The Propei'ty 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 ■IN TIIR — 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 — OF THK — 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 

LETTER 
 
 REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 
 
 OK THE SUBJECT OF HIS LETTER TO THE 
 
 REV. BAMUEL C. THATCHER, 
 
 HELATIXG TO THE 
 
 REA lEW IN THE PANOPLIST 
 
 AMERICAN UNITAKIAIVISM. 
 
 BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D. D. 
 
 FASTOB OF THE TABEKXACLK CHUSCH, SALKM. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JHINTED BT SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, SO, 50, COEIfaJI.l, 
 
 181.). 
 
 ice 
 
EEV. AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 I HAVE read your Letter to your Friend and Brother 
 the Rev. Samuel C. Thatcher, with some pleasure and 
 v/ith much regret. The causes of the one and of the other 
 will in part be laid open in the subsequent remarks, wliich I 
 have thought proper to address in the form of a letter to you. 
 I need make no apology: the subject is deeply and extensive- 
 ly interesting; and involves considerations of infinite mo- 
 ment to the general cause, to wliich you and I profess to be 
 sacredly devoted. Nor shall I make any professions of can- 
 dour, or charity: for I have been taught by the best of books, 
 that <''charity vauntcth not itself, doth not behave itself un- 
 seemly; from other books I have learned, that high profes- 
 sions too often serve to cover a temper very different from 
 that which "is not easily provoked," but "suffereth long and 
 is kind;" and I am thoroughly convinced, that persons who 
 have the greatest confidence in their good dispositions, do 
 not always know "what manner of spirit they are of." 
 
 I wish it to be understood, distinctly, that I have no con- 
 nexion, or privity in this business, with the wiiter of the 
 Review, wliich is the subject of your strictures. I \\Tite not 
 in his behalf; but in behalf of the general interests of truth, 
 and justice, and mercy. He probably will answer for him- 
 self; and to him I shall leave the particular vindication of 
 himself, his statements and conclusions, his spirit and style: 
 a labour which does not belong to me, and which I should 
 be less disinclined to undertake, were the Review in all res- 
 pects exactly such as I could wish it to have been. It might 
 perhaps have been better, had the Reviewer been less intent 
 on exciting those whose cause he espouses, and consulted 
 more the conviction and benefit of tliose against whom his 
 animadversions are directed. 
 
 With what justice, and to what extent, a similar remark 
 might be applied to your Letter, you, my dear Sii-, and your 
 friends will consider. It cannot, however, but be rcgrettet^, 
 
that you should hare found it necessary to sit down to write, 
 •while '•brcatliiui? an atmosplicrc to wliich you were not accus- 
 tomed;'' wliilo piirturbed with the feelings Mnich, in spite of 
 all your efforts to restrain them, are so copiously infused in- 
 to tlie entire body of your Letter. But all reasonable allow- 
 ance should be made for the urgency of the case. Had you 
 waited till the excitement had subsided, your opportunity for 
 preventing or counteracting the impressions which the Re- 
 view was liiiely to make, might have been lost. I frankly 
 confess that a similar reason has induced me to avail myself 
 of the earliest remission of other pressing calls of duty, for 
 bestowing some attention on your subject. Could you, how- 
 ever, have waited till the cool of the day, though probably 
 your Letter would have been less animated, and less adapted 
 to a particular purpose, it would not, I am persuaded, have 
 displayed less of the meekness of wisdom, or been less cor- 
 rect in its representations. 
 
 You bring, dear Sir, against the Reviewer an accusation of 
 f'falseliood:" an accusation certainly of no ti'ivial kind, and 
 never to be lightly preferred against any one. "The Re- 
 "view," you say, "assei-ts, 1. Tliatthe ministers of this toMm 
 *'[Boston] and its vicinity and the great body of liberal 
 *<clu'istians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
 "word. 2. That these ministers and liberal christians are 
 "guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments, and 
 "behave in a base, cowardly and hypocritical manner." In 
 these tv.o assertions, especially in tlic first of them, it should 
 seem, lies the alleged ftdsehood of tlie Reviewer. These 
 also make the first two heads of your Letter. The Sd is this: 
 ^'Christians are called to come out and separate themselves 
 *«from these ministers and tlie liberal body of christians, and to 
 '^withhold from them christian communion." Under these 
 three heads in their orcUM', the remarks wliich I have to sub- 
 mit to your consideration, will chiefly be ai-ranged. 
 
 I. Does the Reviewer then assert, "That the ministers of 
 Boston and tlie vicinity, and the great body of liberal 
 christians arc Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
 woi'd?" This you affirm; and to suppoi-t tlie affirmation, you 
 quote from the Review the following passages. "P 267, 
 
« <We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant 
 « ^religion of the liberal pai-ty is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. 
 (' <Belsham*s sense of the word.' P. 254, *AVe shall feel our- 
 " ^selves warranted hereafter, to speak of the first as certain, 
 « *that Unitarianism,' meaning Mr. Belshani's, <is the pre- 
 " ^dominant religion among the ministers and churches of 
 " ^Boston.' P. 271, 'The liberal party mutilate tlic New 
 " 'Testament, reject neai-ly all the fundamental doctinnes of 
 " 'the gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a 
 " 'fallible, peccable, and ignorant man.* " These passages I 
 shall briefly consider^ but not in the order in which you 
 have chosen to arrange them: for I am not satisfied that it 
 was quite right, to place the passage, quoted from the 267th 
 page, in wliich there is no mention of Boston, before the one, 
 quoted from the 254tli page, and which refers to Boston di- 
 rectly. By this arrangement, with the help of a clause 
 wliich you have thought proper to insei't in the second pas- 
 sage, you have given to the three passages an aspect which, 
 I believe you will readily perceive, does not belong to them. 
 I think it more fair to consider the passages in the order in 
 which they stand in the Review, and to refer them severally 
 to their proper connexions. 
 
 Tlie first passage then is this: «We shall feel ourselves 
 warranted hereafter, to speak of the first as certain, that 
 Unitarianism is the predominant religion among the minis- 
 ters and churches in Boston." Is this, Sir, an assertion, 
 "That the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the 
 great body of liberal christians are Unitarians, in Mr. Bel- 
 sham's sense of the word?" You will please to observe, 
 that no mention is here made of "the vicinity," or of "the 
 great body of liberal christians." The remark is limited 
 to Boston. Further, it is not said that '-the ministers, i. e. 
 all the ministers, even of Boston, are Unitarians. The 
 word "predominant" is evidently restrictive, and implies, 
 that they were not all intended to be included. Further 
 still, it is not said that muj of the ministers of Boston ai-e 
 Unitarians, "in Mr. Belshani's sense of the m ord." 
 
 Does the connexion^ then, warrant the broad construction, 
 which you have given to the passage. The Reviewer pre- 
 
aents a letter, v^Titlen by Dr. Freeman of Boston to Mr. 
 Lindsey of London, in which, after mentioning the "avidity" 
 with which the •'Unitarian Tracts," received by him from 
 Mr. Lindsey, were extensively read, and the "impression 
 whicli they could not fail to make upon the minds of many," 
 Dr. Frefinan says, "From these and other causes the Uni- 
 tarian doctrine appears to be still upon the increase." "It 
 flourishes chiefly in New England; but not much in Con- 
 necticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, or the western 
 counties of Massachusetts. A few seeds have been sown in 
 Vermont, and an abundant harvest has been produced in 
 the vicinity of Boston, and in the counties directly south of 
 it." Immediately in this connexion, the Reviewer says, 
 "IIo\\ far the sentiments in question have spread in Boston, 
 ♦•has been often a subject of inquiry, and not unfrequcntly of 
 "debate. Mr. Belsham will inform us. *If, says he, I am 
 " *not greatly misinformed, divine worship, in many of the 
 *^ipriucipal churches in Boston, is cai'ried on upon principles 
 ♦••strictly, if not avowedly Unitarian.'" The Reviewer 
 tlien adds, "If any thing be lacking in Mr. Belsham's ac- 
 <«count, it is supplied in a letter to him, by William Wells, 
 "Esq. of Boston, a gentleman who, from his extensive ac- 
 "quaintance with books and men, and his distinguished zeal 
 <'in the cause of Unitarianism, may well be supposed to give 
 *«as exact a picture as any man living could draw." In this 
 letter, which the Reviewer gives at large, Mr. Wells says, 
 "Most of our Boston clergy and respectable laymen (of whom 
 we have many enlightened theologians) are Unitarians." — "I 
 "may safely say, the general habit of thinking and speaking 
 "upon this question, in Boston, is Unitarian." Upon this 
 the Reviewer remarks, "Such is tlie testimony in the case 
 ••under consideration;" (viz. "How far the sentiments in 
 ♦•question have spreail in Boston:) and we presume tliat no 
 ♦•man in his senses will hesitate for a moment to give implicit 
 ♦♦ci-edit to such witnesses." Here comes the passage in ques- 
 tion: ''We shall feel »)ui*sclves warranted hereafter to speak 
 ♦♦of the first as certain, tljat Unitarianism is the predominant 
 ♦♦religion among the ministers and churches of Boston." 
 Now, dear Sir, you will permit me to ask again, and to 
 
ask very seriously, does the connexion warrant the broad 
 construction which you have given to this passage? A con- 
 struction which the terms of the passage, by themselves, cer- 
 tainly do not warranty but upon which you have grounded 
 the heavy accusation of falsehood. Is not the inquiry, in this 
 connexion, limited expressly to Boston, to the exclusion most 
 clearly of "its vicinity,*' and of "the great body of liberal 
 "christians*' elsewhere? Does not the Reviewer come to the 
 conclusion, expressed in the debated passage, explicitly upon 
 the gi'ound of the adduced testimony of Mr. Bclsham and 
 Mr. Wells, in addition to that of Dr. Freeman? And does he 
 not use the name Unitarian as unrestrictedly, as it is used 
 by Mr. Wells himself, who must very well have known hov; 
 Mr. Belsham would be likely to understand him? Upon what 
 principles, then, of fau'ness or of truth could we be justified 
 in alleging, that the Review here "asserts, that the minis- 
 "ters of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of liber- 
 "al christians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
 "the word." 
 
 Before I dismiss this point, I must be permitted to ask 
 further — Is not the Reviewer fairly borne out, in the de- 
 claration which he does make, respecting Boston, by the 
 testimony upon which the declaration is made? Had he not 
 a right to consider Dr. Freeman, Mr. Belsham and Mr. 
 Wells, good authority in the case? Docs he say more than 
 what their testimony, particularly that of Mr. ATells, evi- 
 dently warrants? Wliy then the heated indignation against 
 hinh while none is expressed against tJwm? Why the strenu- 
 ous endeavour to inflame and direct the resentments of the 
 ministers and people of Boston against /li/n, while they are 
 treated with such exemplary forbearance?— Nay, rather, 
 what occasion for any indignation, or resentment, either 
 against him or them? Do you not. Sir, youi-self mean to con- 
 cede as much respecting Boston, as he asserts, — when you say, 
 "The word Unitaiianism, as denoting opposition to "Trinita- 
 rianisra, undoubtedly expresses the character of a "considera- 
 ble part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity?" I dai^e 
 not, indeed, affirm that you, do^ especially since you think 
 it proper to add in the same sentence,— "and the common- 
 
8 
 
 wealth." I have great satisfaction in the confidence, that 
 Unitarianism is not the "predominant religion" among the 
 ministers and chui'chcs of this commonwealth, and in the 
 hope in God that it never ^^ ill be. I do suppose, however, 
 that you have great satisfaction also in the confidence, that 
 it "is tlic predominant religion among the ministers and 
 cliurches of Boston." But if so, what can be the reason 
 that the true statement of the fact should produce such an 
 unusual intensity of heat in your mind? 
 
 The next passage to be considered is this: "We feel en- 
 «<tirely wari'anted to say, that the predominant religion of 
 "the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's 
 **sense of the word." Docs this "assert, that the ministers 
 «»of Boston and its Aicinity, and the great body of liberal 
 "christians are" of tins chai'acter? Certainly, Sir, you will 
 not hesitate to admit that, by itself, it docs not. Does it then, 
 when taken in connexion with the former passage? The former 
 passage instead of helping to extend the sense of this, evidently 
 serves to restrict it: for that passage plainly imports, that the 
 ministers and churches of Boston are not all Unitarian, even 
 m the general sense of the word. In each of these passa- 
 ges the restrictive woi"d, "predominant," is usedj and in the 
 latter passage, to give it the greater force of restriction, it 
 is printed in Italic ks. The utmost then, that can be fairly 
 made out from the two passages together, of assertion in re- 
 gard to t!ie ministers and churches of Boston, is, tliat the 
 majority of them are Unitarian, and that the greater ])art of 
 the Unitarian majority hold with Mr. Belsham. All tliis 
 might be true, and yet not half of those ministers and 
 churches be Unitarians of this character. Yet you, my dear 
 Sir, have emphatically represented that, in these passages, 
 "the Review asserts, that the ministers of Boston, witli the 
 ministers of the vi( inity, and the great body of liberal christ- 
 ians are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word:" 
 and, under cover of this representation, have, in your haste, 
 most earnestly accused the Reviewer of falsehood. 
 
 I have stated the ntmost that can fairly be made out towards 
 what you allege. But the passage under consideration admits 
 of an interpretation, stUl less favourable to your allegation. 
 
It may mean a "predominance," not in point of numbers, but 
 in point «f iirfluence: and from the connexion this should seem 
 to be its real meaning. After stating, "We feel entirely war- 
 ranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal 
 party is decidedly Unitarian in Mr. Belshani's sense of the 
 word," the Reviewer proceeds to shew the grounds upon 
 which this declaration is made. He adduces the Monthly 
 Anthology, the General Repository, and the Improved Ver- 
 sion of the New Testament; publications which, as he sup- 
 poses, were put forth and pati'onized by "the most prominent 
 clergymen and laymen of the liberal party," — men "who 
 have the entire conti'ol of the college." And, after saying 
 what he judged requisite, respecting the Unitarianism of these 
 publications, he concludes thus: "It appears, then, that the 
 "College and nearly all the influence of the liberal party 
 "through the. medium of the press are in favour of Unitarian- 
 "ism. If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they 
 "are not willing to be classed among his followers; let them 
 "declare their own opinions openly." Here then, we have 
 evidently an explanation of what tlie Reviewer meant, by 
 "Unitarianism in Mr. Belsham's sense of tlie word being the 
 predominant religion of the liberal party:" that it is predomi- 
 nant in point of "inHuence," having "the most prominent 
 characters" for its supporters and abettors. This, as you 
 Will readily acknowledge, might be true, though not one half, 
 not one quarter of "the great body of liberal Christians" 
 were Unitarians in this sense. And, Sii', that it is not actu- 
 ally true, nothing which you have advanced goes to shew. 
 
 What, however, the real truth in the case is, I will not take 
 upon me to say: but I must say, that I do not see that the 
 Reviewer may not have been perfectly honest in the opinion 
 which he has expressed; perfectly honest in declaring that he 
 "feels himself entirely warranted to say" what he does say. 
 If his opinion is a mistaken one, yet an "unpervertcd mind" 
 will admit, tliat tiie grounds on wliich it was formed have at 
 least the appearance of some solidity; and it would require, it 
 should seem, no uncommon share of "the meekness of wisdom," 
 no extraordinary effort of that "charity which hopeth all 
 tilings," to refrain from charging him with falsehood. 
 2 
 
10 
 
 One other passage, under this licad, remams to be consid- 
 ered: ♦•The liberal party mutilate the New Testament, reject 
 nearly all the I'uudamental doctrines of the Gospel, and de- 
 grade the Sa\iour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, 
 and ii^norant man." This is the last of the three passages 
 which you ha\e cited to shew that the "Review asserts, that 
 the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the great body 
 of liberal Christians are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham*s sense 
 of the word," and upon Avliich you ground your principal 
 accusation of falsehood. But is it here asserted, that all the 
 individuals of the liberal paiiy actually do the things, and all 
 of them, which the party is said to do? Is this a fair inter- 
 pretation of the passage? Or if it admits of tliis^ docs it faii'ly 
 admit of no other? 
 
 The apostles, Sir, as you very well know, repeatedly 
 charge the Jewish rulers and people, generally, even "the 
 great body'* of t!ie nation, with having "crucified and slain 
 the Loi'd of life and glory." Yet, as you also know, but a 
 vciy small part of that great body actually imbrued their 
 hands in his blood. But some of them didj and of the rest, 
 some more, and others less dii'ectly, consented to the deed. 
 Hence they were generally involved in the guilt, and brought 
 under the charge; and upon the great body, eventually, 
 "wTath came to the uttermost." Such was the judgment of 
 the apostles; and such the judgment of Him, whose throne is 
 established in righteousness. — And, Sir, if among the liberal 
 party, the things charged by the Reviewer are done; if some 
 of the party do actually "mutilate the New Testament, reject 
 nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and de- 
 grade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and 
 ignorant man," — and of the rest, some more, and others less 
 directly, consent to all this; if, as a party, or as individuals 
 of the party, they bear no decided testimony against these 
 deeds, and do nothing elToctually to secure, or to purge them- 
 selves from the guilt of them; then, is it not true, and right, 
 and proper to say of the party generally, that they do these 
 tilings? and will they not generally, a\ ith all wlio adhere to 
 them, be held to answer for them at the bar of the risrhteous 
 Judge? 
 
n 
 
 • 
 
 But are not these things done? — I tremble, my dear Sir^ 
 while I put this question to your conscience: — tremble, not 
 because I feel that I am doing wrong,- but because I consider 
 it a question of infinite solemnity. — It surely will not be de- 
 nied, that "the New Testament is mutilatedj" — it will not 
 be denied, that "tlie Saviour is degraded to the condition of 
 a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man^" — nor should it any 
 more be denied, that "nearly all the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Gospel are rejected." I do believe you will yourself 
 admit, that nearly all the doctrines are rejected, which, by the 
 venerable founders of the New England cliurches were held 
 as fundamental;— which the great body of the Protestant 
 churches, since the Reformation, have held as fundamental. 
 
 How great a pi'oportion of the liberal party actually do all 
 this, and to hoM'^ great an extent the rest of them consent to 
 it, I would be devoutly thankful, that I am not particularly 
 concerned to determine. But I must seriously ask, whether, 
 from the representations made in your letter, w^ei'e there no 
 other means of jtulging in the case, there would not be most 
 fearful reason to apprehend, that you and your liberal breth- 
 ren generally have done but very little, to secure yourselves 
 from the general charge, or, I must add, to purge yourselves 
 from the general guilt? — It grieves me, dear Sir, to state, that 
 in your Letter you tell us, in so many words, that "to believe 
 with Mr. Belsham is no crime:" — by which I understand, 
 no sin, — no offence against God — against Christ — against 
 the Gospel — against the cause and kingdom of truth and 
 holiness. — No sin — no offence, to hold Christ to have been 
 no more than "a fallible, peccable, and ignorant manj" — to 
 discard those parts of the New Testament which assert his 
 pre-existence, his miraculous conception, his divinity, and his 
 atonement, as either spurious, erroneous, or extravagantly 
 hyperbolical; — to deny that his death was an expiatory sacri- 
 fice for sin, that "we oAve him any gratitude for the benefits 
 which we are now receiving," that "we have any reason to 
 hope for his future interposition; — to deny the inspiration of 
 the Scriptures generally, and reject all the fundamental, all 
 tlie peculiar doctrines of the Gospel!— You are also most stu- 
 diously careful, most exquisitely tender, lest any "state- 
 
12 
 
 racnt you make should be considered, as casting the least 
 reproach on those amongst us, who believe in the simple 
 humanity of Jesus Christ;" and, of course, agree with Mr. 
 Bclsljam, if not in all, yet certainly in the most material arti- 
 cles of liis creed. — Most studiously careful, most exquisitely 
 tender, lest you should wound their feelings, abridge their in- 
 fliienre, or hinder their success in propagating tlieir senti- 
 ments! And from other parts of your Letter, it would seem 
 that such has been the uniform feeling, and conformable to it 
 the uniform practice, not only of yourself, but of your liberal 
 brethren in general. 
 
 Now, Sir, if such is the real fact, however small a propor- 
 tion of the liberal party those may be, who actually do the 
 tilings in question; yet is it not perfectly correct to say, gen- 
 erally, that the liberal party do them. And if so, where is 
 the foundation for the serious charge of falsehood, so vehe- 
 mently urged against the Reviewer? 
 
 You ai-e pleased to say, (p. 7.) "The conduct of the Re- 
 «<viewer, in collecting all the opinions of that gentleman,'* 
 Mr. Bclsham, «'not only on the Trinity, but on every other 
 '"theological subject, in giving the wJiole collection the name 
 "of Unitarianism, and in exhibiting this to the world as the 
 "creed of liberal Christians in this region, is perhaps as 
 "criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the 
 "records of tlieological controversy." Upon this permit me 
 to ask, — Did you overlook that Mr. Belsham exhibits the 
 opinions, thus collected, not as peculiarly his own, but ex- 
 pressly as the sentiments of the Unitarians generally? Have 
 the goodness to observe his phraseology: "The Unitarians 
 generally believe," &c. "Tiie Unitarians maintain," &c. 
 "The Unitarians disavow," kc. Was it not right for the 
 Reviewer to consider Mr. Belsham, at present the head of 
 the party certainly in England, as good an authority for de- 
 termining what Unitarianism is, in the nineteenth century, as 
 "Dr. Mosljeim" or "Miss Adams?" and right also to give 
 the people some distinct information on this subject? Is not 
 the fact well known to you, that Unitarianism is a "name," 
 not opprobi'iously given to that class of professed christians 
 by their opponents, but eagerly claimed, and strenuously as- 
 
13 
 
 serted by themselves? Are you not also perfectly aware, 
 that after the denial of the essential divinity and the proper 
 atonement of Clu'ist, the descent to the lowest degree of Uni- 
 tarianism is extremely easy, and often most rapid? That 
 among those, who reject these primary doctrines a peculiar 
 brotherhood is at once established? and that any differences 
 of sentiment which may exist among them, are considered by 
 themselves from the highest to the lowest, as compartively 
 unimportant, — and are so considered also by theii* oppo- 
 nents the Trinitarians, who regard the denial of these doc- 
 trines as subversive of the very foundations of the gospel? 
 In what then consists tlie extreme criminality, with which 
 the Reviewer is so warmly charged? 
 
 To conclude this head. You have accused the Reviewer 
 of falsehood, in "asserting. That the ministers of Boston 
 and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians ai e 
 Unitai'ians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." I trust it 
 has been made clear, that this accusation is unfounded: that 
 he does not make the assertion which you allege that he 
 makes; and in that what he does assert, in the passages cit- 
 ed by you, he is in part justified by your own concession, 
 and in the rest borne out by the testimony of liberal gentle- 
 men, and by principles of fail' interpretation, — I frankly 
 confess that I did regret, when I first read the Review, and 
 I do stiU regret, that he had not expressed himself with 
 more studious care, and more circumspect qualification. But 
 for the heavy accusation, which you have preferred against 
 him, and for the uncommon heat with which it is urged, 1 
 am utterly incapable of discerning any solid reason. "A 
 man who is governed by christian principles, will slowly 
 and reluctantly become the accuser of his bretliren." Tliis 
 sentiment. Sir, I quote from you with most hearty approba- 
 tion. Near it, however, is a passage, which I quote with 
 no common sensation of pain. "Tbat he," the Reviewer, 
 ^'intended to deceive I am unwilling to assert; but the most 
 "chai'itable construction which his conduct will admit is. 
 "that his passions and pai'ty spirit have criminally blinded 
 ««him, and humed him into an act, wbich could have been 
 "authorized only by the strongest evidence, and the most im- 
 
14 
 
 '.pai-tial inquiry. The time may come, when he will view 
 «*this triuisactioii with other eyes^ \^hen the rage of party 
 ♦*will have subsided^ when the obligation of a fair and equita- 
 <*blc temper will appear at least as solemn as the obligation 
 "of building up a sect,- when misrepresentation, intended to 
 "injure, and originating, if not in malignity, yet in precipi- 
 *'tancy and passion, will be felt to be a crime of no common 
 "aggravation." — God in mercy preserve me from the desire 
 of applying this passage. But, my dear Sir, I muet be per- 
 mitted to intreat you, at some favoured moment, when passion 
 is hushed, wlicn conscience is awake, wlien God and eternal 
 things are in view, very seiiously to consider, whether it 
 might be applied with greater justice to the writer of the 
 Panoplist Review, than to the ^\^•iter of the Letter to the 
 Rev. Mr. Thatcher. 
 
 II. In the second place you allege, that "the Review as- 
 ♦^serts, tliat the ministers of Boston and tlie vicinity, and the 
 "most considerable members of the liberal party, ^operate in 
 " <secret, entrust only the initiated with their measures; arc 
 "'<guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments; 
 " *behave in a base and hypocritical manner, compaied with 
 " <which Mr. Belsham's conduct, rotten as he is in doctrine 
 " <to the very core, is purity itself.' — Such, you are pleased to 
 add, "is the decent language scattered through this Review." 
 And in a note, at the bottom of the page, you throw togeth- 
 er a number of severed plirases, selected from various parts 
 and connexions of the Review, and represent them all as 
 having been applied by the Reviewer, directly to yourself 
 and your clerical brethren generally of Boston and the vi- 
 cinity, together with the most considerable members of the 
 liberal party at large. 
 
 You arc perfectly aware. Sir, how easy a thing it is to 
 select from any book detached sentences and members of 
 sentences, and so to arrange tliem as to give them a very 
 ctifFoi-ent aspe( t and bearing, from what they have in theii* 
 proper connexions. A more striking example of this kind I 
 have seklom if ever witnessed, tlian the one which you have 
 afforded in the instance now before us. Of all the quotations 
 which you have made fi-om the Review, as the basis of your 
 
15 
 
 accusation under tUs second head, I think I may safely af- 
 firm, there is not one sentence, or scrap of a sentence, which 
 appears in your Letter, vdt\\ tlie same aspect and bearing as 
 in the Review. Wlien I first read them in your Letter, I 
 felt, I confess, no small degree of excitement in regard to the 
 Reviewer; and no little surprise that I could have read the 
 Review without a similar excitement. But not less was my 
 surprise, when, on turning to the Review I perceived how 
 very differently they there, in their proper connexions, ap- 
 peared. My limits will permit me to present but a few of 
 them here. 
 
 Speaking of the Stone Chapel, the Reviewer remarks, 
 «We must say that the conduct of this society and theii* min- 
 ister, in coming out openly and avowing their sentiments to 
 the world, is vastly preferable to a hypocritical concealment of 
 them. The words in Italicks ai'e those which you quote, as 
 being applied by the Reviewer to "the ministers of Boston," 
 &c. but no such application of them is made by him. — Of a 
 remarkable letter, written by a clergyman in this country to 
 his friend in England, and published by Mr. Belsham, the 
 Reviewer says, "The object of Mr. Belsham in publishing 
 it was, to chastise the Boston clergy for their cowardice in 
 concealing their religious opinions,** This expresses what the 
 Reviewer supposed to be Mr. Belsham*s opinion of the Bos- 
 ton clergy: and I presume. Sir, you wUl admit that he was 
 warranted by the documents before him, in believing that 
 such was Mr. Belsham*s opinion, and such his design in 
 publishing the letter. "The idea that a minister believes the 
 truths of the gospel to be of infinite importance, and still 
 conceals them, is incompatible ivith either fidelity or integnty,^* 
 Here the Reviewer expresses a general sentiment, without 
 applying it; a sentiment which you. Sir, I doubt not, will 
 readily acknowledge to be just. 
 
 My principal reason for selecting these passages, rather 
 than others partl}^ quoted by you, is, that they could be pre- 
 sented in theii" proper connexions and aspects in fewer words. 
 These, however, will be admitted, I trust, as a pretty fair 
 sample of t'ne whole. 
 
16 
 
 After making such quotations of dctaclied sentences and 
 scraps of sentences, as you thought proper, to shew that the 
 Reviewer had cliarged you and your liheral brethren witli a 
 "hypocritical concealment of your sentiments," you proceed 
 to notice the proofs upon wliicli ho rests tliis charge. These, 
 as you state, are "a Letter from Dr. Freeman, and the letter 
 of Mr. Wells to Mr. Belsham." These Letters you very 
 dexterously despatcli; excepting that you quote from that of 
 Mr. Wells a particular passage, for the purpose of shewing 
 "the method," as you say, "in which it is distorted by the 
 Reviewer." This letter tlic Reviewer gives cntii'e, and I 
 believe correctly^ but aftenvards he does quote the passage 
 in question with some variation. The quotation however is 
 made, not, as you represent, for the purpose of supporting 
 the charge of liypocritical concealment, not in any connexion 
 with tliis topickj but most plainly for the purpose of making 
 out a list of epitlietical and encomiastick descriptions, given 
 by Mr. Wells of gentlemen of the liberal party; and the pas- 
 sage is so shaped, as to be the more conveniently arranged 
 in the list. This alters the case materially. The Reviewer 
 does not bring forward a passage in a "distorted" form, foi- 
 the purpose of proving a charge of hypocritical concealment. 
 But you have accused him of doing this; and to give the accu- 
 sation tlie deeper impression, you utter yourself in the follow- 
 ing remarkable terms: "An unpervei-ted mind turns with sor- 
 «>row and disgust from such uncharitable and disingenuous 
 "dealing; and why all this labour to distort what is so plain? 
 "the object is, to fix the character of knaves and hypocrites 
 "on a large class of christians and christian ministers. I 
 "might here be permitted to dip my pen in gall; but I do not 
 "write for those, whose moral feeling is so dull, as to need 
 "indignant comment on practices like these." — And certainly. 
 Sir, this passage of yours needs no "comment" of mine. I 
 can only deplore and deprecate the state of mind from which 
 only it could have proceeded. 
 
 I mean not, dear Sir, to deny that the Review does charge 
 ministers, and perliaps others, of the party called liberal, with 
 want of openness and clearness in avowing and explaining 
 their sentiments; nay, with designed "concealment" and cuj- 
 
IT 
 
 pable disguise. Nor will I dissemble that I have felt no lit- 
 tle regret, that its language on this subject had not been in a 
 style of less repulsive freedom and apparent asperity. I am 
 fully aware that this is tender groundj and I feel most deeply 
 the difficulty and the delicacy of the subject. 
 
 It does, however, appear to me very clear, that Dr. Free- 
 man, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham did suppose, and that in 
 the documents on which the Reviewer principally relies as his 
 vouchers, they do represent, that liberal ministers and other 
 liberal gentlemen have judged it proper, not to make ordina- 
 rily a free and full disclosure of tlieir sentiments: that they 
 have in fact thought it expedient to temporize. Whether, in 
 this opinion of you and your brethren, those gentlemen are 
 correct or not, you must have been apprised, that the opin- 
 ion is not peculiar to them, but very extensively prevalent: 
 prevalent, not among those only, whom you wouLl consider 
 your adversaries, but also among your friends. Hundreds 
 and hundreds of times have I heard it uttered from various 
 quarters, and with various expressions of approbation and 
 disapprobation; and never, in any debate or conversation, as 
 I recollect, have I heard the truth of it denied, or called in 
 question. It seems indeed to have been received as an estab- 
 lished, uncontested fact, that ministers of the liberal class 
 were not accustomed to be unreserved and explicit in the 
 publick avowal and declaration of their sentiments. I con- 
 fess to you. Sir, that I had so received it; nor did I ever im- 
 agine that in so receiving it, there was any thing injurious or 
 uncharitable; for I did suppose that you and your liberal 
 brethren held it as a maxim, founded upon reasons satisfac- 
 tory to your own minds, that a degree of reserve and conceal- 
 ment, greater or less according to circumstances, was pru- 
 dent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy. In this supposition 
 I have been from time to time strengthened, by conversations 
 with respectable individuals of the class, and not a little con- 
 firmed by what I have occasionally heard from the pulpit. I 
 have now in very fresh remembrance some sentiments to this 
 effect, delivered in a sermon which I heard at an ordination 
 in Boston a few months ago; and in which the preacher very 
 distinctly, and with considerable amplification^ held foi-tfi 
 5 
 
18 
 
 that, thoui?h in some places it might be well, and "contribute 
 »»to the I'aith and vii-tuc of the people," for a minister openly 
 and plainly to djeclarc his sentiments, yet in other places it 
 would not be prudent or proper: and in regard to tiiis, the 
 gentleman then ordained was aflectionately and earnestly 
 advised to regulate himself, according to the liabits of tliink- 
 ing and feeling, the prejudices or freedom from prejudice, 
 which lie should find to prevail among his people. 
 
 Judge then. Sir, of my surprise, when I read, in your Let- 
 ter, what I understood to be intended as an absolute denial, 
 that any such reserve or concealment had been practised. 
 After some reflection, however, I discerned, or thought I dis- 
 cerned, very clearly, the foundation of the apparent contra- 
 diction. The primary question between you and your oppo- 
 nents on this subject is, What is to be undei'stood by a min- 
 ister being open, clear, and faithful in the avoM al and decla- 
 ration of his sentiments? Upon this . question there is evi- 
 dently, between you and them, a real and material diffeience 
 of opinionj and this difference is very manifestly tlie founda- 
 tion of the apparent contradiction between you and them on 
 the question, whether you are open, clear, and faithful, or 
 concealed, indistinct, and unfaithful. 
 
 You arc peifectly aware, tliat the ministers, called ortho- 
 dox, are accustomed generally to preach out their sentiments 
 without reserve, perhaps sometimes witliout prudence. They 
 do not shun to declare unto the people all the counsel of God, 
 as they understand it. They do not avoid preaching any 
 doctrine, wliich tliey find to be revealed in the word of God, 
 cither because that doctrine is mysterious, or because it is 
 denied by some and doubted by others; but the very circum- 
 stance of its being denied or doubted, is \Nith them a reason 
 why they should he the more particular, and the more earnest, 
 in shewing its truth, in obviating tlie objections against it, 
 and in so instructing tlieir hearers upon it, as to promote the 
 increase of their knowledge and the establishment of their 
 faitlj. These ministers, tlierefore, are accustomed to use 
 great plainness of speech, endeavouring to make themselves 
 well understood upon every subject: to let it be distinctly 
 known wliat they believe concerning mauidud, tlieir fallen 
 
19 
 
 atate, their native depravity and practical sinfulness, their 
 guilt and their condemnation^ concerning Jesus Christ, his 
 person, his offices, his atonement, and the nature and the 
 way of the great salvation hy liim; concerning the Holy 
 Spii'it, his personal divinity, his official power and grace, and 
 the nature and importance of his work in renewing, sanctify- 
 ing, and sealing the heirs of salvation; and concerning the 
 Gospel generally, its infinite importance as *<the wisdom of 
 God and the power of God" for the recovery of lost mankind, 
 its doctrines, its precepts, and its institutions. — Accordingly 
 these ministers are understood; and in general their people 
 and others are left in no douht as to what their sentiments 
 are. — Tliis, Sir, is what they understand by ministers being 
 open, and clear, and faithful in the avowal and declai'ation of 
 their sentiments. 
 
 It is otherwise, however, with you and your liberal breth- 
 ren, as appears most clearly from your Letter. 
 
 In repelling the charges of the Panoplist Reviewer, you 
 first make what would seem to be a Confession of Faith; and 
 then proceed to shew the manner in which you and your 
 bretlii'en perform your ministry. — To your friend Mr. 
 Thatcher you say, p. 7, *'We both agreed that a majority 
 «of our brethren believe that Jesus Christ is more than 
 «mian, that he existed before the world, that he literally 
 "came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other 
 <«offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and 
 "that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with 
 «<the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment 
 "of our brethren." You then mention "another class of liber- 
 <'al christians, who, wMlst tliey reject the distinction of three 
 "persons in God, are yet unable to pass a definitive judg- 
 "ment on the various systems, which prevail, as to the na- 
 "ture and rank of Jesus Christ;" and "another class" still, 
 "who believe the siuiple humanity of Jesus Christ." — "As 
 «<to myself," you say, p. 12, "I have ever been inclined to 
 '^cherish the most exalted views of Jesus Clirist, which are 
 <*consistent with the supremacy of the Father; and I have 
 "felt it my duty to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps 
 *^every sentiment wliich is peculiar to him on this subject.'' 
 
20 
 
 Then, including yourself with your brethi-en of the tliree class- 
 es you s.av, p. 13> "We arc accustomed to speak of tlie Father 
 •'as God, and of Jesus Christ as his Son, as a distinct being 
 "from him, as dependent on him, subordinate to him, and de- 
 priving all from him." 
 
 Such is youi' Confession of Faith: and for this Confession 
 I, dear Sir, for one, most sincerely thank you; and hundreds 
 and thousands of christians, I am persuaded, will thank you. 
 It will serve to relieve us from much of the uncertainty, and 
 much of the embarrassment, which, until now, we have felt 
 in relation to you and your liberal brethren. — One great 
 point is clear: — You hold Jesus Christ as "a being" entire- 
 ly "distinct from God," and, like all other creatures, entire- 
 ly "dependent." — Of course, you will, doubtless, not hesitate 
 to acknowledge what I have certainly very great sorrow in 
 stating, that the doctrines of atonement by his death, and jus- 
 titicaticjii through faith in his blood, as held by orthodox 
 chi'istians in all ages of the church, — together with all the 
 truths and sentiments — all the powerful motives to repen- 
 tance, faith, and holiness, depending .on those cardinal doc- 
 tinnes, at once fall to the ground before you! Thus much is 
 plain; thus far the matter is settled in regard to yourself, 
 and in regard also to your liberal brethren, in so far as you 
 w'ere authorised to speak for them. To what extent you 
 were thus authorised, I know not; but would devoutly hope, 
 not to the extent which your manner of speaking would seem 
 to import. Yes, Sir, most devoutly would I hope, that there 
 ai'e some among those whom you would wish to include in 
 your liberal pai-ty, who will revolt from your statement; who 
 will protest against being numbered with you; who will yet 
 awake from the enchantment, more fatal than that of Ai^mi- 
 da, inidcr the power of which they have too long been held. 
 
 Still, however, I find in the terms of your creed, a great 
 want of clearness and precision; great indistinctness and 
 ambiguity. What are we to understand by "Jesus Christ 
 being more tlian man?" — by his "literally coming fi'om heav- 
 en to save our race?" What is he more than man, and how 
 does he save? What "other offices does he sustain than those 
 of a teacher and witness to the truth?" Upon these, and oth- 
 
21 
 
 er points comprised in your statement of the sentiments of 
 the liberal party in general, you leave us in utter unceiiain- 
 ty. In your statement of your own sentiments, your ambi- 
 guity is not less remarkable. Were it not for what you say 
 in another place, we should not know what you mean by 
 «the supremacy of the Father;" whether a supremacy in 
 office, such as Trinitarians admit; or a supremacy in nature, 
 such as that of the infinite, independent Creator in relation 
 to his finite, "dependent" creatures. «I have felt it my duty" 
 y«u say, <'to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps every 
 sentiment peculiar to him on this subject." IVIight not Dr. 
 Priestley, with perfect ti'uth, have said this? Is theie a Uni- 
 tarian in the world, even the closest follower of Mr. Belsham, 
 who might not say the same? Undoubtedly there is no man 
 living, who does not "depart from Mr. Belsham, in ever;- 
 sentiment which is peculiar to him." But what are the sen- 
 timents peculiar to him? None of those certainly wiiich are 
 exhibited in his Unitarian creed. 
 
 Now, dear Sir, if such ambiguity, such want of distinct- 
 ness and clearness, such apparent (I mean not to say dis- 
 honest) "concealment," is found in this Confession of your 
 Faith; a confession, made on an occasion so urgent, when 
 you seem to have felt yourself called upon for a publick and 
 explicit declaration of your sentiments; would it not be rea- 
 sonable to conclude, that on ordinary occasions you ai^e cer- 
 tainly not less reserved, indistinct, and ambiguous: nay, that 
 you have acquired a habit of expressing yourself on the doc- 
 trinal subjects of religion, in a manner not to be clearly 
 understood. That such is the real fact, is manifest from the 
 representation which you give of the manner, in which you 
 and your liberal brethren perform your ministry. 
 
 The sum of this representation, which you have spread 
 over several pages, is tiiis: That you and your brethren stu- 
 diously refrain from encountering the opinions of any of the 
 various denominations of Christians, who differ from you: 
 and are accustomed "to urge peipetually those truths and 
 precepts," which to be sure you call "great," "about which 
 there is little contention." Butwhat are those great truths 
 and precepts, about which there is little contention, and which 
 
you perpetually urge. Cert<ainly not any of the primary, not 
 any of tlie peculiar doctiincs or institutions of the gospel: for 
 not one of tiiese can be named, about which there has not always 
 been, about which there is not still great contention. Tlie doc- 
 trines concerning the Saviour's person and character, his 
 priestliood 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 salva- 
 tion thi'ougli tlie merits of the one Mediator, — ^the resurrection 
 of tlie body, — and the final judgment, — the "eveilasting de- 
 struction of them that obey not the gospel:" all these, as you 
 will readily admit, are subjects of continual and earnest conten- 
 tion among those who profess to be christians. These doc- 
 trines then, according to your own representation, you and 
 your liberal brethren carefully refrain from bringing int/) 
 discussion before your hearers: or, if you mention them at all, 
 yet only in such a manner, as not to come into conflict or col- 
 lision, AN itli any who differ fiom you on these great and car- 
 dinal points. 
 
 But, Sir, set these doctrines aside, and what is then left of 
 the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What is there left, but mere 
 natural religion — called indeed, in this enlightened age, 
 rational chrisiianihj? — If in your preaching, these doctrines 
 are kept out of sight, or treated only in a manner so general, 
 so vague, so ambiguous, as not directly and manifestly to 
 clash with any of the various and opposite opinions, held by 
 professed christians respecting them: if you dwell <'perpetu- 
 ally" on other topicks; is it then strange, that your people 
 and others are left in utter uncertainty, as to wliat you be- 
 lieve on these momentous points, and that you are considered 
 as wanting in openness and clearness, and as practising 
 reserve and concealment? 
 
 ^'In tliis avoiding controvei'sy," you say, p. 15. "we have 
 thought that we deserved not reproach, but some degree of 
 praise for our self denial." For myself. I had understood 
 from the Scriptures, that it required christian "self denijd,'' 
 not to slirink from an open avowal of our faith in the doc- 
 trines of the gospel, and fcom "holding fin-th the faithful 
 word in the face, of opposition; but cordially to embrace 
 
23 
 
 them, openly to confess them, and meekly and charitably, 
 yet firmly and courageously to "contend" for them. And 
 you will paidon me. Sir, if I do not yet see that much 
 *'praise" is due for yaiir "self denial." You tell us explic- 
 itly, that «'to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime." In 
 your Sermon on infidelity, you also say, p. 13, "For these," 
 (rei.sms previously mentioned) "and other reasons, I am 
 ynwilling to believe, that infidelity has no source but deprav- 
 ity of heart, and that it can never be traced to causes which 
 may absolve it from guilt." It must be admitted indeed, 
 that you do not regard with quite equal kindness, those who 
 believe in Calvinism; as is manifest from some very strong 
 expressions .f antipathy, and from your representation, than 
 which 1 am grieved to say, I have seldom if evei- seen a more 
 "distorted" and injurious one, of their sentiments. Is it, 
 however, a crime to believe in Calvinism? wiien, in your es- 
 timation, it is none to believe in the lowest Unitaiianism, — 
 and may be none to be an infidel. I presume that, notwith- 
 standing the vehemence of your antipathy, you will hardly 
 say it is. But if, in your estimation, errour of all kinds is 
 innocent, then where is your "self denial" in refraining 
 from assailing it, and where your claim to "praise" for 
 "avoiding controversy." 
 
 There is still another point of view, and tliat a very seri- 
 ous one, in whicli your "self denial" and your claim to 
 *<praise," should not fail to be considered. If, indeed, to 
 believe in error is "no crime," then to believe in the truth 
 is no vii'tue. But, Sir, is it so represented in the word of 
 God? Did Jesus Christ and his apostles conduct their minis- 
 try, and enjoin it upon others to conduct theirs, in the man- 
 ner in which, as you represent, you and your liberal breth- 
 ren conduct yours? 
 
 Jesus Christ says, "This is the condemnation, that light 
 is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather 
 than liglit, because their deeds are evil. For every one 
 that dotth evil hateth the liglit, and will not come to the 
 light, 1st his deeds should be reproved." Is not truth 
 light, and errour darkness? Does then the great Teacher 
 fi'om heaven here represent a belief in errour to be no 
 
24 
 
 crime? — a belief in the truth to be no virtue? Or does he 
 limit the remai'k to infidelity? — which in your Sermon before 
 referred to, you allow may sometimes proceed from "vice." 
 What is his meaning when, in his commission to Ids apostles 
 and ministers, he says, "He that believeth," (in the ti^uth 
 undoubtedly) "sliall be saved; he that believeth not shall be 
 damned!" What is St. Paul's meaning, when he says, «<Be- 
 causc they received not the love of the ti'uth, that they might 
 be saved, — God shall send them strong delusion to believe a 
 lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, 
 but had pleasure in unrighteousness?'* And St. Peter's, when 
 he says, "There were false prophets also among tlie people, 
 even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
 shall biing irv damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that 
 bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 
 if tliis language sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust. Sir, 
 you will have the goodness not to impute the fault to me; 
 and til at you will not on account of any unpleasantness in 
 the language, i*efuse to give attention to the momentous sen- 
 timent contained in it. 
 
 Did the apostles, then, studiously "avoid conti'oversy?" 
 Did they <*seldom or never refer to any different sentiments 
 embraced by other" professed "christians?" Never "attempt 
 to refute" errour? Never assail any "system which they did 
 not believe?" or any "denomination that differed from them?" 
 Did they refrain from preaclung high and mysterious doc- 
 trines, lest they should "perplex, and needlessly perplex a 
 common congregation, consisting of all ages, capacities, de- 
 grees of improvement, and conditions in society?'* Did they, 
 ««in compliance with a general system" of conduct, adopted 
 by thein, cautiously "exclude" from their preaching all con- 
 troverted points, give up as unimportant and unprofitable 
 every doctrine w hich any individuals, or bodies of professed 
 christians iiad ventured to deny or oppose, and "persuade 
 thems<'lvcs that the best method of promoting the holiness 
 and salvation of mankind" was, "to urge on them perpetually 
 those truths and precepts about which there was little con- 
 tention?" Had they done so, possibly they might not have 
 been "made the olfscouring of all tilings," and been exposed 
 
25 
 
 to <<death*s oft;"— -but have "enjoyed singular prosperity," 
 «found themselves respected by all classes of society," and 
 been "distinguished by the eminent," and by those whom the 
 World would call "the enligiitened and the good." But did 
 they not act upon an entirely opposite *'system?" Did they 
 not preach, "with much contention," a doctrine which was 
 to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,'* 
 —a doctrine which was "every where spoken against?" Were 
 not their Epistles all of them controversial, in a greater or 
 less degree, and some of them almost entirely? Did they not 
 zealously contend for sentiments which were denied and op- 
 posed, — and the more zealously in proportion as the opposi- 
 tion was more powerful and determined? Did they not ear- 
 nestly "denounce" false doctrines and false teachers? warn 
 the churches and all men against every prevalent errour? 
 and with the utmost solemnity say, "If we, or an angel from 
 heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we 
 have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" 
 
 Though the apostles were invested with an extraordinary 
 authority, yet you will certainly admit, that, in their love and 
 zeal for the truth, and (due allowance being made for change 
 of circumstances) in the manner of performing their ministry, 
 tlicy are examples for all the ministers of Christ. — If then, 
 my dear Sir, you and your liberal brethren have chosen to 
 adopt "a general system" of conduct in the ministry, alto- 
 gether different from theirs, we must entreat you not to think 
 it strange, if there are some who cannot accord to you all the 
 "praise," which you *«have thought that you deserved." And 
 notwithstanding the assurance and the pathos, with wliich you 
 make your *'appeal" to your people, you must not expect 
 that the minds of all wOl be entirely relieved from the painful 
 apprehension, that both you and your people may be under 
 some deception; or from the distressing doubt, whether, at 
 the appearing of the Lord Jesus, you will be able in his 
 presence to say to them, "We take you to record tliis day, 
 that we are pure from the blood of all men; for we have not 
 shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." 
 
 III. "The Reviewer," you say, "having charged us with 
 "holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritically 
 
^6 
 
 "concealing tliem, solemnly calls on christians who differ 
 "iVoni us in sentiment, 4o come out and be separate from us, 
 " 'and to \\ itliliold communion with us.' " Upon this topick 
 your zeal rises to its utmost height. And it is. Sir, I con- 
 fess, a subject most deeply interesting, and of a nature most 
 strongly to excite the sensibilities of the soul. Here lies the 
 danger. Upon this subjet t, it is extremely difficult to keep the 
 passions still, and to attend with calmness, and meekness, and 
 impai-tiiility to the unadulterated dictates of reason and of scrip- 
 ture. Yet scarcely can another subject be named, which more 
 ijuperiously demands to be considered wdth the most dispas- 
 sionate, docile, and unbiassed mind. I am fully aware that 
 thei'e have been, in all ages, that there are in the present age, 
 rasli and fiery zealots, who are never more in their element, 
 than when engaged in strifes and contentions, sowing discord 
 am(»ng brethren, and rending the churches of Christ piece- 
 meiil. Su( h spirits are ufit easily restrained and regulated, by 
 the counsels of the more temperate, and considerate, but not 
 less conscientious, and firm, and faithful. I am no less fully 
 aware, that there have been in all ages, that there are in the 
 present age, zealots of a quite different character, but not less 
 rash and fiery, who are always ready to raise the cry of big- 
 otry, illiberality, funatat ism, and j)ersecution, against every 
 measure and attempt, thougli conducted with the best spirit, an(i 
 with the utmost prudence and regularity, for maintaining the 
 cause of truth, and pronu^ting the purity, order, and prosperity 
 of tJje churches. — It would be lamentable. Sir, indeed, should 
 you descend from your proper elevation, and lend yourself, 
 with all your weight and influence, to give a deeper tone, and a 
 w ider extent to a ciy so senseless and so unholy. 
 
 It is to be lamented, that on a subject of this serious and mo- 
 mentous kind, you should have thought it proper so entirely to 
 dispense with argument, and with all the scriptural consider- 
 atii>ns which, in relation to this subject, so forcibly press them- 
 s ivcs \\\vn the conscience and the hearty and to indulge so 
 fj 'ly in vague declamation, poignant invective, and fervid 
 a})peal to popular prej«idices and passions. I know full well, 
 an(5 too many know, that this is the way to strike the niinds 
 of tiiat great majority of mankind, to whom thought and rcflec- 
 
2.7 
 
 tiott are irksome; the method best adapted for the iiipport of a 
 bad cause. 1 am fully aware of your advantage in this res- 
 pect. But, Sir, a minister of Jesus Christ should esteem it 
 a higher honour and a nobler achievement, to enligliten tiie 
 understanding and correct the conscience of a single individ- 
 ual, than to rouse the passions and inflame the prejudices of 
 thousands.— Declamation is always, for a very obvi.jus rea- 
 son, difficult to answer. Yours however, under the present 
 head, is evidently bottomed on several assumptions, which I 
 deem utterly inadmissible, and some of the principal of wiiich 
 I propose to consider. 
 
 In the first place, you manifestly assume, that the poinds 
 of doctrine, upon wliich you and your liberal brethren difi r 
 from your opponents, are comparatively small and ci iviiJ; 
 not "practical," but speculati^^e merely, and such as do not 
 materially aflfect christian character. — I trust, Sir, it has 
 been made plain, under the preceding head, that this oug.t 
 not to be assumed. According to your own concession, the 
 party in whose behalf you plead, generally deny the essential 
 divinity of the Saviour, and hold him to be a being entirely 
 "distinct from God"— entirely "dependent,"— in other worils 
 a mere creature.— But, Sir, between a being essentially 
 divine, as by us the Saviour is held to be, ami a mere crea- 
 ture however "exalted," there is, as you will readily ad- 
 mit, an infinite dispaiity. The Saviour, then, whom y(»u 
 acknowledge, is infinitely different from Him whom we ac- 
 knowledge and adore. Four rock is not as our Rocky yau your- 
 selves being judges! As your acknowledged Saviour is infi- 
 nitely inferiour to ours, so too are the ofiices and the w =rk 
 which you assign to him. You doubtless do not supp osr, that 
 by any mere creature, atonement could be made for the sins 
 of an apostate world, of sufficient merit for the pardon, sanc- 
 tification, and eternal salvation of all who should trust in him; 
 therefore, if you hold to atonement in any sense, yet unques- 
 tionably not in the sense of a proper propitiatory sacrifice. Up- 
 on tliis denial of atonement, must f jllow of course the denial 
 of pardon, procured by the blood of Christ,— of justification 
 solely through faith in him,— of redemption from eternal 
 death unto everlasting life by hiiu. Connected and, gener- 
 
£8 
 
 ally if not invariably, concomitant with the denial of these 
 doctrines, is a denial of tlie Holy Spirit in his personal char- 
 acter and offices, and of tlie renewal of mankind unto holiness 
 by his sovereign agency, as held by orthodox christians. 
 
 Now, Sir, are these small and trivial points of difference 
 between you and us? The God whom 3 ou worship is differ- 
 ent from ours,' the Saviour whom you acknowledge is 
 infinitely inferiour to ours; the salvation which you preach 
 is immensely diverse from that which we preach. Though 
 you call Jesus Christ master and Lord, and profess to believe 
 in him and to love hinij yet you do not, with the disciple wlio 
 had long doubted, call him your Lord and your Godj you 
 do not believe on him for a salvation, meritoriously procured 
 by his atoning blood, his vicarious merits; nor do you love 
 him witli supreme affection, or "honour him as you sliould 
 honour the Father." 
 
 Are the doctrines then, about which we differ, merely spec- 
 ulative? Are they not practical, most vitally and essentially 
 practical? Do they not go home to the heart directly, and 
 claim an empire over all the affections and powers of the soul? 
 Is not a doctrine which essentially concerns the object of our 
 worship, practical? — when, if we are wrong in regard to the 
 object of our worship, we can hardly be right in any part of 
 our religion. Are not the doctrines, which affect directly the 
 very foundations of our faitli, practical? — When a true faith is 
 the grand requisition of tlie gospel, and the vital principle 
 of all holy practice, of all the works which are good and 
 acceptable in the sight of God. 
 
 Hitherto, Sir, I have proceeded upon the ground of your 
 general statement, and held more particularly in view your 
 higher classes of liberal chrisfians. But it is not to be over- 
 looked, that you make your remonstrance against "separa- 
 tion," not in favour of those higher classes only, but equally 
 in favour of the lowest: — of those who believe in the "simple 
 humanity of Jesus Christ," — who agree most nearly with Mr. 
 Belsham; nay, Mr. Belsham himself, and those who agree 
 with him entirely, were doubtless not intended to be excluded. 
 You put in your earnest plea for the whole. The question, 
 then, is a short one. Is not Mr. Bclsham's gospel, as set 
 
29 
 
 foi'th in his creed, another gospel, than tliat which Paul 
 preached? If you are not wUling to admit this; yet surely you 
 cannot hesitate a moment to admit, that it is another, than 
 that which is held hy orthodox christians, — ^^vhich is preached 
 by orthodox ministers: — essentially different in every partic- 
 ular from the foundation to the top stone. One or the other 
 of these schemes, then, must be what St. Paul denominates 
 "another gospel," and against which, and its abettors, he 
 solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema. The leading 
 doctrines of Mohammed are not more diverse from the ortho- 
 dox views of Christianity, than are those which you would 
 have us hold in our fellowsliip. The followers of Mohammed 
 believe in Jesus Christ as a good man, and a great prophet; 
 and arc accustomed to regard him, I believe, with as high 
 veneration, as are the lower* Unitarians. 
 
 Does it not then infinitely behove both you and us, instead 
 of uttering vague declamations, and impassioned appeals, 
 most seriously to weigh the very forcible declarations of the 
 ingenuous Mr. Belsham himself: "Opinions such as these can 
 no more harmonize with each other, than light and darkness, 
 than Christ and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diamet- 
 rically opposite, cannot be fellow worshippers in the same 
 temple. It was expedient that they should separate." 
 
 Another of your evident assumptions is, that every separa- 
 tian between professed christians is unjustifiable; a criminal 
 «*schism," the guilt of which is chargeable upon those who 
 insist upon it as requisite. Schism, Sir, in the scriptural 
 sense, I cei-tainly hold to be no light matter. But what is 
 schism in the scriptural sense? Is if not a rending, a disrup- 
 tion oithe body of Christ, or of liis true church? But are all 
 who call themselves christians really members of the body of 
 Christ? Do they all hold the Head? Do the scriptures teach 
 tliis? — Do the scriptures represent that all separation from 
 those who call themselves chiistians, all withdrawing of fel- 
 lowship from them, is schismatick, is "heretical?" Do they 
 enjoin upon the churches to hold in theii' fellowship all who 
 profess to be christians, however corrupt in sentiment they 
 may be? — Do they not on the conti'ary constantly insist on 
 belief in the truth,' as, the very foundation of christian charac- 
 
30 
 
 ter and of christian fellowship? and as solemnly warn the 
 churches to keep clear of errour as of other sin? as earnestly 
 exhort them to be steadfast in the truth, as in that holiness 
 of heart and practice, to wliich the truth is conducive and 
 absolutely necessary? 
 
 If then, in obedience to the scriptures, and witli the 
 spirit, and in the manner which the scriptures enjoin, churches 
 that are sound in tlie faith, separate themselves from such 
 professed christians as deny all the fundamental, all the pecu- 
 liar doctrines of the gospel, are those churches justly charge- 
 able with the guUt of schism and heresy? Is an orthodox 
 church to be charged with schism and heresy, for withholding 
 fellowship from a church professedly of the sentiments of Mr. 
 Bclsham's creed? or for excluding from its communion, in 
 the regular way of christian discipline, individual members 
 wIm) professedly hold the same sentiments! Or are members 
 of Unitarian churches to be charged with schism and heresy, 
 if, in tlie meek and faithful spirit of the gospel, they ask for 
 dismission, and regularly withdraw from a fellowship which 
 they believe to be not that of the apostles and propliets? 
 
 How, indeed, is the fellowship for which you plead to be 
 maintained? Upon this point you and your liberal brethren 
 have taken care that we should be pretty fully informed. 
 The orthodox churches must give up their creeds and cov- 
 t^nants, theii' Psalms and Hymns and Doxologiesj must 
 cease to insist on, as important, the great doctrines which 
 they now hold to be finidamental and essential to the clu'is- 
 tian faith; must exclude from their pulpits all mysterious 
 and all controverted doctrines, — all that are not included in 
 what is fashionably called liberal or rational Christianity,* must 
 consent, in a word, to have their preaching and worship con- 
 ducted on such principles, and in such a manner, as A\ill not 
 disturb the minds of liberal cliristians, or Unitarians of any 
 class! — Is not this. Sir, precisely the way most distinctly 
 marked out, and most strenuously insisted on, in your peri- 
 odical publications, in your ordination sermons, and in all 
 your discourses and conversations on this sul)jcct? If the or- 
 thodox ministers and churches wUl oidy consent to all this, 
 the thing is done; all will be love, and peace, and fellow- 
 
SI 
 
 ship. That is, if they will consent to yield up as unscrip- 
 tural 01" unimpoi'tant the doctrines of faith and the principles 
 of worship, wMch tliey now hold most essential to christian 
 character, devotion, and practice, — to hold it "no crime to 
 believe as Mr. Belsham believes," and to worship as he wor- 
 ships; and thus cease to be orthodox, or in any respect mate- 
 rially different from those called liberal christians; all the 
 difficulty will be removed, and the way will be open and easy 
 for an established and permanent fellowship, between them 
 and Unitarians of all degrees. — Yes, Sii*: and if Unitarians 
 would cease to be Unitarians, and become ortliodox chris- 
 tians, the way would be equally unobstructed. 
 
 But here lies the difficulty. The orthodox ministers and 
 churches will not consent thus to yield up their faith and theii* 
 worship: and from the earnest and abundant labour and 
 pains which you and your liberal brethren have employed, to 
 bring them to these terms, it is manifest that, unless they will 
 consent, you do not yourselves suppose there can be fellow- 
 ship between you and them. Because they do not consent, 
 you continually charge them with being bigotted, illiberal, 
 uncharitable; and now seem disposed to charge them even 
 with schism and heresy. But, Sir, if on account of their 
 steadfast adherence to their faith and worship a separation 
 and non-fellowship ensue, does it not deeply concern you, as 
 well as them, very seriously to consider on which side the 
 guilt will lie? Unquestionably, notwithstanding any thing 
 which you have said of your own, or quoted from Dr. Camp- 
 bell, it must lie on that side, which the Redeemer and King 
 of Zion shall judge to have removed itself fi'om the founda- 
 tion of the apostles and prophets. 
 
 Your last assumption which I shall particularly consider 
 is this: That it can be only from a bigotted, uncharitable 
 and malignant spirit, — a "proud, censorious and overbear- 
 ing temper," that a separation can be proposed. — In this as 
 well as in what you say on the subject of schism and heresy, 
 yoxi seem to forget that your liberal brethren in England 
 have not only proposed a separation, but have actually carri- 
 ed the proposition into effect; and that your heavy charges 
 against your opponents here, recoil with all their force upon 
 
S3. 
 
 your trausatlanlick friends. Tliis, however, is no couceili 
 of ours. 
 
 We have been, my dear Sir, so long accustomed to hear 
 the vehement charges of uncharitableness, illiberality, and 
 bigoti-y, vociferated against us from your quarter, that we 
 have ceased to be greatly disquieted by them. We "hear the 
 angry thunder murmur at a distance, with as little concern 
 as if it were the thunder of the pope, from whom it seems in- 
 deed to be borrowed." — The reason of these charges has been 
 explained in the foregoing remarks. Your modesty and con- 
 sistency in tlicm are notable. You set out witli asserting, 
 that religion consists in charity; in charity, to be sure, in 
 your ONMi sense of the word; you then claim all this same 
 charity as belonging to yourselves, and allow none of it to 
 us: and thus, in effect, you deny that we have true religion. 
 Y'^et the very reason why we are thus "denounced" as desti- 
 tute of charity is, tliat we do not, as you allege, allow 
 the genuineness of your religion. You may then deny the 
 genuineness of our religion, and yet be most charitable; but 
 if we entertain any doubt of the genuineness of yours, we 
 must be utterly destitute of charity! 
 
 There is no word more abused than charity. Its scriptural 
 meaning, as you very well know, is love; holy love to God 
 and men: that love which is *<the end of the commandment" 
 and "the fulfilling of the law." In this sense it is indeed 
 the essence — the sum of religion. Is it then a violation of 
 the great law of love, for the friends of truth to decline com- 
 munion with its I'cjecters? — We have nothing to do here 
 with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about 
 modes, or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or prac- 
 tice. Our concern is with differences of a radical and fun- 
 dajnental nature; sucli as exist between orthodox christians 
 and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. 
 Belsham: for to this point you have yourself fairly reduced 
 the present question. — Yes, Sir, the simple point here at is- 
 sue is, Whether it he a violation of the law of love, for be» 
 lievers in tlic true gospel of Jesus Chiist, to separate from 
 believers in another and an opposite gosi)cl? If yours is the 
 true gospel, then ours is another; if ouis is the ti'ue gospel. 
 
33 
 
 then yours i^ aiiatlier. In either case, the great question 
 respecting fellowship remains the same. 
 
 You will certainly agree with me, that whatever tends di- 
 rectly to the maintenance and promotion of truth, cannot be 
 incompatible with love to God, or love to men. Jesus Christ 
 came into the world to bear witness to the truth. His apos- 
 tles were appointed to be w itnesses to the truth; wliich they 
 were to propagate at every hazard, and which they, like 
 their divine Master, finally sealed with their blood. His 
 church was established to be "the pillar and ground of the 
 truth." The great design of the christian ministry in all 
 ages is, to maintain and promote the truth. It is by means 
 of the truth, that tlie glory of God is advanced in the world; 
 and that mankind are guided into the way of peace, and 
 sanctified for the kingdom of immortal glory. Love to God 
 and men requires, as a duty of primary obligation, that the 
 churches of Christ, the ministers of the gospel, and all cjhris- 
 tians should do what they can for the promotion of truth. 
 
 We advance then to another question: would it conduce 
 more to the promotion of truth for the believers in the true 
 gospel, to hold fellowship with the believers in another gos- 
 pel, than to separate from them?— We have seen in what way 
 only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to be main- 
 tained, the principal doctrines of the gospel must cease to be 
 clearly preached; divine worship must cease to be conducted 
 on principles distinguishingly christian; every principle, or 
 ti'uth wfticii is controverted, must be yielded up, as no long- 
 er to be urged or defended; and the friends of truth must 
 conform to the abettei-s of errour. All this must take place 
 to a degree proportionate to the extension and closeness of 
 the fellowship. — But is this. Sir, the way to maintain and 
 promote the truth in the church and in the world? Is it 
 not rather the way to extinguish at onch the light of the 
 ministry, the light of the church, the light of the gospel? 
 to throw back the children of light into darkness and the 
 shadow of death, and to leave the prince of darkness to 
 triumph in an unlimited and undisturbed empii-c?— Would 
 not the first and most certain effect be, the general preva- 
 lence of the opinion and tlie feeling,— ali-eady, alas! too 
 4 
 
34 
 
 prevalent, — ^that truth is not worth contending for, that tlie 
 great doctrines of the gospel are of very little importance? 
 What then would be the consequence? — Shew me a man 
 who cherishes this opinion, tliis feeling, and I will shew 
 you one, who, far from going to the cross or to the stake, 
 like the apostles and the host of holy martyrs, w ill maliC 
 no sacrifice, no exertion, for the spread or the support of 
 the truth: nay, one, who is already himself bound hand and 
 foot w itli the silken cords of errour, and whose "deceived 
 heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, 
 nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" And let this 
 opinion and feeling generally prevail, and where sliall we 
 find those who w ill he "valiant for the truth upon the earth?'* 
 
 "Whatsoever maketli manifest is light." Would not the 
 separation in question make manifest? Would it not serve 
 to hold up the distinguishing truths of the gospel and to 
 shew their importance, to the greatest advantage and with 
 the best effects. Would it not tend to wake up the slumber- 
 ing multitude, to excite them to earnest and serious inquiry, 
 and to prevent their perishing for lack of knov, ledge, "fast 
 by tlie oracle of God." 
 
 Is it then certain, tliat a proposal, that even an earnest 
 call for this, can only proceed from a "malignant, proud, and 
 censorious spirit?" Is it certain, that such a proposal or call 
 might not proceed from the same spirit of holy charity, 
 which ruled the hearts and fired the zeal of the apostles 
 and faithful brethren of the primitive times, and of the dis- 
 tinguished ministers and confessors of the Reformation? the 
 spii'it w hich achieved such wonders for the honour of Christ 
 and the salvation of men; but which in those illustrious peri- 
 ods, as it has been in all succeeding ages, was violently de- 
 nounced, as the spirit of fanaticism, malignity, and pride. 
 
 Far be it from me to stand forth the advocate of a violent 
 sytsem of denunciation and exclusion," or of rash, disorder- 
 ly, or uncharitable measures. I am fully aware that there is 
 danger, great danger on this liand. And did it belong to me 
 to assume prclatical dignity, and like you to give, ex catliedra, 
 "admonitions" to my brethren, the sum of my advice and ex- 
 hortations should be, Brethren, "let all things be done de^ 
 
35 
 
 cently and in order;" — "let all your things be done with char- 
 ity," — The spirit of Christianity is not to be violated; the 
 rules of the gospel are not to be disregarded; the vastly in- 
 teresting considerations, belonging to the subject on the one 
 side and on the other, are not to be treated with lightness. 
 
 But, Sir, the differences which exist between the Unitarians 
 and the orthodox christians are certainly of a nature, to de- 
 mand the most serious and earnest attention. They concern, 
 most directly and essentially, the glory of God, the honour of 
 the Saviour, the welfai'e of the church, and the salvation of 
 men. In comparison w ith these, the difference between Dis- 
 senters and Episcopalians, bet\N'een Pjedobaptists and Anti- 
 pgedobaptists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. 
 Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differences out of 
 sight, to conceal their magnitude and momentous consequen- 
 ces; or by a raised cry of bigotiy, illiberality, and intolerance, 
 to divert the publick attention from them. They must and 
 will be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered; and 
 ministers and churches, professed christians and all otliers, 
 must and will be brought to the solemn decision, — whether 
 they will be for Christ or against him, — whether they will re- 
 ceive and hold fast his truth, or despise and reject it, — whether 
 they will bow to his authority and trust in his grace, or refuse 
 to have him to reign over them and contemn his salvation. 
 
 In the mean time. Charity, heaven-born Charity must be 
 allowed to w eep and lament over the inroads of errour and 
 the desolations of Zion. Yes, Sir, charmed not at all with 
 the so loudly chaunted praises of increased "light," — abashed 
 not at all by the disdainful sneers at imputed fanaticism, — 
 she will weep — that her adored Lord is denied his divine hon- 
 ours, in the beloved city of our solemnities, w here our fathers 
 saw his glory, and delighted to celebrate liis wonderful works 
 of love and mercy. 
 
 Thus, Sir, have I attended, amid various unpropitious cii'- 
 cumstances, to some of the principal things in your Letter. 
 There are others which I ceriainly deem not unexceptiona- 
 ble, but which my design does not require, nor my limits per- 
 mit me particularly to notic^. If in any instance, I have 
 misapprehended you, misrepresented you, or done any injus- 
 
36 
 
 ace to jrou or to others, I can truly, I think, say it has been 
 unintcufionalj and to correct any errour, or redi-ess any 
 ^vi'ong would afford me real pleasure. 
 
 I have done what I have felt to he a painful duty. The 
 Lord pardon what is wrong,— and prosper what is right 
 And may the Spirit of truth guide us into all trutli, and 
 cause us to *'see eye to eye,"— keep liis people from falling, 
 fill tlie cliurches with light and peace, and make his word 
 ♦"-mightily to grow and pi-evail." 
 I am, Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 AVith sentiments of affectionate respect. 
 Your friend and hrotiier, 
 
 SAMUEL WORCESTER. 
 
 Salem, July 15, 1815. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Liaui'iMi^ar^ * ^^^^ '^^ * ^^^' * ^^^^' *°^ ^^""^ thought ilt to occupy it with some 
 Yoii_say i.. 6, "Dr. Watts in the latter part of his life was decidedly an Uni- 
 tarian. —1 am ai.ui/ed that such an assorlion could have been hazanled by vou: 
 an assertion, whrch Mr. Helsham, strongly desirous as he was to make out some- 
 thug n, favour o his cause, from Dr. Vvatts's last thoughts, durst not make. 
 1 rom wlr.t Mr. IJelshani has presented on this subject, 1 should certainly con. 
 Chul.' even )K,d no other means of judging, and 1 believe every candid person 
 would conclude, that the vague reports, so industriously circulated, of the Unita- 
 mnism oi Ur Watts, are most unso'.idly fou.uKd, and most injurious to the 
 memory of that great and good man. That he had a peculiar manner of ex- 
 plaining the mAstnv ofthe Trinity I do not deny; but, ilfter no little attention 
 to the subject, I do deny that there is any profif of his being a Unitarian; and 
 am firm in the beliet, that "he maintained to the last the ttue divinity of the 
 Son and ol the Holy Spirit. ' 
 
 ««/»"'ttr'"'l'»**T''^"^"'""'^".^'^'"' '^^"'^' -^o" '"^e numbered witli Unitarians 
 «Dr Barnard; I suppose the late Dr. Barnard of tnis town, whose name I 
 would never mention but with particular aftection and respect. I have great 
 satisfaction in being able to assure you, that Dr. Barnard, but a few month! be- 
 fore h's death, explic tjy and emphatically denied his being a Unitarian, and pro- 
 fessed his behef in the essential divinity of Jesus Christ. If you wish for more 
 proof to the same effect, it can be produced. 
 
 Of "President Willard," whom you also place on the same list, I am not able 
 to speak with the same positiveness; but from information, on which I place 
 great reliance, J believe you are not warranted in numbering him with Unitarians. 
 
 Ihe manner in which you have denounced the Panopl'ist, demands, 1 think, 
 your most serious reconsideration. To denounce with a spirit so violent, and 
 upon grounds so unsohd, a publication of such well earned reputation, and sucU 
 extensive usefulness, is to assume a responsibility of no ordinary kind. 
 
 I have seen vour ".Additional Remarks;" and you must permit me to sav, that 
 I think neither you.-selt, nor the President of Harvard College, nor any'tViend 
 to you or hun w.ll long reKard it with much complacency. What you say oa 
 thesu.yectof -KsnoNAGE," is truly remarkable. 1 really did not know that 
 there was any aw o God or man, forbid.Iing people to remark on puLUc per. 
 formunces, or to pwlu-n what they hear delivered in pndlich. If I have trans- 
 gresse.l m mentioning what I have, of a Sermon, which I heard at an Ordina- 
 
 ^Z'} '** "*** '"^' "" •'' 'S'loi-ancv of the law will be a^Jmitted to due consid- 
 eration, g yy 
 
1 
 
 \ 
 
 p 
 
^ 
 
dii^«&^*«r 
 
 WSS 
 
 
 Air- 
 
 J» 
 
 \X '■:» ■^T(*'<J'"-\T, ''^ ■