■^^; 
 
 •^x^xt-«e-'r^ 
 
 '*:. VAk 
 
 1 
 
 
 ..-A. 
 
Tlie 
 
 rroi>erly \ 
 
 lEPEiiT 
 
 croiEciTiiro 
 
 LyKtiii^jllj A. A . 1 
 
 BARTON £ 
 
 SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 — IN •IlIK — 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 — "1 Tllh — 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
¥ 
 
REMARKS 
 
 THE REV. DR. WORCESTER'S 
 
 LETTER TO MR. CHANNING, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 "REVIEW OF AMERICAN UNITARUNISM 
 IN A LATE PANOPLIST. 
 
 «» / 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 
 
 Minister of the Church of Christ ia Federal Street, . 
 
 BOSTON : ♦ 
 
 VRINXJD AJJD PUBUSHBD BT WELIS AXD tltlT. 
 
 1815.- 
 
 Su 
 
t 
 
REMARKS, ^'c. 
 
 By the advice of friends, whose judgment I respect, I 
 have resolved to offer to the publick some remarks on 
 the letter of D». Worcester, in reply to mine addressed 
 to Mr, Thacher. They will be few ia number, and as 
 free as possible from personalities. When I under- 
 stood tliat my letter was to be answered by Dr. Wor- 
 cester, I felt and expressed great satisfaction. I 
 regarded Dr. Worcester as a man of candour, mode- 
 ration, and liberal feelings. I had reason to suppose, 
 that as a minister, he would understand the feelings 
 of his brethren, whose uprightness had been so wan- 
 tonly assailed in the Panoplist Review, and whose 
 influence and usefulness that publication was de- 
 signed to destroy. I trusted, that whilst he would 
 openly express disapprobation of some of my opin- 
 ions, he would still appear in the honourable cha- 
 racter of a peacemaker among christians. But I 
 have been disappointed. His letter, though milder 
 in language, breathes too much of the spirit of the 
 Review. I feel, however, no disposition to retali- 
 ate. His letter, I will hope, is not to be considered 
 as an expression of his general temper ; and al- 
 though it is too obviously designed to drive both me 
 
46 
 
 and my brethieii from the cliurcli and tlie ministry, 
 yet, in obedience to that Master, who has forbidden 
 me to render evil for evil, I have no desire to rob 
 Dr. Worcester of his character as a christian, or a 
 christian teacher. 
 
 My letter to Mr. Thacher is considered by Dr. 
 Worcester as bitter and severe ; bnt called, as I was, 
 to repel the charge of immorality brought against 
 men, whose virtue and piety I know and honour, 
 and to whom I am bound by ties of friendship and 
 christian affection, I felt it a solemn duty to ex- 
 press what I deemed a virtuous indignation. 1 la- 
 boured however to temper displeasure with christian 
 moderation ; and, on finishing my letter, my fear was, 
 not that I liad expressed an improper warmth, but 
 that I should be considered as wanting sensibility 
 to the injuries done to some of the best men in this 
 community. I know, however, the many weaknesses 
 and imperfections of my nature. I may have erred, 
 for the provocation w as great ; and I sincerely re- 
 peat tlie declaration with which I closed my letter, 
 that for every departure from the spirit of the gospel, 
 I implore the divine forgiveness. On the present 
 occasion I am called to defend myself, rather than my 
 brethren, and I am therefore at liberty to suppress 
 the feelings which were awakened by many parts 
 of Dr. Worcester's letter. 
 
 There is one particular in which I ahi indebted 
 to Dr. Worcester, and I hasten to express my obli- 
 gation. He has pointed out an inaccuracy in the. 
 language which I have employed to express the 
 
charges contained in the Review. I have said, 
 that the Review •• asserts that the rainisters of this 
 town and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal 
 christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
 the word." It is true, that this passage may be un- 
 derstood as charging the Review with asserting, that 
 all the ministers of Boston of all denominations are 
 Unitarians of Mr. Belsham's school. 1 ousht to 
 have said, that the Review maintains — that the great 
 body of liberal ministers in Boston and its vicinity, 
 and of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Bel- 
 sham's sense of the word. I was probably led into 
 this inacuracy, by the manner in which the phrase 
 *^ Boston clergy" is used in the Review ; a phrase 
 as broad as the ^^ ministers of Boston," and which 
 is employed by the Reviewer to designate the liberal 
 ministers alone. I wrote too with a strong convic- 
 tion, which is still in no degree impaired, that the Re- 
 viewer intended to fix on liberal ministers and chris- 
 tians, considered as a class, the sentiments of Mr. Bel- 
 sham. I therefore made the statement with too little 
 precision. I thank Dr. Worcester for detecting the 
 inaccuracy, and if it has made a false impression on 
 my readers, (which I think can very rarely have oc- 
 curred,) I desire to express my sorrow for the wrong 
 I have unintentionally done to the Reviewer. 
 
 This correction however affects very slightly the 
 jnerits of the question. I still maintain, what I intend- 
 ed to maintain in my letter, that the Review was 
 designed to represent the great body of liberal min- 
 isters in this town and vicinity, and the liberal party 
 
in general, as Unitarians, in Mr. Belsliam's sense of 
 the word ; and that it charges these ministers and the 
 leading members of tlie liberal party with artifice, 
 hypocrisy, and base concealment. This statement 
 of the charges contained in the Review, Dr. AVor- 
 cester pronounces to be unauthorized and incorrect. 
 There is a short way, and it is the only way, of set- 
 tling this dispute. I beg every reader to examine 
 the Review for himself, and to ask, from the impres- 
 sion made on his own mind, what is its obvious im- 
 port and design. I offered but a few out of several 
 passages which support the charges I have made. 
 Let every man read for himself ; I ask no more. It 
 is indeed possible, that by reading as a lawyer, 
 who wishes to force every passage to say as little as 
 possible, he may make the Review a very mild and 
 harmless tiling. I know too, that here and thera 
 some qualifying language may be found, under which 
 the Reviewer, if he will stoop to it, may strive to 
 take refuge. But the question is, not what a verbal 
 critick, with a dictionary in his hand, may make out of 
 the Review, but what are the impressions which 
 readers at large receive from it, of the sentiments 
 and cliaractcr of the great body of liberal ministers 
 and christians. This is the fair and established rule 
 by which we are to judge of writings, and especially 
 of those in which vioral character is assailed. 
 The question, and the only question, is, what will 
 men of common sense and common feelings gather 
 from this Review. On this point, I did not suppose 
 that a doubt could exist. I never anticipated any 
 
difference of construction. I thought it as impossi- 
 ble to err in regard to the obvious import and design 
 of this publication, as to mistake midniglit for noon. 
 An attempt to prove that the Review was not written 
 in English, would hardly have surprised me more^ 
 than the attempt which has been made to show that 
 it does not convey the impressions 1 have stated. I 
 very much suspect, from what Dr. Worcester has 
 observed about our " temporizing" and '^ culpable 
 disguise," that before he finished his letter, he under- 
 stood the Review not very diiferently from myself. 
 But enough has been said on this first head of Dr. 
 Worcester's letter. 
 
 The next great object of Dr. Worcester's letter, if 
 I understand him, is to convey to his readers the 
 impression, that our mode of preaching is ^^ conceal- 
 ed, indistinct, and unfaithful." This he attempts to 
 prove, first from the statement which I made of the 
 views of liberal christians in relation to the character 
 of Jesus Christ. This statement, he says, is ambi- 
 guous and indistinct. Tliat it is general, that it does 
 not descend to particulars, I grant; but I deny that 
 it is ambiguous, if considered, as it ought to be, in 
 relation to the object for which it was mad©. Does 
 not Dr. Worcester perfectly know, that it was simply 
 designed to repel the charge of the Reviewer, thai 
 we are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
 word ? Was it necessary, that in such a statement 
 every question should be met and answered, wliicli 
 may possibly be started in relation to our sentiments ? 
 Have not I, in my turn, an equal right to reproach 
 
Dr. Worcester with ambiguity and indistinctness? 
 Has he any where told us, which of the many, vei-y 
 many explanations of the Trinity he and his brethren 
 embrace, and are determined to impose on us as the 
 term of christian communion ? Has he told us the 
 precise scheme of atonement which he adopts, or 
 which of the many definitions of faith he has selected? 
 How easily might this reply be extended ? But I 
 pass to the next consideration. 
 
 The next proof of our preaching in a " concealed, 
 indistinct, and unfaithful manner," is derived from the 
 account which I liave given of our general style of 
 preaching. I did think that this account was too 
 simple to be misunderstood. My statement was 
 plainly this — that we labour to preach the truth, to 
 preach whatever we clearly discover in the word of 
 God ; but that, in doing this, we generally avoid refer- 
 ences to opinions which we do not receive, and never 
 bold up those christians who diifer from us to cen- 
 sure or contempt. According to this statement, we 
 evidently preach the whole counsel of God, as far 
 as we understand it. But Dr. Worcester, passing 
 over this account, has selected a passage, in which I 
 observe, that ^^ we urge perpetually those great truths 
 and precepts about which there is little contention, 
 and which have an immediate bearing on the temper 
 and life." From this passage he infers, that we can 
 urge none of the ^' primary and peculiar doctrines 
 " and institutions of the Gospel, because about all 
 these there has been great contention." To this I an- 
 swer, first, that I have never understood, that there ha« 
 been much contention about the ^^ real precejpts^^ of 
 
the gospel, not even about those which have been most 
 habitually disregarded. Christians, satisfied with dis- 
 missing these from their lives, have retained them in 
 their systems. Even the bitterest persecuters in the 
 church have never disputed the precepts of '" loving 
 their neigbour as themselves," iand of " doing to others 
 as they would have others do to tliem.'' On tlie con- 
 trary, they have insisted, that burning, beheading, de- 
 faming and denouncing tliose, whom they called here- 
 ticks, were perfectly consistent with christian love, 
 and were even bright expressions of evangelical cha- 
 rity ! — It may next be observed, that the common dis- 
 putes about the ^^ great doctrines^^ of the gospel 
 have not related so much to their truth and impor- 
 tance as to some inferiour points connected with 
 them. For example, there has been much de- 
 bate about the benevolence of God, whether it 
 forms his whole moral character, and his highest 
 spring of action, or whether it be subordinate to wis- 
 dom or rectitude ; but all parties have agreed that 
 God is benevolent. In the same manner, many have 
 disputed about the omnipresence of God, whether his 
 substance be extended through infinite space, or whe- 
 ther he be present only by his knowledge and power 
 to every portion of space. But all have agreed that 
 God is omnipresent. In like manner christians have 
 disputed about the precise way in which Christ's 
 death has an influence ou our forgiveness ; but that 
 it has a real and important influence on forgiveness, 
 almost all unite in asserting. Once more, Christians 
 have never been weary with disputing on the mode 
 
10 
 
 and extent of spiritual influences ; but, with verj 
 few exceptions, all maintain that these influences are 
 real and are promised to our prayers. Let no one then 
 say, tliat we preach no primary or peculiar doctrines 
 of Christianity because we insist perpetually on prin- 
 ciples in which the different classes of Christian* 
 generally concur. Such principles, we sincerely 
 believe, form the very substance and glory of the 
 gospel. They shine with a clear and unsullied splen- 
 dour. We are deeply impressed with their truth, 
 their supreme importance, and their sufficiency to 
 salvation ; and therefore we urge them with unwearied 
 importunity, with zeal and affection. It is very pos- 
 sible that Dr. Worcester will go on to object, that, 
 according to this very account, our preaching must 
 be very general, vague, wanting in precision, and 
 therefore unfaithful. The answer is short. If we 
 are indeed general and vague in our representa- 
 tion of the truths of the Gospel, it is because we are 
 faithfulf because we dare not be precise above what 
 is written, because we stop where the Scriptures seem 
 to us to stop, and because we have a very deep and 
 sorrowful persuasion, that our religion has been ex- 
 ceedingly defaced and corrupted by the bold attempt* 
 of theologians to give minute explanations of its gen- 
 eral truths, and to cramp it with the fetters of syste- 
 matick precision. We tell our hearers, that God sent 
 his Son to die for us, exalted him to be our Prince 
 and Saviour, and ordained him to be judge of the 
 quick and dead, and never think it necessary or 
 fh^itliXul to All uj^ the outline of Scripture, by adding 
 
a 
 
 that the Sorif who was sent, was the very God who 
 sent him, or by speculating on the infinite evil of sin, 
 and on the necessity of an infinite atonement, in order 
 to illustrate the fitness of such a mediator. Thus, 
 then, we preach. Whether our preaching be nothing 
 more than the inculcation of *» natural religion," 
 let our hearers determine. 
 
 Dr. Worcester, to render our mode of preaching 
 odious, asks, if the " apostles avoided controversy," 
 and never "attempted to refute errour," &c. &c. We 
 think the answer very obvious. In the first place, we 
 wonder that any can confound the situation of min- 
 isters in a christian country, where the gospel has 
 long been known and acknowledged, with the situa- 
 tion of the apostles, who preached a new religion 
 which the multitude derided and opposed, and which 
 their new and ignorant converts were continually 
 corrupting with Jewish and heathen mixtures. We 
 sincerely beliere, that the great principles, for which 
 the apostles contended, are now received with little 
 dispute in Christian communities, and we conceive 
 that the great business of a minister is to urge those 
 truths in tlieir primitive simplicity on the hearts and 
 consciences of men, instead of making them subjects 
 of controversy. 
 
 There is another important remark on this point. 
 We do not pass sentence like apostles on many 
 subjects of controversy among christians, for this 
 very plain reason — that we are not apostles. We 
 are, what we labour never to forget, uninspired and 
 fallible men, and we are apt to distrust ourselves, 
 when persons of intelligence and piety see cause to 
 
diiferfi'OiH us in the interpretation of Scripture. We 
 dare not preach like apostles on points which have 
 perplexed and divided men of the profoundest thought 
 and the purest lives ; and we know from the genius 
 and leading principles of Christianity, that these 
 points are not, and cannot be essential to salvation. 
 We dare not imitate the bold and positive language, 
 in which the darkest doctrines are sometimes urged 
 as undoubted and essential, and in which the sentence 
 of excommunication is pronounced on serious inqui- 
 rers after truth, by some who discover no superiority 
 of intellect or virtue. 
 
 1 now come to a part of Dr. Worcester's letter 
 which, if I were to consult my feelings rather than 
 my sense of duty, I should pass over in silence. I 
 refer to his insinuation, that we have adopted a style 
 of preaching opposed to that of the apostles, because 
 we wish to avoid the sufferings which those holy men 
 encountered, and wish to secure the favour of the 
 world. Dr. Worcester's language is sufficiently soft 
 and guarded, and by certain rules of criticism it may 
 perhaps be proved to mean little or nothing. But I 
 am accustomed to judge of writings, which affect 
 moral character, by the impression which they make 
 on the mass of readers ; and the impression produced 
 by Dr. Worcester undoubtedly is, that we are guilty 
 of base compliances, and of shunning to declare the 
 whole counsel of God from regard to human applause. 
 I have already intimated, that I am not disposed to 
 notice the sarcasms, verbal criticisms, and half- 
 humorous expressions of regard which are scattered 
 
i^ 
 
 through Dr. Worcester's letter, and directed against 
 myself. But reproaches cast on my friends and 
 brethren, on men whose piety and virtues entitle 
 them to respect, I shall always repel, let them come 
 from what quarter they may. Dr. Worcester owes 
 It to himself, to cast away these dishonourable wea- 
 pons. It does not become him to strengthen the 
 hands of those, who are assailing the honest reputa- 
 tion of his brethren—Besides, is it very clear, that we, 
 above all other ministers in this country, are swayed 
 and corrupted by human opinion ? Is it not noto- 
 rious, that we have espoused an unpopular cause? 
 Is it not tlie boast of the Reviewer, that from Con- 
 necticut to Georgia all " orthodox christians'^ deny 
 us communion? Is it not notorious, that beyond a 
 narrow sphere our names are loaded with ixiproach ? 
 It is true, we receive marks of affection and respect at 
 home, far, far beyond our consciousness of desert. But 
 do aspiring men confine their views to their homes ? 
 And is it not a fact, that unwearied pains are employ, 
 ed to rob us even of this limited esteem, to alienate 
 from us our friends and societies ? If we indeed 
 prefer applause to principle, why is it, that we do 
 not accommodate our language to tJie system of our 
 opponents, adopt a few popular phrases, call our- 
 selves Trinitarians, on the ground of our believing in 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and thus 
 turn from us, (as we easily might without giving 
 offence to our hearers) the torrent of reproach and 
 denunciation.—It is a little remarkable, that gentle^ 
 men, who, as they boast, have all the colleges, of the 
 
14 
 
 country on their side with one solitary exception, 
 who have at tlieir command literary honours, seats 
 in conventions, in general assemblies, and in the 
 largest religious associations, should take credit to 
 thiMuselves for self-denial, and for preaching unpopu- 
 lar truth, and should lay at our door, as peculiarly 
 ours, the sins of compliance with the prejudices and 
 passions of mankind. I make this remark, not from 
 any desire to cast back the charge of Dr. Worcester 
 on himself or his friends, but simply with the view 
 of shewing the inconsistency of the insinuations by 
 which the reputation of my brethren is to be blasted. 
 I now come to what appears to me the third great 
 object of Dr. Worcester, in his letter. I refer to his 
 attempts to render our sentiments odious, and to jus- 
 tify those who, on account of our sentiments, would 
 exclude us from the christian church. To render 
 our sentiments odious, he again and again intimates., 
 that Unitarians, of course, reject all the great and 
 distinguishing doctrines of the gospel, particularly 
 the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death. Is it 
 possible that Dr. Worcester has not read so common 
 a writer as Dr. Samuel Clarke, the most popular 
 perhaps of all Unitarian writers, and in whose works 
 tlie doctrine of atonement, as commonly held, is in- 
 sisted on with great frequency and force? Has 
 he not learned from so common a book as " Bible 
 News," that many Unitarians sincerely believe, that 
 the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining forgiveness 
 must be inexpressibly greater upon their system, 
 than upon the system of the Trinitarians, which 
 
15 
 
 makes the sufferiDgs of Jesus nothing more than the 
 sufferings of a man. There is one sentence of Dr. 
 Worcester on this subject which amazed me. He 
 says to me, " you will, doubtless, not hesitate to ac- 
 " knowledge, wliat 1 have certainly great sorrow in 
 " stating, that the doctrines of atonement by Christ's 
 " death, and justification through faith in his bloo{l, 
 
 " AS HELD BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN ALL AGES 
 
 " OF THE CHURCH, fall at oiicc to the ground before 
 " you." Astonishing assertion ! If I were not as- 
 sured that Dr. Worcester is a man of respectability, 
 I should be tempted to say. Astonishing hardihood of 
 assertion ! What ! does Dr. Worcester really be- 
 lieve, that I will acknowledge without hesitation, 
 that I reject these or any other doctrines, as they 
 were held by " orthodox christians," in the age of 
 Christ and of his apostles, or as held by ^^ orthodox 
 christians" in any age of the church ? 1 sincerely 
 believe that this strange assertion is not to be ascribed 
 to bad intention, but to haste and inadvertence. 
 I regret however that a sentence, so adapted to 
 awaken popular passions, should have escaped 
 from his pen. I am not disposed to protract this 
 controversy by stating what I conceive to be the 
 prevalent sentiments of liberal christians on the 
 subject of Christ's mediation. I will only say, that 
 had Dr. Worcester known thera better, he would 
 have spoken on this, as on some other subjects, with 
 much greater caution. — Before leaving this head, I 
 would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of 
 fastening on his opponents the consequences which 
 
1ft 
 
 seem to him to follow from this system. This prac- 
 tice is unfair and injurious, and has betrayed Dr. 
 Worcester into misrepresentation. Suppose that I, 
 availing myself of this expeditious way of settling 
 the opinions of others, should make a collection of 
 the inferences wliich seem to me to flow from the 
 doctrine that God is the author of sin, and suppose 
 that I should publish this collection to the world as 
 the creed of those christians, by whom this doctrine 
 is received ; v.ouldtiiey not reproach me as a libel- 
 ler ? But I have no disposition to fasten this or any 
 other bad name on Dr. Worcester. 
 
 Another method adopted by Dr. Worcester for 
 rendering our sentiments odious, is this. It is urged, 
 that our sentiments lead us into an entire indiffennee 
 to christian trut!i ; that we believe ail errour to be 
 innocent ; that we consider belief in the truth as no 
 virtue ; and that we thus set aside those passages of 
 scripture in which the highest importance is attaclied 
 to this belief. This objection is founded on our 
 extending the name and privileges of christians to 
 the lowest Unitarians, who liold some sentiments, 
 from which, as I stated, we generally shrink with 
 aversion. Now 1 deny that any indifference to 
 truth, or any contempt of tliose passages which 
 enjoin belief of the truth, is implied in this extension 
 of our charity. I indeed very readily grant, that 
 ^^ belief of the trutli," in the ordinary acceptation of 
 that phrase, does not seem to us a virtue ; and for 
 this, among other reasons, that were it so, Satan 
 might boast of higher virtue than any saint on earthv 
 
17 
 
 Satan believes and trembles. The faith to which 
 salvatioQ is promised in scripture, seems to us to 
 reside in the heart much more than in the under- 
 standing. The true believer is distinguished not by 
 clearness and extent of views, but by a '* love of 
 light," a "love of the truth,'' originating in a sincere 
 desire to "do the will of God." We wonder that 
 Dr. Worcester did not discover this obvious princi- 
 ple in the very passages which he has quoted to con- 
 demn our liberality towards the erroneous. "This 
 "is the condemnation, that light is come into tlie 
 "world, and men loved darkness rather than light, 
 " because their deeds were cui7." " Because they 
 ^' received not the love of the truth, God shall send 
 " them strong delusion, that all might be damned, 
 " who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in 
 " unrighteousness.^^ This love of divine truth, this 
 honest, unprejudiced, obedient mind, we highly 
 venerate and always enjoin as essential to salvation. 
 But we know that this love of truth is consistent 
 with the reception of many errours. We know that 
 the apostles, during the life of their master, possessed 
 this temper in a sufficient degree to constitute them 
 his followers, and yet they grossly misunderstood 
 some of his plainest and most important declarations. 
 We believe too that at the present day, many in every 
 christian country are placed in circumstances, almost 
 if not quite as unfavourable to a clear understanding 
 of the gospel, as the apostles were under the minis- 
 try of Jesus. From considerations of this nature, 
 from a knowledge of the amazing power of education 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 .ind other circumstances over the opinions of eveiy 
 mind, and from a fear that we, as well as others, may 
 have been swayed and blinded by unsuspected infe- 
 licities attending our condition, we. are very unwilling 
 to decide on the degree of truth, which is required to 
 tlie salvation of every individual, or to say that the 
 erroiirs of an apparently sincere professor of Chris- 
 tianity are inconsistent with a pious character. In 
 our judgment of professed christians, we are guided 
 more by their temper and lives than by any pecu- 
 liarities of opinion. We lay it down as a great and 
 indisputable principle, clear as tlie sun at noonday, 
 that the great end for which christian truth is re- 
 vealed, is the sanctification of the soul, the formation 
 of tlie christian character ; and wherever we see the 
 marks of this character displayed in a professed 
 disciple of Jesus, we hope, and rejoice to hope, that 
 he has received all the truth which is necessary to 
 his salvation. Acting on this rule, we cannot ex- 
 clude from the church the lowest Unitarians who 
 profess subjection to Jesus Christ. Of this class we 
 have known or heard of individuals, who have 
 breathed the genuine spirit of their master ; who 
 have discovered a singular conscientiousness in all 
 the walks of life ; whose charity has overflowed in 
 good deeds ; whose wills have been resigned in 
 affliction ; and who lived as seeking a better country, 
 even a heavenly. Such men we have not dared to 
 exclude from the christian church, on the ground of 
 what seem to us great errours, any more than to ex- 
 clude the disciples of Calvin ; whose errours we also 
 
19 
 
 deeply lament, but whose errours ave often concealed 
 from us by the brightness of their christian virtues. 
 
 We are not conscious, that l)y this liberality we 
 at all oppose those passages of scripture, in which 
 great stress is laid upon belief of the truth ; for we 
 are convinced, from laborious research into the scrip- 
 tures, that the great truth, which is the object of 
 christian belief, and which in the first age conferred 
 the character of disciples on all who received it, is 
 simply this, that Jesus is the Christ, or anointed by 
 God to be the light and saviour of the world. When- 
 ever this great truth appears to us to be sincerely 
 acknowledged, whenever a man of apparent upright- 
 ness declares to us his reception of Jesus in this 
 character, and his corresponding purpose to study 
 and obey his religion, we feel ourselves bound to 
 give him the hand of christian fellowship, and to 
 leave it to the final judge to determine how far he is 
 faithful in searching after the will of his Lord. Tliis 
 duty of searching, and of searching with humility and 
 with a single and fearless regard to truth, we con- 
 stantly inculcate; and we sincerely believe, that in 
 this way we approve ourselves friends of truth much 
 more sincerely, than if we should aim to terrify and 
 prostrate the minds of our hearers, by threatening 
 them with everlasting misery, unless they receive the 
 peculiar views of the gospel, which we have seen fit 
 to espouse. 
 
 There is a part of Dr. Worcester's letter, accord- 
 ing to which our charity towards tlie lowest Unita- 
 rians not only proves our indiiference to truth, but 
 
20 
 
 makes us partakers in their sentiments and deeds. 
 Uecause we bear *• no decided testimony against 
 tliem," and because we are called by the same 
 geneial name of '* liberal cbristians,'' Dr. Worcester 
 thinks that we were properly confounded with them 
 by the ileviewor. I wonder that Dr. Worcester did 
 not perceive that this argument was a two-edged 
 sword, and miglit do equal execution among friends 
 and foes. It is well known that the old fashioned 
 Calvinists in general regard the ''new divinity'^ of the 
 Hopkinslans with great horrour ; but it is also true 
 that •' a peculiar brotherhood is established'' between 
 tltese two classes of Christians in New-England. 
 Tltey both by mutual consent take shelter under the 
 name of "orthodox." The Calvinists here have 
 never, as a party, borne testimony against Hopkin- 
 sian peculiarities, have never " purged themselves 
 from the guilt of them," but walk witli Hopkinsiang 
 on as friendly terms as we do witli the lowest Unita- 
 rians. According to Dr. Worcester, then, the guilt 
 of these false and horrid peculiarities lies at their 
 door. Tiiey esteem '* errour no crime," and " belief 
 of the truth no virtue." The old fashioned Cal- 
 vinists of New-York, however, have been more care- 
 ful to ^' purge themselves from this guilt." The 
 clergy of tliat city have almost w^ithout exception 
 united in publick declarations, that Hopkinsianism, 
 " is at war with the philosophy of the human mind, 
 w\ih common sense, iuu\ witii tiie word of the living 
 God. Su-'h sentiments, in whatever connexion they 
 may be taught, by whatever names they may be re- 
 
Si 
 
 commended, ought to be exposed and reprohaied in 
 the most decided manner." " They nothing doubt 
 that christians, upon sober research, will find Hop- 
 kinianism to be in some very material points 
 < ANOTHER gospel' indeed." " By whatever name 
 or title they, i.e. Hopkinsians, may be distinguished, 
 they have departed, in many points, from the confes- 
 sions of faith and the form of sound words adopted 
 by the reformed churches, and it is time they were 
 known, and a line op' distinction drawn." " li 
 is a duty of all tiie Lord's people to contend ear- 
 nestly for the faith. It is especially incumbent on 
 those who are set for the defence of the gospel, to 
 descry approaching danger, and should an angel 
 from heaven preach another gospel to denounce and 
 resist him." " These writers," i. e. Hopkinsian, 
 "have gained a reputation far beyond what nonsense 
 and impiety should acquire for a divine." " They are 
 preparing the way for a more extensive diffusion of 
 infidel jwinciples and even of atheism in our country." 
 See the recommendations prefixed to Ely's contrast 
 between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism by Dr. Smith, 
 Dr. Romeyn, Dr. Mason, Dr. Livingston, &c. &c. 
 It seems, then, that others, as well as Dr. Worcester, 
 claim the privilege of sitting in judgment on their 
 brethren. The measure he would mete to others, is 
 ready to be measured to himself again, and it is very 
 possible, that with all his orthodoxy he may soon 
 suffer unu'r the very same sentence, which he passes 
 so rashly on one third of the clergy of this state. 
 Such are the first fruits of a faith, which works by 
 uncharitableness and not by love. 
 
But Dr. Worcester has not merely aimed to make 
 our sentiments odious. I would to God, that he had 
 stopped here. He has openly taken part with those 
 who insist, that on account of our sentiments we 
 ought to he denied Christian fellowship, and to be 
 driven from tlie church as unworthy the christian 
 name. This is infinitely the most important part of 
 Dr. Worcester's letter. All the rest is compara- 
 tively trifling. I exceedingly regret that Dr. Wor- 
 cester has not brought this subject fully and fairly 
 before the publick. He has mixed together topicks, 
 which ought not to be confounded, and has thus, I 
 trust unintentionally, blinded his reader. His 
 readers will imagine, that the separation to which 
 Unitarians object on the part of Trinitarians is no- 
 thing more than the separation which Dr. Worcester 
 says has been made by Unitarians themselves in 
 England, a separation in icorshipf a separation pro- 
 duced by the adoption of prayers, hymns and doxo- 
 logies accommodated to their peculiar sentiments. 
 This view of the subject has given Dr. Worcester 
 afield for his powers of humour and sarcasm. But 
 this is not the true question. No. No. It is some- 
 thiug more solemn than this. The question is this, 
 Whether those persons, who cannot receive as a 
 truth of revelation the doctrine that the one God is 
 three distinct persons, shall be denied christian 
 fellowship, or in other words, shall be denied the 
 name and privileges of Ciiristians. This was the 
 proposition of the Review er, and with the sincerest 
 forrow I find that to this Dr. Worcester accedes. 
 
33 
 
 To him I did look for a healing spirit, for an exani^ 
 pie of forbearance, and moderation. Bnt he has 
 solemnly and publickly given all his iniluence to the 
 opinion, that we and all who agree with us on the 
 subject of the Trinity are to be disowned by the 
 church of Christ. The obvious import of the con- 
 cluding part of his letter (and it is the obvious import, 
 and not a strained and circuitous interpretation which 
 I regard) may be thus expressed. "Every man 
 who cannot admit as a doctrine of Scripture, the 
 great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I 
 and other orthodox Christians embrace, believes an 
 opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the 
 authority of Jesus Christ, is of course a man wholly 
 wanting in true piety and without christian virtue; and 
 may in perfect consistency with christian love be re- 
 jected as unworthy the name of a christian." I confess 
 I do shudder at hearing from a frail and fallible crea- 
 ture this tremendous sentence passed on men of the 
 profoundest understandings, of the purest lives, and 
 of unwearied devotion to the study of God's word ; 
 and passed on these men, because they cannot receive 
 a doctrine, which bears the strongest marks of incon- 
 sistency with that fundamental truth of all religion, 
 the unity of God, and which for ages has perplexed 
 and distressed the mind of almost every reflecting 
 christian. Was Dr. Worcester sensible of the 
 solemn responsibility which he took on himself, 
 when he advanced the sentiments in the close of his 
 letter ? Is he confident that no Antitrinitarians are 
 pious men ? Is he sure that he has not been labour- 
 
ing to drive from the christian fold the friends of 
 Jesus and tlie heirs of salvation ? 
 
 Before Dr. Worcester took so solemnly this ground, 
 it became him to inquire most seriously into the doc- 
 trine of three persons being one God, to weigh well the 
 arguments of those who oppose it, and to observe with 
 candour their tempers and lives. Nothing but the deep- 
 est and most deliberate conviction tiiat this doctrine 
 of the trinity is indisputably true, that it is accorapa^ 
 nied by evidence which renders the disbelief of it 
 inexcusable, and that the scriptures insist upon it as 
 an indispensable mark of a true believer, could have 
 justified him in condemning as strangers to christian 
 virtue men of established integrity, who profess with 
 seriousness to revere the Saviour, aud to make 
 his instruction the rule of their faith and practice. I 
 appeal to the conscience of Dr. Worcester, and I 
 beseech him to ask himself with sincerity, whether 
 he possesses this deep conviction, and whether it is 
 the result of calm, patient and extensive research. 
 If he shall answer in the affirmative, I then re- 
 spectfully call upon him in the name of those on 
 whom he has shut the door of the christian church, 
 to " produce his reasons," to shew the ground of 
 his confident persuasion that this doctrine is un- 
 doubtedly true, and that the Scriptures demand the 
 acknowledgment of it as necessary to the character 
 of a pious christian, I also beg him to state with 
 all possible precision, what particular view of the 
 trinity it is necessary for us to receive in order to 
 salvation, and in what language our faith must be 
 
25 
 
 expressed. I do not ask him to discuss these points 
 in a letter to me or to any opponent. The con- 
 troversy is not to be despatched in a few pages, 
 nor ought it to be mingled with any personalities. 
 Let it take another form, the form of general dis- 
 cussion. I promise Dr. Worcester that his argu- 
 ments shall be seriously weighed, and I trust that 
 those on whom he has past the sentence of 
 exclusion will not be backward to defend wliat 
 they deem the truth, or to vindicate their claim to 
 the name of christians. 
 
 The principal argument which Dr. Worcester of- 
 fers in favour of the proposed separation is, tlie great- 
 ness of the differences between Trinitarians and Uni- 
 tarians. I sincerely regret that these differences are so 
 studiously magnified, whilst the points of agreement 
 between these classes of Christians are studiously over- 
 looked. Dr. Watts and Dr. Doddridge have left us 
 a better example. Trinitarians and Unitarians both 
 believe in one God, one infinite and self- existent 
 mind. According to the first, this God is three per- 
 sons ; according to the last, he is one person. Ought 
 this difference, which relates to the obscurest of all 
 subjects, to the essence and metaphysical nature of 
 God, and which common christians cannot under- 
 stand, to divide and alienate those who ascribe to this 
 one God the same perfections, who praise him for the 
 same blessings, who hope from his mercy the same 
 forgiveness, who receive on his authority the 
 same commands, and who labour to maintain the 
 same spirit of devotion to his will and glory. — A<^- 
 
cording to Trinitarians, Jesus, who suffered and died 
 on the cross, is a derived being, personally united 
 with the self-existent God. According to the Unita- 
 rians, he is a derived being, intimately united with 
 the self-existent God. Ought this difference, which 
 transcends the conception of common christians, to 
 divide and alienate those, who love the same excel- 
 lent character in Jesus Christ ; who desire to breathe 
 his spirit and follow his steps ; who confide in him, 
 as perfectly adapted to the work which he was sent 
 to accomplish ; and who labour to derive just con- 
 ceptions of his nature from his own instructions? The 
 differences between Trinitarians and Unitarians are 
 very often verbal. As soon as Trinitarians attempt to 
 shew the consistency of their doctrine of three persons 
 with the divine unity, their peculiarities begin to van- 
 ish, and in many of their writings little or nothing is 
 left but one God acting in three characters, or 
 sustaining three relations, and intimately united with 
 his son Jesus Christ. Ought distinctions so subtle 
 and perplexing, to separate those, who love the same 
 divine character, and respect the same divine will. 
 
 I)r. Worcester, however, seems disposed to widen 
 the breach between these classes of believers. He 
 says, the Saviour " whom you acknowledge, is infin- 
 itely inferiour to ours." I answer — we believe that 
 GOD saves us by his son Jesus Christ, in whom he 
 dwells, and through whom he bestows pardon and 
 eternal life. A higher Saviour we do not know, and 
 cannot conceive. But Dr. Worcester does not stop 
 here. He says, ^* The God whom you worship is 
 
different from ours.'' To this I answer, as otliers 
 have answered before, that I with my brethren 
 worship "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and 
 of Jacob, who hath glorified his son Jesus," 
 whom Peter preached, Acts iii. We worship 
 " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,'' 
 to whom Paul " bowed the knee." We worship 
 that God, whom Jesus in his last moments worship- 
 ped, when he said, " Father, into thy hands I com- 
 mend my spirit." We worship that God, to whom 
 our Lord directed us, when he put into our lips 
 these affecting words, " Our Father, who art in 
 Heaven." We worship that God, of whom our 
 master spoke in these memorable words, "the hour 
 coraeth, and now is, when the true worshippers shall 
 worship the Father in spirit and in truth." Dr. 
 Worcester speaks of a different God ; but we can 
 renounce ours for no other. This worship we are 
 persuaded, is a spring of purity, joy and hope, 
 and we trust that it will prove to us a source of 
 unfailing consolation amidst the trials, reproaches 
 and rude assaults of the world. But I must stop. 
 The points of dispute between Unitarians and Tri- 
 nitarians cannot be treated with any fairness within 
 the narrow compass of a pamphlet, and I wish not 
 to discuss them in connexion with the present con- 
 troversy, which primarily relates to the moral cha- 
 racter of the great body of liberal christians. 
 
 Dr. Worcester has laboured to shew, that charity, 
 instead of forbidding, encourages and requires Trini- 
 tarians to exclude Unitarians from christian fellow- 
 
ship, because charity commands us to promote truth^ 
 and truth is promoted by this system of exclusion. 
 But let mc ask, why is truth to be promoted ? Not 
 for its own sake, but for its influence on the heart, its 
 influence in forming a christian temper. In what 
 then does this temper consist ? very much in candour, 
 forbearance and kind affection. It follows, that any 
 method of promoting truth which is unfriendly to 
 these virtues is unchristian ; it sacrifices the end 
 to the means of religion. Now let me ask, whether 
 the practice of rejecting as ungodly men those, who 
 differ from us on subtle, perplexing, and almost (if 
 not altogether) unintelligible doctrines, be not obvi- 
 ously and directly opposed to the exercise and dif- 
 fusion of candour, forbearance, kind affection and 
 peace. Has it not actually convulsed the church for 
 ages with discord and war ? The right of denoun- 
 cing those who differ on such doctrines, if granted to 
 one christian, must be granted to all ; and do we 
 need the spirit of prophecy to foretell the consequen- 
 ces, if the ignorant, passionate and enthusiastick, 
 who form the majority of every community, shall 
 undertake to carry this right into practice ? The idea, 
 that a religion which is designed for weak and falli- 
 ble mortals of all classes and capacities, and which 
 is designed to promote unity, peace, candour, and 
 love, should yet make it our duty to reject as wholly 
 destitute of goodness, every man, however uniform 
 in conduct, who cannot see as we do on points where 
 we ourselves see little or nothing, appears to me the 
 ajrossest contradiction and absurdity. If this be 
 
29 
 
 Christianity, we may say any thing of our religion 
 more truly, than that it is a religion of peace. A 
 more effectual instrument of discord was never de- 
 vised. Charity then does not command the Trinita- 
 rian to exclude his Unitarian brother. Charity 
 commands us to use mildness and persuasion ; to open 
 our eyes to the marks of virtue in those from whom 
 we differ ; to beware of ascribing errour to a corrupt 
 heart, unless the proof be strilting ; to think modestly 
 of ourselves, and to drive from our minds the conceit 
 of infallibility, that most dangerous errour which ever 
 crept into the church of Christ. 
 
 I have now finished my examination of the princi- 
 pal parts of Dr. Worcester's letter. There is one 
 general remark to be applied to the whole. It does 
 not appear, no, not in a single line, that Dr. Wor- 
 cester ever brought home to himself the case of his 
 injured brethren, ever imagined himself in their situ- 
 ation, and inquired how, under such circumstances, 
 he would himself have felt and acted. Suppose for 
 example, that in the Christian Disciple a review had 
 appeared, solemnly charging on that class of minis- 
 ters to which Dr. Worcester belongs, sentiments 
 which they generally disapprove, and charging them 
 with propagating these sentiments by artifice and 
 base hypocrisy. Would no sensibility have been 
 excited ? Would not Dr. Worcester have regarded 
 the author of this Review with strong indignation ? 
 Suppose then that Dr. Worcester, impelled not 
 merely by a regard to his own usefulness, but by 
 friendship, by christian affection, by a regard to 
 
3Q 
 
 what lie believed tbe interests of the church, had 
 written such a letter as mine to Mr. Thacher ; and 
 suppose that I, after reading this letter, had come 
 before the publick, and without one expression of 
 sympathy towards Dr. Worcester and his brethren, 
 had attempted to uphold the Reviewer, and had even 
 declared, that the large body of christians condemned 
 by that writer were virtually enemies to Christ, with- 
 out piety and without hope. What would Dr. Wor- 
 cester have felt? Might he not, in an unguarded 
 moment, in the warmth of virtuous indignation, have 
 called me a defamer ? Would he not have said, 
 that I was aiming a blow at what was dearer to him 
 than life, at his christian character, and his usefulness 
 as a christian minister ? Now I ask, would this 
 conduct have been a crime in me, and is it a virtue 
 in Dr. Worcester ? Let that gentleman bring the 
 case home to himself, and he may view his letter 
 with less complacency than he now does. He cer- 
 tainly will not wonder at the feeling which I have 
 expressed, or think me instigated by the worst of 
 passions in the remarks which I now offer to the 
 publick. 
 
 I now bid farewell to this controversy, as I hope, 
 for ever. This I do, not because I hope to escape 
 reproach by silence, for I know that the full measure 
 of reproach is prepared for me ; not because I shrink 
 in any degree from the cause which I have laboured 
 to defend ; but because I fear, that a controversy of 
 this nature between christian ministers will produce 
 impressions unfavourable to the cause of piety; be- 
 
31 
 
 cause I believe, that it tends to awaken unfriendly 
 feelings in the community, and that it ouglit there- 
 fore to cease as soon as the interests of truth will 
 admit ; because I fear, from observations on my own 
 heart, that it is not favourable to the best affections 
 in those who are immediately engaged in it ; be- 
 cause I am persuaded, that it Avill never end, if I 
 resolve to answer every new pamphlet and every 
 fresh charge ; because a continuance of it will be 
 inconsistent with the regular duties of my profession, 
 and with more useful pursuits ; and lastly, because 
 the most important topicks in the controversy cannot 
 be thoroughly and fairly discussed in the form of 
 short publications abounding in personalities. — I am 
 willing to relinquish the privilege of saying the last 
 word, and shall of course be condemned by those, who 
 consider the last word as a sign of victory. With 
 respect to the direction, which the publick mind will 
 take on this subject, it is not easy for a man of retired 
 habits and of very limited connexions to determine. 
 To God I cheerfully leave the event. Believing ia 
 his providence, assured that the gospel is his care, 
 and looking forward to his promised kingdom, where 
 the animosities, reproaches, divisions, and poor 
 contentions of this world will never enter, I desire 
 and hope to maintain in every condition an equal 
 mind, and to attain some portion of that peace which, 
 as men cannot give, so they cannot take away. 
 
N O T E. 
 
 In the preceding remarks I have wished to observe some<" 
 -thing like method, and to hold the attention of the reader to the 
 great points of the controversy. For this reason, and I hope for 
 a still better reason, I have passed over several of Dr. Worces- 
 ter's courteous sarcasms, minute criticisms, and appeals to po- 
 pular feeling. But there are some particulars, not undeserving 
 attention, which were excluded by the order which I proposed^, 
 and which 1 have therefore reserved for a note. 
 
 I did not notice Dr. Worcester's criticisms on my interpreta- 
 tion of the Review, because I have not met a single individual, 
 who has expressed one doubt as to the import and design of 
 that publication. But there is one of Dr. Worcester's criticisms 
 which ought not to be overlooked. I refer to the attempt 
 which he has made to defend the Reviewer from the charge o£ 
 a very criminal mutilation of Mr. Wells' letter. If the reader 
 will turn to my letter to Mr. Thacher, page 12, he will see the 
 mutilation stated at length. Dr. Worcester alleges, that the 
 passage was varied by the Reviewer, merely that it might be 
 inserted conveniently in a list of encomiums, passed by Mr. 
 Wells on liberal gentlemen. To this defence I reply, first, 
 that the mutilated part of the pass ige, as it stands in the Review, 
 is not an encomium, and could not have been introduced as 
 possessing that character. In the next place, it is very singular, 
 that th6 pass ige could not have been properly " shafied," with- 
 out excluding those words which most forcibly vindicate the 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Boston ministers from the charge of concealment. But thirdly, 
 it is still more remarkable, that the passage could not have 
 been properly shaped wilhoiit printing the last clause in italicks, 
 a clause ^\hich, when thus ]>rinted, entirely changes the mean- 
 ing of the sentence. How tlsese italicks help to give the right 
 shape to the quotation, is not obvious to a common reader, nor 
 has Dr. Worcester thought proper to inform us. 
 
 Dr. Worcester asseris that I " claim all charity" for myself 
 and my friends, and " decy it Jill" to our opponents, and thus 
 " deny that they have true religion." God forbid. If any part 
 of my letter is marked by this exclusive spirit, I ask for- 
 "•iveness of my injured fellow christians. I did think that I 
 expressed a very opposite temper. I certainly felt it. . 
 
 Dr. Worcester says that 1 have given a very distorted view 
 of Calvinism. I should rejoice to think so. It is a painful 
 thought, that such dishonourable views of our merciful Father 
 m heaven, as I have ascribed to that system, should find admis- 
 sion into a single human mind. I represented Calvinism, how- 
 ever, precisely as I had been accustomed to understand it ; and, 
 what is more, since reading Dr. Worcester's letter, I have con- 
 sulted Miss Adams' " View of Religions," to correct niy errours 
 on the sul)ject ; but still I am met by the same heart-chilling 
 doctrines; Calvinism still wears the same frowning aspect; still 
 seems to me a dreadful corrui)tion of true Christianity. That 
 my letter contains any reflections on Calvinists, as Dr. Worces- 
 ter intimates, cannot be true. I indeed think that, as a class, 
 they have defects which may be traced to their sj'stem ; and 
 some of their number seem to love none of the principles of 
 Geneva so well as those which lighted the flames for Servetus. 
 But as a body 1 have always regarded them with respect, and 
 it has been ray happiness to witness among them very briglit 
 examples of christian virtue. If Dr. Worcester shall ask, how 
 characters so excellent can have grown up under so corrupt a 
 system, I will answer him, when he can explain how a Fene- 
 lon and a Pascal were formed in the most corrupt church in 
 Christendom. 
 
5» 
 
 Dr. Worcester says that I have unjusdy represented Dr 
 Watts as a Unitarian. I hope that Dr. Worcester does not 
 mean to avail himself of an ambiguous A^ord. Does he mean 
 to deny that Dr. Watts was an Antitritiitarkm, that he rejected 
 the doctrine of three distinct persons in God? Dr. Watts be- 
 lieved, that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person distinct 
 from the Father, but the active power of God, to which per- 
 sonal properties Vf^ve figuratively ascribed in Scripture. That at 
 least I have always regarded as his opinion ; and if so, one of 
 the three persons has certainly disappeared from his system. 
 Dr. Walts, indeed, believed that .lesus was properly a divine 
 person, and he often speaks of him as God-man. But he be- 
 lieved that this divine person had a beginning, and was formed 
 by the union of the Father with the human soul of Jesus ; and 
 still more, he believed that Jesus was divine, because the 
 Father and not a second divine person dwelt in him ; in other 
 words, Jesus Christ, according to this system, is to be acknow- 
 ledged as the supreme God, because he is the F«//jrr himself 
 united with a human soul ; all his divinity is derived from the 
 indwelling Father. Have we here then a second divine person, 
 dminct from the Father, yet equal with him in eternity and every 
 other glory ? This view of Dr. Watts' system is confirmed by 
 his particular friend Dr. Doddridge who has given substan- 
 tially the same account in his lectures ; and by Dr. Samuel 
 Palmer, the disci p}e and admirer of Dr. Watts. I have not one 
 doubt, that Dr. Watts was a Unitarian, in the sense of believino- 
 hat God IS one person, in opposition to the Trinitarian doctrine 
 of three persons, a doctrine which he calls a « stranc-e and per- 
 plexing notion." Dr. Worcester says, that my assertions re- 
 specting Dr. Watts are bolder than Mr. Belsham dared to make 
 Mr. Belsham's assertions, which Dr. Worcester pronounces 
 more cautious than mine, related to a very different point from 
 that which I maintained. Mr. Belsham was anxious to prove 
 not that Dr. Watts was a Unitarian in the broad sense of that 
 word, but a believer in the simple humanity of Jesns Christ 
 Did not Dr. Worcester know this fact ? and* w^s he ingenuous 
 in ascribing to me greater boldness than to Mr. Belsham, whea 
 our objects were entirely dilTerenf ? 
 
With respRct to Dr. Barnard, I have satisfactory proof that h« 
 believed God to he one person, and was accordingly a Unitarian. 
 From his language respecting the " essential divinity of Jesus 
 Christ," I infer that he accorded in some degree with Dr. Watts 
 or Sabellius. He did not believe the Son to be a divine person, 
 distinct from the Father, and possessing equal divinity. His 
 views on these sulyects, like those of many good men, were not 
 very precise. Had he been obliged to select a system, it would 
 have been Dr. Samuel Clarke's. The same remarks may be 
 applied to President Willard. 
 
 Dr. Worcester s|)eaks of my " denunciation" of the Pano- 
 plist. I did not refer, as the connexion will shew, to the 
 ^oifrflZ discussions and statements of that work, of which I know 
 very little; but to its representations of the views and character 
 of liberal christians. On this point I have the same conviction 
 as before, that the Panoplist is entitled to no credit. 
 
 Dr. Worcester has quoted for my benefit the following text of 
 scripture, " There shall be false teachers among you, who priv- 
 ily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
 who bought them." Dr. Worcester says, that this language 
 may "sound harsh and unfashionable," and he "trusts" that I 
 " will have the goodness not to impute to him the fault." Sar- 
 castick compliments seem to me not to belong to so serious a sub- 
 ject. Trifling here is quite out of place. I ask Dr. Worcester's 
 attention to this passage as rendered according to Dr. Camp- 
 bell. " There shall be false teachers among you, who shall 
 privily bring in ihslructivc sects, or divisions, denying or renoun- 
 cing the Lord who bought them." Believing as I do, that the 
 gospel is characterized by a benevolent and pacifick spirit, 
 and that the Lord has bought us for this very end, that we 
 should serve him in love, I cannot conceive of a surer mark of 
 a false teacher of the gospel, than the introduction of destructive 
 divisions into the church, and I am persuaded that one method 
 of denying or renouncing the Lord is, to divide his followers, 
 and to oi)|)ose the spirit of charity and peace. I shall not in- 
 sult Dr. Worcester by asking him to "have the goodness not 
 to impute to me the fault of this uapleasant and unfashionable*' 
 
sr 
 
 «omment, but I recommend it to his serious attention. I mean 
 not, however, to intimate that any teachers of the present day 
 are to be placed on a level with the false teachers condemned 
 in this passage. These, as appears from the whole chapter,* 
 were monsters of iniquity, covetous, lewd, adulterers, seditious, 
 slanderous, given up to the basfst lusls. They excited divi- 
 sions for mercenary purposes, and built up a sect by encourag- 
 ing lasciviousness and the grossest sensuality. Thank God, 
 this race has passed away, and I could not without great guilt 
 confound with them any class of ministers with whom I am 
 acquainted. I believe that the fomenters of division among 
 us are generally actuated by an injudicious zeal, by passions 
 which they mistake for piety, and by prejudices which are 
 reconcilable with a regard to God and duty, not by the motives 
 which governed the profligate wretches referred to in the text. 
 
 It is one of my great offences with Dr. Worcester that I " put 
 in my earnest plea" for the christian character of those, who be- 
 lieve in the " simple humanity of Jesus Christ." It is some con- 
 solation to me, that I have the excellent Dr. Doddridge as a part- 
 ner in this guilt. The name of Dr. Lardner is I presume familiar 
 to most of my readers. No man in modern times has rendered 
 greater service to the cause of Christianity. Dr. Lardner was 
 a decided believer in the simple humanity of Jesus. Having 
 published a volume of Practical Sermons, he sent them to Dr. 
 Doddridge, who acknowledged the favour in a letter, from 
 which the following extracts are made. " I esteem the valua- 
 " ble present you were so good as to send me, as a memorial of 
 " the learned, pious and generous author." " Be assured that 
 " though I am not able to express it as I would, I do actually 
 " feel a deep and constant sense of your goodness to me, and, 
 " which is much more, of your continual readiness to serve the 
 ■*'■ publick with those distinguished abilities which God has been 
 " pleased to give you, and which have rendered your writings 
 " so great a blessing to the christian world. And I heartily 
 " pray that they may be yet more abundantly so, for promoting 
 
 * 2 Pet, u. 
 
38 
 
 " the cause of piety and virtue, of christian principles, and it 
 " christian temper. In the iuterpretalion of particular texts 
 " and the manner of stating particular doctrines, good men and 
 "good frienils may have different apprehensions; but you 
 " always propose your sentiments with such good humour, mo- 
 '^ desty, candour and frankness, as is very amiable and exem- 
 " plary; and the grand desire of spreading righteousness, bene- 
 " volence, prudence, the fear of God, and a heavenly temper 
 " and conversation, so plainly ap|)ear3, particularly in this 
 " volume of sermons, that were 1 a much stricter Calvinist than 
 " I am, I should love and honour the author, though I did not 
 " personally know him." Such was the language of Doddridge, 
 a " disciple whom Jesus loved," to the excellent Lardner. 
 Blessed be God, who in every age raises up witnesses to the 
 true spirit of Christianity, and who opposes such examples as 
 that of Doddridge to tlie narrow, exclusive and uncharitable 
 spirit of the world. 
 
 I will conclude this note with earnestly desiring christians 
 to obtain, if possible, sonie accurate ideas of the most important 
 point in the present controversy. Let them learn the distinc- 
 tion between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use 
 these words without meaning, and are very zealous about 
 sounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believ- 
 ing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we ail 
 believe in these ; we all believe that the Fatlicr sent the Son, 
 and gives to those that ask, the Holi/ Spirit. We are all Trini- 
 tarians, if this belief is Trinitarianism. But it is not. The 
 Trinitarians believe that the One God is three distinct persons, 
 called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes hat 
 each of these persons is equal to the other two in every perfec- 
 tion, that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are 
 only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian be- 
 lieves that there is but one person possessing supreme divinity, 
 even the Father. This is the great distinction ; let it be kept 
 steadily in view. — Some christians have still more vague ideas 
 on this s'lbject. They suppose that Trinitarians think highly 
 of Jesus Christ ;. whilst Unitarians form low ideas of him, hardly 
 
39 
 
 ranking him above common men, and therefore they choose to 
 be Trinitarians. This is a great errour. Some Unitarians be- 
 lieve that the Father is so intimately united vith Jesus Christ 
 that it is proper, on account of this union, lo ascribe divine 
 honour and titles to Jesus Christ. Some Unitarians deny that 
 Jesus is a creature, and affirm that he is pro^ierly the Son of 
 God, possessing a divine nature derived from the Fftther. Some 
 Unitarians, who assert that Jesus is a creature, maintain that 
 he is literally the first-born of the creation, the first i)roduction 
 of God, the instrumental cause by whom God created all other 
 beings, and the most exalted being in the universe, with the 
 single exception of the infinite Father. I am persuaded, that 
 under these classes of high Unitarians many christians ought 
 to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and Trinitarians. 
 In fact, as the word Trinity is sometimes used, we all believe 
 it. It is time that this word was better defined. Christians 
 ought not to be separated by a sound. A doctrine which we 
 are called to believe, as we value our souls and our standing in 
 the church, ought to be stated with a precision which can- 
 not be misunderstood. By the Trinity, I have all along 
 understood the doctrine, that God is three persons. If it do not 
 mean this, it means nothing, and those christiaDs who take 
 shelter under this word, without adopting this sentiment, are* 
 acting, I fear, a dishonest and ungenerous part. They distin- 
 guish themselves by a name from christians with whom they 
 substantially agree, and whom they are bound to honour and 
 love as brethren. To those persons, who wish to understand 
 better the nature of the Trinitarian controversy, I would recom- 
 mend Dr. Price's five " Sermons on the Christian Doctrine," 
 and Rev. Noah Worcester's three Tracts called the Trinita- 
 rian Review. This subject has of late been ably discussed in 
 a " Reply to Wardlaw's Discourses," by Rev. James Yates of 
 Glasgow, Scotland. " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is 
 good." 
 
/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 vft^"^ 
 
 ^4^ 
 
 ^^&^ 
 
 '^\ 
 
 §:. 
 
 ' -it-"j 
 
 •1 I i''^it'^>« 
 
 1 
 
 J?