covers the sins, and will be efficient for the salvation of all men, whether penitent or impenitent, believers or unbelievers. But Unitarians totally deny the atonement, and reject the whole of Christianity, which depends on that doctrine. And yet, notwithstanding, this eager spirit of proselytism, and this world-wide difference between Universalists and Unita

rians, the latter have shown quite a disposition to sympathize, and fraternize with the former. We are warranted by facts such as these, to draw the conclusion, that the outcry which has been raised against orthodox men, is not to be attributed to any alleged exclusiveness in their opinions, nor to the claim put in by them to the right of defending and propagating their principles.

Nor can it be said that the reason is to be found in the right to apply the discipline of the Church to members of their own communion, claimed by evangelical Christians. For not to insist on the fact, that every society on earth exercises this right, it is notorious that the terrors of excommunication constitute the sword and buckler of the Romish Church; and to this day, these weapons are used with most tremendous efficacy, whereever popish doctrines are received. But Infidel Socinian Catholics, and Catholic Socinian Infidels know all this; and yet they smother all resentment against Jesuitism and Popery, and reserve the bottles of their wrath to be poured on the heads of evangelical men!

On what principles, then, can we account for the fact, that these men are the objects of dislike, of scorn, of contumely? Is it alleged that they are bigots? All history proves that they have built their system on the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, and the right of private judgment, as fundamental principles. This is not the way with bigots? Is it urged that they are intolerant and oppressive? The historian of martyrdom has very few occasions to go out of the record of their sufferings, to give completeness to his narrative. Are they charged with being narrow minded and illiberal? Their confessions of Faith, and their practice, show that they acknowledge brotherhood with all of every denomination, who call on the name of Jesus Christ, the common Lord of all.

In none of these reasons, then, can we find a satisfactory answer to our inquiries. We will, therefore, show our opinion. But to do this, we must make the following statement. All Orthodox, evangelical Christians, whatever minor differences of opinion may prevail among them, agree in holding inviolably the following doctrines:

All men are sinners. No sinner can be justified, except by faith in Jesus Christ as a divine Redeemer. No human being can be admitted to heaven, without a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit. There is no good evidence of faith and regeneration, but a holy life.

As a practical inference from these principles, it is held, that no one can be acknowledged as a Christian, who does not profess to receive these doctrines, and give credible evidence of his sincerity.

But the leading wish of mankind, is to have a religion which will give them assurance of salvation without a change of heart. In a word, they want a religion which will allow them to live as they please in this world, and to go to heaven when they die. If, however, the prevalence of religious truth is such, and in Christian countries it generally is such, as to prevent the conscience from resting on this scheme of broad and boundless liberality; then, that system is most acceptable, which as far as possible admits of a compromise, and allows a balance to be struck between the sins committed, and the duties performed. This last plan, however, is only a substitute for the first, adopted through necessity. The one is received, because the truth stands too much in the way of the other. And he who has received it, always manifests a strong leaning towards that, for which it is a substitute.

Hence we see how it is, that various classes of religionists, who differ widely in their external forms, and even in many points of doctrine, approximate in spirit. A virtuous Deist, and a liberal Unitarian are but a single step asunder. They both rely on their good works, and on the mercy of their Creator; the one because his reason tells him so, and the other because his reason approves that part of the Bible, which, he thinks, teaches the same doctrine. The gentlemanly, scholarlike, wealthy Roman Catholic, can write in defence of the holy church, and in abuse of the fanatics; buy absolution, and be assured that he is going to heaven, without any change of heart. The Deist and Unitarian, who meet him at the theatre, in the ball room, and at the wine party, never trouble his conscience, and he praises them, for very liberal gentlemen. And then comes the Universalist, with a system wide enough to embrace men of all sorts and conditions. The greatest illiberality of which he can be guilty, is to send the worst men to hell for a few myriads of ages. But his everlasting punishment is so much like the Roman Catholic's purgatory, that the two find no difficulty in uniting in cordial hatred of evangelical principles. And if the Universalist should happen not to be a poor or low creature, the Deist and the Unitarian can forgive his error also, in regard to revelation, and the atonement, for the sake of his general liberality. And thus Deists, Papists,

Unitarians, and Universalists, with all others, who resolve that they will walk according to the sight of their eyes, and the desires of their hearts;" and, if there is a heaven, that they will go to it, without being born again, find no difficulty in uniting to denounce, and, if possible, put down orthodox, evangelical Christians. The Deist in his heart despises, and in his sleeve laughs at the opinions of all the rest; the Unitarian has more than half a mind to do the same thing; while the Papist holds them all to be heretics, and the Universalist pities the errors of all. But there is nothing so intolerable as the austerity of the evangelicals; and nothing so wearisome as their everlasting cry, "ye must be born again." This sameness of feeling produces something like mutual understanding and concert, in all parts of the country. A calumny is started respecting an evangelical man, for instance, in New York, and appears in a certain newspaper. To a certainty, the very same thing will appear in some forty or fifty papers successively, in all parts of the country. This is so much the case, that we who have for some time been observing things of this sort, can tell beforehand, with considerable accuracy, in what papers, through a very large part of the country, the falsehood will be reprinted. And we have sometimes had a strange sort of painful amusement, in guessing on this subject, and noticing the truth of our conjectures. If, for instance, the thing is coarse and blackguard in its character, we have said, this is too low, except for such and such papers. But if the lie, or the caricature, and this is a species of lying, is well got up; if it is witty, and caustic, and gentlemanly, we have said, this will appear in such and such papers, in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, &c.: and, after a little observation, we have been surprised at the accuracy of our guesses. This strong appearance of concert, can be accounted for in no way, but by supposing the existence of a common feeling among men of very different religious creeds. That feeling is a deep dislike of evangelical religion; of the religion which tells them that they are sinners, that they must be born again, and be saved through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But it deserves also, to be remarked, that evangelical principles are making great progress in this country. And there is strong probability that they will finally become prevalent; not indeed as embodied by one class of Christians, but as embraced by numbers among all denominations of Protestant believers. Hinc illæ lachrymæ. Hence the wailings of many

respecting religious liberty, the hideous outcry which has recently stunned us about the union of Church and State, et id genus omne. But in connexion with this, it ought to be especially noted, that the evangelical Christians, who, from. whatever cause, are, or appear before the world to be most active and zealous in carrying on various enterprises of Christian benevolence, are the objects of the most envenomed hostility. It cannot be denied, that in this country, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists are most prominent in support of the Bible, Missionary, and Sunday School Societies. We are anxious to avoid invidious comparisons; and declare that we have no intention to exalt our friends. We will say, then, that these denominations are regarded by the world as the principal agents in carrying on, throughout a great part of the United States, these and other benevolent operations. Now, it cannot have escaped observation, that Presbyterians and Congregationalists, are attacked violently, and without cessation, by all who manifest a strong dislike to evangelical religion. Nor is this any new thing; it has been so from the beginning. The only novelty in the case, is the change in the mode of attack. Before the revolution, they were denounced as enemies to the monarchy, and to the established Church; and many a diatribe was written to prove that their fundamental principles strongly favoured republicanism. During the struggle of the revolution their services were so important, that, for the time, they had some degree of favour. But a new generation has risen up, which "knows not Joseph." And now they are denounced as enemies of religious liberty, and of free inquiry; and this, while they hold precisely the same principles, which sixty years ago, made them objects of jealousy to the British government, and of hatred to the established Church! Among these hated, we had almost said persecuted, Christians, we readily admit that there are many things erroneous, many things wrong, on which their adversaries might found charges. They dispute a great deal too much about little things; they do not love one another as much they ought; their ministers are often very culpably jealous of each other's reputation and influence. They all love this world too well; they have not, by one half, as much active zeal as they ought to have. They are often engaged in controversy, when they ought to be engaged in sending the Gospel of Christ to them that are ready to perish. We could swell this catalogue, until we should be