^--^^, 
 
 •^^ 
 
 •Wv-rtrt,,? "' 
 
 ■4P 
 
 ^V' 
 
 pCSIf- 
 
 ^^^^^ 
 
 Iff. 
 
 \\H' 
 
 i/C 
 
Tlic rropcrty 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TiTiniTrrflim nnnTnnrnumTnnTi 
 
 lilliiiiii 
 
 BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 — IN TIIK — 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 — OF THE — 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
 -/i- 
 
SECOND LETTER 
 
 10 ita 
 
 REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 
 
 OK THS SVBnCT OS 
 
 UNITARIANISM. 
 
 BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D. D. 
 
 PASTOB OF THE TABERXACIE CHURCH, fiALEK* 
 
 
 'Ssr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 
 
 
 PRIJOrEB 
 
 ST SAMUEL 
 
 T. ARMSTROSO, WO. 
 
 50, 
 
 coBirarcT,. 
 
 
 
 1815. 
 
 
 ♦r 
 
 
 Ik.' 
 
 
 5u 
 
 / 
 
 'ilmt!^' V '^ 
 
JLETTEKc 
 
 REV. AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 A REASON of my choosing to communicate my thoughts, 
 on your Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thacher, in a Letter ad- 
 dressed to you, rather than present them to the puhlick in 
 any other form, was, that I bore towards you very sincere 
 affection and respect, and wislied, while performing a most 
 painful duty, assiduously to preserve and clierish these sen- 
 timents. In this disposition I was careful that you should 
 receive a copy of the Letter, accompanied with a note of fra- 
 ternal courtesy, before the pamphlet was published for sale. 
 Though I have not met with reciprocal attention in either of 
 these respects, and have only found, at the Bookseller's, 
 ^'Remarks" on my Letter, addressed "to the publick^" yet, 
 animated still with the same sentiments as at first, and im- 
 pressed with some new considerations, I choose to address 
 what I have to offer in reply to your Remarks, in a second 
 letter to you. 
 
 There are cases in wiiich a fair statement of the truth, 
 even with the kindest spirit and in the mildest terms, will 
 almost certainly be considered by those on whom it bears, as 
 severe if not bitter. Tliis infelicity I deeply felt when writ- 
 ing before, and now, I can assure you, not less deeply feel. 
 I sincerely regret the necessity of exhibiting truths, which 
 will be painful to you; and it will be my care not to render 
 them additionally painful, by any asperity or unfairne.-s in 
 the manner of exhibiting them. I find that your Remarks 
 are almost entirely personal; but in replying to these "per- 
 sonalities," it will be no object with me to "defend myself," 
 any further than seems necessary for the vindication of the 
 cause which I espouse. My earnest desire is, that attention 
 may be fixed, not upon me or upon you, but upon the im- 
 portant questions of general concern in discussion bet\\'een 
 
US. These questions merit attentionj and neither we, nor 
 otiiers on either side, ought to be weary of attending to them, 
 until they be well understood^ and correctly decided. 
 
 In reading your Remarks, my first care was to find, if you 
 had made it appear that I had, in any instance, misappre- 
 hended or misrepresented you, or done injustice to you or to 
 others. In two or three instances you intimate that I have 
 misrejjrcsented you, and in three or four that I have wronged 
 you by unjust imputation. To these I will briefly attend. 
 
 I stated that "in the terms of your creed," as given in 
 your Letter, there is "a great want of clearness and preci- 
 sion^ great indistinctness and ambiguity." You "deny" the 
 correctness of this representation. I have deliberately re- 
 examined tlie subject, and my views of it remain unaltered. 
 It was not because your «*statement," or creed, did not "meet 
 and answer eyery question wliich may possibly be started in 
 relation to your sentiments," that I pronounced it indistinct 
 and ambiguousj but because, as I attempted to shew, it was 
 not clear and unequivocal upon the points most directly in 
 question: and I am perfectly content to submit it to the judg- 
 ment of candid men on either side, who wiU attentively read 
 what you have written and what I have written, whether in 
 this instance I am guilty of misrepresentation. To them 
 also I would refer, whether, as I have never been charged 
 ■^ith concealing my sentiments, I am open to the "reproach, 
 in turn," of ambiguity and indistinctness, in i-egard to any 
 statements which I made, or which it was incumbent on me 
 to make. 
 
 You seem to intimate, p. 8, that I have misrepresented 
 your account of the manner in which you and your liberal 
 bretliren perform your miuisti-y. This also I have reexam- 
 ined: and only desire that my representation and argument 
 may be fairly compared with your statement, and with the 
 general, notorious, and undisputed facts to w hicli I referred. 
 
 You say, p. 12, "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 W ISH TO SECURE THE FAVOUR 
 
 o¥ THE woRiD."--I did indeed suppose that "the favour oC 
 
the world" which you enjoy, and of which you speak in youv 
 Letter with so much complacency, was to be attributed, at 
 least in part, to "a style of preacliing" widely different from 
 that of the apostles. But that you have adopted this style 
 for the sake of such a booiif I have no where "insinuated." 
 Tliroughout my Letter, I studiously confined myself to the 
 statement and suggestion of facts and principles in "lan- 
 guage" which you acknowledge to be "sufliciently soft and 
 guarded," and without arraigning or impeaching, in a single 
 instance, intentions or motives. Had you duly attended to 
 this character of my Letter, you would have spared yourself 
 the pain of many of your remarks. — And here, Sir, I enter 
 my protest against the "rule" of construction which you have 
 professedly adopted, and accoiding to which you seem to 
 tliink it right to assume tbe "iwj^ressioji," which any writings 
 happen to make, as the criterion of theii* real meaning. 
 
 P. 15, you quote from my Letter the following passage: 
 *<You doubtless will not hesitate to acknowledge what I have 
 certainly very great sorrow in stating, that the doctrines of 
 atonement by ChrisVs death, and justification through faith in 
 his blood f as held by orthodox christians in all ages of tlie 
 church, — at once fall to the ground before you." Upon this ^ 
 you exclaim, "Astonishing assertion!" — "What! does Dr. 
 Worcester really believe that I will acknowledge without 
 hesitation^ that I reject these or any other docti'incs, as they 
 were held by orthodox christians in the age of Christ 
 and his apostles, or as held by orthodox christians in any 
 age oftlie church." Really, Sir, I did rely on your candour, 
 that you would not refuse to me the common and establislied 
 use of the word orthodox, and that you would not, by giv- 
 ing to this word a different sense, evade a notorious matter 
 of fact, and avoid an ingenuous concession. Admit the word 
 orthodox in its general acceptation, and in the sense in which 
 you must have understood me to use it; and I am still confi- 
 dent you will not deny what I supposed you would not hesitate 
 to acknowledge. 
 
 In this connexion you say, "Before leaving this head, I 
 would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of fastening on 
 his opponents the consequences which seem to him to follow 
 
from their system. This practice is unfair and injurious." I 
 am not conscious of this "hahit." I do not think it right for 
 any one to fasten upon his opponents the consequences which 
 seem to him to follow from their system; when they them- 
 selves disavow those consequences, or do not generally admit 
 them. Against such a practice, I would cordially join with 
 you in the most eai*nest and decided "protest." But the pres- 
 ent is a very different case. It is a well known fact, that 
 those who deny the essential divinity of Jesus Clii'ist, do also 
 generally, if not universally, deny the doctrines of atonement 
 and justification by faith, as held by orthodox^* christians. 
 Your reference to Dr. Samuel Claik and to Bible News is 
 utterly irrelevant. Dr. Clark did not deny tlie essential di- 
 vinity or the eternal existence of the Son of God; and hence 
 was not under the necessity of denying the doctrine of atone- 
 ment. Tiiough, nevertheless, I believe Dr. Clark's views of 
 the Trinity erroneous, and to have been solidly refuted by 
 Dr. Wateiland,' yet it is not with Dr. Clark, or with any who 
 do not deny the essential Divinity of Jesus Christ, that I am 
 concerned in the present discussion. My concern is with 
 those who hold Jesus Christ to be only a creature; whether 
 they hold him to be "the first production of God, the most ex- 
 alted being in tlie universe with the single exception of the 
 infinite Father," or a mere man, fallible and peccable like 
 other men. AVhatever terms may be employed to set forth 
 the dignity of Jesus Christ, and to represent him as being al- 
 most equal to the supreme Father, it is nevertheless certain 
 that, if he is only a creature^ lie is infinitely inferiour to the 
 Father; and is no more to be compared with God, no more to 
 be represented as approaching in dignity and glory to him, 
 than any other creature, even man thai is a worm. Before Him 
 whose name is Jehovah all creatures are as nothing. This 
 the higliest holy creature will the most deeply feel, and, feel-. 
 
 *I still use this word in its common acceptation, to denote those christians, 
 wlio liold the (loetrines of Christ's true divinity, atonement for sin by his 
 death, and justification by faith alone in him; in opposition to those who deny 
 these doctrines, and wliom I call Unitarians, not b'causc 1 think them justly 
 entitled to appropriate this name, but because it is the name hy wlucU they 
 choose to be called. 
 
ing this, would shudder at the ascription to him of the 
 names, and titles, and honours ascribed to Jesus Christ. As 
 it respects the doctrine of atonement then, and other evangel- 
 ical doctrines connected witli it, it matters not whether Jesus 
 Clirist be regarded as a mere man, or as a creature of super- 
 angelick dignity. If he is a mere creature, whatever rank 
 you choose to assign to him, his death could not have been of 
 the nature, or of the meritorious efficacy of a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the sins of the world. It is therefore with per- 
 fect consistency, and a matter «of course" and necessity, that 
 those who hold him to be a mere creature, do actually deny 
 the doctrines of atonement and justification, as held by ortho- 
 dox christians. What, then, I "again and again intimate," 
 is not a matter of mere inference, but a notorious matter of 
 fact. 
 
 But is it not remarkable. Sir, that in the very paragraph 
 in which you protest against "fastening on opponents tlie 
 consequences which seem to follow from their system," you 
 should do the very thing against which you protest? You 
 here assert, that "the system of the Trinitarians makes the 
 sufferings of Jesus Christ nothing moi'e than the suffeiings 
 of a man." Do you not know. Sir, that the Trinitarians 
 decidedly deny tliis consequence? Do you not know that 
 they hold Jesus Christ to be God and man united in one 
 person — that this one complex person suffered and died, — and 
 that his death had all the importance, all the merit, all tlie 
 efficacy, which could be derived to it from the infinite dignity 
 of such a person? He who was in the form of God, 
 
 AND THOUGHT IT NO ROBBERY TO BE EQ^UAL WITH GoD — 
 
 7vas made in the lihevess of man, and being found in fasldon. 
 as a mant he humbled himself and became obedient unto 
 
 DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS. HoW COuld yOU 
 
 then say, that our "system makes the sufferings of Jesus 
 Christ nothing more tlian the sufferings of a man?'* 
 
 To several very solemn quotations of scripture, in my 
 foi'mer Letter, tiiis remark is subjoined: "If this language 
 sound harsh and imfashionablc, I trust. Sir, you will have 
 the goodness not to impute the fault to me; and that you will 
 not on account of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse 
 
to give attention to the momentous sentiment contained is 
 it.," Of this you complain. The serious truth is, that I was 
 so forcibly struck with those passages, in contrast with the 
 language which we are accustomed to hear from your quarter, 
 that it really occurred to me that such disgust would be ex- 
 cited by them in the minds of readers of the liberal class, as 
 would almost induce them to throw down the pamplilet and 
 read no further: and I paused to deliberate whether it might 
 not be expedient to suppress the quotations. It was under 
 this impression that the remark was made. On reflection, 
 however, after the Letter was published, and before I saw 
 your reply, I was ajjprehensive, that, in this instance, I 
 had conveyed an unjust imputation, and sincerely regretted 
 that I had made the remark. When I found that you con- 
 sidered it in this light, and were wounded by it, my regret 
 was increased. I confess my fault in this particular; and 
 devoutly wish that tlie remark could be obliterated from the 
 Letter, and effaced from every mind. 
 
 1 have now, I believe, noticed all the instances, in which 
 you have intimated that I am chargeable with misrepresen- 
 tation, or unjiist imputation; and with these brief remarks, I 
 cheerfully submit tliem all to the candid and serious reconsid- 
 eration of yourself and every reader. 
 
 My next inquiry was, whether you had invalidated any of 
 my "criticisms," statements, positions, or arguments: and 
 after a very attentive examination and re-examination, you 
 will permit me, dear Sir, to say, what I feel perfectly safe in 
 saying, it is my deliberate judgment, and in it I have the con- 
 currence of all with whom I have convei'sed on the subject, 
 that you have not directly met me at a single point, shewn 
 me to be incorrect in a single statement, nor refuted me in a 
 single position or argument; and, in a word, that your 
 Remarks are no real answer to my Letter. 
 
 It becomes then an inquiry, by what means you have given 
 to your Remarks the ajypearance and effect of an ans\\ er? For 
 that they have with some this appearance and this effect, I do 
 not doubt. This inquiiy, though a delicate and unpleasant 
 one. justice to the cause of trutli forbids me to decline. 
 
In the first place, you have imputed to me a had spirit a?k2 
 intention. With this you begin, and with this yoii end; and 
 in tliis, I believe, the effective force of your Remarks mainly 
 lies. Were no bad spirit or intentijn imputed to me, I pre- 
 sume no person would suppose my Letter to have been an- 
 swered. But with persons who allow theii* feelings and pas- 
 sions, instead of reason, and conscience, and scripture, t:) de- 
 cide upon the controversy, this imputation has all the effect of 
 the most victorious argument* 
 
 My Letter, you say, "though milder in language, breaths 
 too much af THE spirit of the review.'* The spirit of 
 the Review you have represented, in your Letter to ]Mr. 
 Thacher, as being a spirit of "falsehood,*' "unfairness," 
 '•disingenuousiiess," "uncharitableness," "illiberality," "cen- 
 soriousness," "insult," "bitterness," "malignity," "pride,"^ 
 "cruelty," "fury," "denunciation," "heresy," and "awful 
 temerity." It was by imputing this spirit to the Reviewer, 
 that you roused the passions of your party into a flame. 
 And now you impute to me the same spirit — whether in equal 
 measure you do not say. It was easy. Sir, if nothing in the 
 breast rendered it dilllcult, to make this imputation: but it 
 ought not to have been made v*'ithout proof — clear, substantial 
 proof. Had you convicted me of such a spirit, though it 
 would not have been a refutation of my Letter, yet it would 
 have fixed on me an indispensable obligation to humble my- 
 self before you, before the world, and above all before Kim 
 whose servant I profess to be. But you have offered no. 
 proof; and utterly unconscious as I am of having written 
 with such a spirit, I confidently refer it to all candid judges 
 — I humbly refer it to Him who judgetli righteously — wheth- 
 er tlie imputation is not entirely gratuitous and unjust. 
 
 Of my Letter you further say, "It is too obviously desig.v- 
 ED to drive both me and my brethren from the church and 
 from the ministry." Could charity. Sir, iroither discern nor 
 imagine any other design than this? Wliat other course should 
 have been adopted, m hat other means should have been used, 
 had one designed to do wliat he could to convert Ids tyretliren 
 from the errour rf their 7rays. and thus to hide a mnltitudc oj 
 sins? 
 
1^ 
 
 You rcpeiitodly speak of my "attempts to render your 
 preaching and your sentiments odious^" and this you repre* 
 sent to he one "great object of my Letter." This also 
 plaiidy imports a malignant spirit and intention. But, Sir, 
 in wliat way have I attempted to render your sentiments and 
 preaching odious, excepting hy a simple exhibition of them, 
 v\ ithont discoKniring, distortion, or declamation, in contrast 
 with those of oi-thodox ministers and of the apostles of Christ. 
 
 In pp. 9,2 and 23, you make a representation of my spirit 
 and intention, at wliich you "shudder," and at which you 
 had reason to shudder. But that part of your Remai'ks I 
 gliall have occasion to consider in anotlier j)lace. 
 
 Towards the close you have this passage: "It does not 
 *'a])pear, no, not in a single line, tliat Dr. Worcester ever 
 "brought home to himself the case of his injured brethren, 
 <»ever imagined himself in their situation, and inquii'ed how 
 "under such circumstances he would himself have felt and 
 '•'acted.'* Here I am represented as devoid of brotheily 
 sympathy and feeling; and here is the consummation of that 
 unchristian and malignant spii'it, which is imputed t« me 
 from the beginning of your Remarks to the end. Sir, I 
 have reason to sympathize with my brethren, whenever they 
 are injured by attempts "to drive them from the ministry,'* 
 or to deprive them of their comfort, their good name, or th.eir 
 usefulness; 1 have no occasion to ^nmagine myself in tlieir 
 situation;" and I should, indeed, be a monster of insensihili- 
 tj', had I no tenderness of feeling for them. I have not for- 
 gotten that I was once myself "driAen" from a settlement, a 
 cluircii, and people, dear to my heart; driven, indeed, not by 
 pei-secuting Calvinists, but by liberal men; yet not on that 
 account entirely without pain. I have witnessed the suffer- 
 ings of others in similar circumstances, and particularly of 
 a beloved brother in your vicinity. If I have not been de- 
 ceived, tiiese i)ainful scenes, wiiile they have brought me 
 pretty fully accpiainted with the charity and liberality of the 
 age, have had a salutary effect upon my feelings, and taught 
 me how much it becomes the professed servants of Christ to 
 treat their bretiiren with forbearance, kindness, tenderness, 
 and undissembled g'ood will. This lesson may 1 never forget — 
 
XI 
 
 never fail to practise towards all my brethren, however thej 
 may differ from me in opinion, and in whatever way I may 
 be called in duty to bear testimony against their errours, or 
 their proceedings. 
 
 Your imputation to me of a bad spirit and design, I do 
 not atti'ibute to any particular unfriendliness to me. I at- 
 tribute it to a general cause — to a general state of mind, and 
 habit of thinking and feeling; and on this account I am in- 
 duced to consider it with more particularity, than I should 
 be willing to bestow on any thing merely personal. It is but 
 too manifest that you and your liberal brethren are in the 
 habit of regarding, and of representing and denouncing those 
 who hold the sentiments which I espouse, as being possessed 
 of a malignant spirit. And having been accustomed to wit- 
 ness how completely the imputation of this spirit ^erves, with 
 a large portion of people, instead of a thousand "proofs of 
 holy writ" against us, you resort, it would seem habitually, 
 and, I would hope, without any meditated intention to injure, 
 to this convenient and effectual expedient. To what, if not 
 to this habit, sliall we attribute tlie frequent, and entirely un- 
 necessary mention, botli in your Letter and Remarks, of 
 CalvinisU;^ and almost always with some insinuation, as if 
 they above all men were sinners in the odious matter of 
 persecution? 
 
 But, Sir, is this charitable, is it candid, is it magnanimous, 
 is it just? Was not Arius, the father of that class of Unitari- 
 ans to which you yourself seem to belong, a violent perse-; 
 cutor? Was it not he and his followers, who, first of all 
 among professed christians, set the hideous and direful ex- 
 ample of secularizing the, discipline of the church, and persp- 
 cuting their opponents to imprisonment^ banishment, and deatJiP 
 And did they not crimson the whole Roman empire with the 
 blood of Trinitai'ians? Did not Davides perish in prison, 
 
 • The present controversy has no respect to points peculiarly Calvimstick. 
 Arminius was as decided as Calvin on the doctrines of the Trinity in the Godhead, 
 the entire cormption of human nature, atonement by the death of Christ, justi- 
 fication by grace through faith in him, and moral renovation by the Holy Spirit. 
 His system, it is true, was soon corrupted, and a mixture of Pelagianisra and 
 Socinianisni came to be called Arminianism; but genuine Arminianisra is no 
 l«ss dii-eellj ia opposiligu, than Calvinisea, ^o every species of Uaitari»nisfji, 
 
12 
 
 imdor ilic iinrcloiitiiip; sovority of tlie pcrsccutiiiG; spirit of 
 Faustus Socinus and his adherents, tlie founders of anotlicr 
 chiss of Unitarians? Was it not by Arclibishops Laud and 
 Shehlon, tlie fathers in England of adulterated Ai'minianism, 
 and of sentiments once cfillcd latitudinarian, now called lib- 
 eral, that Calvinists were forbidden to jireach on the *«Five 
 Points,"' — that two thousand ministers, confessedly the best 
 in the kingdom, were "driven" from their parishes on St. 
 J3artholomew*s day, and persecuted M'ith fines and imprison- 
 ments, and some of them to death, — and that our Calvinis- 
 tick forefathers were compelled to leave their native country, 
 and seek an asylum in the American wilderness? In our o^\^l 
 country and in our own age, who have sliewn the most deter- 
 mined spirit to *«diivc" their opponents from the ministry, 
 by private exertions, by ecclesiastical proceedings, and by 
 judicial decisions? And since the commencement of the pres- 
 ent controversy, on which side, may I not ask, has there 
 ])ecn most of wrath, and clamour, and evil speaking, among 
 the people in the places of greatest excitement? 
 
 I ha\e no pleasure. Sir, in adverting to these deplorable 
 facts; nor would I, for my life, mention them with the spirit 
 and for tlie purpose of retaliation. I should deem it most un- 
 christian, unjust, and injurious in me to reproach you and 
 your liberal brethren, with tlie violent spirit of persecution, 
 displayed by men of your sentiments in the days of other 
 times, when ecclesiastical discipline was secularized, and 
 confounded vvith judicial proceedings. I should deem myself 
 a most unfair and ungenerous disputant, should T. in this 
 discussion, endeavour to divert attention from the real jioints 
 in debate, and to enlist passion and prejudice on my side, by 
 a perpetual recurrence to such exti'aneous and odious facts. 
 Persuaded as I am, tliat your feelings would revolt at the 
 thouglit of acting over again the violent and bloody scenes of 
 Arius or of Laud; I am no less full in the confidence, that you 
 have no good reason to believe, or to insinuate, that your op- 
 ponents would not revolt witli equal horrour from evei-y thing 
 like "the ilamcs lighted for Servetus." Such a belief, such 
 an insinuation, pei-mit me, dear Sii% to say, is unworthy of 
 your enliglitened mind, and your elevated standing: and could 
 
13 
 
 Hcvcr have found a place mth yon, but for the iinpropitious 
 habit to which I liave referred, and of which probably yon 
 have been too little conscious. 
 
 Have we yet to learn, that the spirit of pcrsccntion is the 
 offspring, not of any pai-ticular system of religious sentiments, 
 but of that corruption of our fallen nature, which, if not sub- 
 dued by divine grace, will exert itself against the true spirit 
 of the gospel, sometimes iii the form of a fiend of dai'kness, 
 sometimes in the guise of an angel of light, according to cir- 
 cumstances. It ought not to have been mentioned in the 
 pvesent controversy. On neither side are we pleading for 
 persecution. In regard to this spirit, its atrocity or its 
 hatefulness, there is no question between iis^ and to fix tlie 
 attention upon this, as if it were mainly or in part the subject 
 matter in debate, can serve no other purpose, than to excite 
 passion, inflame prejudice, embitter feeling, mislead the 
 judgment, and bar the mind against argument and truth. It 
 is time, and more than time, that every tiling of this sort 
 should be utterly discarded, by enlightened and liberal men. 
 and by all who would bear the christian name. Though 
 we differ, and widely differ in our opinions; — though we en- 
 gage in debate on most imporlant and interesting points; — 
 though we should find occasion even to separate as to cliris- 
 tian fellowship; yet there need not be, there ought not to be, 
 and if our tempers were right there would not be, any bitter- 
 ness, or w rath, or anger, or clamour, or evil speaking on ci- 
 ther side. The gospel teaches us to exercise unfailing char- 
 ity and good will, not only towards those whom wcTCCcive to 
 christian fellow ship, but towards all men. 
 
 Another of your meaiis for giving to your Remarks the 
 appearance and effect of an answer is that of representing my 
 Letter as being light and "trifling." Yon speak repeatedly, 
 and not a little contemptuously of "verbal criticism," and of 
 "humour and sarcasm." Of the criticism, I shall have oc- 
 casion to take some notice in anotiier place: upon the rest, 
 my remarks will be short. If, Sir, I have used lightness, if 
 my Letter was not serious, I was greatly deceived and great- 
 ly to blame. The subject I certainly considei-ed a very mo- 
 pientous one; and I did really apprehend tliat the seriousness 
 
14 
 
 with which I treated it would he offensive to many. If, as 
 you say, particularly in regai'd to the last head, "the view 
 which I took of the suhjert gave me a field for my powers of 
 humour and sarcasm," I believe that you and every reader 
 must suppose that my powers of this kind ai"e extremely lim- 
 ited and feeble. I confess I was forcibly reminded by your 
 remaiks, that a writer, whose name I will not mention in any 
 connexion with yours, chose to call the book of Proverbs 
 "Solomon's Jest Book." — "Let us open the book," says the 
 Bisliop of LandafF in his answer, "and see what kind of jests 
 it contains." 
 
 Another of the means by which you have given to your 
 Remai'ks the appearance and effects of an answer is that of di- 
 verting attention from the point ami the argument; and in 
 such a way as to have the effect of suppressing the truth. 
 Besides wliat is general of this kind, in imputing to me a bad 
 spirit and a light manner; there arc particular instances, some 
 of which it may be proper to consider. 
 
 In regard to my first head, you very candidly acknowledge, 
 tliat I liave "pointed out an inaccuracy in the language which 
 you employed to express the charges contained in the Review." 
 This pointing out of a slight verbal inaccuracy you repre- 
 sent iis being all that I liave done; and to this head entii-e you 
 seem to refer in your repeated mention of "verbal criticism." 
 Thus by noticing a trivial cii'cumstance, and giving to the 
 whole a liglit name, you divert the attention from the main 
 point ajid argument, and conceal the ti'utli in the case. — You 
 had brought. Sir, against the Reviewer, the heavy charge of 
 'falsehood.''^ This charge I sincerely believed to be unfound- 
 ed; and I attempted, not merely by pointing out a small ver- 
 bal inaccuracy, but by faii'ly examining those parts of the Re-^ 
 view to which you referred, to show that it really was unfoun- 
 ded. I do not rest on my own judgment only in the persuasion 
 which I feel, that in this attempt I was not unsuccessful. But 
 you say, "the question is not what a verbal critick with a dic- 
 tionary in his hand may make out of the Review, but what 
 are the impressions wliich readers at large receive from it." 
 Here, Sir, I again protest against the "rule" of construction 
 winch you have repeatedly applied; at least against your man- 
 
15 
 
 her of applying it. You surely cannot be unapprised, that 
 people receive very different "impressions" from "writings'* 
 and discourses, especially on controverted points, according 
 to the different tempers, or states of mind, with which they 
 read or hear. If, as you intimate, you have not met with a 
 single individual who did not receive from the Review, impres- 
 nions, coincident mth the charge which you made,* I, on the 
 ether hand, have not met with a single individual who did re- 
 ceive such impressions: and I really believe there were very 
 few who did, before tlieir minds were prepared for it by your 
 Letter. Your "way,'* then, "of settling the dispute" is not 
 so *<short a one" as you seem to imagine. 
 
 I was far. Sir, from believing that you intendexl to prefer 
 against the Reviewer a false and injurious charge. I 
 really did suppose that, owing to some unpleasant state of 
 mind, you had received from the Review an incorrect im- 
 pression; and did hope that you w^ould see, and rejoice to see, 
 that it was incorrect, and do honour to yourself and to our ho- 
 ly profession, by frankly retracting ti.e accusation, and re- 
 dressing the wrong which you had unwittingly committed. — 
 And here I must say, that I am more fully persuaded, if pos- 
 sible, than when I wrote before, that your first charge against 
 the Reviewer is entirely unjust; and that liad you duly atten- 
 ded to the scope of his remarks, you would have seen, that 
 where he speaks of "Unitarianism, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
 the word, being the predominant religion of tlie liberal party," 
 he meant not to determine any thing in respect to numbers, 
 but only in respect to -prominence and influence. His refer- 
 ence to the college and to the principal publications of the 
 party, makes his meaning sufficiently plain. 
 
 You say, p. 14. that I "again and again intimate that Uni- 
 tarians, of course f reject all the great and distinguishing 
 doctrines of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of atone- 
 ment by Christ's death." And upon this you ask, if it is 
 "possible that I am unacquainted with the ^vritings of Dr. 
 Samuel Clark, and with Bible News," in which books the 
 doctrine of atonement is asserted. I have before noticed the 
 implied charge in this of misrepresentation on my part; what 
 I would now notice is your turning the attention from the 
 
16 
 
 iact and the proof, anil concealin.J? the truth in the case. 1 
 know very well that, in the writin.^s here referred to, the 
 doctrine of atonement is asserted^ and I also know, and all 
 who are conversant with tliis suhject know, that the Unitarian 
 writers of the piTsent day generally ilcny tliis doctrine, as 
 do all who agree with them in denying the essential divinity 
 of Jesus Clirist: and if Dr. Clark's works and Bihle News 
 are *'|)opular" among tliem, it is not hecause they assert the 
 docti'ine of atonement j hut because they serve to unsettle the 
 minds of people in regard to the Trinit}, and to start them 
 from the rock down the steep and feuii'ul declivity of Unita- 
 rianism. 
 
 <'Therc is a part*' of my Letter you say, p. 19, "accord- 
 ing to which our cliaiity towai'ds the lovrest Unitarians not 
 only proves our indiffercucc to truth, but makes us partakers 
 in their sentiments and deeds." To divert attention from the 
 point and the argument here, you instantly direct it to Cal- 
 vinists, and Hopkinsians. "It is well known," you say, 
 <»tluit the old fiisliioned Calvinists regard the new divinity of 
 "the Hopkinsians witii great horrourj but it is also true 
 "that 'a peculiar brotherhood is established' between tlicse 
 '•two classes of christians in New England. The Calvinists 
 "here have never, as a party, borne testimony against Hop- 
 "kinsian peculiarities, have never 'purged themselves from 
 "tlie guilt of them,' but walk with Hopkinsians on as friend- 
 «<ly terms as we do with tiie lowest Unitarians." Admit 
 all that you here state to be true; does it prove that "the 
 liberal party" are not guilty of "mutilating tlie New Tcsta- 
 .ment, rejecting nearly all the fundamental doctrines of tln^ 
 gospel, and degrading the Saviour to the condition of a falli- 
 ble, peccable, and ignorant man?" Not in tlie least. But 
 there is an egregious errour in your statement. It is a well 
 known fact, that what you call the old fashioned Calvinists in 
 New England, have borne their earnest, decided, and publick 
 testimony against what they consider as errours in the Ilop- 
 kinsian theory; and tlie Hopkinsians, on their part, have 
 borne their testimony, equally earnest, decided, and publick, 
 against wliat they regard as errours in the old Calvinistick 
 system. But \\ hilc they have done tiiis, they have not, on 
 
17 
 
 either part, held these erroiirs to be fundamental, as tliey do 
 hold the erroursof the Unitariansj but have mutually regard- 
 ed each other as being- orthodox and sound, in the great es- 
 sentials of christian docti'ine. And, Sir, however grievous 
 it may be to their common opponents, the acknowledged fact 
 thattheydo "\yalk together on friendly terms," notwithstand- 
 ing their minor diifarences and disputes, and all tlie attempts 
 from your quarter to sow discord between them, is highly 
 honourable to their principles and feelings^ and affords most 
 decisive proof tliat, in the allegations so continually and ve- 
 hemently urged against tiiem, as if they were entirely devoid 
 of cliarity, and would acknowledge as christians none who 
 differ from them in any point, they have been slaudcrously 
 reported. Had "the old fashioned Calvinists of New York" 
 been as well acquainted with t!ie sentiments and cliaracters 
 of tlie diffi rent classes of orthodox christians in New Eng- 
 land, as these are with one anotlier, they would never have 
 given the recommendations which they have given to such a 
 book as Ely's Contrast. 
 
 Another of the means by which you have given to your 
 Remarks the appearance and effect of an answei', is that of 
 misstatement. Let me distinctly premise that as, in the, 
 preceding articles, I have not intended in any instance to 
 impeach your motives, so here I mean not to insinuate that 
 you have designedly misstated. The misstatements which I 
 am about to point out, and which are only a part of what 
 might be pointed out, I attribute to no bad intention, but to 
 tlie vague and indiscriminating manner of treating subjects, 
 to which you seem to be habituated. 
 
 "It may next be observed," you say, p. 9, "that the com- 
 mon disputes about the great doctrines of the gospel have 
 not related so much to their truth and importance, as 
 to some inferiour points connected with them." Now, Sir, 
 in dii'ect opposition to this staitement, I should feel the 
 utmost safety in aflirming, that "the disputes about the 
 great doctrines of the gospel have related," and do relate 
 primarily and "chiefly to their truth and importance." 
 This unquestionably is the fact in regard to the doctrines 
 directly in question in the present dispute: the doctruies 
 3 
 
18 
 
 of the Trinity in tlic Godlicad, t'lc true diA'inity of the 
 Savionr, atoniment for sin by his death, and justification 
 tlirougii faith in hks blood. On our part, these doctrines 
 are held to be true and essentially important; on your 
 part, both the importance and the truth of them arc deni- 
 ed. So long as this is the case, to dispute about "inferi- 
 our points connected with these doctrines'* would be most 
 idle and preposterous. To give some plausibility to your 
 strange assertion, you refer to disputes concerising the 
 **benevolence of God" and "his omnipresence." But these, 
 Sir, are not *<peculiar doctrines of the gospel," but funda- 
 mental doctrines of natural religion. "In like manner," 
 however, you say, "christians have disputed about the pre- 
 cise way in which Christ's death has an influence on our 
 forgiveness: but tliat it has a real and important influence 
 on forgiveness almost all have united in asserting." This 
 is one instance out of many of the manner, in wliich you 
 conceal the real and essential points of difference in debate. 
 The plain truth is, and it ought not to be concealed, that 
 while some professed christians hold the death of Christ, 
 God manifest in the fiesli, to have been an expiatory sacrifice 
 for sin, on account of which solely and through faith in 
 this blood, forgiveness is to be obtained; others deny this 
 docti-ine entirely, and hold that the death of Clu-ist, a mere 
 creature, was in no proper sense expiatory, and has no 
 influence on forgiveness, only as it attests the trutli cf his 
 religion and the benevolence of God. It is i)i this latter 
 sense, at least in some sense altogether different from the 
 former, uu(U)uhtedly, that you ''tell your Ijearers that God 
 sent his Sun to die for us." The difference betv/cen us in 
 regard to "spiritual influences," to which you also refer, is 
 not less wide and essential. And, Sii% I believe you might 
 be less "general and va^ue in vouv representation of tlie 
 truths of tlie gospel," ami not "be precise above what is 
 written," nor less *<faithful" than you now are. 
 
 "It is urged," you say. p. 16, "tliat ovr sentiments 
 XEAD us into an e)itire indiffi-rence to christian truth; that 
 we believe all crrour to be innocent: that we consider belief 
 in the truth as no virtue." No, Sir: but what I advanced 
 
19 
 
 en this topick was "urged" directly and explicitly upon yom- 
 broad assertion, tlrat "to believe with Mr. Belshani is no 
 crime," in connexion with other declarations and represen- 
 tations to the same effect. Why then did you not fairly and 
 magnanimously meet me upon this ground? As to what you 
 say in this connexion of "love of the truth," as being essen- 
 tial to the "faith to which salvation is proinised," there is no 
 controversy between us. I am happy in expressing my 
 agreement with you in this point; and most devoutly wish 
 that in every other important point we were equally agreed. 
 In coincidence also with you, I hold that tiiere may be true 
 faith, where there is but little knowledge of divine truth. 1 
 am accustomed to make a wide difference behveen ignorarxe 
 of truth and rejection of truth; between the infelicity of 
 bad instruction, and scanty means of divine kno\\ledge; 
 and the audacity of opposing reason to revelation, and tlie 
 wisdom of tltis world to the wisdom of God. 
 
 What I offered under tlie third and last head of ray Letter, 
 on the question of "separation," and which you say is "infi- 
 nitely the most important part" of the whole, you have 
 almost entirely misstated. I did not undertake to decide the 
 question of separation in the way of giving an opinion; but 
 thought it more befitting, and more likely to be useful, to 
 submit some considerations, relating to tlie subject, vihich 
 appeared to me relevant, and worthy to be most seriously 
 weighed on both sides. To these considerations you bring 
 no argument in reply. 
 
 You represent, that "'the separation, which has been made 
 in England by the Unitarians themselves," is soniethiiig far 
 less "solemn," — vastly less dreadful, tlian the separation 
 which you suppose me to favour, Vriiat then is the separa- 
 tion which the Unitarians in England have made? You de- 
 scribe it to be "« separation in worship — a separation pro- 
 duced by the adoption of pkayers, hymiss, and doxol- 
 
 OGIES, accommodated TO THEIR PECULIAH SENTIMENTS." 
 
 Are we to understand. Sir, that you and your liberal breth- 
 ren here, arc ready for such a separation as tisis? If so, there 
 is no further occasion of debate on this subject, unless your 
 opponents should be unwilling to separate. Let it be under- 
 
20 
 
 stood, that the differences between us arc such, that we can- 
 not consistently worship together — cannot unite in offering the. 
 same prayers^ nor join in the same hymns and doxologies, — and 
 the question is settled. What is this, I pray you. sliort of a 
 thorough disruption of fellowship, a complete non-commu- 
 nion? — Yet this separation you admit to have been made by 
 the Unitarians themselves in England, and of this you ex- 
 press not the slightest disapprobation. 
 
 You omit, howevei', to stdte «'fco t!ic publirk*' the strong 
 terms and the earnest nnanier, in which the English Unita- 
 rians urge this separation. You do n »t mention that they 
 loudly call upj.n their people <'to come out from Babylon," — 
 to separate thenjselves from idolaters^ and earnestly rep- 
 resent that the separation of Unitarians from Trinitarians 
 is as obviously proper and necessary, as was the separation 
 of the Protestants from the church of Rome, and that such 
 Unitarians as continue to worship with Trinitarians, arc 
 either still in great darkness, or » Ise g.tilty of compromising 
 their consciences to a most reprehensible extent. This you 
 Jiave omitted to mention: yet you who are much more exten- 
 sively conversant with the English Unitarian writei's, than 
 I can pretend to be, must have been perfectly acquainted 
 with the fact. 
 
 Such then is the separation, made by the Unitarians them- 
 selves in England; and such tlie terms and the manner in 
 Avhich its imi)ortance is urged. Of this se])aration, I repeat 
 it, you expi-ess no disapprobati<n: ^ ou speak of it in no oth- 
 er manner, than if in your judgment it were entirely unob- 
 jectionable. Now, Sir, perirat me to ask, what greater or 
 more dreadful separation than this, do any of your opponents 
 contemplate? Has evrn the Panoplist Reviewer prcjuised any 
 thing more frightful? or has he urged his propt'sal in terms 
 more decisive, or in a manner more vehement? To what, be- 
 yond this, can any of the considerations submitted in my Let- 
 ter, by fair construction or legitimate inferen( e, be made to 
 favour? 
 
 Y'et speaking of me, p. 23, you say, <«The obvious import 
 *<of his Letter (and it is the obviofs iMroRT, and not a 
 
 ♦•STRAINED AND CIRCUITOUS INTERPRETATION WHICH I 
 
21 
 
 iVREGATiD) may be thus expressed: <Every man who cannot 
 .- « admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine op 
 
 «<THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD, AVHICH I AND OTHER OR- 
 *« <THODOX CHRISTIANS EMBRACE, BELIEVES AN OPPOSITE 
 
 « <GOSPEii, REJECTS THE TRUE GOSPEL, despises the aiitliority 
 « <of Jesus Christ, is or course a man wholly wanting in 
 
 i' *TRUE PIETY AND WITHOUT CHRISTIAN VIRTUE^ and may 
 
 « *in perfect consistency with christian love be rejected as un- 
 « <worthy the name of a christian.' " Here, Sir, I suppose 
 you to have applied the «rule" of construction which I have 
 twice before noticed, — that of the "impression" which hap- 
 pened to be made on your mind, without duly considering the 
 meaning of the words, and the scope of the argument. And 
 here I record my final and solemn protest against your use of 
 this rule. 
 
 In vain, Sir, will any one search in my Letter for what 
 you would make me say. 1 did indeed think it right, not 
 "studiously to magnify" the points of difference between us, 
 which you seemed studiously to conceal; but distinctly to state 
 them, and set them in a fair and clear light. In doing tiiis, 
 I contrasted :Mr. Bclsham's sentiments with the doctrines 
 held by orthodox christians; (not however making you an- 
 swerable for those sentiments, any further than as you plead 
 for their being held in general christian fellowsliip;) and I 
 did pronounce that "one or the other of these schemes must 
 be wliat St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against 
 which and its abetters he solemnly pronounces his apostoli( k 
 anathema.'' This is the most that 1 have any where said. 
 I did not draw the ivferencef that "every man" who rejects 
 the orthodox docti-incs and embraces Mr. Belsham's senti- 
 ments, "is of course a man whoily -icaniing in tme piety, mid 
 without christian virtue," This, Sir, is your own inference; 
 I have said no such thing. I do not, however, complain of 
 your making the inference, though you protest against the 
 practice: but since you hax-e made it, you will permit me to 
 hold you to it. By making this inference, you give it to be 
 understood, and in effect concede, that in your own judgment 
 every one who does embrace another gospel, th&n that whirh 
 Paul preached, "is of course wliolly warding in true piety, r;nd 
 ■^vithout christian virtue." — Now, Sir, ^^ilI you deny the 
 
22 
 
 premises? "VN'ill you deny, that either Mr. Belsham's system, 
 or that called orthodox, must be aiiotlicr gospel? W'Ol you 
 deuy that these two systems are esseDtiiilly different, from 
 tiie foundation to tlie topstone? TTe ai'e here, as you will cer- 
 taiidy perceive, to lay out of the question the doctrines of 
 natural i-eligijn, and confine our attention to such as are pe- 
 cidiar to the gospel. Do not, then, the Unitai'ians, whose 
 sentiments are set forth by Mr Belsham, reject every doc- 
 trine of the gospel, as held by orthodox christians? I am per- 
 suaded. Sir, you w ill not deny this. Your own infei-ence. then, 
 is that eiiher those who embrace Mr. Belsham's scheme, or 
 those who hold the doctrines called orthodox, ai'e **of coiu^e 
 w hblly wanting in true piety and without chi*istian virtue." 
 I now refer it to you to say further, whether they can con- 
 sistently meet together at the table of the Lord. 
 
 But you make me say, not only that the Unitarians who 
 hold with Mr. Belsham, are "w hoUy wanting in true piety 
 and wit'iout chnstian virtue," which I have no wliere said; 
 hut also that *»eTeiy' man" is so, "who cannot admit as a 
 doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of tliree persons in 
 one God, which I and other orthodox christians embrace." 
 So far, however, from having said this, I have not even as- 
 serted the premises from wliich such an inference could be 
 drawn. Xo where have 1 said or intimated, that every one 
 wlio does not admit the doctiiue of the Trinity as I hold it, 
 •'rejects the true gospel, and believes an opposite gospel." 
 For stating that I have said this, you have not the shadow of 
 a warrant. 
 
 Dr. Samuel Clark's \icws of the Trinity, as I hcfore inti- 
 mated, are veiy different fi-om mine and those called ortho- 
 dox, and in my judgment very erroneous, and of dangerous 
 tendency. Yet I am by no means prejjai'ed to say, tliat every 
 one who adopts liis views of the Trinity rejects the ti-ue gos- 
 pel, embraces another, and Ls dev(»id of christian faith and 
 virtue fur I can suppose that a person may adopt tliose views, 
 and yet be a sound believer in the doctiine of atonement by 
 Christ's death, and of justification through faith in his blood. 
 As much as t lis I am also ready to say respecting other views 
 of the Tiiiiity very different from mine, and in my opinion 
 
very erroneous and dangerous. Let me repeat it, and let it 
 be remembered, my concern in this debate is with those w ho 
 deny tlie essential divinity, and the propitiatoi^ sacrifice of 
 Jesus Christ, These doctrines I certainly do consider as 
 constituting the very foundation of the gospel,- and I 
 feel no unwillingness to have it understood, that in my judg- 
 ment every one who rejects tliese doctrines does reject the 
 true gospel, and must either embrace anotlier gospel, or be 
 a Jew or an Infidel. If you say, .as you have before infer- 
 ed, "then all who deny these doctrines are whdly wanting 
 in true piety and without ciiristian ^■il•tup^" I will leave you 
 in the quiet possession of the inference, and woidd earnestly 
 recommend it to your very sei-ious conrsideration. 
 
 For myself, however, I think it suiUcient at present, to 
 refer the deniei*s of tliese docti'ines, as I would all othei-s, in 
 regard to their inward piety and tlicir final state, to Him 
 w ho searchcth the heai't, and to whom it belongs to award 
 the retributions of eternitj^ Always, Sir, would I feel, and 
 deeply feel, that I am a ''frail, fallible creature:'* and if for 
 this j'eason I sJiould "sliudder at the awful temerity'* of ad- 
 judging to final perdition, "men of tlie profoundest under- 
 standings, of the purest lives, ar.d of unwearied devotion to 
 the study of God's word;" no less should I shudder at the 
 no less awful temerity^ of adjudgi)ig to eternal life, men, 
 however fair their characters in the eyes of the world, how- 
 ever renowned for wliat the world calls wisdom, however 
 distinguished among the fiiends of science, or of sacred lit- 
 erature, who, nevertheless, deny the blood of atonement, de- 
 grade tlie Lord ivho bought tJiem to the condition of a mere 
 creature, and, not submittivg themselves to the rlghttor.sness 
 of Godf go about to establish tlieir otcii righteousness. I did 
 not, therefire, when writing my former Letter, nor do I 
 now, think it incumbent on me to dwterinine how much of 
 divine trutli a man may reject, and yet have saving faith: 
 or what is the precise point or degree of errour, beyond 
 which tiiere can be no hope of any one's salvation. ^Mth 
 questif)ns of this soi-t, 1 iiave not at all intermeddled: not 
 only because I am consciously incompetent to decide upon 
 tlicm: but also because I do not consider them as belonging 
 
to the pi-pscTit (Hsciissioit: and I have wished that the discus- 
 sion might not be iiuunibcred or perplexed with any tiling 
 extraneous or irrelevant. 
 
 The question now at issue is, whether visible christian fel- 
 lowship ought to be maintained between orthodox christians and 
 Unitarianst There are cases, indisputably, in which it may 
 be right to maintain visible fellowsiiip with individuals, re- 
 spectinii; the sincerity of whose christian profession we may 
 have very strong doubts; on the other hand, there may be 
 cases in which it wore riglit to decline visible fellowsiiip with 
 individuals, of whose christian sincerity we have very strong 
 hopes. When, in the regular exercise of dis( ipline, a church 
 passes the sentence of excommunication upon a peccant mem- 
 ber, it does not by that act pronounce tlie excluded person to 
 be "wholly wanting in true piety and without christian vir- 
 tue." Leaving that decisi(>n to the omniscient Judge, it is 
 sufficient for the churoh to decide, that the person is so dis- 
 orderly in his walk, or so corrupt in his sentiments, that the 
 purity and welfare of the church, the honour of i-eligion, 
 and fidelity to the cause of truth, rc(|iiii'e his exclusion. This 
 dc( ision siiould be made, only in the spirit of charity, and 
 in the fear of God. Upon tlie same general principle, a 
 church may with(h"aw fellowship irom another church, with- 
 out meaning to pronounce that every individual in that other 
 church is utterly graceless and in a state of condemnation. 
 The Protestants did not pronounce this, when they scpaj'- 
 ated from the church of Rome: — but they did pronounce that 
 the errours of that churcli %vere subversive of the gospel, 
 and most dangci'ous to the eternal interests of mankind; 
 and they felt it incumbent on them to come out aiui be separate 
 from all communion with those errours, and to bear their 
 publiik, de( idi^^d, and most solemn testimony against them. 
 
 ]S'<>thlng more than this, Sir, has been proposed in tlie 
 present case. It is our solemn conviction, that the erroui-s 
 of the Unitarians are subversive of the gospel, and most 
 dangerous to the eternal interests of mankind; and we think 
 it right rfnd indispensably incumbent on us, clearly to de- 
 velo])e thciu before the W()i-hl, fully to display their enormi- 
 ty and their pernicious tendency, and faithfully to bear our 
 
&3 
 
 testimony against them, and to wara all people to beware 
 lest they be deceived and misled by them to their final ruin. 
 This we believe to be an urgent dictate of that charitv, 
 which supremely seeks the glory of God and the salvation of 
 men: a dictate, which we are fully persuaded we may obey, 
 withoutjustly incurring the charge of "awful temerity,"— 
 without pronouncing any "sentence*' more "tremendous" than 
 we are warranted by the word of God to pronounce,— without 
 taking upon ourselves any "responsibility," whicii it would 
 not be treacherous and most criminal, in those who are set for 
 the defence of the gospel, to decline. 
 
 Such, Sir, are my views^ such are the principles on which, in 
 my former Letter, the remarks and ai-guments on tlie subject 
 of separation m ere foimded; and with tiiese views and princi- 
 ples, all which is there advanced is in perfect and most evi- 
 dent coincidence — Your statement, therefore, of the "import 
 of the concluding part" of my Letter is most palpably incor- 
 rect and unjust. And though I attribute this incorrectness 
 and this injustice, not to any injurious intention, but to that 
 habit of thinking and feeling of whicli I have before taken no- 
 tice; yet after what I have now stated, I think I have a right to 
 call upon jou,—and I do solenmly call upon you, to retract this 
 flagrant misstatement. I know indeed, you have given it to 
 be understood, that you shall not write again; but. Sir, the 
 publick disputant who makes this resolve ouglit to be careful, 
 not merely, not to "put down ought in malice," but to write 
 nothing wliich justice to his opponent and to the cause of 
 truth,— nothing wliich the sacred principles of Christianity 
 will require him to retract. 
 
 It is upon the ground of this incorrect and injurious state- 
 ment, that you have founded the earnest and impassioned 
 appeal, in which you seem to have put forth all your powers 
 of rhetorick, and by which you evidently designed to make 
 your grand and decisive impression against me. But as the 
 ground is removed, the whole splendid shew must dissolve, 
 <<like the baseless fabrick of a vision." — As to what you say, 
 in this connexion, with reference to my statement, that "the 
 Saviour whom you acknowledge is infinitely inferiour to 
 ours," a very brief remark may be sufficient. I did suppose 
 4 
 
25 
 
 you would yet acknowledge JESUS CHRIST to bcTonr 
 SAVIOUR. Yoiii' declaration, however, if it has any 
 pcrtincnc}', plainly imports that you do not. How can you 
 then sit down at his table in commun-ion with those who do 
 acknowk'dge him as their SAVIOUR,— and who with undis- 
 scmblcd gratitude and devotion unite in the holy ascrip- 
 tion, — Unto HIM that loved its, and washed nsfrom our sins in 
 his orvn bloody and hath made ns kings and pnests unto God and 
 his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and 
 EviiK. We worship, Sir, THE FATHER, SON, AND 
 HOLY (iHOST. Do you worship this same GOD? 
 
 You '^did look" to me, you are pleased to say, "for a 
 healing sj)irit." Happy, iivdeed will lie bo, wha shall be in- 
 strumental in "raising up the Inundations of many genera- 
 tions," and justly "be called, The I'cpairer of the breach. 
 The restorer of jjaths to dwell in." But wo to him, who 
 would "ileal tlie hurt slightly, sayings Peace, peace, when 
 there is no peace!" Few tnen can have gi'eater iBduccments> 
 than I have, to listen to the enchanting^ vor<:e of peace; few 
 could have engaged in this controversy with greater reluc- 
 tance, or have brought to it greater heaviness and sorrow of 
 heai't. — But the servants of him who endured the cross, de- 
 spising the sJiaine^ must not confer ^^ith flesh and blood: must 
 never forget the solemn declaration. He that loveth father or 
 mother more than me is not tvorthy of me; and he that loveth 
 son or daughter more than ine is not 'worthy of me; and h^ 
 that takctli not his cross andfoUoxveth after me is not worthy 
 »f mc. 
 
 You charge me with "studiously magnifying the diflfereH- 
 ces" between orthodox Cinistians and Unitarians; and 
 with "studiously overlooking the points of agreement." 
 There is certaiidy no occasion to magnify the differences; 
 tliey are in themselves sufliciently great. To me, howevciv 
 it has appeared vastly important, that people should "learn 
 tlier distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism." 
 This you recommend in your "Notej" and in this recommenda- 
 tion I cordially join. Upon this, however, you jn-oceed to some 
 discussion, as if with a design to shew the "distinction;" and 
 yon finally leprescnt it as being little, if any thing more 
 
fir 
 
 tlian a mere «souxd." Elsewhere, also, you si)eak ot it us 
 being only a "difference w Iiich relates to the obscurest of all 
 subjects, to the essence and metapbysical nature of God.'* 
 And throug-Iioiit both your Letter and your Remarks you 
 seem to have laJboured, assiduously, to conceal the points of 
 difference betweeen us, and to make the impression that tbese 
 points are few and of very little importance. This mode of 
 treating the subject appears to me exceedingly imi)ropep, and 
 of most deceptive tendency. Is this the way, Sir, to pro- 
 mote the knowledge of truth? Is it thus that you would con- 
 duct "that candid and impartial research," which accordinj; 
 to your Letter, is to «*guide mankind to a purer system of 
 Christianity, than is now to be found in any church under 
 Heaven,"— and to b^'ing about a ^'glorious reformation of the 
 church of God?'' 
 
 In opposition to this system of concealment, I have tliought 
 it rigbt and important to endeavour a developement, and to 
 lay the differences between us open to the publick in their 
 true light. On our part we have no dread of tliis^ no dread 
 of a clear and full developement. It has long been our earnest 
 desire, tUat your sentiments as well as ours, might be known; 
 and that all christians and all people might well understand 
 the points oii which you differ from us. Un this account w<' 
 devoutly rejoice that the subject has been brought before the 
 publick. In our vicv, , it has come forward in a way to an- 
 swer an impiu'tant purpose. A '^general discussion" of the 
 differences between us, w ould have been o^ little avail, while 
 people were utterly unapprised that such differences really 
 existed, and v.ere fast asleep in regard to them. It was first 
 of all desirable that tlicse differences should be disclosed; 
 that people sliould be made to see them to be not imaginary, 
 but real; not of trivial consequence, but of essential impor- 
 tance; and that their attention would be strongly dra^\n to 
 them^ 
 
 It was under impressions of this kitid, that I was induced 
 to make the statements, exhibited in my former Letter; and 
 under the same impressions, I now proceed to a still mor* 
 ilistiiict and detailed statement. 
 
58 
 
 Ortliodox christians hokl, that the Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God; and 
 i/uit all tvldch they contain is to be received as truths on the 
 AUTHORITY OF GoD. — Biit by the principal Unitarian wri- 
 ters, and, so far as is known, by Unitarians generally, the 
 plenary inspiration of the scriptures is denied. "The scrip- 
 tures," says Dr, Priestley,* "were written without any par-^ 
 ticular inspiration^ by men who wrote according to the best 
 of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could 
 not be mistaken, with regard to the greater facts of which 
 tliey were projjcrly m itnessesj but (like otlier men subject to 
 prejudice) might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill grounded 
 opinion, concerning things \slii( h did not fall within the com- 
 pass of their own knowledge, and which had no connexion 
 with any thing that was so. We ought all of us, therefore, 
 to consider ourselves fully at liberty to examine, with thei 
 greatest rigour, both the reasonings of the writers, and thQ 
 facts of which we lind any account in their writings; 
 that, judging by the eui.es of just criticism, we may 
 distinguish what may be depended on from what may not.^' 
 Mr. Belsham says,f "The scriptures contain a faithful and 
 ci'cdible account of the christian doctrine^ which is the true 
 word of God; but they arc not themselves the word of God, 
 nor did they ever assume that title; and it is highly improj)er 
 to speak of them as such; as it leads inattentive I'eadcrs to 
 suppose tlicy were written under a plenary inspiration, to 
 which they make no pretension; and as such expressions ex- 
 pose Christianity, unnecessarily, to the cavils of unbelievers.":^ 
 
 * History of Early Opinions, vol. iv, p. 5. 
 
 ■}■ Kcview of VVilberforce, p. 19. 
 
 ■4 "Perhaps I m:iy be charged -with liaving made a distinction in this place, 
 ■^hich gives an unfair represeiitalion of Unitarians, inasniBch as they aho profesn 
 to derive their argunienis fi'oni scripture. But whether that prolession be not 
 intended in nioikcry, one might be almost temirted to question; wlien it is found 
 (hat in every instance, the doctrine of scriptui'e is tried by their abstract notion 
 ofrijiht, and rejected if not acconlant: — when by means of figure and allusion, it 
 is every where made to speak a language the most rei)Ugnanl to ail fair, critical 
 interpretation; until en)j)tied of its true mcanii g, it is converted intp a vehicle 
 for every fantastick theory, vhich under the name of rational, they may think 
 proper to ado|)t: — when in such parts as projKwnd gospel truths of a contexture 
 ion solid to admit of wn escape in fit^Uic and allubion, the satied writers ate chaiged 
 
29 
 
 Though all Unitarians may not be ready fully to adopt the 
 language or the sentiments on this subject of Dr. Priestley, 
 Mr. Belsham, or others, mentioned in the note below^ yet 
 I believe very few, if any of them, admit the plenary in- 
 spiration of the scriptures. But, Sir, if the plenary inspira- 
 tion of the scriptures be denied, where shall we stop? How 
 shall we determine what is the word of God, and what is 
 not? What other test, or criterion, of truth have we, than 
 
 REASON? 
 
 Accordingly the Unitarians very generally seem to have 
 adopted "the fundamental rule" of the old Socinians, "That no 
 doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or 
 divine in its origin, all whose ])arts are not level to the com- 
 prehension of the human understandings and that, wliateA'^er 
 the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, 
 his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must l>c 
 modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the 
 transforming power of art and argument, as to answer the 
 extent of our limited faculties."* That this is the principle, 
 and this the labour of Unitarians, no one who is conversant 
 
 as bunglers, producing "laine accounts, improper quolalions, and inconclusive rea- 
 sonings," (Dr. Priestley's Villi Letter to JMr. Burn J and pliiloscpliy is conse- 
 quently called in to rectify their errors: — when one writer of this class (Stein- 
 liart) tells us, that "the narrations," (in the New Testament) "true or false, are 
 only suited for ignorant, uncultivatetl minds, who cannot enter into the evidence 
 of natural religion;" and again, that "Aloses, according to tht- childisii conceptions 
 of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to 
 one people, and hating all other nations:" — when another, (Scmler) remarking 
 on St. Peter's declaration, that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 
 tilt Hoiy men of God spake us they -were moved by the Holy Spirit, says, that 
 ♦'Peter speaks here according to the conception of the Jews," and that "the 
 prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revela- 
 tions:"("i^)*. Erskiiie's Sketclies and Hints of Ch. Hist. No 3, pp. 06, 71.) — when 
 si^ third (Eiigedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New Testament, as written 
 •with "concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of alle- 
 gories;" and Gagneius glories in having given "a little light to St. I'aul's darkness, 
 a darkness, as some think, industriously affected:" — when we find JVIr. Evan.'^ou, 
 one of those able commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Jieview, kc. 
 p. 20G: assert, (~ nisso7iancc, k.(i. p. i,) that "the evangelical liistories contain 
 gross and irreconcileable contrailiclion," and consequently dij.card three out of the 
 four, retaining the gospel of St. Luke only, at the same time drawing his pen over 
 as much of this, as either from its ivftlicity of style, or otlier such causes liappens 
 not to meet his approbation." Magee on Alonvincut, A'otcs, J\'o. 14. 
 * Mosheirn's Ecel. Hist, Cent. 10. cliap. 4. 
 
Y itli their writin.E^s can doubt. Deii} in j^thc ])lcnary infspiratioi* 
 of the sciiptui'cs, they hokl themselves at liberty to subject 
 those sacred writings to all the torture of the most rigoi'ous 
 criticism; not for the purpose merely of deciding upon ''vari- 
 ous readings," of elucidating obscure passages by reference 
 to ancient customs and manners, or of ascertaining the true 
 meaning of the original words, and their most natural sense 
 in the connexions in wiiich they occur; but for the purpose 
 especially, of explaining the different parts in such a manner 
 as to make them yield a meaning coufoi'mable to their views 
 of w hat is rational. In this migiity w ork human reason ap- 
 pears in all its pride, and tlic w isdoni of this world in its 
 highest gloi-y. 
 
 Here is the primary point of difference between orthodox 
 christians and Unitarians. The ortiiodox, holding the Bible 
 to be tlic word of the living God, feel tlicmselves warranted 
 and bound to embrace as divine truth, every doctiine which 
 they find revealed in that sacred volume, however humbling 
 to reason it may be, however mysterious and incomprehensi- 
 ble. But tlic Unitarians, regarding the Bible in a very dif- 
 ferent light, are not restrained from using greater liberties 
 with it; arc not restrained from rejecting sucli doctrines, as 
 transcend the cou'prehension of their own understandings, 
 or do n >t comp»)rt with their views of what is rational; but 
 glory in excluding all mystery from religion. Hence the 
 name which they assume of rational ciiuistiaxs; and 
 hence the imposing superiority which they affect over those, 
 w ho understand the scriptures in their natural and obvious 
 sense, and believe in doctrines confessedly beyond the powers 
 of the human mind to comprehend. 
 
 On tlic authority of the scriptures, orthodox christians be- 
 lieve that the one Jehovah exists in a Trinity, called the 
 Father, the Son, a)id the Holy Spirit. These we call three 
 jpersons; because we have no better word by w Inch to denote 
 the distinction; and because tuey apply to each other t\i& 
 personal pi-onouns /, Thou, and He. and to ///fju.st'/rfs together, 
 the plurids we, ns. and our. This 'I'rinily in the Godhead 
 we acknowledge to be a mystery, which we pi-ctend not to 
 coinprehejid, and width we would not undertake to explain. 
 
31 
 
 So too tiie eternal existence of God, in any mode, is to us a 
 mystery; his omnipresence is a mystery; his omniscience is 
 a mystery; liis creating all things out of nothing by the word 
 of his power, is a mystery. We find mysteries, indeed, in all 
 his perfections and works; mysteries in natural religion, as 
 well as in revealed; mysteries in every thing around us, as 
 uttei'ly beyond our powers to explain or comprehend, as 
 that of the Trinity in the Godhead. 
 
 We believe this doctrine, because we find it in those scrip- 
 tures, which we receive as given by divine inspiration. In 
 the scriptures, tlie original Hebrew name, by which th» 
 Supreme Being is most commonly called, is plural: [Jleinif 
 Gods.] Incoincidence with this plural name, other plural words 
 are used. *'Let us make man in our 07vn image.'* **Behol(l 
 the man has become as o.ve 0/ us." '»r/ie knowledge of the 
 Holy (in the original the Holy Oxes) is understanding.'^ 
 t*Remember now thy Creator (original Creators) in the 
 days of thy youth.'' Tliis remarkable use of plurals, which 
 runs tlirough tlie Hebrew scriptures, we think clearly denotes 
 a plurality of what, as 1 before observed, we call persons* 
 Yet we read, **IIear Israel, Jehovah our God (our Meinif 
 Gods) is oxe Jehovah;" and of the unity of God we find in 
 the scriptures abundant proof. To eacli of tiie Holy Ones, 
 however, to the Father, to the Son, and to the Spirit, the 
 
 scriptures ascribe divine names and titles, — divine attributes, 
 
 diviii£ works, — and divine honours. Tlie proofs of all tliis 
 are so abundant and so memorable, that for my present pur- 
 pose it is not necessary to cite even a specimen. Each of 
 the three, therefore, we believe to be ti-uly and essentially 
 DIVINE, and all of them equal in dignity and glory. 
 
 But this doctrine of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly 
 deny: not because thei-e is no proof of it in tl;e scriptures; 
 but because it is a doctrine, (as you repeatedly and emphati- 
 cally pronounce in your Letter arul Remarks,) <'perplexuig," 
 *<mysterious," and not to be "'understood.'' 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity, we liold to be important, fun- 
 damentally important, in relation especially to the general 
 doctrine of redemption and salvation revealed in the gospel. 
 In the gospel, the Son, Jesus t.'iu-ist is revealed as our Re- 
 
dc^mer and Saviour; the Holy Spirit, as our Sanctificr and 
 Comlortcr. But who is Jesus Christ, and who is the Holy 
 Spirit? AVith what feelings and alfections, with what expec- 
 tations and hopes, with what kind and degree of reverence 
 and confidence, is it suitable that we should regard the one 
 and the other? What is the nature, and what the extent of tlie 
 work which they severally pciform for us? and what tho 
 nature, and tike extent of our obligations to them? These are 
 most interesting questions: questions not merely of a specu- 
 lative nature, but of the first practical concernment, of the 
 very highest religious importance. But by each of these 
 questions we are directly referred to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity; and to each of them infinitely different answers will 
 be given, by those who believe, and tiiose who disbelieve, 
 this doctrine. 
 
 Who then is Jesus Christ? The apostle John in the first of 
 his gospel, says, <*lsr the ueginnixg was the Word, 
 and the iVord was with Godf and the Word was God. An. 
 
 THINGS WERE MADE BY HiM, AND WITHOUT HiM WA3 
 NOT Ax\Y THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." In tllC close of 
 
 his first Epistle, he says "This is the true God, and 
 eternal life. St. Paul also speaks of "our great God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ;" calls Him, "God over all bles- 
 8 5-d forevermore;" and says tliat *'all things were made bt 
 Him and for Him." Language of similar impoil is familiar 
 to the sacred writers; who as before intimated, most abun- 
 dantly and expressly ascribe to Jesus Christ divine names, 
 titles, attributes, works, and honours. Upon authority such 
 as this, we beli.'ve that the Son is essentially divine, — essen- 
 tially equal to the Father. — And believing this, we feel our- 
 selves warranted and bound to regard Him witli all the feel- 
 ings and affections, hopes and expectations, reverence and 
 confidence, which a Saviour of infinite perfections, of illimi- 
 table riches of grace and of glory, can inspire or claim. The 
 scriptures, however, teach us further, that the same "Word," 
 — who "was in the beginning with God and was God," — o^was 
 made flesh and dwelt among ws;" that "He took on him the 
 seed of Abraham," — "wa.s made of a woman, made under 
 the law;"' that though being in the form of God, lie timighf. 
 
U not robbery to be ec^ual with God; yet he made himself of 
 no rejnttatiorif and took upon Him the form or a servant, 
 AND was made in THE LIKENESS OF MEN; and being 
 found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of tlie cross,'* We therefor* 
 believe that, in the person of tiie Son, God was manifest in 
 THE FLESH, in our own nature; that, in the person of Jesus 
 Christ, God and man were united. And here we see a foun- 
 dation for all that is said in the scriptures, importifi,^ an inc-* 
 quality of the Son to the Fathei*. Tlic Son was subordinate 
 to the Father in o^ce, as he was pleased to take upon him 
 the form of a servant; and he was inferiour to the Father in 
 respect of his human nature. Viewing Him, tlien, in his two 
 natures, divine and human, we see a perfect consistency, in 
 Ills being represented, as he is in tlie scriptures, both as God 
 and man, as essentially equal to the Father, and yet in other 
 respects unequal. Tliis union, again, we acknowledge to be 
 a mystery, which we pretend not to comprehend; but as we 
 find it revealed in the word of God, we feel ourselves bound 
 to believe it, as a most iiiteresting and important truth. 
 
 But this doctrine also the Unitarians deny. Tliey deny 
 the true divinity of the Son, Jesus Christ; and hold him to 
 be a mere creature; some of them, a creature of more than 
 angelick dignity; others, no more than a mere man. The 
 Saviour's divinity, however, as must appear from the brief 
 statement now made, is denied, not because there is no proof 
 of it in the scriptures, understood in their most obvious and 
 liarmonious sense; but because, like the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity of which it is a branch, and with which it must stand or 
 fall, it involves mysteries which the human understanding 
 cannot explain or comprehend, and which, therefore, accord- 
 ing to the leading canon of Unitarian criticism, before cited, 
 are not to be received as truth.* 
 
 , * Upon the words of (uu- Saviour, John vl, 62. "IVhat and if ye shall see the 
 Son of man ascend up xuhere he ivas before." Di-. Prieilley, remarks, "Though 
 not satisfied with any interpretation tliat has been given of this extraordinary pas- 
 sage, yet rather than believe our Saviour to have existed in any otlier stale before 
 the creation of the world, or to liave left some stale of great chgniiy and happi- 
 ness when he came hitiier, lie ivouldhave reconrs-j to the old and exploded Socin- 
 -lan idea of Christ's actual ascent into heaven, or of his imagining ihat he had be<»n 
 5 
 
Jesus Christ is revealed as our Redeemer and Saviour, 
 But what is the nature, and what t!ie extent of his woi-k, in 
 these interesting characters? According to the scriptures, He 
 is **the Lamb of God that taketh away the six of the 
 tvorUV His ^'fenh was given for the life of the world;'* — 
 his '"blood 7vas shed for many for the remission of sins." 
 He "Wfts offered to bear the sins of many." He *'-ivas 
 made a cfrse for rs, and bore our sins in his own body 
 ON the tree. He '•"was delivered for our offences, 
 and raised again for our justification." «/yj him we 
 hare redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
 OF SINS according to the riches of his grace." He 
 *'gave himself for ns, an offering and a sacrifice to 
 God." *'lZe appeared to pnt axvay sin by the sacrifice 
 of himself;" — and he is the propitiation, the expiatory 
 sacrifice, for our sins, and not for ours only^ but also for 
 the sins of the whole world." "./Vo^ by the blood of goats 
 and calves, but by iiis own blood, he entered in once into the 
 holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
 us;" wlierefore <»he is able to save them to the ut- 
 termost that came unto God by Him, seeing he ever liveth 
 to make intercession for them." ^-Tids is the stove 
 which was set at nought of you builders, which is become t/ie 
 head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any 
 other; for there is none other name under heav- 
 en given among men whereby we must be saved." 
 In these. Sir, and the passages to tlu* same effect with which 
 the scriptures abound, we see the foundation of all our liopes 
 for eternity. This foundation is Jesus Christ — Jesus Christ 
 CRUCIFIED. Upon this divine testimony, so explicit and so 
 abundant, we believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a 
 vicarious atonement, a propitiatory sacrifice for sin: and that 
 
 carried up thithei" in a vision; which like that of St. Paul, he had not been able to 
 distinffxdsh from a reality; nay, he would not build an article of faith, of such mag- 
 nitude on tlie correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord^s 
 language; and so strange and incredible does Uie hypolhisis of a pre-exislent 
 state apiiear, that sooner than admit it, he -wciuld sitp/iose the xuhole verse to he 
 an interpolation, or that thl old apostle dictatek one thing and his 
 AMANUENSIS WKOTE ASOTUEii." Letters to Dr. Price^ as quoted by Dr. 
 Magee. 
 
35 
 
 in liim we have redemption, tlie forgiveness of sins, and 
 solely on account of the merits of his hlood. 
 
 Connected with this doctrine of atonement, and founded 
 upon it, is the doctrine of justification by faith. The whole 
 is presented in one concise view, in the third of Romans. 
 "Now we know that what thing's soever the law saith, it 
 saith to them that are under the law, tliat every mouth may 
 he stopped, and all the world become guilty before God, There- 
 fore BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW, THERE SHALL XO 
 
 FLESH BE JUSTIFIED ill Ms sight; foF by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin. But now the nghteousness of God without 
 the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the 
 prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of 
 Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for 
 there is no difference: /or all have sinned and come short of the 
 glory of God: being justifed freely of his grace, through 
 
 THE REDEMPTION THAT IS IN ChRIST JeSUS, WHOM 
 
 God hath set forth to be a propitiatiojv through 
 FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 
 to declare, I say, at this time his nghteousness; that he 
 might be just, and the justifier of him which be- 
 iiEVETH in Jesus. 
 
 But all tiiis is denied by Unitarians. I do not mean that 
 tliey utterly discard and would obliterate the sacred passages 
 here cited, and all others of similar import; but, comforma- 
 hly to the rule and the practice of the Polish Unitarians, as 
 before quoted from Mosheim, "they modify, curtail, and file 
 down" these passages, or the momentous doctrine contained 
 in them, "in such a manner, by the transforming power of 
 art and argument, as to answer the extent of their limited 
 faculties." The doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice by 
 Christ's deatli, of redemption through his blood, of the for- 
 giveness of sins and justification on account of his vicarious 
 merits they reject, as unreasonable in itself, inconsistent with 
 tlie goodness of God, and derogatory to the cliaracter of man. 
 — "Christ being a man," says Dr. Priestley,* "who suffered 
 jind died in the best of causes, there is nothing so rery differ- 
 
 * Theol. Rep. vol. i, p. 39. 
 
S6 
 
 entiii the occasion and manner of his death, from that of others 
 ivJio suffered and died after him in the same cause of chris^ 
 tianitij, but that their sufferings and death may be consider- 
 ed in the same light with his.-' Again he says,* "Re- 
 pentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to re- 
 commend lis to the divine favour." "In this," then he says 
 again,! (that is in the notion that Christ's death had no re- 
 lation to the forgiveness of sins) "Let us acquiesce, not 
 douhting but that, though not perhaps at present, we shall in 
 time be able, witiiout any effort or straixixg, to explain 
 all particular expressions in the Apostf)lical Epistles:" a 
 plain confession, that it is not without <^*cffort and straining'* 
 that the scriptures are now accommodated to the Unitarian 
 doctrine. "AVhen, (says Mrs. Barhauld,:j:) will christians per- 
 mit themselves to believe, that the same conduct wliich gains 
 them the approbation of good men here, will secure the 
 favour of heaven hereafter? — When a man, like Dr. Price, 
 is about to resign his soul into the hands of his Maker, he 
 ought to do it not only \\ith a reliance on his mercy, but 
 li.s Justice. It does not become him to pay the blasphemous 
 homage of deprecating the wrath of God, when he ought to 
 throw himself into the arms of his love!" — "Other foundation 
 can no man lay:" (says Dr. IIar\vood,§ as if with an express 
 design to contradict an apostle.) "All hopes founded upon 
 any thing else than a good moral life, arc merely imaginary!" 
 "There can be no proper foundation," says Mr. Bclsliam,|| 
 "for religious address to him, [Christ] nor of gratitude to 
 him for favours now received, nor of confidence in Ids future 
 interpositions in our belialf!" It were easy to fill many 
 pages with passages to this general effect, selected from the 
 writings of L nitaiians. 
 
 Concerning the Holy Spiiit, my limits do not allow me to be 
 particular. Suffice it to say, thatw hile orthodox christians be- 
 lieve that He, like the Father and the So)i, is truly and essen- 
 tially divine, — and that all which is truly holy ami virtuous in 
 any of mankind in to be ascribed to his sovereign and gracious 
 
 • Flistof Con-up. r f Chrisliauitv, vol. i, p. 155. fThcol Kcp. vol. i, p. 21^ 
 :f Remarks on AVaktfield. f Sornions, as (iv.olti] by Dr. Fuller. 
 
 li Review of W'ilberforfc. 
 
agency; both the one and the otlier of these doctrines are de- 
 nied by Unitarians. "In popular language, says Mr. Bel- 
 sham,* the virtuous affoctinns of virtuous men, are, with 
 great propriety- ascribed to God; and the pious wTiters of the 
 scriptures have often adopted this form of expression. 
 Whether they thenisehes b/iievcd in the existence of fre- 
 quent and supernatural impi-essions upon the mind, does not 
 clearly appear; and it is certain that they m where affirm tlmt 
 it constituted any part of their commission, to teach this extka- 
 
 OEDIXAKT VXD IMPROBABLE DOCTRIXE." 
 
 I mean not, Sii-, to say or to intimate, that you, or any of 
 your liberal brethren here would adopt all tlie expressions or 
 all the sentiments now cited from Unitarian writers. I know 
 that Unitarianism has its degrees and diversities, and is a 
 variable and mutable thing. Dr. Priestley says of himself, 
 tljat he was once "a Calvinist and tiiat of the straitest sect;" 
 that afterwards he "became an high Ai'ian, and in a little 
 time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in whicii Christ is consid- 
 ered as a mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary, and natur- 
 ally as fallible and peccable as Moses or any other prophet:" 
 and even then he wished it to be understood, that he did "'not 
 know when his creed would be fixed." It is easier and safer 
 to say what Unitai-ians do not believe, than what they do. 
 The sentiments however, here exhibited, in contrast with or- 
 thodox doctrines, ai-e Unitarian; ajid it is not to be forgot- 
 ten that we are required to hold in christian fellowship, 
 those Unitarians wlio go to all these lengths as well as those 
 who do not. 
 
 My design in the sketch now given, was not to go into a 
 defence of the doctrines called orthodox, or into a refutation 
 of the Unitarian s} stem; (a design which I am fully aMarc 
 would require a volume rather than a pamphlet:) but to c.\- 
 hibit in a more specifick and connected manner than I had be- 
 fore done, some of the principal points of diffei-ence between 
 these two classes; and to piTsent a summary view of the 
 grounds on whicli they respectively stand. 
 
 Now, Sir, are tliese differences inconsiderable and nnim- 
 poitant? And is it proper to repi-esent them as consisting only 
 
 * K(.\ie\v of AVilbevforte, p. 78. 
 
in a <'metai)l»ysical" point, or a mere <<soinKl?" — If the scrip- 
 tures entire were given by insjjiration of God, and oiiglit to be 
 received with all rcvei'ence and huiniiity, as having his seal to 
 all the doctrines which they teach, as well as to all the pre- 
 cepts w liich they inculcate,- is it a light thing to deny them 
 this supreme authority, and to subject them to the test of fee- 
 ble, erring reason, and to the ordeal of arrogant, pliilo- 
 sophical criticism?* If the doctrine of the Trinity is reveal- 
 ed in the word of God; if it rests on the sure foundation of 
 divine testimony; is it a light thing to reject this doctrine, 
 because it transcends the liuiited faculties of the human 
 mind; and to pronounce it irrational and absurd, because we 
 cannot compreliend it? Though we cannot by seai'ching find 
 out God unto perfection; yet may we not assuredly believe that 
 He knows himself, and the mode of his own existence? and 
 may we not safely rely on what he reveals respecting himself, 
 though there be something relating to it, and beyond it, 
 which we cannot understand? If Jesus Christ is truly and 
 essentially divine, and all men are required to <*/iO)iOMr the 
 Son, even as they honour the Father;'" is it a light thing to deny 
 Lis divinity, to refuse to him all divine lionouis, and to regard 
 and treat him only as a mci'e creature? If, though he thought 
 it no robbery to be equal with God, yet for tlie salvation of 
 lapsed and lost mankind, he came down from heaven, took 
 upon iiim the form of a servant, w as made in tlie likeness of 
 men, and became obedient unto death even the death of the 
 cross, as an offering and sacrifice, for the sins of the world; 
 is it a light thing to deny this doctrine of atonement, — refuse 
 to acknowledge that stupendous display of divine wisdom, con- 
 descension and love which it reve?Js, w hich the inspired w riters 
 celebrate in the most exalted strains of gratitude and i)raise, 
 and to which all the multitude of saints before tlie throne of 
 God and the Lamb, ascribe their redemption from eternal per- 
 dition to immortal life and glory! If Jesus Christ crucified 
 
 * Let me not be understoofl to speak in any disparagement of fair and legiti- 
 mate biblicul criticism. I honour tlie labotifs of Kennicott, l)c Kossi, Midiaelis, 
 Griesbach, Lowth, and many others who have distiugiiisheil themselves in this 
 useful field. It is such criticism only, as has foi' its object to mutilate, and e.v- 
 plain away tlie scriptures, and to shape their doctrines in accoraniudatioit to 
 Jiiurtan feelings and views, that I mean to reprobate. 
 
39 
 
 is the only foundation of good hope to men; if there is no 
 other name hy which men must or can be saved; if forgive- 
 ness of sin and justification unto life can be obtained, only 
 through the merits of his sacrifice, and by faith in his blood; 
 is it a light tiling to reject this doctrine, to refuse this way 
 of pardon and of life, and to trust for acceptance with God 
 and everlasting happiness, on any other ground? 
 
 Suppose a church founded on tliese doctrines, in the act of 
 celebrating the death of the Lord Jesus at his table. They 
 unite in worsliipping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; in 
 adoring Christ as their almighty Saviour, and gratefully 
 ascribing tiie forgiveness of tlieir sins, their acceptance 
 with God, and all theii- immortal hopes entirely to his propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice; and in devoutly acknowledging the Holy 
 Spirit as their Sanctifier and Comforter, and praising Him 
 as the efficient Producer in tlieni of all holy affections and 
 consolations. Can a Unitarian, who denies all these doc- 
 trines, have communion with the church in this solemn and 
 interesting scene. Must it not be to him a scene of abomin- 
 able idolatry; a most delusive and flagitious perversion of the 
 sacred institution? — In regard to the whole, the doctrines and 
 the worsiiip founded upon it, is he not an unbeliever? 
 
 Let us change the scene. Suppose a church of Unitari- 
 ans, (say, if you please, low Unitarians) at the table of the 
 holy sapper. They refuse to worship t!ie Son and the Holy 
 Ghost: they deny the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, 
 and remember him only as a good man, who "suffered and 
 died in tlie best of causes," but "in the occasion and manner 
 of whose death there was nothing very different from that of 
 others who suffered and died after him in the same cause;'* 
 and they professedly rely for eternal life, not on the Sav- 
 iom's merits, but on their own "good moral lives," and de- 
 clare, "tiiat all hopes founded on any thing else are merely 
 imaginary." ^^'hat has an ortliodox christian to do with 
 such a communion? Can he join in divesting his adored 
 Saviour of his glory, — in profaning his institution, — making 
 **Ms blood an unholy thing!" 
 
 V, e assume, we claim no dictation, no controul over other 
 men's consciences. We invade not, we wish not to invade 
 
40 
 
 av to abridge the nalui-al, civil, or religious rights of a)iy 
 man or class of men. Wc rejoice in the ci^ il, and still more 
 in the religious freedom of our country. We acknowledge 
 the i-ight of every one to think for himself, and to form his 
 own opinions of trutli; a I'ight, however, for the unperverted 
 exercise of which every one is solemnly accountable to God. 
 
 While we allow this right to others, and claim it for our- 
 flclves, we hold it to be perfectly consistent, and our bounden 
 duty, openly and faithfully to declare and inculcate what we 
 believe to be divine truth; firmly and earnestly, yet candidly 
 and benevolently, to contend for Avhat we receive as the 
 faith once delivered to the saints: and to employ all scrip- 
 tural means to counteract and explode such opinions as we 
 deem erroneous, — such, especially, as we believe to be utterly 
 subversive of tlie gospel; and to convince and warn all peo- 
 ple, of their delusive nature and their destructive tendency. 
 And ive think it neither charitable nor reasonable^ — we hold it, 
 indeed, entirely incompatible with our liberty of conscience, and 
 our right of private judgment, that we should be reqmred to 
 think favourably of such opinions, to refrain from bearing our 
 testimony against them, ov to regard them as no obstruction ta 
 christian fellowship. 
 
 Wc are not so happy as to have the belief, wliich you so 
 confidently express, that, "the great principles, for which 
 the apostles contended, are now received with little dispute 
 in christian communities." We "sincerely believe" on the 
 contrary, that those doctrines were the very same, for which 
 we arc now contending. We believe that the Gospel of John 
 and his first and second Epistles, all which were written af- 
 ter controversies arose among professed christians, concern- 
 ing the person and character of Jesus Christ, had particular 
 respect to those controversies; and were particularly design- 
 ed to establish the faith of the churches, in both his true Di- 
 vinity and humanity. We believe that the Epistles of Paul 
 to tlie Romans and Galatians, had for their primary and 
 princii)lc object, the vindication and establishnuMit of the car- 
 dinal docti'ine of justification, "freely by grace through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth 
 to he a propitiation, tlirough faith in his blood;" in opposi- 
 
41 
 
 tion to such pvofessed christians as denied this doctrine, and 
 «went about to establish their own righteousnessj" and that 
 the diviiie dignity, the high priesthood and expiatory sacri- 
 fice of" Christ, and salvation only through his one offering 
 for sin, and by faith in him, constitute the subject of his en- 
 tire Epistle to the Hebrews. "We believe, in a word, that 
 these are the very doctrines of the crosSf which were "to 
 
 THE JEWS A STUMBLING BLOCK, AND TO THE GREEKS 
 
 FOOLISHNESS^" and we deeply deplore the affecting fact, of 
 which we see most abundant evidence, that there is, in our 
 own age, and in our own country, tlse same spirit of lujstility 
 to these doctrines, which was so awfully and fattdly display- 
 ed in the days of the apostles. With deep impressions, and 
 the most painful emotions, we remember the solemn word, 
 t^Unto them tvhich be disohedient^ the stone which the builders 
 disallowed^ the same is made the head of the corner, and a 
 stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which 
 stumble at tJie word, being disobedient." 
 
 The event of the present controversy, I would submissive- 
 ly leave with Him, whose truth, and whose glory are deeply 
 concerned in it. Most deeply do I lament the uncommon 
 animosities which liave been excited, and the uncommon 
 manner in wliich they have been displayed. True, it has 
 always been the fart, that when errour has been exposed, the 
 passions which have clung to it have been disturbed^ but it 
 most solemnly concerns us all, on the one side and on the 
 other, to look well to our tempers, to our words, and to our 
 actions, — remembering that we are erelong to stand together 
 before the judgment seat of Christ. Notwithstanding, how- 
 ever, the present excitement, and the heavy guilt incurred by 
 many, it is devoutly to be hoped that shortly the passions of 
 the day will subside, and give place t« serious reflection 
 and candid inquiry; that people will consider the questions 
 in debate, as being of a nature too momentous, to be hastily 
 decided by private attachments or antipathies, by party spir- 
 it or prejudice — by any thing indeed other than reason and 
 conscience and scriptrre; and will attend to these questions, 
 with all the earnestness which their everlasting impoi'tanGe 
 6 
 
4.Z 
 
 demands, with humble dependence on the Spirit of grace, 
 and with sincere and unl'ailing desires to know and obey the 
 truth. 
 
 With fervent prayers for a consummation so happy, and 
 for your joy as well as my own in the event, I am. 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 Yours, with sincere affection and respect, 
 
 S. WORCESTER. 
 Salem, Jingiisl £6, 1815. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Dr. Watts, in the preface to his Glory of Christ, one of his 
 latest publications, says, **Though we learn from Sci'ipture 
 that TRUE AND PROPER DEITY is ascribed to the father, 
 THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, an<) they are represented 
 often in srri]>turc as distinct personal agents; yet after all our 
 inquiries and prayers, we may be still much at a loss to de- 
 scribe exactly, wherein this distinct personality consists, and 
 what is the distinct communion of each of them in tlie divine 
 nature.'* — «I can assure them [his readers] that there is not 
 one sentence in all these discourses, but what is very consist- 
 ent with a firm belief of the dixinity of Christy and a just 
 and sincere concern for tlie most eminent and glorious trutlis 
 of the gospel, as they are professed by Protestants among us 
 against the Socinian and Avian erroiirs.^' — In these views, so 
 far as appears. Dr. Watts remained to the last. 
 
 Respecting Dr. Barnard, I have oidy to reaffirm what I 
 said before. 
 
 A pamphlet by a Layman has come to hand, just in season 
 to receive as much attention as it seems to require. The 
 pamphlet bears this title, '-Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? 
 Or, Do you prefer the authority of Chnst to that of the Genevan 
 Reformci-?*' Whatever in this publication concerns me, and 
 the cause whicli I have espoused, has been almost entirely 
 anticipated, and, as I believe, suflieiently answered, in th« 
 foregoing Letter. 
 
 The title, the spirit, the wliole tenour, import that Calvin- 
 ists are not Christians. I am not in the least angered by 
 
this; nor do I apprehend that any of my brethren implicated^ 
 will think that they would do well to be angry, or will feel 
 themselves called upon to express, even «*a virtuous indigna- 
 tion.'* If the Layman and his party really believe that Cal- 
 vinists ai"e not christians, they liave my full and most hearty 
 consent to declare it with the utmost freedom; nor will I con- 
 tend with them at all about their consistency in claiming to 
 he thought most charitable, in entertaining and expressing 
 this opinion, and in continually denouncing us as being ut- 
 terly devoid of charity. 
 
 «<I expect," says this unknown writer, the "intolerant among 
 the disciples of Calvin will be ready to consign a layman to the 
 fate of *unregenerale rejirobateSf* who sliall dare 'to intermeddle 
 with tlie sacred mysteries of their faitli." The gentleman, I 
 believe, need give himself no concern on this score. <«Their 
 master," he proceeds to say, "woidd never suffer any one 
 to question his doctrines under pain of tlie fagot. He wished 
 to dethrone the Pope, only that he might put the tiara on liis 
 own head. His disciples in this countiy, and in this alone, 
 retain the same spirit." — These are tlie first sentences. To 
 these I will add a quotation from the 6t]i page. "The orthodox 
 believe in Calvin and the Westminster Assembly; the liberal 
 christians in Christ and his apostles. The former are Calviii- 
 ists — the latter are christians. Yet so intolerant and unrea- 
 sonable are the party who have arrogated to themselves the 
 title of orthodox, that they venture to deny the name and title 
 of christians to the followers of Christ, and apply it exclu- 
 sively to the foliowei's of Calvin, and of human councils, as- 
 semblies, and creed-makers." Those wlio have not the op- 
 portunity or inclination to read the pamphlet, may rely on 
 these quotations, not only as a fair speciaien, but as contain- 
 ing the sum and substance, the pitl^nd marrow of the whole. 
 Such is tlie "document" which this^riter is careful to let us 
 know it was his intention «*to furnish" to be deposited in the 
 archives "of our historical societies and the alcoves of our 
 colleges:" a monument more durable than brass, to proclaim 
 and exemplify to the generations to come, the talent and taste, 
 the ti'uth and argument, the corrcctaess and wisdom, the dig- 
 nity and urbanity, tlie meekness and modesty, t)ie candour and 
 
44 
 
 cliai'ity of the liberal men of Massachusetts «in the beginning 
 of the nineteenth century." 
 
 The Layman states, or intimates, more than once, that I 
 deny, and endeavour to prove, that the Reviewer did not 
 charge the liberal clergy and party with "hypocritical con- 
 cealment;" and upon tliis he bestows many words. I said, 
 however, explicitJy, «I mean not to deny that the Reviewer 
 does charge ministers, and perhaps others, of the party called 
 liberal, with want of openness and clearness j nay, with design- 
 ed concealment and culpable disguise." 
 
 P. 12. the Layman says, **We agi'ce with Dr. "Worcester, 
 and we are happy to agree with him in some points, that 
 south of Mas'saiTliusetts there is very little freedom of reli- 
 gious opinioi?;^ •^Aon.'must think as they are bid, not as they 
 believe." How the gentleman came to know this to be my 
 opinion, I w ill not attempt to divine; but sure I am, he can 
 find not the slightest intimation of any thing of this sort, not 
 the most distant reference to the people south of Massachu- 
 setts in my Letter. 
 
 For an answer to the main scope and argument of his 
 pamphlet, I beg leave to refer the Layman to pp. 11 — 14, 
 22 — 25, and 28 — 39 of tbe foregoing Letter. 
 
 What is principally to be apprehended by me and my breth- 
 ren, of danger to ourselves and our cause from the Layman's 
 attempt is, that we shall not duly remember, that ^'charity 
 rejoiceth not in iniquity; but rejoicetk in the truths* Me have 
 strong temptation to rtjoice in this publication. This shower 
 of "poisoned arrows" has not reached us. I confess, however, 
 I like the Layman's openness. lie conceals neither his 
 sentiments, nor liis sjiHrit, liis party prejudices nor his private 
 enmities, his desigi^ nor his resoui'ces; — nothing but his 
 name. '* ^ 
 
 w ^ 
 
 "Alack; 'tis he! why he was ngJI even now 
 "As mad as the vex'd sea: singing aloud; 
 "Crowu'd with rank fumitei-, and fiirrow^ weeds, 
 "Wiih hailocks, hemlock, nellies, cucko-flower, 
 "Darnel, and atl the idle weeds that grow 
 "In our sustaining corn. 
 
 •— « — jryat close aspeot of his 
 "Does shew ths mood of a much ti'oublcd breast.'* 
 
 f