f*7x..-^:^^ ■f. ■< Tlie Property OF THE lEPIiiT MGIElTl'lllST BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. DEPOSITED — IN THK- LIBRARY OF THK ESSEX INSTITUTE. REMARKS «Et THE REV. DR. WORCESTER'S SECOND J.EtTER TO MR. CHANNING. 05 AMERICAN UNITARIANISM. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Streeti BOSTON J PPJNTKD ASD PUBLISHED BY WILLS AND MWV. 1815 ^^^~ ^f?ii REMARKS, &c. Those who have read the second letter addressed to me by Dr. Worcester, will not be surprised at the appearance of these remarks. I intended to leave the controversy to the decision of tlie publick, who, I thought, were in possession of all the materials requisite to the formation of a correct judgment. But Dr. Worcester has called on me to retract Avhat he pronounces a " flagrant misstatement" of an im- portant part of his letter ; and he has done this with a solemnity, which hardly permits me to observe the silence on which I had resolved. These remarks will relate primarily to that point, but I shall not restrain myself from onering observations on other parts of his letter. Dr. Worcester has complained with much earnest- ness, that I have imputed to him, in my former re- marks, a " bad spirit and intention." To this I answer, that I really did consider his letter as very unworthy of him as a christian and a christian min- ister. I did think, that if the principles of his letter could be reduced to practice, every Unitarian would be driven from the church, and every minister of Unitarian sentiments would be driven from the pul- pit. I did think, that he discovered a strange In- sensibility towards his brethren, whose moral purity had been so wantonly assailed in the Review of the Panoplist. I also acknowledge, that I did not dis- cover any marks of that afl'ection and respect to- wards myself, of which he speaks in his second letter. Believing that his remarks directly tended to divide the church, and to expose a respectable body of christians to reproach and injurious treatment, I spoke of this tendency with plainness, but without bitterness or anger. Whether my interpretation of Dr. Worcester's letter, in these respects, was unau- thorized, I cheerfully leave to the decision of those who have read it. My own impressions have coin- cided with those of all around me ; and I cannot believe, that I have not one friend of a candid mind, and of sufficient ability to decide on the obvious im- port of a letter written in our native tongue. Dr. Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings? and intentions which I have ascribed to him. He professes to have been governed by respect and af- fection towards me, and by a spirit of forbearance, kindness, tenderness, and undissembled good will towards his brethren. That Dr. Worcester is sin- cere in reporting what now appears to him to have been the state of his mind durmg the composition of his first letter, I am far from denying. But on a subject like this, memory is sometimes treacherous j and I confess I cannot shake otf the conviction, that some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by Dr. Worcester, occasionally guided his pen. But I mean not to pursue this point. I have not the least dispo- sition to attribute to Dr. Worcester any intentions which he disclaims. I had much rather believe, that his style is unhappy, than that his temper is evil. Most sincerely do I wish, that his heart may be a stranger to every unworthy sentiment, that his life may be adorned witli every virtue, and be crowned with every blessing. THE CHARGE OF " FLAGRANT MISSTATEMENT." I now come to my great object. In my former remarks, I observed', that Dr. Worcester " has so- " lemnly and publickly given all his influence 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- *' eluding part of his letter, (and it Is the obvious "import, and not a strained and circuitous interpre- " tation 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, beheves 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 rejected as un- *' worthy the name of a christian.' " On this repre- sentation of his sentiments. Dr. Worcester thus re* marks, " Your statement 'of the import of the " concluding part of my letter is most palpably " incorrect and unjust. And though I attribute this " incorrectness and injustice not to any injurious in- *' tention, but to that habit of thinking and feeling of ** which I have before taken notice ; yet, after Avhat " I have now stated, I think I have a right to call " upon you, and I do solemnly call vpon you^ to retract " this Jlagrant misstatement. 1 know, indeed, you " have given it to be understood, that you shall not " write again ; but. Sir, the publick disputant, who " makes this resolve, ought to be careful, not merely " not to put down aught in malice, but to write *' nothing which justice to his opponent and to the " cause of truth — ^nothing which the sacred princi- ♦' pies of Christianity will require him to retract."" This is the charge, which has again brought me before the publick, the charge of palpable incorrect- ness and injustice, and oi Jlagrant misstatement. I now intend fairly and fully to meet it. I intend to show, that in giving this interpretation, I followed the na- tural meaning of Dr. Worcester's words, that I put no yiolence on his language, and that no other sense would have offered itself to an unprejudiced mind, I shall state the passages which led to the repre- sentation which I have formed, beginning with those Avhich are least decisive, as these first present them- selves in the letter, and requesting tlie reader to form his judgment, not from a part, but from the whole which shall be presented to him. In page 24, of Dr. Worcester's letter, I found the ibllowmg quotation from scripture, with the subjoined remark: " St. Peter says, 'There were false pro- " phets also among the people, even as there shall " be false teachers among you, who privily shall " bring in damnable heresies, even denymg the Lord " that bought them, and bring upon themselves " swift destruction.' If this language sound harsh " and unfashionable," Dr. Worcester continues, " I " trust. Sir, you will have the goodness not to im- " pute the fault to me; orthatyoQ will not on account " of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse to " give attention to the momentous sentiment contain- " ed In it." I did consider this text of scripture, follcywed by this remark, as intended by Dr. Wor- cester to be applied to my brethren and to myself, and to hold us up to the community as false teachers, who have brought in damnable heresies, who have denied the Lord that bought tis, and who are bringing on ourselves swift destruction. I believed that every reader Avould give this application to the passage, and that some would be confirmed by it in denying to all Unitarian ministers the christian character. Dr. Worcester has frankly acknowledged the impro- priety of the remark which follows the text; and I introduce it now, not foi" the sake of casting on him the jilightest reproach, but simply to state the im- pression which it naturally communicated, at the lime wlien my remarks were written. In page 21, Dr. Worcester speaks of " the doc- •' trines on Arhich we dilFer." as '• doctrines which '* immediately affect the very foundations of cup " faith ;" and he adds, that " a true faith is the vital " principle of all holy practice, and of all the works " which are good and acceptable in the sight of " God." I understood this passage as strongly inti- mating, that Unitarian principles shake the very foun- dation of all holy practice, and of all good works. In page 24, 1 met the following remarkable pas- sage : " The God whom you worship, is different " from ours^'''' and a little below, " if we are wrong " in regard to the object of our worship, we can " hardly be right in any part of our religion." I understood this passage as strongly intimating, that the whole religion of Unitarians is rendered worth- less, by their departure from the " orthodox," on the subject of the Trinity. rage 29,1 met the following passage, which seem- ed to me to admit but one construction. Dr. Wor- cester is speaking of the diiferent schemes of Mr. Belsham, and of "orthodox christians;" and he says, " One or the other of these schemes must be what " St. Paul denominates ' another gospel,' and against " which and its abettors he solemnly pronounces " his apostolick anathema." Which of these two schemes Dr. Worcester intended to mark out as " another gospel," is a question which no reader of his letter will wish me to discuss. Who doubts that it was Mr. Belsham's } Against this scheme then, and against its abettors, the apostolick curse is pro- nounced. This I certainly understood to be Dr. Worcester's meaning, and I see not what other sense the passage will bear. I also had not a doubt that Dr. Worcester in representing the abettors of Mr. Belsham's scheme as accursed^ intended to repre- sent them as wholly destitute of piety and christian virtue, for this I naturally conceived was implied iit the curse of God. Dr. W-orcester indeed says, that IxG did not draw this inference, but it seemed to me too plain to need the formahty of a deduction. I be- lieve, that this will be granted by all to be the plain sense of his words — But it may be said that this pas- sage only includes the followers of Mr. Belsham. Let the reader observe Dr. Worcester's phraseolo- gy. He does not say followers^ but abettors. Let the reader then look back to pages 10 and 11 of Dr. Worcester's letter. He will there find Dr. Worces- ter very stroni^'ly intimating that the liberal party gen." erally are partakers in the deeds and guilt of Mr. Be] sham, because they bear no decided testimony against them. The natural import, then, of this passage is, not only that Mr. Belsham in particular, but that the liberal party in general, fall under the apostoUck curse. But the next passage is still more decisive. Page 32, I met the following passage. "Is it- " a violation of the great law of love for the friends of " truth to decline communion with its rejecters t We " have nothing to do here with slight diversities of " opinion ; with differences about modes or forms, or " inconsiderable points of faith or practice. Our con- " cern is with differences of a radical and fundamental " nature ; such 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 issue is. Whether it •' be a violation of the law of love, for believers in '•the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, to separate from *' believers in another and an opposite gospel ? If " yojirs is the true Gospel, then ours is another ; it " ours is the true Gospel, then yours is another." I clearly understood Dr. Worcester, in this passage, as saying, that the differences between " orthodox Chns- " t fans'" and Unitarians are radical and fundamental. and that I and my brethren and Unitarians of ati degrees hold " another gospel," and even an opposite gospel to the true. I understood too, that as he considered Mr. Belsham and his abettors as accursed because thej had "■ another gospel," he intended to represent me. and all who agree with me in rejecting the "orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity, as also failing under the apostle's curse, because he represents our gospel not only as " another" but as opposite to the true gospel. I also understood his pointed interro- gations as strongly teaching, that the "friends of truth" (a phrase never doubtful in Dr. Worcester's mouth) may separate themselves from us and decline communion with us, without any "violation of Chris- tian love." What other interpretation this passage can bear, I confess myself as yet unable to conceive. Page 33, I met with a passage which also seemed to me very plain and decisive. Dr. Worcester asks, " Would it conduce more to the promotion of truth, *' for the believers in the true gospel, to hold fellow- *' ship with the believers in another gospel, than to *' separate from them } We have seen in w^hat way " only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to *' be maintained, the principcd doctrines of the gospel " must cease to be clearly preached; divine worship "must cease to be conducted on principles distin- " oruishinocly Christian, &c. &;c. But is this the wav. " Sn', to promote the truth m the church and the " world } Is it not rather the way to extinguish the " light of the ministry^ the light of the church., the light ^'^ of the ivorkl, 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 empire ?" I thougnt this passage very plain. I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, thai were " orthodox Christians" to wave in their pi'cach- ing and in publick worship those peculiarities which 2 10 are dis^pprored by Unitarians, the light of the g"os- pe! would be put out, the ministry would be useless, Christians would fall back into the shadow of death, and Satan would rule the minds of men without any limitation or any disturbance to his power. In other words, I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, that where a Unitarian ministry and worship are estab- hshed, the minds of men are altogether unenlightened by the gospel, and are abandoned wholly to the sway of the prince of darkness. This is indeed a horrible sentiment. — But as yet I see no explanation of the passage by which it can be avoided. I now come to the last passage which I shall quote, found in page 35. " Sir, the differences, which exist between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians are certainly of a nature to demand the most seri- ous and earnest attention. They concern most directly and essentially the glory of God, the hon- our of the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and the salvation of men. In comparison with these, the difference between Dissenters and Episcopa- lians, between Pasdo-baptists and Anti-paedo-bap- tists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differen- ces out of light, to conceal then' magnitude and momentous consequences; or by a raised cry of bigotry, 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 others must and will be brought to the solemn decision — whether they will be for Christy or agaitist him ; whether they will receive and hold fast his truth, or despise and reject it; whether thej will bow to his authority, and trust in his grace, or refuse to have him to reign over them^ and contemn his salvation^ This passage seemed to me per- fectly plain when I wrote my remarks, and I am yel 11 Enable to give it a different interpretation. Dr. Worcester speaks in this passage of Unitarians in the broadest sense of the word, of Unitarians as op- posed to " orthodox christians," i. e. of all who re- ject the " orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity. He says that the differences between tliis class and the " orthodox" concern most directly and cssentialbj the salvation of men ; that these differences, in spite of clamour and concealment, will be fearlessly discuss- ed ; and that in deciding on these differences, in choosing between these parties, men will in fact de- cide whether they will be ybr C/im/, will receive and bow to his truth, or will be against him^ will despise his truth and salvation, and refuse to have him to reign over him. I thought this passage too obvious to admit dispute. I understood Dr. Worcester as charging Unitarians of all degrees with contempt and rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ, and of course, with entire destitution of piety and chris- tian virtue. I have selected several passages from Dr. Worces- ter's letter, which appear to me to vindicate entirely the statement which I made of his sentiments. Let me now ask the reader to examine them in the con- nexion in which they stand. He will find nothing thrown in by Dr. Worcester to restrain their natural import ; not one word expressive of charity for Unitarians of any class ; not one word to soften the severity of his censure. His whole reasonings and interrogations appeared to me to have one bear- ing, to breathe one spirit, and left me without a doubt as to his real meaning. I can further say that there was nothing in th« state of my mind unfavourable to a fair interpreta- tion of Dr. Worcester's letter. I regarded him as a man of candour and moderation. I expected nothing like exclusion and denunciation. Seldom have 1 known a more cruel disappointment than in reading 12 his first letter. To this I can add, that among those with whom I liave conversed, I have found but one sentiment in reo^ard to his meanino;. I cannot there- fore beheve, that my prejudices have bhnded me, and tliat I am chargeable with " palpable and flagrant misstatement.'' Dr. Worcester however assures me that I have misrepresented hun ; and I have no disposition to question the sincerity, with which he now declares, that he did not intend to communicate the senti- ments which I ascribed to him. I cannot indeed avoid the belief, that his recollections on this point are imperfect, and that in the hurry of his thoughts and feelino-s, he was not so watchful over his mo- tives as he now imagines. With this, however, I have no concern. I am satisfied with having shown, that my interpretation was natural, and indeed unavoida- ble, and f cheerfully record the protest of Dr. Wor- cester against this interpretation. I am pleased to witness the sensibility with which he repels the charge of denying to Anti-Trinitarians all piety and virtue. I observe in this a degree of candour of which I could not discern the faintest ray in his first letter. DR. AVORCESTER'S CONCESSION IN FAVOUR OF DR. CLARKE. There is another part of Dr. Worcester's letter which also gave me some pleasure. I refer to that part, in which he expresses some charitable senti- ments towards Dr. Samuel Clarke. He tells us, " that he is by no means prepared to say that every "one^vho adopts Dr. Clarke's views of the Trinity " rejects the true gospel, embraces another, and is " devoid of christian faith and virtue." Now if he Avill act consistently with these sentiments, and with tile charitable dispositions which he seems inclined to exercise towards the author of " Bible IS ews»'' the controversy between us will soon end. As fap as I understand the prevalent sentiments among libe- ral christians in this quarter of our country, they appear to me substantially to agree with the views of these excellent men ; and were we required to select human leaders in religion, I believe, that we should range ourselves under their standard in pre- ference to any other. Dr. Clarke believed, that the Father alone is the Supreme God, and that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, but derived his be- ing, and all his power and honours from the Father, even from an act of the Father's power and will. He maintains, that as the scriptures have not taught us the manner in which the Son derived his existence from his Father, it is presumptuous to affirm, that the Son was created, or, that there was a time when he did not exist. On these subjects the Avord of God has not given us light, and therefore we ought to be silent. The author of " Bible News," in like manner affirms, that the Father only is the Supreme God, that Jesus is a distinct being from God, and that he derives every thing from his Father. He has some views relating to the "proper Sonship" of God, which neither liberal nor "orthodox" chris- tians generally embrace. But the prevalent senti- ments of liberal christians seem to me to accord sub- stantially with the systems I have above described. Like Dr. Clarke, the majority of this class feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a crea- ture, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which they find it, carrying with them, however, an im- pression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other be- ing. With respect to the atonement, the great body of liberal christians seem to me to accord pre- 14 cisely with tlie author of " Bible New.?,'^ or rathef" both agree very much with the profound Butler. Both agree, that Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and intercession, obtains forgiveness for sinful men, or that on account, or in consequence of what Christ has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is aver- ted from the penitent, and blessings, forfeited by sin, are bestowed. On the question which is often asked, how the death of Christ has this blessed in- fluence, they generally think that the scriptures have given us little light, and that it is the part of wisdom to accept the kind appointment of God, without con- structing theories for which the materials must be chiefly borrowed from our own imagination. My motive for making the preceding statement is no other than a desire to contribute whatever may be in my power to the peace of our churches. I have hoped that by this representation, some portion of the charity which has been expressed towards Dr. Clarke, and the author of "^ Bible News," may be extended towards their Unitarian brethren ; and that thus the ecclesiastical division which is threatened may be averted. Let it not, however, be imagined that I or my friends are anxious on our own account to extort from tlie " orthodox" an acknowledgment, that possibly we hold the true gospel, and are not " devoid of christian faith and virtue." We regard other christians as brethren, but can in no degree recognize them as superiours in the church of our common master. We do not dread the censures which they may pass on our honest opinions : We rejoice that we have a higher judge, whose truth it is our labour to learn, obey, and maintain, and whose favour will be distributed by other principles than those which prevail in a prejudiced and shortsighted world. But, whilst we mean not to be suitors to our brethren ; we are willing and desirous, by any 1'5 feir representations, to save them from a course, which, as we firmly believe, will be injurious to their own characters, injurious to their brethren, un- friendly to the diffusion of the gospel, and highly oifensive to our common and benevolent master. Happy should I be, if by any representation or any honourable concessions on our part, our churches could be preserved from the shock which threatens them. But on this point Dr. Worcester's last letter is as discouraging as the first. He indeed dis- claims the intention of denying to Anti-trinitarians all piety and virtue. But the tendency of his letters must be obvious to the humblest understanding, and I doubt not that many carry from them the impres- sion, that Unitarians criminally reject the^ospel, and ought to be driven from the church. This effect, whether intended or not, is produced, and for tliis we hold Dr. Worcester responsible. THE METHODS OF RENDERING UNITARIANS ODIOUS. In his last letter, one great object seems to be, to paint in the strongest colours the differences between Unitarians and Trinitarians, and to produce the most unfavourable impression in regard to the former. To effect this object, he again and again brings forward the views of the lowest Unitarians, and culls the most offensive passages from the Avorks of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham. I know that he throws in a caution against the inference, that all Unitarians are responsible for these views : but I am persuaded, that the effect on common readers is, that they iden- tify this whole class of Christians with Mr. Belsham and Dr. Priestley. Now to this I object. It is well known that every denomination of Clnistians is bro- ken into various subdivisions. For instance, among those who adopt the great princij)les of Calvin, are Sandemanians, Antinomians, Fatalists, and I may a^dd, Uaiversalists. >Suppose now that in delineating 16 Calvinism, I should lay the chief stress on these peculiarities. Or suppose, that I should ransack the writings of Trinitarians, should collect all their crude notions and wild explanations of the Trinity, and should bring forward the horrible language, in which some have spoken of God"'s wrath burning against his Son, and of the blood of Jesus appeasing the fury of the Father. Would not Calvinists and Trinita- rians pronounce me unfair, if by such methods I should lead common readers to imagine, that they were generally favourable to these offensive sentiments. It is an indisputable fact, that Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham have, comparatively, few followers among tlie Anti-trinitarian clergy of this country. For my- self, I have read very fev/ of the writings of these gen- tlemen, and chiefly from Vv^ant of sympathy with their general views. Their theology appears to me very defective, and their theory of materialism and of neces- sity, which they have attempted to incorporate with their theology, seems to me unfriendly to a sense of responsibility, and to elevation of moral feeling. Are we then to be confounded with the lower Unitarians, because we happen to accord Avith them in the great point, that the Father alone is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derives from him his being and all his powers. — Do any ask me on what ground I admit those, whose theology is so defective, to be Christians? I answer; precisely on the ground on which I acknowledii'e the Christian character of another denomination, whose additions to the simple gospel seem to me at least as exceptionable as the deficiencies of their brethren. But what did I say } that / admit these men to be Christians ! They need no admission of mine. Professing Jesus to be their head, and exhibiting in their lives a reverence for his gospel, they have a place in Christ's church which I did not give, and which neither I nor any other man can take a^vnv. 17 Another method of awakening pubUck feeling; against the Unitarians, is to represent them as obhged bj their sentiments to give up the doctrine of the atonement. It is indeed very true, that Unitarians say nothing about infinite atonement, and they shud- der when they hear, what Dr. Worcester seems to assert, that the ever blessed God sutfered and died on the cross. They reject these representations, because they find not one passage in scri|)ture which directly asserts them, or gives them sup- port. Not one word do Ave hear from Christ or his Apostles of an infinite atonement. In not one solitary text, is the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining for- giveness, ascribed to his being the Supreme God. All this is theology of man's making, and strongly marked with the nand of its author. But the doc- trine of the atonement, taken in the broad sense which 1 have before stated, is not rejected by Unitarians. In my former letter, I adduced two distinguished Unitarians, Dr. Clarke, and the author of Bible News, in whose valuable writings this doctrine is stated and maintained. Dr. Worcester does not deny ■the fact, but to rny astonishment has attempted to escape its force, by maintaining that these gentlemen do not deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, and are therefore not obliged to renounce the atonement. What! Dr. Clarke and Mr. Noah Worcester do not deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ ! I assure Dr. Worcester then, that neither I nor my friends deny it, and that, according to his own language, we are under no necessity of denying the doctrine of the atonement. The fact is, that some of the best works on the atone* ment have come from the pens of Unitarians. Mr. Tomkins, one of the most zealous UnitarFans of his age, and I believe a sufferer for his principles, published i* well known treatise, called "Jesus Christ the Medi- «' ator," in which the doctrine of atonement is more strenuously mslsted on, than even by Dr. Clarke an^ 3 18 Mr. Noah Worcester. Not long ago, there wag published in this country, I think under the patron- ajre of Trinitarians, a work on the atonement by Hampton, called '• Candid Remarks on Dr. Taylor, &;c." which, as I well recollect, appeared to me, when I read it, to be decidedly the production of an Unitarian. It contains not one word about an infinite atonement made by the Supreme God, The sentiments of the work, I think, accord in the main with the views of many Unitarians in this country. Unitari- anisni, then, does not exclude the doctrine of atone- ment. Another method by which the publick feelings are to be awakened agamst Unitarians, is the frequent assertion, that they disbelieve the Trinity, because the doctrine is mysterious, and because they prefer reason to revelation, human wisdom to the wisdom of God. Dr. Worcester says to me, " The doctrine " of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly deny, not be- •' cmise there is no proof of it in the Scriptures^ but " because it is a doctrine (as you repeatedly and em- " phatically pronounce) perplexing, mysterious, and "• not to be understood." What will common readers infer from this, and from other passages in his letter ? Why, that we do not rest on scripture, as the ground of our rejection of this doctrine, or at least, that we do not consider the scripturss as very strongly opposed to the Trinity, and that we assail it chiefly with weapons furnished by reason. Now, as far as my knowledge of Unitarian writers extends, this impres- sion is altogether unfounded. We do indeed object to the Trinity, that, as it is often stated, it is an unin- telligible proposition ; and we say, what I presume Dr. Worcester will as freely say, that it is out of our power to believe a proposition of which we do not know the 7neaning. It is also true, that when the doctrine is stated, as it sometimes is, in w^ords which we understand ; when for example w^e are told by 19 the pious Howe, that the three persons in God are three minds; we insist that it involves a palpable con- tradiction, and we argue precisely as the protestants do with the papists, that a doctrine involving a con- tradiction cannot be from God. But Unitarians never stop here. They always declare that Scrip- ture with one voice disowns the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of all the lictions of theologians, the doctrine of three persons in the one God, has perhaps the least countenance from the Bible. Theii' writings are filled witli quotations from Scripture. Some of them, like Dr. Clarke's, consist almost entirely of texts arranged under proper heads. Uni- tarians believe, and constantly amrm, that no laboured comments and no critical skill are required, to teach common Christians the great truth, that the Father alone is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ is a derived and dependent being ; and they believe and affirm, that the opposite sentiment is chiefly maintained by appeals to men's fears, and by ar- tificial excitement of their feelings. This is the ground taken by all the Unitarians whom I have known, and on this Scripture ground I profess myself to rest. I am not conscious of the least prejudice against the doctrine of the Trinity. My earliest prepossessions must have been in its favour. But in my youth, before I had read a book on the subject, the Scrip- tures suggested doubts of its truth, and by the study chiefly of the Scriptures, my doubts have grown up into a solid conviction. The Scriptures^ in my view, are the strength of the Unitarian cause : and I am persuaded, that they are continually extending it in opposition to the strongest influences of education. I have found from conversing Avith pious people of both sexes, that the Scriptures always gave them the idea, that God and Jesus Christ were distinct beings, and that Jesus derived his being and power from God, They have sometimes told me. that they 20 Jbave wlslied to resist this impression, that they have dreaded to depart from principles which were early instilled as essential, that they have shrunk from a doubt of the Trinity as from a sin ; but still the lan- guage of Scri})ture has forced them to doubt and disbelieve. Tliis is the history of many minds ; and many, I am confident, have buried in silence anxious scruples, v»'liich tliey dared not clothe in Avords. I state this with great distinctness and strength, that I may repel and remove a common mistake among Christians, that we reject the Trinity because we cannot reconcile it with reason, although we can hardly help acknowledging it as a Scripture doctrine. It is not because we exalt reason above Scripture,, but because we revere the Scriptures, because we fear God, that we maintain Unitarian principles. We dare not offer prayers to the Holy Ghost, because we fmd not one command, or one example of such worship, in the gospel of our Master; and we honour him too entirely to depart from his plain rules on so important a subject. We read too in the Scriptures such passages as these. " My Father is greater than I." " This is eternal life, that men may know ihee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast senty " Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not the angels which are in heaven, neiiher the Son., but the father, the father ONLY." " 1 can do nothing of myself.'^'' "• My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. If any will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, ivhcther it be of God, or whether I speak of myseip'' We hear these passages from the very lips of our honou]"ed and beloved Lord ; and with these passages engraven on our minds, and supported by tlie whole current of Scripture, we dare not, we dare not approach Jesus Christ as the only living, the only true God. It is from reverence for his character and instructions, from fear of offending him, from a conscientiousness 2i which would prompt us to sacrifice all in his service^, that we offer him no homage, but in the character of the Son of the only living and true God. Another method of awakening the feelings of Christians on the subject of the Trinity, is to address their fears. It is common with Trinitarians, and Dr. Worcester has learned it, to say to people, " If the Trinity rests on the sure foundation of divine testi- mony, if Jesus Christ is essentially divine, &c. &:c. is- it a light thing to reject ihe&e doctrines, to refuse to Je- sus divine honours, &;c. &c." Appeals of this kind, which are ordinarily connected with positive assertions of tlie truth of the Trinity, are worth a thousand argu- ments, and terrify into silence the doubts which lurk in many minds. I mourn that Christians should think so unworthily of Jesus, as to be moved by this language. This language evidently supposes, that Jesus, our merciful Saviour, overlooks the general temper of our minds, the general obedience of our lives, and, like a jealous sovereign, is prepared to punish every deficiency of homage to himself, how- ever unintentionally the tribute may be withheld, and however sincere and upright the heart which unconsciously withholds it. And is this the character of our merciful Lord ? Suppose that a human benefactor, of exalted endowments, were to confer on you some great blessing, and suppose that through ignorance ot these endowments, you should not address him with all the terms of homage which they deserve, but should yet be sincerely grateful for the benefit he has conferred, and should love and imitate his excellence as far as it is known ? Think you, that he would spurn your imperfect tribute, and drive you from his presence ? And will Jesus, whose kindness was stronger than death, who bore so pa- tiently the low views of his disciples, will he cast from him those, who at the present day revere his authority, study bis Avord. and labour to derive from 22 that pure fountain the very truths which he taught respecting himself, and respecting the service which is his due. I am persuaded, that at the last day the Trinitarian will he found in a great errour, and were I disposed, I could make as moving an appeal to his fears as Dr. Worcester can make to ours. But if there be a principle, which above all others shines resplendently in the sacred volume, it is this, that he wlio breathes tlie spirit and follows the steps of Jesus, however faint or defective be his views, will certainly enter into the joy of his Lord. Another method of awakening the feelings of the community against Unitarian sentiments is this. Dr. Worcester charges me again and again with attempt- ing; studiously to conceal the differences between Uni- '& y V tarians and Trinitarians, as if our sentiments were too horrible to be brought fully and fairly to the light. He intimates that we "dread a develope- ment." And does Dr. Worcester really believe that we stand in awe of him, or his " orthodox" brethren ? We respect many of our opponents, but we dread none. Our love of peace, they may be assured, has another origin than fear or selfish views. It is from deep conviction, and not from the principle which Dr. Worcester insinuates, that I have stated once and again, that the differences between Unitarians and Trinitarians lie more in sounds than in ideas; that a barbarous phraseology is the chief wall of partition between tliese classes of Christians; and that would Trinitarians tell us what they mean, their system would generally be found little else, than a mystical form of the Unitarian doctrine. These two c]asse_s of Christians appear to me to concur in receiving the most interesting ar^d practical trutlis of the gospel. Both believe in one God of infinite perfection ; and we must remember, that it is this perfection of God, and not his unknown substance, wbich i« tjie proper object of the Christian's love. 23 Both believe in the ffreat doctrine, that eternal hfe is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. Both learn from the lips and life of Jesus the same great principles of duty, the same exalted views of human perfection, and the same path to immortality. I could easily extend these points of agreement ; and what are the questions which divide them ? Why these ; first, Whether the One God be three distinct subsistences,* or three persons, or three " someivhats'''1i' called persons, as Dr. Worcester says, for Avant of a " better Avord ;" and secondly. Whether one of these three subsistences, or improperly called persons, formed a personal union with a human soul, so that the Infinite mind, and a human mind, each possessing its own distinct consciousness, became a complex per- son. Such are the points, or rather phrases of dif- ference between these Christians. And ought phra- ses like these, of which we find not a trace in the Bible, which cannot be defined by those who employ them, which convey to common minds no more mean- ing than words of an unknown tongue, and which present to the learned only flitting shadows of thought instead of clear and steady conceptions, to separate those who are united in the great principles which I have stated ? Trinitarians indeed are apt to think themselves at an immeasurable distance from Unitarians. The reason, I think, is, that they are surrounded with a mist of obscure phraseology. Were this mist dispersed, I believe that they would be surprised at discovering their proximity to the quar- ter of the Unitarians, and would learn that they had been wasting their hostility on a band of friends and brothers. Whenever Trinitarians begin to explain themselves, we find that their three persons vanish into three undejitiablc somethings, and that God svffered * Wardlaw. t This \yorJ has beeu used by Trinitarians in writing aud cocver- 24 for lis on the cross only by a figure or metaphysical fiction. Sach is Trinitarianism, as it appears to my mind. In all this I may mistake, but I have no motive and certainly no desire to practise " concealment." THE SYSTEM OF EXCLUSION AND DENUNCIATION CONSI- DERED. The object of Dr. Worcester, in the representation, which I have now considered, seems to be, to prepare the "orthodox" for separation from their Unitarian brethren. His remarks all tend to teach them, that they ought to refuse communion with Unitarians as Christians, to deny them the character and name of Christians, to deny their title to the ordinances of the gospel ; in a word to disown them as brethren in Christ. On this point I shall now offer several ob- servations. — But first I beg that it may be dis- tinctly understood, that the zeal of liberal Chris- tians on this point has no other object, than the peace and prosperity of the church of Christ, We are pleading, not our own cause, but the cause of our Master. The denial of our christian character by fallible and imperfect men gives us no anxiety. Our relation to Jesus Christ is not to be dissolved by the breath of man. Our christian rights do not depend on human passions. We have precise- ly the same power over our brethren, which they have over us, and are equally authorized to sever them from the body of Christ. Still more ; if the possession of truth give superiour weight to denunciation, we are persuaded that our opposers will be the severest suf- ferers, should we think fit to hurl back the sentence of exclusion and condemnation. But we have no dis- position to usurp poAver over our brethren. We be- lieve, that the spirit which is so studiously excited against ourselves, has done incalculable injury to the cause of Christ ; and we pray God to dehver us from its power. 23 Why are the name, character, and rights of Chri%- iians to be denied to Unitarians ? Do they deny that Jesus is the Christ ? do they reject his word as the rule of their faith and practice? do their Hves dis- cover indiiference to his authority and example ? No, these are not their offences. They are deficient in none of the qualifications of disciples, which were re- quired in the primitive age. Their offence is, that they read the Scriptures for themselves, and derive froin them different opinions on certain points, from those which others have adopted. Mistake of judg- ment is their pretended crime, and this crime is laid to their charge by men, who are as liable to mistake as themselves, and who seem to them to have fallen into some of the grossest errours. A condemnins: sen- tence from such judges carries with it no terrour. Sor- row for its uncharitableness, and strong disapproba- tion of its arrogance, are the principal feelings which it inspires. It is truly astonishing, that Christians are not more impressed with the unbecoming spirit, the arrogant style, of those,who deny the christian character to pro- fessed and exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, be- cause they differ in opinion on some of the most sub- tle and diflicult subjects of theology. A stranger, at hearing the language of these denouncers, would con- clude, without a doubt, that they were clothed Avith in- fallibility, and were appointed to sit in judgment on their brethren. But for myself, I know not a shadow of pretence for the language of superiority assumed by'Dr. Worcester and his brethren. Are they exempt- ed from the common frailty of our nature } Has God given them superiour intelligence.^ Were they educated under circumstances more favourable to improvement .than those whom they condemn. Have they brouo^ht to the scriptures more serious, anxious, and unwearied attention.^ Or do their lives express a deeper reverence for God and for his Son } No. They are fallible, imper- 4 26 feet men, posbcssing no higher means, and no strong- er motives foi' studying the word of God, than their Unitarian brethren. And yet their language to them is virtually this. " We pronounce you to be in er- " rour, and in most dangerous errour. We know that " ICC are right, and that^o?^ are Avrong in regard to the " fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. You are unwor- " thy the christian name, and unfit to sit Avith us at the " table of Christ. We offer you the truth, and you re- ^'ject it at the peril of your souls.*' Such is the lan- guage of humble Christians to men, who in capacity and appaient piety are not inferiour to themselves. This languaoe has spread from the leaders through a considerable part of the community. ]\'len in those walks of life ^vhich leave them without leisure or op- portunities for improvement, are heard to decide on the most intricate points, and to pass sentence on men. whose lives have been devoted to trie study of the Scriptures. The female, forgetting the tenderness of her sex, and the limited advantao^es which her educa- tion aOords for a critical study of the Scriptures, in- veighs with bitterness; against the damnable errours of such men as INewton, Locke, Clarke and Price ! The young too forget the modesty which belongs to their age, and hurl condemnation on the head which has grovrn gray in the sen ice oi God and mankinds Need I ask, whether this spirit of denunciation for supposed errour becomes the humble and fallible dis- ciples of Jesus Christ.^ In vindication of this system of exclusion and de- nunciation it is often urged, that the " honour of re- ligion," the " purity of the church," and the " cause of trutl;," forbid those who hold tiie true gospel to main- tain fellowship with those who support corrupt and injurious opinions. Without stopping to notice the modesty of those who claim an exclusive knowledge of the true gospel, I would answer, that the " honour of religion" can never sufier by admitting to christiaH ^i>7 ^^^m' tellowship men of irreproachable lives, whilst it has siitlered most severely from tliat narrow and unchari- table spirit, wliich has excluded such men for imagin- ed errours. I answer again, that the cause of truth can never suffer by admitting to christian fellowship men, v/ho honestly profess to make the scriptures their rule of faith and practice, whilst it has sutTered most severely by substituting for this standard conformity to human creeds and formularies. It is truly wonder- ful, if excommunication for supposed errour be the method of purifying the church, that the church has been so long and so wofuUy corruoted. ^Vhatever may have been the deficiencies of cnristians in other respects, they have certainly discovered no criminal reluctance in applying this instrument of purification. Could the thunders and lightnings of excommunication have corrected the atmosphere of the church, not one pestilential vapour would have loaded it for ages. The air of paradise would not have been more pure, more refreshing. But what does history tell us ? It tells us, that the spirit of exclusion and denunciation has con- tributed more than all other causes to the corruption of the church, to the diffusion of errour; and has ren- dered the records of the christian community as black, as bloody, as revolting to humanity, as the records of empires founded on conquest and guilt. But it is said, did not the apostle denounce the erroneous, and pronounce a curse on the " abettors of another gospel." This is the strong hold of th© friends of denunciation. But let us never forget, that the apostles were inspired men, capable of mark- ino- out with unerring certainty those, who substitu- ted '• another gospel" for the true. Show us their successors, and we will cheerfully obey them. It is also important to recollect the character ot those men. against whom the apostolick anathema was directed. Thev were men, who knew distinctly what the apostles tautrht. and yet opposed it : aad 28 who eiicleavoured to sow tlivisioH, and to gain fol- lowers in the churches which the apostles had plant- ed. These men, resisting the known instructions of the authorized and inspired teachers of the gospel, and discovering a factious, selfish, mercenary spirit, were justly excluded as unworthy the christian name. But what m common with these men, have the Chris- tians whom Dr. Worcester and his friends denounce ? Do tlicse oppose what they know to be the doctrine of Christ and his apostles ? Do they not revere Jesus and his inspired messengers ? Do they not dissent from Dr. Worcester, simply because they believe that Dr. Worcester dissents from their Lord } — Let us not forget, that the contest at the present day is not between the apostles themselves^ and men who oppose their known instructions ; but between unin- spired Christians, who equally receive the apostles as authorized teachers of the gospel, and who only differ in judgment as to the interpretation of their writings. How unjust then is it for any class of Christians to confound their opponents with the fac- tious and unprincipled sectarians of the primitive age. Mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge which one denomination has now a right to urge against another ; and do we find that the apostles ever denounced mistake as " awful and fatal hostili- ty" to the gospel, that they pronounced anathemas on men who wished to obey, but who misappre- hended their doctrines. The apostles well remem- bered, tliat none ever mistook more widely than them- selves. They remembered too the lenity of their Lord towards their errours, and this lenity they cherished and laboured to diffuse. BufDr. Worcester will ask, if Christians have not a right to bear '• solemn testimony" against opinions which are " utterly subversive of the gospel, and most dangerous to men's eternal interests." To this T answer, tliat the opinions of men, who discover 2,^ equal intelligence and piety with ourselves, arc enti- tled to respectful consideration. If after inquiry they seem erroneous and injurious, we are authoiized and bound, according to our ability, to expose, by fair and serious argument, their nature and tendency. But I maintain, that we have no right as individuals, or in an associated capacity, to bear our " solemn testimony" against these opinions, by menacing with ruin the Christian who listens to them, or by brand- ing them with the most terrifying epithets, for the purpose of preventing candid inquiry into their truth. This is the fashionable mode of '' bearing testimony," and it is a weapon which will always be most successful in the hands of the proud, the positive and overbearing, who are most impatient of contra- diction, and have least regard to the rights of their brethren. But whatever may be the right of Christians, as lo bearing testimony against opinions which they deem injurious, I deny, that they have any right to pass a condemning sentence, on account of these opmions, on the characters of men whose general deportment is conformed to the gospel of Christ. Both scripture and reason unite in teaching, that the best and only standard of character is the life; and ho who over- looks the testimony of a christian liie, and grounds a sentence of condemnation on opinions, about which he as well as his brother may err, violates most fla- grantly the duty of just and candid judgment, and opposes the peaceful and charitable spirit of the gos- pel. Jesus Christ says, "By ihc'ir fruits shall ye know them." " Not every one, that saith unto mo, Lord, Lord,shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,but he who doeth the will of my Father wliich is in heaven." " Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.'^ " He that heareth and doeth these my sayings.'' 1. e. the precepts of the sermon on the mount, "I will liken him to a man who byilt his house upon a rock." •it) It Avouid be cany to multiply similar passages. The whole scriptores teach us, that he and he only is a Christian, whose life is governed by the precepts of the gospel, and that by this standard alone, the profession of this religion should be tried. We do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form a judgment as to our christian character. But we insist that we have a right to be judged by the fairest, (he most approved, and the most settled rules, by which character can be tried ; and when these are overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is ap- plied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, which rests on this ground, deserves no better name than defamation and persecution. I know that this suggestion o^ persecution will be indignantly repelled by those who deal most largely in denunciation. But persecution is a wrong or in- jury inflicted for opinions, and surely assaults on character fall under this definition. Some persons seem to think, that persecution consists in pursuing errour with fire and sword; and that therefore it has ceased to exist, except in distempered imagina- tions, because no class of Christians among us is armed with these terrible weapons. But, no. The form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes venom from its lips, and secretly blasts what it can- not openly destroy. For example, a liberal minis- ter, however circumspect in his walk, however irre- proachable in all his relations, no sooner avows his honest convictions on some of the most difficult subjects, than his name begins to be a by-word. A thousand suspicions are infused into his hearers ; and it is in- sinuated, that he is a minister of satan, in " the guise of an angel of light." At a little distance from his home, caiumnj^ assumes a bolder tone. He is pro- nounced an infidel, and it is gravely asked, whether he believes in a God. At a greater distance, his 3J morals are assailed. He is a maH of the world. " leading souls to hell," to gratify the most selfish passions. But notwithstanding all this, he must not say a word about persecution, for reports like these rack no limbs ; they do not even injure a hair of his head ; and how then is he persecuted ? — Now for myself, I am as willing that my adversary should take my purse or my life, as that he should rob mc of my reputation, rob me of the affection of my friends, and of my means of doing good. " He who takes from me my good name," takes the best possession of which human power can deprive me. . It is true, that a Christian's reputation is comparatively a light ob- ject ; and so is his property, so is his life ; all arc light things to him, whose hope is full of immortality. But, of all worldly blessings, an honest reputa- tion is to many of us the most precious ; and he Avho robs us of it, IS the most injurious of mankind, i^nd among the worst of persecutors. Let not the friend* of denunciation attempt to escape this charge, by pleading their sense of duty, and their sincere de- sire to promote the cause of truth. St. Dominic was equally sincere, when he built the inquisition ; and I doubt not that many torturers of Christians have fortified their reluctant minds, at the moment of ap- plying the rack and the burning iron, by the sincere conviction, that the cause of truth required the sacri- fice of its foes. I beg that these remarks may not be applied indiscriminately to the party called " ortho- dox," among whom are multitudes,whose humility and charity would revolt from making themselves the standards of christian piety, and from assailing the christian character of their brethren. Many other considerations may be added to those which have been already urged, against the system of excluding from christian fellowship men of upright lives, on account of their opinions. It necessarily generates perpetual discord in the church. ,Mei^ 32 Ti. I mean not to ascribe the in- tention of introducing ecclesiastical tyranny to any class of Christians among us ; but, I believe that ma- ny, in the fervour of a zeal which may be essentially virtuous, are about to touch with unhallowed hands the ark of God, to support Christianity by measures which its mild and charitable spirit abhors. I believe, that many, overlooking the principles of human na- ture, and the history of the church, are about to set in motion a spring of which they know not the force, and cannot calculate the etlects. I believe, that the seed of spu'itual tyranny is sown, and although to a careless spectator it may seem the " smallest of all seeds," it has yet, within itself, a fatal principle of increase, and may yet darken this region of our coun- try with its deadly branches. The time is come, when the friends of christian liberty and christian charity are called to awake, and to remember their duties to themselves, to posterity, and to the church of Christ. The time is come, when the rights of conscience and the freedom of our churches must be defended with zeal. The time is come, when menace and denunciation must be met v.ith a spirit, which will show, that we dread not the frowns, and lean not on the favour of man. The time is come, when every expression of superiority on the part of our brethren should be re- pelled_as criminal usurpation. But in doing this, let the friends of liberal and genuine Christianity remem- ber the spirit of their religion. Let no passion or bitterness dishonour their sacred cause. In contend- ing for the gospel, let them not lose it virtues or forfeit its promises. — We are indeed called to pass 41 through one of the severest trials of human virtue, the trial of controversy. We should carry with us a sense of its danger. Religion, when made a subject of debate, seems often to lose its empire over the heart and life. The mild and affectionate spirit of Christianity gives place to angry recriminations and cruel surmises. Fair dealing, uprightness, and truth are exchanged for the quibbling and arts of sophistry. The devotional feelings, too, decline in warmth and tenderness. Let us then watch and pray. Let us take heed that the weapons of our warfare be not carnal. Whilst we repel usurpation, let us be just to the general rectitude of many by wliom our christian rights are invaded. Whilst we repel the uncharitable censures of men, let us not forget that deep humility and sense of unworthiness, with which we should ever appear before our Maker, hi our zeal to maintain the great truth, that our Father in Heaven is alone the Supreme God, let us not neglect that intercourse with him, without which the purest conceptions will avail little to enthrone him in our hearts, hi our zeal to hold fast the "word of Christ" in opposition to human creeds and formularies, let us not forget, that our Lord demands another and a still more unsuspicious confession of him, even the exhibi- tion of his spirit and religion in our lives. The controversy in which we are engaged is in- deed painful ; but it was not chosen, but forced upon us, and we ought to regard it as a part of the disci- pline to which a wise Providence has seen fit to sub- ject us. Like all our other trials, it is designed to promote our moral perfection. I trust, too, that it is designed to promote the cause of truth. Whilst I would speak dlfhdently of the future, I still hope, that a brighter day is rising on the christian ciuirch, than it has yet enjoyed. The gospel is to sliine forth in its native glory. The violent excitement, by which some of the corruptions of this divine system arc now 6 42 9uppor<^ed, cannot be permanent ; and the uncharlta- bleness with which they are enforced, will re-act, like the persecutions of the church of Rome, in favour of truth. Already we have the comfort of seeing many disposed to inquire, and to inquire without that terrour, which has bound as witii a spell so many minds. We doubt not, that this inquiry will result in a deep conviction that Christianity is yet dis- figured by errours which have been transmitted from ages of darkness. Of this, at least, we are sure, that inquiry, by discovering to men the difficulties and obscurities Avhicli attend the present topicks of con- troversy, will terminate in what is infinitely more desirable than doctrinal concord, in the diffusion of a mild, candid, and charitable temper, I pray God, that this most happy consummation may be in no degree obstructed by any unchristian feelings, which, notwithstanding my sincere efforts, have escaped me in the present controversy. NOTE. It would be easy to point out many exceptionable pas- sages 111 Di. Worcesfer's letter ; bul 1 wish 1o "absi.-.in even fro.ii ilie appeal ance" of that minute and carping ciilicisui, so coiumon in controversy, which, overlooking Ihe general im- port ui' a book, and the great poinis of controversy, seizes on unguarded expressions, exposes petty inaccuracies, ex- torts inferences of which the author never dieamed, and. aims to humble an opponent instead of meeting the great question in dispute. There are, however, a lew particulars in Dr. Worcester's letter, which ought not to be passed over in that silence, which in the present and in my former re- marks I have observed tov/ard'o luany objectionable expres- sions and passages. A common reader would imagine from Dr. Worcester's language, that from the age of Christ to the present time, there has been a succession of Christians called " orlhodox," who have agreed in opinion on the disputed doctrines ol liie gospel. But this is a fiction. The opinions of some of the " most orthodox" in New-England, on the Trinity, would have exposed them, I fear, to excoinauinication by the " or- thodox" m some of the early ages of Christianity. If I were to deGne Ihe word " orthodox," I should say that it means the predominant party in the church, and especially those who are so destitute of humility as to arrogate to themselves an exclusive understanding of the gospel. Dr. Worcester in his fii^sl letter had this remarkable, and I think, very unhappy passage. " The God whom you wor- ship, is different from ours.'" To remove this impression, I declared very fuU} , the God whom I worship. Dr. Worces- ter has taken no notice of this sfalement, but observes, " We worship the Fiither, Son and Holy Ghost. Do you worship this sa(ne God." To this question I will endeavour to give a satisfactory answer. If by " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,'" Dr. Worcester means the God of Abraham, of Jsaac,of Jacob, who glorified his son Jesns, whom Peter preached Acts iii ; if he means the God and Father of our Lord Jesns Christ to whom Paul bent tlie knee i il he means 44 that God whom Jet'tis worshipped in tlie solemn hour of" deafhj sajino;, ^'Father info thy liands, I commit my spirit ;" if he means thai Goti of whom Jesus spoke in these memora- ble woiiis, " (he hour comelh and liow is, when the true worshipper.'i shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; if he means thai God of whom Paul said ; " To us (i. e. to Christians) there is one God., even the Father ; if by " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,'* Dr. Worcester means this God, who is proposed to us in these passages, the God of Jesus Chr id, of Abraham, of Paid and of Christians, ilmn I worship " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." 1 sincerely hope that this is D: . ^Vorcester's meaning, for it would give me great pain to believe that he and his friends worship any other than the " God of Jesus Christ" and the God of Chris- tians, — Why does he use phraseology, which renders this point in the least degree doubtful ? Why does he not speak of the true God in the simple and affecting language of the scriptures ? Jesus in his sermon on the Mount, has given us Tory particular instructions in relation to the object of our worship, and has closed this discourse v.illi a solemn declara- tion, that if we obey the precepts which it contains, we shall be " like the man who built his house on a rock." — Now in this longest and most particular discourse of Jesus^ WHOM does he tell us to worship. Does he say, when ye pray, pray to " the Father, Son and Holy Gkost.''^ No — His language, so simple, so touching, so encouraging, should be engraven on all our hearts. " Thou, when thou prayest, *' enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door " pray to thy Father who is in secret." Again. " When " ye pray, say, Our Father, who art in Heaven ;" And again. " If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts to " your children, how much more shall your Father who is " in heaven give good things to them that ask /u'yn." To these most interesting precepts of Jesus, I and ray brethren yield entire and cheerful obedience. With these precepts the whole scriptures concur. We find not one passage in the scriptures, commanding us to worship " the Father, Son and Holy Gho?( ;" not one piecedent, which authorizes such ■worship, "and while we feel ourselves bound to exercise christian candour towards those who adopt this forni of wor- ship, we are pot without solemn apprehension, that, in this respect, they are guilty of irreverence towards the word of God, and of preferring to it the conunandments and inven- tions of men. Let Iheni weigh seriously these remarks. 45 In mv former remarks, I repelletl the assertion of Dr- Worcester, that our Saviour is injinitdy inferiour to his, by declaring that " We believe that God saves us by his son Jesus Christ in whom he dwells, and through whom he bestows pardon and eternal life." Dr. Worcester says, that this is to declare that Jesus Christ is not onr ISa- viour. I lament that his letter is dishonoured by such a re- mark. Does he not know that the apostles again and again speak of God as our Saviour, and as saving us by Jesus Christ ? Do they ?*ierefore deny Jesus to be our Saviour 1 In 2 Tim. i. 1, we find these words of Paul, " Paul an apos- " tie of Jesus Christ, according to the commandiiient of " God our Saviorir, and of Jesus Christ our hope." Here God, and not Jesus Christ, is called the Saviour. Did Paul intend to deny this name of Jesus Christ ? Is not this name applied to Jesus because he is the minister of God- in our salvation, and do we then refuse it to him, when we declare that it primarily belongs to God, his Father. In 1 Tim. ii. 3, we meet these words, " This is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved ; for there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Here God is emi- nently our Saviour, and Jesus saves us as he is his minis- ter. In Titus 3, 4, &c. we see this title applied both to God and Jesus Christ in a manner which shows that it be- longs to God in the first and highest sense. " After that the kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, whicli he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savioiirr^' The apostle, it seems, thought that he might call Jesus Christ our Saviour, although he considered God as originally and eminently our Saviour, and as saving us through or by Je- sus Christ. I will add one more passage from Jude. "Noh- unto him who is able to keep you from falling, to the only God, OUR Saviour, be glory through Jesus Christ our Lord.'' See Griesbach. Had Dr. 'Worcester weighed these passages, he would not have made the rash and very improper charge, which I am considering. — Is not the reader inclined to think, that the apostles wrote very much like Unitarians ? It was my intention in this note to show the weakness of the scripture proof of the Trinity which Dr. Worcester has * I omit some clauses that the connexion may be better seen. 46 jidduced in his leller. But this pamphlet is already extend' ed bevond my wishes ; and besides, I wish to separale the discussion of the Tiinity fiom the present controversy. I would therefore only observe in relation to the texts which have been collected by Dr. Worcester, that nothuig is easi- er tlian to produce a sliing ot texts in support ot almost every doctrine. Calvinism and Arminianism, Universal Salvation and the doctrine of eternal punishment, transub- staiiiiafion and otlier tenets of popery, may each and all be supported by detached passages as ' onclusive as those which Dr. Woicestntr has produced for the Trinity. This nioiie of detence is peculiarly suited to the Trinitarian cause, Avhich rests on a comparatively small number of disconnect- ed texts. Unitarianism, besides being directly affiimed in particular passages, runs through the whole scriptures, ap- pears on the whole current of sentiment and langrage in the old and \he new Testament, its proofs are not therefore to be despatched in so narrow a compass. It is my earnest desire that the publick attention may be turned from individuals to this point. Why cannot this controversy be conducted with calmness, without impeachment of character or motives, and without appeals to popular feeling ? We have all an equal interest in discovering truth ; and no zeal, and no sophistry, can long support the cause of errour. Let us then encour- age fair and dispassionate discussion, and be careful to throw no obstruction in the way of free and honest inquiry. I have now a few words to offer on the " sepai^ation" made by some of the Unitarians in England, to which Dr. Worcester seems disposed to attach great importance. I inferred (perhaps inconsiderately) from the statement of Dr. Worcester in his first letter, that these Unitarians had so far introduced their peculiarities into their publick wor- ship, that other Christians were virtually excluded. Of this separation I expressed no approbation, but simply ob- served that it by no means amounted to the separation which is recommended in this country, which would deny the christian character to a large body of professing Chris- tians." Dr. Worcester, however, by a kind of reasoning, which is too common with him, infers that this kind of se- paration would be quite agi'eeable to me, and spends a page in observations founded chiefly on my silence. Since writing my remarks, I have bee^n ha[)py to learn that the impressions which I received from Dr. Worcester respect- ing these English Unitarians were incorrect. I am inform- 4f «d, that their worship is singularly free from peciiliarilles, and lha( al; Ciirislians may join in it witlioiit hesi'.ition or pain. I learn, ihal Mr. Lindsey iniroduced into his chapel the Liturgy of the church of England, omitting only the few parts in which the doctrine oi (he Trinity is recoi^nized, anJ «iirecting all the prayers to the Father through the Son. Tiiis is the worship which is most common among all de- nominations in this country, and by which no Chnsiian can be oilended. Most sincerely do I wish, that our publick se; vices may be marived by this liberal character. Very dilierenf classes of Christians, I am persuaded, may unite in the same worship, and be built up at once in godliness and charity. I have listened with great satisfaction to ihe prayers of Trinitarians, and I have heard from very urdent Trinitarians expressions of great interest in prayers which have been offered by Unitarians. True piety, when un- fettered by system, approaches the Father through the Son, and supplicates earnestly for the aids of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Worcester speaks in his letter of the " anful lemeri- " ti/ of adjudging to eternal life, men, however fair their " character in Ihe eyes of the world, however renowned for " what the world calls wisdom, however distinguished " among the friends of science or of sacred literature, who " never! heless deny the blood of atonement, degrade " theLord, who bought them, to the condition of amerecrea- " ture, go about to establish their own righteousness," kc. This passage is designed to teach us that we cannot v> ith- out anful temerity admire the christian virtues and labours of such men as Newton, Locke, Lardner and Price, or che- rish the delightful hope that they have gone to receive the rewards of faithful servants of Jesus Christ. I confess that I am shocked when I hear the humble Lardner, (at whom these remarks seem principally aimed) charged with degrad- ing that Saviour, to whose cause his life was devoted, with criminal insensibility to his honour and with a proud de- pendence on " his own righteousness." There must be something wrons:, dreadfully wrong, in a religious system, which calls us to breathe mildew on the fairest and most interesting characters which have adorned the church, and to repress the sratitude and admiration which spontaneous- ly spring up in a pure mind towards the most illustriou? benefactors of mankind. If it be " awful temerity" ' :n ; m^ *--^ic^> ^^ ^J ■'m$