I' I 
 
 
 $&s 
 
 >.* 
 
Tlie Prope rty 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ■ ,r . ,\-iy 
 
 BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 — IN 1 111- — 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 i in — 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
t V ■ . ^ 
 
Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? 
 
 DO YOU PREFER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST TO 
 THAT OF THE GENEVAN REFORMER ? 
 
 both the form and spirit op these questions being 
 
 suggested bv the late review op american unitari- 
 
 anism in the panoplist, and by the rev. mr. 
 
 Worcester's letter to mr. chankiag. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE ADDED, 
 
 SOME STRICTURES ON BOTH THOSE WORKS. 
 
 BY A LAYMAN. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PKISTBD AND PUBLISHED BY WELLS ASD ULfcT 
 
 ^ 
 
 2^-1815. 
 
 
Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? 
 
 X expect the intolerant among the disciples of Calvin will 
 be ready to consign a layman to the fate of " miregenerate 
 reprobates," who shall dare to intermeddle with the sacred 
 mysteries of their faith. Their master would never suffer 
 any one to question his doctrines under pain of the fagot. 
 He wished to dethrone the pope only that he might put 
 the tiara on his own head. His disciples in this country, 
 and in this alone, retain the same spirit. They would have 
 it believed, that the laity are to adopt their faith from them, 
 as they have taken it from Calvin ; and the pains and penal- 
 ties of infidelity and excommunication are now openly 
 denounced against those, who shall call in question any one 
 of the dogmas uttered two centuries ago by an uninspired 
 priest of Switzerland. 
 
 If some future historian of the church shall relate, that in 
 the beginning of the nineteenth century, in a country whose 
 constitutions secure the freedom of religious opinion, and 
 require only a general belief of the christian religion, a set 
 of men combined to write down all who ventured to think 
 for themselves, to raise the cry of heresy against those who 
 preferred the scriptures as the rule of their faith to any 
 human creed, it certainly will be deemed incredible. Pos- 
 terity will require some collateral evidence of the fact. 
 They will search the records of our historical societies, and 
 the alcoves of our colleges, for any controversial writings 
 
4 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 which may confirm so improbable a story. It is with a 
 view to furnishing such a document that I write. I do not 
 mean to enter into (he subtleties of a theological controversy, 
 which wonld be unsuitable to a layman, if he were capable 
 of it. The principal end I propose, is to examine our 
 rights, and to put on record this alarming and injurious, 
 and bold attempt to invade them in such a country, and in 
 such an age. It is one of the facts in the history of human 
 nature, that deserve to be noticed. 
 
 There is one point in which all parties are agreed, that 
 the christian religion reposes for its foundation on the sacred 
 scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament. 
 Some difference of opinion arises, 1o be sure, as to 
 the degree of inspiration which the writers of those books 
 possessed ; but in those books, it is admitted, are contained 
 all the rules of our faith and conduct as christians. These 
 scriptures were originally written either in the Greek or 
 Hebrew languages. They were for nearly fifteen centu- 
 ries imprinted, and were only preserved by manuscripts or 
 written copies. These copies were scattered over the 
 whole world, from Abyssinia to the remotest north, and 
 from Spain to Hindostan. 
 
 No two editions, even of printed books, ever would pre- 
 cisely agree with each other, and of course it could not be 
 possible that these manuscripts, in so many languages, and 
 in countries so separated, should be alike ) and it is only 
 by a comparison' and collation of many, that any approxi- 
 mation to the certainly of the purity of the text can be 
 obtained. 
 
 The present translation in common use in our churches 
 was made by order of James the first, two centuries ago. 
 its gene tad fidelity and correctness are admitted, but there 
 must be room for improvement. The knowledge of the Greek 
 and Hebrew languages has become much more generally 
 
OR A CALVINISTP § 
 
 diffused than it was when that translation was made. Many 
 critical inquiries have since been made into those languages, 
 am! more erudition has been displayed since that period than 
 Leio: e. New copies of the Bible have been discovered and 
 collated with the old manuscripts. Some errours and many 
 detects, especially in perspicuity, have been found in the 
 translation now in use. One or two most important in- 
 terpolations have been discovered, and are admitted to 
 be such by all the learned men of Europe of all sects. 
 
 The object of this statement will presently be seen. An 
 honest layman, who has no esprit du corps, no fear for the 
 power and influence of his sect or profession ; who consi- 
 ders religion too sober and serious a 'thing to be the subject 
 of party feelings and spirit, would naturally say upon such 
 a statement, " It is my duty to get, if I can, the very copies 
 of the scriptures that the authors respectively wrote with 
 their own hands, and to learn the languages in which they 
 are written ; and to take as a standard of faith only what I find 
 there written, and not what fallible men have inferred from 
 them." But as he cannot get these originals, and as he may 
 not have time or talents to learn the languages in which they 
 are written, he will take the best translation he can find, and 
 he will naturally infer, that the last one, if executed by 
 learned and pious men, will be the most perfect. As he' 
 finds there are faults of great moment in the old translation 
 of the Bible, he will be anxious to attend to and inquire 
 after every improvement. Such ought to be, and such 
 would be, the conduct of every anxious inquirer after truth. 
 
 Now let us see what is called orthodoxy in the present 
 enlightened age. 
 
 It is contended, that the translation made by order of 
 king James the first, is entitled to the fullest faith. It is 
 regarded by many as inspired, and men are called heretical 
 and wicked, who endeavour to procure a better translation, 
 and desire anj r alteration in the present English text. 
 
6 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN ' 
 
 Now what does this involve ? Not only, that you believe 
 the apostles inspired, but that every clerk and copyist 
 (whether slave or monk) was also inspired ; that even the 
 orthodox men, who made the interpolations to suit their 
 dogmas, were inspired ; and that all the bishops and divines 
 who made the translation were inspired. I introduce this 
 point first, because it comes first in order. 
 
 The orthodox also maintain, that certain opinions and 
 speculations, not to be found in the scrpture, but which 
 Calvin declared he believed were intended to be placed 
 there, or pretended that he discovered in them, and certain 
 other opinions, held by an assembly of Divines in Great 
 Britain, are to be received as the rule of our faith ; however 
 impossible we may find it to understand such doctrines, 
 a.id even if upon the most accurate examination and impar- 
 tial inquiry we shall be convinced, that no such doctrines 
 are contained in the scriptures. 
 
 The real point, and the only point, of difference between 
 those who are called the liberal clergy and the orthodox, 
 rests on this ground. 
 
 The orthodox believe in Calvin and the Westminster 
 Assembly; the liberal christians in Christ and his apos- 
 tles. The former are Calvinisfs — the latter, Christians. 
 Yet so intolerant and unreasonable 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 fol- 
 lowers of Christ, and apply it exclusively to the followers 
 of Calvin and of human councils, assemblies, and creed- 
 makers. 
 
 Let us take as an example the subject, which has been 
 the occasion of the late attack on the followers of Christ. 
 
 Jesus Christ himself was an Unitarian. To be sure 
 that particular title was unknown in his day. So explicit 
 was his language, that no man dared during his life to ad- 
 
OR A CALVINISTp J 
 
 ranee a doctrine so derogatory to his God and father, 
 as the plurality of Gods, or the equality of the Son with 
 the Father. 
 
 So far as his conduct, his language, his example and 
 his precepts can have any weight in deciding what was his 
 own relative character, and what were his notions of the unity 
 and indivisibility of God, they fully support the proposition, 
 that he was in the simple sense of the word, an Unitarian. 
 He uniformly declares, that all his power, all his authority, 
 all his miracles are derived from God. The form of prayer 
 which he enjoined upon his disciples is purely Unitarian ; 
 that is, it is founded on the idea, that there is but one God 
 over all, distinct from himself or any other created being, 
 and that to him, and him alone, are due adoration and praise. 
 
 Dr. Worcester asserts, that the doctrine of the trinity is 
 one of those essential points without the belief of which no 
 man can be a christian. Yet Christ himself, who came into 
 the world for the sole purpose of revealing to man the will 
 of God, has studiously concealed from us any such doc- 
 trine ; nay, he has led us to believe by repeated and express 
 declarations, that he was in every respect distinct from and 
 inferiour to the God and father who sent him, and whose 
 messenger he declares himself to be. It is then because 
 Dr. Morse and Dr. Worcester know more of the character 
 of God and of our Saviour, than Jesus Christ knew of him- 
 self, that we are called upon to believe this incomprehensible 
 doctrine, and to reject and view with abhorrence those 
 venerable pastors, who prefer the authority of Christ to that 
 of these fallible mortals. I premised that I did not intend 
 to enter into the argument upon any of the disputed points. 
 In this I only imitate the Rev. Dr. Worcester and the 
 charitable and polite editors of the Panoplist. It is not 
 because, though a layman, I am entirely unacquainted with 
 the great points of the controversy, but it is because I think. 
 
g ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 if, at this day, argument be necessary on this topick, it is 
 the province of learned men, whose professional pursuiis 
 have better qualified them for the task. My object is, 
 simplv, to shew that the Panoplist and Dr. Worcester httve 
 assumed too much, in asserting that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is a fundamental article in the creed of a Christian. 
 
 It would be the greatest reproach to the Deity, to his Son 
 Jesus Christ, and to the gospel which he taught, to suppose, 
 that a doctrine, fundamental and essential to salvation, was 
 not onlj' not directly and plainly enforced in (he same per- 
 spicuous manner, in which the doctrines of a future state, of 
 charity, of purity of life, are inculcated, but that Christ 
 should have used such a great number of expressions hidi- 
 cating his own inferiority, and the unity of Goc!, which 
 must necessarily lead men astray from an essential truth. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that the unity of the supreme God 
 not only is more consonant to enlightened reason, apart 
 from revelation, but lhat it was the prevailing sentiment of 
 the patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished men, whose lives 
 and opinions are recorded in the Old Testament. 
 
 Dr. Worcester insinuates very distinctly, that the doc- 
 trine of the gospel, the doctrine taught by our Saviour, the 
 doctrine believed and maintained by many venerable and 
 learned meu in Europe and our country, as to the unity of 
 God, is injurious to the character of the supreme Being, is 
 a very different and inferiour sort of religion, from thai which 
 Calvin and Athanasius, and Morse and himself hold ; and 
 that for this reason, no communion ought to be held with 
 such christians. 
 
 Let us examine how far this is true, and which party 
 hold doctrines the most injurious to the supreme Being, i <! 
 to his Son, whom he sent into the world to enlighten, to 
 reform and to save us. 
 
OR A CALVINIST? Q 
 
 In the first place, in regard to the supreme Being. Is it 
 more honourable to his character to assert thai his power is 
 divided, that there are three coequal beings in the Godhead, 
 who may be opposed in will, in capacity, in power ? In what 
 does this differ from the polytheism of the ancienis, except 
 in number ? We have dethroned the three hundred gods of 
 Greece and Rome, and we substitute in their place three 
 Gods of our own creation. 
 
 In the second place, as to our Saviour himself. Is it 
 honourable to him to contradict the doctrines which he 
 taught 1 In all his language he was solicitous to exalt the 
 Father above himself. " Not my will, but thine be done." 
 Yet in face of this declaration it is asserted, that they were 
 the same persons, or constituted the same God. If they 
 were the same God, how could the will of the Father be 
 done, and the will of the Son be left undone or unaccom- 
 plished ? 
 
 He also repeatedly declares, that the works which he 
 did, and the miracles which he wrought, were not his own 
 works, but those of the Father who sent him. 
 
 I know the metaphysical distinction, which was invented 
 in the ages of scholastick philosophy to reconcile this appa- 
 rent contradiction, that our Saviour had two natures, one 
 divine and the other human, and that all the expressions of 
 this sort which he uses, refer to his human character. But 
 what an idea does it give of the supreme Being, that he 
 should make a revelation to mankind, founded on the nicest 
 metaphysical subtleties, which would be utterly incompre- 
 hensible to the greater part of those who were bound to 
 believe them on pain of eternal damnation ? 
 
 No. The gospel is no such snare. It is an injurious 
 representation of it. The essential points are taught 
 clearly and distinctly. There is one God, over all, the 
 Father and Creator of the universe. He sent his Sojj 
 
10 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 info the world to announce to mankind the most sublime 
 truths, to seal those truths with his blood. But he com- 
 manded him to declare and to teach, as he did, that there 
 is but one God, the Father and Judge of all the earth, 
 from whom all blessings flow, whose messenger he was, and 
 upon the acceptance and belief of whose doctrines, men 
 would be accepted by God who sent him. Every thing 
 in this representation is more sublime, more honourable to 
 the supreme Being than in the other. But the idea, that the 
 supreme Governour of the universe, in his proper person, 
 took upon himself the human nature, that he suffered upon 
 ihe cross, that the Godhead was for a time divided, and part 
 of it was on earlh suffering persecution and insult from men, 
 and part in the heavens regulating and governing the world, 
 in addition to its incomprehensibilities, is infinitely deroga- 
 tory to the greatness and majesty, which we are taught to 
 ascribe to the Maker and Governour of the Universe. 
 
 It is a curious fact, but no less curious than true, (and it 
 shews the propensity of mankind to accommodate every 
 thing, even the most sublime doctrines, to their own 
 schemes and party passions) that the general tenour of all 
 the scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, has 
 been overlooked and disregarded, and that particular pas- 
 sages, conlradicted by their general tenour, have been made 
 the foundation of a creed, which is utterly opposed to the 
 great scope and object of revelation. 
 
 If it were possible to burn all the decrees of councils, so 
 often contradiclory, so profane, so wicked, such flagrant 
 proofs of the weakness and perversity of men ; if all the 
 metaphysical writers and the authority of assemblies could 
 be annihilated and forgotten ; if the scriptures could be deliv- 
 ered to mankind unbiassed by authority; if no establishments 
 existed in anycountry founded on sectarian principles ; it is 
 not to be doubted, that the worship of one true God, the Father 
 
OR A^fALVINIST? JJ 
 
 and Governour of the universe, would prevail throughout 
 every country, in which the scriptures were read ; and due 
 and sublime honours would be rendered (o his Son who was 
 made the glorious instrument of revealing these truths to 
 mankind. Men would then be as fearful of placing the Son 
 on an equality with the Father, as he himself was. They 
 would be contented to assign him a place at his right hand, 
 as the first and greatest of created beings who had appeared 
 in this world. They would view him as their kind and be- 
 neficent Saviour and Mediator, but they would shudder at 
 the thought of enthroning him with the awful but beneficent 
 God, the almighty Maker and Governour of the universe. 
 
 We all know the lofty ground, upon which the Calvinistg 
 maintain their doctrines, and we equally know the weakness 
 of that foundation. It rests upon what they are pleased to 
 call the authority of councils and assemblies, or as they 
 style it, the uninterrupted opinions of the venerable reform- 
 ers and of the ancient churches since the reformation. This 
 authority is the same upon which reposes the infallibility 
 of the Romish church. The doctrine of transubstantiation 
 has this same basis, and is not lest plausibly supported by 
 scripture. The points upon which the reformers differed 
 from the ancient church, are not more clearly or satisfacto- 
 rily proved, than are the opinions upon which the Lardners 
 and Watts's and Paleys have ventured to dissent from the 
 Calvinistick school. But when it is recollected, that till 
 within the last century, faith was settled by ecclesiastical 
 authority, and heresy was punished with flames ; when it is 
 known that to this day, dissent, with respect to the clergy, 
 is followed even in England with expulsion from the church, 
 and to all with many civil disabilities ; and that in our country 
 similar penalties have been inflicted on those who ventured 
 to prefer the gospel to the Assembly's Catechism, or our 
 Saviour as their leader to Calvin, wise laymen, who do not 
 
J2 ARE TOU A CHRISTIAN- 
 
 mingle in theological controversies, will not attribute much 
 weight to the antiquity or prevalence of certain dogmas. 
 
 We agree with Dr. Worcester, and we are happy to 
 agree with him in some points, that south of Massachusetts 
 there is very little freedom of religious opinion. Men must 
 think as they are bid, not as they believe. 
 
 Those men in all countries who pursue the clerical pro- 
 fession are generally poor. They rely on the hierarchy 
 or governing party for their patronage and recommenda- 
 tion. In Europe, and even in England, such is the supe- 
 riour splendour of the established churches, so poor and 
 humble, though firm and resolute are the dissenting societies, 
 that it requires something of an apostolical firmness to resist 
 the temptation of conformity. 
 
 In our own country, till within fifty years, the same spirit 
 of intolerance had choaked up the channels of free inquiry. 
 But if the scriptures should ever get to be popular, if they 
 should ever attain to a fair equality with the creeds of the 
 Westminster Assembly, and rival in some degree the dog- 
 mas of Dr. Morse, and the decisions of Dr. Worcester, we 
 should have very little doubt that Christ would soon be- 
 come the leader instead of Calvin, and the Bible take the 
 place of the Assembly's Catechism. This day we feel to 
 be distant. We know that there are some determined 
 spirits, that are resolved to stand by their peculiar doc- 
 trines, rather than those of the gospel. They are induced 
 to do this, partly because mystery and passion, and their 
 peculiar tenets, recommend them to the common class of 
 hearers. The Sybilline oracles owed a great portion of their 
 authority to their incomprehensibility. The teachers of a 
 doctrine which the hearers do not understand, are supposed 
 by them to have supernatural gifts. This idea is encouraged, 
 and kept up, and we could not notice but with a smile the 
 comparison seen by the Rev. Dr. Worcester, between him- 
 
OR A CALVIN 1ST? ]3 
 
 self and friends, and the early apostles. He and his party, 
 he thinks, are as much entitled to decide authoritatively 
 upon the scriptures, as were the men upon whom the Holy 
 Ghost descended, though they have not the power of con- 
 firming the truth of their doctrines by miracles. Hence, 
 that very reverend gentleman treats with much levity and 
 wit Mr. Channing, whose character is truly apostolick, 
 though he pretends to no inspiration. 
 
 I shall hereafter notice the unfairness with which the let- 
 ter of Mr. Channing is treated ; but at present I shall con- 
 fine myself to the point in question, how far an acquies- 
 cence in the doctrines of Calvin is a proof of their correct- 
 ness. It is known that the English divines adopted them, and 
 the thirty-nine articles are partly founded upon them. That 
 church also adopts the Athanasian creed, and still continues 
 it in its formula. There is not a congregation in Massachu- 
 setts or Connecticut which would not shudder at its recital, 
 nor is there a clergyman in either state who would dare to 
 repeat it from his desk. 
 
 If then all men in this country agree to renounce, as too 
 horrible for utterance, one portion of the orthodox creed 
 sanctified by the usage of many centuries, to what amounts 
 the boasted authority of the Westminster confession of 
 faith ? 
 
 In Massachusetts, the prevailing opinion is perhaps yet 
 Calvinistick, and so thoroughly have the disciples imbibed 
 the spirit of their master, that they will permit no straggling 
 partizans, no wavering opinions. They must swallow Calvin 
 and all his works as the test of their orthodoxy, or they are 
 denounced as hereticks. Those who doubt, or are even 
 moderate and candid, are damned. The Panoplisty allu- 
 ding to these unhappy victims of moderation and christian 
 feelings, says, " There are others too, who are too modest 
 and unassuming to preach or act decisively, because for- 
 
J4 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 sooth they are not satisfied about certain controverted 
 points. Let such persons abandon the office of teaching 
 and return to their studies till they are satisfied." 
 
 We have seen insolence in all its forms. We have seen 
 the quintessence of tyranny in the person of the late em- 
 perour of France, but never did we meet with an exam- 
 ple of such arrogance. 
 
 Do the clergy of Massachusetts, Calvinistick or Ar- 
 minian, Arian or Hopkinsian, mean to encourage sack sen- 
 timents ? Can there be a more honest or honourable reason 
 for forbearing to touch controversial points, than that a man 
 is not satisfied about them ? The editors of the Panoplist 
 virtually recommend to such men who conscientiously have 
 scruples, to quit their livings, abandon their families, and go 
 to Andover (for that must be the meaning) to get indoctri- 
 nated. 
 
 Suppose a candidate of this school settled with a full con- 
 viction of Calvinism, htving obtained the certificate (which 
 they are so eager to withhold in case of conscientious scru- 
 ples) should change his mind, or at least have doubts 
 excited, what is this advice ? 
 
 " You have had all the learning which Professor Stewart 
 could infuse into j r ou, you have all the grace and goodness 
 and unction which Dr. Morse could communicate, yet inas- 
 much as you have doubts, as you are 'too modest and unassu- 
 ming' to preach Calvin against Christ and against your own 
 conviction, you must turn your children into the streets, and 
 come back to Andover to be reinstated in orthodoxy ?" 
 
 Great and benevolent God ! Jesus, thou gracious and 
 divine Master ! Is this the religion which you intended to 
 inculcate ? The confident and assuming, the immodest 
 and impudent only can retain their stations as teachers of 
 your divine religion, but the " modest and unassuming," 
 those who have conscientious scruples about admitting the 
 
OR A CALVINIST? J 5 
 
 jargon of men who have disgrace*! your name and your 
 religion, are to be discarded from Ihe ministry ! 
 
 It is not in Massachusetts alone that the works of perse- 
 cution and intolerance are wrought. The lay part of the 
 community have suffered themselves to be enthralled in 
 every part of the Union. No man has a higher respect for 
 the clergy than we have, but we fear they are undermining 
 their own influence, and giving power to their adversaries 
 by this intolerant conduct towards one another. We shall 
 not allude to the cases which we all have known in Con- 
 necticut, in which good men were driven away from their 
 flocks, on account of maintaining evangelical doctrines 
 against the creeds and opinions of men. 
 
 But this we must state. An orator at one of their publick 
 exercises before commencement, most distinctly recom- 
 mended the study of the classicks, and urged it on the 
 ground, that they were more sedulously perused in a sister 
 college, (meaning, as we believe, at Cambridge) and that this 
 knowledge was there perverted to the purposes of " infideli- 
 ty ! !" There is something so unchristianlike in a sentiment 
 of this sort, so utterly unfounded and notoriously false, that 
 it requires all the charity which the gospel enjoins to for- 
 give it. 
 
 It is the more unjust, as they knew at that time, that our 
 university had recently sent forth the most learned and able 
 work in defence of Christianity, by a young man since elected 
 to a professorship in our college, that America had ever 
 produced. 
 
 They knew then, and they know now, that for zeal for the 
 truth and authenticity of the scripture, for respect to the 
 christian religion, and for ardour in its dissemination, the 
 University of Cambridge yields to no seminary in om* 
 country. 
 
16 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN' 
 
 No. If was a sentiment derogatory to the orator, and 
 equally so to those, who, I am grieved to say, approved it. 
 It was a sentiment arising from an unworthy spirit of rivalry 
 and jealousy, a narrow leeling of religious prejudice. The 
 officers of the college at Cambridge were to be charged 
 with infidelity, for not bowing to the authority of the ortho- 
 dox formula, and yielding obedience to the rescripts of the 
 Calvinistick papacy. Never did a sentiment injurious to any 
 other college, escape from the lips of any student at Cam- 
 bridge in a publick exercise. We know too well what we 
 owe to our own dignity ; and whatever the emissaries of that, 
 and of other colleges, settled in our state, may do to irritate 
 us and to build up their own seminaries ; however zea- 
 lously they may work to weaken our institution, and propa- 
 gate calumnies to render our Alma Mater odious, we shall 
 abstain from recrimination. We conGde in the just and 
 equitable feelings of our people, that they will never per- 
 mit the tongue of slander to alienate their affections from 
 an establishment, which has been the great and best 
 source of blessings to our country, and which was never 
 belter administered, nor upon principles more truly 
 christian, than it is at the present moment. 
 
 Considering then, that non-conformity to the dogmas of the 
 church has in most ages and in most countries been punished 
 with death, and in all with the loss of publick reward, it 
 would seem to be no very powerful argument in favour of 
 any tenets, that they had been maintained for a great period 
 of years and by very respectable divines. 
 
 Even in our own country, the Review in the Panoplisl 
 now in question, and the letter of Dr. Worcester, afford 
 pretty strong proofs of the danger of dissenting from pre- 
 vailing creeds. Our venerated clergymen, to be sure, are 
 not carried to the stake, but they are scourged with thongs 
 of scorpions. These orthodox gentlemen, as if ex- Cathe- 
 
OR A CALVINIST? |f 
 
 dra, have issued (heir bulls of excommunication, and (what 
 I believe the bulls did not usually contain,) all the malignity 
 of canstick wit is exerted to render the excommunicated 
 odious and detestable. 
 
 Yes. I will not except Dr. Worcester from this charge, 
 though he flatters himself he has concealed the gall under a 
 cover of honey. 
 
 When I read the Review in the Panoplist, I asked myself, 
 what honourable or even honest end do these gentlemen 
 propose to themselves ? 
 
 Is it the advancement of God's glory, and the mainte- 
 nance and spread of truths which they deem important? 
 
 They have certainly a strange way of effecting their 
 design. Is God to be glorified by an exulting, haughty and 
 insolent triumph over brethren who are in errour ? 
 
 Does the glory of God require, that the most shameful and 
 gross misrepresentations and perversions should be used to 
 excite and prejudice the publick mind against the victims 
 of these holy gentlemen's wrath ? 
 
 Upon whom, and in what manner was this Review and Dr. 
 Worcester's voluntary, and, as I shall shew, most unhappy 
 defence of it, intended to operate ? 
 
 Are they intended for the benefit of the pretended cul- 
 prits, the hereticks themselves ? Is it believed that Mr. Chan- 
 ning, and Mr. Thacher, and Dr. Kirkland will be convinced 
 or reformed, or, if they please, frightened, by this denuncia- 
 tion ? Had they so little knowledge of human nature as to 
 think, that detected calumny would not finally redound to 
 the honour of the calumniated ? Or did they hope to sow 
 discord among their respective parishes ! Did they encou- 
 rage the malignant expectation, that they should excite dis- 
 trust among the members of their churches, infuse a little 
 gall where nothing but nectar had flowed, produce bitterness 
 instead of love, lessen the veneration and affection almost 
 3 
 
jg ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 unexampled, which the citizens of Boston entertain, and 
 justly entertain, for their pastors, and diminish their salu 
 tary, I had almost said, divine influence, over the lives and 
 morals of their people 1 Or did they encourage the still 
 prouder thought, that by their eloquence, so tenderly, so 
 fairly, and so powerfully exerted, they could utterly uproot 
 these gentlemen in the es(eem of their friends and flocks, 
 and suddenly convince them, that they had been nurturing 
 in their bosoms a set of hypocrites, of infidels ; men who, 
 under the guise and garb of religion, had been secretly 
 undermining their dearest hopes, and blighting the fair 
 fruits of religion in'! their hearts ? Did they hope to make 
 their respective parishioners believe, that Lathrop and 
 Cbanning, and Lowell and Thacher were men of deceit and 
 artifice, making their religion a mere cloak to serve the 
 cause of infidelity, and that Dr. Morse was the only man in 
 the vicinity true in the " faith once delivered to the saints," 
 and full of charity and good works ? I appeal to the feelings 
 of all the persons who have fco long known these venerated 
 clergymen, whether they can believe that such was the 
 abject of the Panoplist and Dr. Worcester 1 Doj r ou think, 
 my brethren, they aimed at your conversion and salvation, 
 when they plunged the dagger into the hearts of your pastors 
 and friends ? 
 
 But perhaps Dr. Worcester will say, " this is declama- 
 tion and an appeal to the passions," as he has said of Mr. 
 Channing's letter. 
 
 And pray, if a man calls you a murderer, or an adulterer, 
 when j*ou are without stain, and does not condescend to 
 reason or argue, what course have you, but to appeal to 
 your known character ? and does the gospel or any other 
 code of morals require, that you should be so lukewarm as 
 to appear indifferent to your own reputation ? How much 
 more then is zeal, and honest ardour commendable in the 
 
©R A GALVINIST! 1 J9 
 
 defence of our friends whom we have long known and justly 
 value ! ! Yes ! I am ready to acknowledge that any doc- 
 trine which would compel me to believe that Dr. Morse 
 was a saint and Mr. Channing a sinner, that the first was 
 acceptable to God, while the other was the object of his 
 wrath, that the former was the friend of Jesus and the lat- 
 ter hk foe, I should for that reason alone reject. I should 
 do it on just grounds. For I should say, " my reason may 
 be fallible, arguments may deceive me, but experience can- 
 not. I know Mr. Channing to be practically the admirer 
 and follower of Jesus. I am not so weli convinced as to hia 
 accusers." I know it is a short way of reasoning, but for 
 a layman it is safer than to enter into all the subtleties of the 
 schools. I say therefore, Dr. Morse may be a better Cal- 
 vinist. He might perhaps contend more zealously, and be 
 more ready to burn Mr. Thacher as his master did Serve- 
 tus, but I doubt whether he is a better christian ; that is, 
 I doubt whether he has a greater love for Christ, or is more 
 disposed to obey his precepts. 
 
 I will own, that I have derived actual and great light from 
 this Review and Dr. Worcester's letter, as to the respective 
 merits of the Calvinistick and Christian parties. 
 
 I find the former intolerant, disposed to slander and 
 backbite their brethren. I find, under colour of great zeal 
 for the cause of religion, they indulge the most malignant 
 passions, passions which our Saviour most explicitly con- 
 demned. 
 
 I find the whole temper and tone of the Review calcu- 
 lated to l shew their triumph over their opponents, whom they 
 thought they had got in their toils. 
 
 If all the orthodox have these feelings, if they support 
 and countenance this work and indulge such a spirit, we 
 shall for the future understand what orthodoxy means. 
 We shall understand it to be a sect, violent in its passions, 
 
>> w ARE TOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 intolerant in its principles, and utterly regardless of the 
 means by which its purposes are effected. I look upon it, 
 that the good and candid of that party are bound to come 
 out openly, and separate themselves, lest they be confound- 
 ed with these men who have undertaken officiously to 
 represent (hem. 
 
 One thing is certain, that if the principles and spirit of 
 i)ie Panoplist are to prevail with all whom it professes to 
 represent, a new and more dreadful schism must take place 
 in the church than has disgraced it for many ages, and the 
 cause of religion must suffer, for we never shall abandon, 
 through fear of insult and reproach, men the most venerable 
 for their piety and virtues. 
 
 I shall now proceed to make a few remarks upon the Re- 
 view in the Panoplist, and the letter of the Rev. Samuel 
 Worcester, D. D. I shall consider the last work in the 
 first instance, partly because the author has evidently the 
 best faculty of varnishing over a bad cause, partly because 
 he affects, and I am sorry to say (as it appears to me) only 
 affects, a superiour degree of moderation ; but chiefly 
 because, in considering his defence of the Panoplist, we 
 shall naturally be led to examine the merits of that work. 
 We shall be mistaken if the honest part of society do not 
 say of Dr. Worcester, 
 
 Nee defensoribus istis — tempus eget. 
 
 The professed object of Dr. Worcester is, to defend the 
 editors of the Panoplist from the charge of misrepresenta- 
 tion, preferred and urged against them by Mr. Channing. 
 
 In common life, that is among laymen, we are very much 
 disposed to abhor cunning and prevarication. We think 
 that a good cause does not require it, and that a bad one is 
 not aided by it. When we see a man adhering to the letter 
 and violating the spirit of any rule, we usually call him a 
 
OR A CALVINISM 21 
 
 Jesuit. We say that such a man may be a good special 
 pleader, an adroit pettifogger, but he is not a fair and hon- 
 ourable combatant. In a clergyman such a spirit is consider- 
 ed as peculiarly unworthy. To be sure one religious order, 
 which the general indignation of mankind suppressed in the 
 last century, was accused of this disposition to subterfuge. 
 We should be very much grieved to see the spirit of St. 
 Omer's revived in our country, and especially among those 
 who style themselves pre-eminently the saints. 
 
 That Dr. Worcester has attempted to obtain an unworthy 
 triumph over Mr» Channing, on the ground of mere verbal 
 criticism, that he has either misunderstood or misrepresented 
 the general spirit of the Panoplist review, we think will be 
 obvious to all who shall attend to our remarks. 
 
 The Panoplist does mean to convey the idea, that that 
 portion of the clergy and of liberal christians in our country, 
 who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are chargeable with 
 all the opinions which Mr. Belsham and the English Uni- 
 tarians hold. This was the great scope of the work. The 
 whole effort of the Reviewers was directed to fix upon 
 every man in this country, who differed from the Calvinists 
 as to the Unity of the Godhead, all the other peculiar no- 
 tions and sentiments which Mr. Belsham maintains. 
 
 Dr. Worcester resists this charge, by calling upon Mr. 
 Channing to shew any distinct phrase or paragraph, which 
 in itself bears this meaning, and he considers himself as tri- 
 umphant, because no one sentence taken by itself will bear 
 this construction. 
 
 It is well known that the christian world have been from 
 the third century divided on the question of the Trinity. 
 At one time the Arians had the majority throughout all the 
 christian community, and if it had not been for the powerful 
 arguments of fire and fagot, theirs would probably have con- 
 tinued to be the prevailing doctrine of christians. The 
 
•22 
 
 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 Arians denied the doctrine of the Trinity, yet they no more 
 resembled the Socinians in many of their opinions, than the 
 Calvinists do the Hopkinsians, or the Papists either of them. 
 These facts were well known to the editors of the Pano- 
 plist and to Dr. Worcester, but they knew also that they 
 were unknown to the greater part of laymen. Hence they 
 hare both of them, Dr. Worcester full as much as the 
 others, attempted to fix upon all that portion of the clergy, 
 who are not satisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity, all 
 the opinions maintained by Socinus or Mr. Belsham, though 
 they knew the greater part were Arians. I say distinctly, 
 they must have known that these facts were unknown to 
 the great mass of readers, and I am afraid that they were 
 not unwilling that they should be led into errour. 
 
 The Arians have the most elevated ideas of Jesus Christ. 
 They consider him as a being pre-existent to his appear- 
 ance on earth ; that he came down from heaven. Many of 
 them believe that he had an agency in the formation of this 
 world. In this manner they reconcile some texts of scrip- 
 ture which seem to give to the Messiah this exalted 
 character. 
 
 The Socinians on the other hand consider him as an 
 inspired prophet, but purely human in his origin. 
 
 There is a third class, whom Dr. Worcester ought to 
 have known, because his liberal and pious brother is at the 
 head of them ; (a man, who for his ingenuousness and gene- 
 rous sacrifice of himself in the cause of what he believed 
 the truth, is worthy of all praise,) who hold 'a third opinion ; 
 and that is, that our Saviour, though not a part of the God- 
 head, is veritably the Son of God. 
 
 It is not within our scope to discuss the merits of either 
 of these opinions, but we do say, that, knowing these distinc- 
 tions to exist, it was very little short of culpable unfairness, 
 both in the editors of the Review and Dr. Worcester, to 
 affect to confound them. 
 
OR A CALVINIST-? 2S 
 
 It is then my design to shew, 
 
 Firstly. That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are in 
 fact imputed so generally, and witii such purposed vague- 
 ness, to those the orthodox call the liberal party, as to lead 
 all honest laymen, unacquainted with.these distinctions (that 
 is, ninety-nine in an hundred) to believe, that all Unitarians 
 agree in all points with Mr. Belsham. 
 
 Secondly. That the Review does charge the ministers, 
 who doubt the doctrine;of the Trinity, generally, with base 
 and hypocritical concealment of their opinions. 
 
 Thirdly. I shall shew, that Dr. W orcester himself is 
 under a great mistake, or has been guilty of a still greater 
 degree of misrepresentation, in regard to the preaching and 
 course of conduct of what he calls the liberal clergy. 
 
 I would observe here, before I cite my proofs, that it is as 
 unfair in these gentlemen, to attempt to fix on all Unitarians 
 every opinion which any one of them professes, as it would 
 be to fix on all Trinitarians the doctrines professed by any 
 of them. 
 
 Yet Dr. Worcester, by a course of reasoning, if it can 
 be dignified with that name, affects to do this. 
 
 He chooses to consider all the Unitarians as one party. 
 He must have known it to be otherwise. This was not in 
 of our view decorous in a man of his profession. 
 
 In page 10 he says, "if among the liberal party such 
 " things are done, if some do mutilate the New Testament 
 " &c. if of the rest some more and others less directly con- 
 " sent to these things, if as a party or as individuals of the 
 " party they bear no decided testimony against these deeds, 
 •* and do nothing to purge themselves from the guilt of 
 " them, then is it not true to say of the party generally 
 " that they do these things ? and will they not generally 
 " with all who adhere to them be held to answer for then" 
 " at the bar of the righteous Judge V 
 
24 
 
 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 God forbid that Dr. Worcester, if such are his sentiments, 
 should ever be promoted to the office of a temporal or spiri- 
 tual judge. A million of men entertain one opinion in common. 
 Nine hundred and ninety thousand of them hold an opinion 
 perfectly innocent, but ten thousand of them also maintain 
 (lie most censurable doctrines. The point in which they 
 are agreed is either true or harmless. I would impute, says 
 the humane Dr. Worcester, to the nine hundred and ninety 
 thousand, the detestable doctrines of the ten thousand, which 
 they reprobate equally with the rest of the world. 
 
 This is imputation with a vengeance ! 
 
 Let us, however, test the fairness of this reasoning and 
 the justice of this accusation by an application to them. 
 
 So far as it respects this particular point in the nature of 
 God, the christian world are divided into two sects only, 
 Trinitarians and Unitarians. 
 
 The former term embraces Catholicks, Lutherans, Cal- 
 vinists, and these again are subdivided into fifty sects. 
 
 The latter are divided into ArianS, Socjnians, and many 
 who differ from both. 
 
 Now is it not as reasonable to say to a Calvinistick 
 Trinitarian, " Your Trinitarian party (meaning the Catho- 
 licks) maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation, of abso- 
 lution, of auricular confession. You are therefore accoun- 
 table for these opinions." 
 
 How unfair would Dr. Worcester deem it, if we should 
 impute to every Trinitarian every absurd opinion maintained 
 by those who agree with him in that doctrine. 
 
 Yet on this very flimsy ground, and on this alone, does 
 he impute to Mr. Channing and the other clergy, who hold 
 the simple doctrine of the Unity of the supreme Being, 
 opinions, which he considers the most heinous crimes, which 
 in his judgment will condemn them to eternal punishment, 
 and which merit the severest human censure. 
 
OR A CALVINISTP 
 
 3S& 
 
 I would remark in this place, that although I would here 
 establish the iliiberality and misrepresentation of the editors 
 of the Panoplist, it is not because I consider it a reproach 
 to any man, honestly to entertain the opinions of Mr. Bel- 
 sham. In most of the opinions cited by the Panoplist I 
 agree with that Unitarian divine. In some I differ from 
 him ; and however it may please the apostolick Dr. 
 Worcester to denounce such opinions as gtiilt, I shall ask 
 for his commission from my Maker and my Saviour before 
 I shall allow the validity of his decree. 
 
 Yes. Though a layman, I understand and value my 
 religious rights, and in my conscience I have believed ever 
 since I have had understanding to discern the truth, that 
 the greater part of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism are 
 derogatory to God, in direct contradiction to the doctrines 
 taught by our Master ; and though I can never call errour 
 guilt, I shall always esteem the Calvinistick errours the 
 most unfortunate and dishonourable to the christian system, 
 of any which the metaphysical subtlety of men has contri- 
 ved, or which their pride and party spirit have induced 
 them to maintain. But although I consider it no reproach, 
 yet both Dr. Worcester and I well know, that on many of 
 the points in question, a great portion of the Unitarians of 
 this country differ as much from Mr. Belsham as they do 
 from Dr. Worcester, and in this view the charge was not 
 only unfounded but extremely unfair. 
 
 I can easily fancy, that I see these metaphysical dicta- 
 tors of our consciences sneering at a layman, who has the 
 hardihood to give his opinion about doctrines which they 
 will say he does not understand. How can you, Sir, they 
 will say, pretend to decide on some of the most abstruse 
 points in theology, which it costs us the whole labour of our 
 lives to endeavour to comprehend, and even that endeavour 
 is with many of us unsuccessful ? Such will be the private, 
 
 4 
 
2C ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 if it be not the publick language of these inspired teachers. 
 Yet they hoid very consistently at the same time, that 
 though we laymen cannot understand the merits of these 
 questions without much study, though it cost the metaphy- 
 sical and able Dr. Edwards the labour of a life to display 
 them, yet that every illiterate man is bound to believe them 
 on pain of eternal damnation.* 
 
 Never was a doctrine so well calculated to keep the minds 
 of men in fetters to ecclesiastical authority. You must be- 
 lieve because it is incredible ; the more incomprehensible, 
 the more certain its divine origin and its truth. " But I do 
 not understand even the terms of the proposition." So 
 much the better ; it is a proof the mystery is deeper and 
 more holy, and so much the greater your obligation to 
 believe. 
 
 Hence it is, we suppose, that some of these Calvinistick 
 gentlemen hold human research in such contempt, and aban- 
 don the pain and labour of study to their industrious oppo- 
 sers, to the seekers after truth, the humble inquirers after 
 the religion which Jesus taught. Hence it is, we suppose, 
 that we sometimes see them so devoted to worldly inte- 
 rests, to the publication of profane books (I use profane in 
 contradistinction to sacred) as to render it impracticable 
 for them to devote any reasonable portion of time to theo- 
 logical research. To such men, to all who are greedy of 
 
 * Q. Where are true churchmen to be found ? 
 A. Only in the true church. 
 Q,. How do you call the true church ? 
 JV. The holy catholick church. 
 Q. Is there any other true church ? 
 
 A. No. As there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one 
 God and Father of all, there is but one church. 
 Q. Are all obliged to be of the true church ? 
 A. Yes, no one can be saved out of it. 
 The above questions and answers are extracted, not from Dr. 
 Worcester, but from the eighth edition of the general catechism, 
 printed at Dublin, 1811, and revised, enlarged, approved and recom- 
 mended, not by the editors of the Panoplist, — but by the four Roman 
 Calholick archbistiops of the kingdom of Ireland. 
 
OR A CALVINIST? 27 
 
 sovereign power over the minds of their people, these Cal- 
 vinistick doctrines are very convenient. They teach their 
 flocks, that human reason is to be discarded in judging of 
 sacred things, that it was given us only for our every day 
 affairs, but that in things which pertain to our immortal 
 souls, and which affect our eternal happiness, it is an in- 
 strument to be dreaded, a faculty to be despised.* 
 
 Hence they lay down the Westminster Assembly's con- 
 fession of faith as the gospel, and by the aid of a few texts, 
 they are enabled to compose what they are pleased to 
 style an evangelical discourse ; though its resemblance to 
 the New Testament is perhaps its slightest recommendation. 
 If a sober, pious, inquiring parishioner should ask them 
 to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature and 
 character and offices of each member of this singular Union, 
 and what was its state when our Saviour was in the tomb 
 and before his resurrection ; if they should ask, what Christ 
 could mean by praying to his Father, that the bitter cup of 
 suffering might pass from him, whether he prayed when he 
 knew it was in vain, and whether he prayed to himself 
 who was equally God with the Father ; to all these ques- 
 tions the only reply would be, it is a mystery. We know 
 no more about it than you. But if you do not believe it 
 you will be damned, and the editors of the Panoplist and 
 Dr. Worcester will sit in judgment upon you. 
 
 The poor man, if his mind is feeble and his spirit very 
 obedient, trembles and obeys ; we cannot say believes, for 
 belief cannot be affirmed of any thing which is not clearly 
 and fully understood. 
 
 Far different and more arduous is the task of those pas- 
 tors and teachers, who hold their hearers 1o be reasonable 
 creatures, and that the noblest faculty which God has given 
 
 * " When once the doctrine is adopted, that reason is not to be 
 exercised in matters of religion, it becomes almost a point of duty to 
 be as unreasonable as possible."— Christian Observer, May, 181 5, p. 276. 
 
gfj ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 to man, is to be employed about the noblest and most 
 sublime subject. 
 
 These teachers consider it to be their duty, to give to 
 every man the "reason of the faith" that is in them. 
 
 They esteem it a sacred obligation to search the scrip- 
 tures, to compare all human systems with them, and to adopt 
 these only so far, as after fair and honest and pious research 
 they shall find them supported by the Bible. 
 
 Hence these teachers have a much more laborious task, 
 than those who blindly follow Calvin, or any maker of 
 creeds. They would consider it a profanation of the desk 
 to preach doctrines which they themselves could not under- 
 stand. Their sermons, instead of resembling the treatises of 
 metaphysical divines, are modelled upon that of our Saviour 
 on the mount. They think his example of sufficient authority. 
 In the beautiful language of Mr. Channing, " we esteem 
 " it a solemn duty to disarm instead of exciting the bad 
 " passions of our people. We wish to promote among them 
 " a spirit of universal charity. We wish to make them con- 
 " demn their own bad practices rather than the erroneous 
 " speculations of their neighbour. We love them too sin- 
 " cerely to imbue them with the spirit of controversy." 
 This is as true as it is christian-Iike and sublime. We all 
 know that this is their mode of preaching, and these their 
 motives. 
 
 I mean now to shew, 
 
 1st. That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are in fact 
 in the Panoplist imputed so generally, and with such purpo- 
 sed vagueness to those whom the orthodox call the liberal 
 party, as to lead all honest laymen, ignorant of the distinc- 
 tion between Ihe various sects, to believe, that all Unitari- 
 ans agree in all points with Mr. Belsham. 
 
 In the first place, I adopt their own course of reasoning, 
 as against themselves. Both the Panoplist and Dr. Wor- 
 
OR A CALVINISTP 29 
 
 cester contend, that all the Unitarians are to be considered 
 as one parti/, an ^ are responsible for the opinions and even 
 crimes which any of the party commit. 
 
 In page 6, having quoted at large Mr. Belsham's opinions, 
 the editors of the Panoplist add, " the foregoing quotations 
 are sufficient to give the reader some acquaintance with the 
 religious opinions of leading Unitarians." 
 
 The evidence only went to shew the opinion of one Uni- 
 tarian. The Panoplist cites it as proof of the opinion of 
 more than one of the leading Unitarians. Just below in 
 the same page their courage gains ground, and they pro- 
 ceed without qualification in the work of misrepresentation. 
 " Our readers (say they) will excuse us, if for the sake 
 of making a brief summary of doctrines held by Unitarians 
 as exhibited in the preceding extracts, we give the sub- 
 stance of the several articles by way of recapitulation." 
 
 " Unitarians hold and teach then, That God," &c. Sec. 
 here inserting Mr. Belsham's creed. 
 
 This in common acceptation, is an insinuation, that all 
 Unitarians hold those opinions. Here they dropped the 
 word " leading." 
 
 The sarcastick, triumphant manner in which the whole 
 subject is introduced, the course of argument adopted, 
 such as that they had secretly known, and had often advised 
 the publick of what the Boston ministers had studiously 
 concealed, that they were at bottom Unitarians, though they 
 artfully concealed it from their parishes and the world, but 
 that happily for the cause of truth, they had discovered 
 the means of bringing this more than popish plot to light ; 
 all this course of statement, as it is applied to the Boston 
 and other clergy of the liberal party generally, without any 
 discrimination, was intended to convey, and does convey 
 to the mind of every reader, that they considered it appli- 
 cable to all. It was purposely vague, that the suspicion 
 
30 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 might fall upon the whole. Mr. Channing has disappointed 
 them. He has proved that a part of what they would im- 
 pute to him as guilt, he claims as merit, and that the 
 insinuation, the innuendo, that all the liberal clergy hold the 
 opinions of Mr. Belsham, is false. 
 
 Do these gentlemen believe, that in order to convict them 
 of a libel, it is necessary they should use a precise form of 
 words ? Do they believe, they can make insinuations in lan- 
 guage purposely obscure, and when put upon their trial, 
 escape ou the ground of literal variation ? 
 
 What will be said to this phrase ? 
 
 " Such is the Unitarianism which Mr. Belsham wishes to 
 propagate, and of which he professes to write the history, 
 so far at least as it relates to its progress in this country. 
 Of the existence of such Unitarianism in the metropolis 
 of New-England, our readers have been generally well per- 
 suaded, but some have not believed that it was making con- 
 siderable progress, because they could not persuade them- 
 selves that men, occupying important places in church and 
 state, and standing high in publick estimation, were capable 
 of concealing their true sentiments." 
 
 I do not know that Dr. Worcester might not attempt to 
 prove that the foregoing sentence did not contain any charge, 
 since he could not see even in the Panoplist a charge of 
 hypocrisy against the Boston clergy, but I understand the 
 above to be an averment, that such Unitarianism as Mr. 
 Belsham wished to propagate, and contained in the summa- 
 ry above cited by the Panoplist, was the same with that 
 held by all the men in church and state in Massachusetts, 
 (who were Unitarians at all) and that they concealed, from 
 a sense of guilt and shame, their opinions from the publick. 
 
 Such any fair jury would say was the meaning of the 
 sentence. Such Mr. Channing thought it to be, and supposed 
 it included him and his brethren. Such it was intended to 
 
OR A CALVINIST? ^ 
 
 be, as I shall prove, and such Dr. Worcester ought to have 
 supposed to be its meaning. 
 
 In the 2d page of the Panoplist Review the term Boston 
 " and its vicinity" is used in such a manner as fairly to 
 bear out Mr. Channing's inference. Nay, it would lead 
 foreigners, and citizens unacquainted with the facts, to con- 
 sider the whole town and vicinity Unitarians of Mr. Bel- 
 sham's sort. 
 
 So much so, that if any Boston minister, however ortho- 
 dox, should travel without a passport from the faithful, he 
 would be in danger of being confounded with the hereticks. 
 " The pamphlet before us (say the editors) furnishes 
 most decisive evidence on the subject of the stale of reli- 
 gion in Boston and the vicinity. It is evidence which can 
 neither be evaded or resisted by the liberal party:' 
 
 We now introduce one of the passages quoted by Mr. 
 Channing. « We shall feel ourselves (say the Reviewers) 
 warranted hereafter in saying that Unitarianism is the pre- 
 dominant religion among the ministers and churches of 
 Boston." 
 
 On this sentence the Rev. Dr. Worcester with wonderful 
 shrewdness remarks, 1st. that this does not include the 
 vicinity. But the other one I quoted above, did. 2d. It 
 did not include the "great body of liberal christians:' 
 But it included the ministers of Boston and their churches ; 
 nay, its fair signification is, that the greater part of all the 
 churches were Unitarians, and the sentence I have quoted 
 did include the liberal party. And, 3dly, he says, it does 
 not say that they were Unitarians in "Belsham's sense of 
 the word." 
 
 But I have shown above, that in many other passages to 
 the American Unitarians generally are imputed Belsham's 
 opinions ; so then, if in any one sentence all the proposi, 
 tions cannot be found, our metaphysical divine cannot find 
 
gg ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 the assertion supported. To such a mind we can readily 
 forgive any errours founded on metaphysical or scholaslick 
 subtleties. There is one other evasion which the Rev. Dr. 
 Worcester invents for the word predominant, which I notice 
 for other purposes. He says that it might have meant pre- 
 dominant in " influence," having the " most prominent 
 characters" for supporters. There are two sentences in 
 which this word is used by the Reviewer. The other one 
 is, " We feel entirely warranted in saying, that the pre- 
 dominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian 
 in Mr. Belsham's sen~e of the word." Is there a man of 
 plain *ense who believes that the Reviewers meant thence 
 simply to assert that the men of influence, the men who have 
 the care of the college, alone, were Unitarians in Mr. Bel- 
 sham's sense of the word, or did they mean that it was the 
 prevailing sentiment, the sentiment of the greatest number ? 
 Surely the latter is the fair construction ; but this construc- 
 tion was introduced, I fear, for the purpose for which, in too 
 many orthodox publications, the same sentiment is inserted, 
 to play off the passions and jealousies of the uninformed 
 classes of citizens against the higher. Gentlemen, you take 
 this course frequently. You are provoked that so vast a pro- 
 portion of the opulent, well-informed classes of society are 
 scriptural christians, and reject the creeds of the dark ages, 
 the shreds and patches left upon our religion by the first 
 reformers, and you wish to render them objects of jealousy. 
 You may succeed in this game. You have, we well know, 
 the long end of the lever. The multitude will finally govern ; 
 but recollect, that in pulling down scriptural Christianity, 
 in revenging yourselves upon us for rejecting your authority 
 and preferring that of Christ, you run some hazard of being 
 pulled down yourselves. Some of the best friends, and the 
 most staunch supporters of Christianity are among those 
 whom you attack. Infidelity is the prevailing profession of 
 
OR A CALVINIST? 33 
 
 the statesmen of the south. The populace in times of 
 turbulence soon pass from orthodoxy and fanaticism to incre- 
 dulity, and you may regret too late, that you alienated the 
 affections of those who were Avilling and able to aid and 
 sustain you, while you lost your influence with the other 
 classes. I shall say something more on the causes of the 
 late unusual awakening and zeal, and this dreadful appre- 
 hension of danger to the church, in the close. I shall sug- 
 gest some of the true sources of this clamour, and shall 
 render it probable, that if two or three turbulent and in- 
 triguing men had not been encouraged, the harmony of the 
 church would not have been interrupted. To return to our 
 question. 
 
 The best proof and the conclusive one against the Pano- 
 plist editors, is the judgment which they pass on themselves. 
 Their conscience smote them, and it is astonishing to me 
 that Dr. Worcester did not see that his defence was offi- 
 cious. They never mean to deny, and they never can 
 deny, that they imputed to the whole liberal party, in town 
 and out of town, men of influence and men without it, min- 
 isters and people, the opinions of Mr. Belsham. In page 
 27 they say, they are aware they shall be accused of unfair- 
 ness in imputing to the liberal party " the extravagant 
 opinions of Mr. Belsham." But they justify it. They go 
 on to argue on the honourable nature of Mr. Wells' stand- 
 ing and character, and his consequent authority. 
 
 This is a perfect admission, not that they were unfair, but 
 that they did so impute the opinions of Mr. Belsham to 
 the liberal party. 
 
 Now what have we proved that the Panoplist asserted 1 
 
 1st. That Mr. Belsham's opinions are those of " leading 
 Unitarians." 
 
 2d. That they are the opinions of " Unitarians" without 
 qualification. 
 
 5 
 
^4 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 3d. That " Unitarians" hold all the opinions which the 
 Panoplist selects from Mr. Belsham's creed. 
 
 4th. That the Unitarianism which has been secretly 
 spreading in Boston, and of which they had often warned 
 their readers, that which was held by men distinguished in 
 church and state was " such Unitarianism" as Mr. 
 Belsham's. 
 
 5th. That Mr. Belsham's book applies to the "state of 
 religion in Boston and its vicinity." 
 
 6th. That Unitarianism (which we have shewn they had 
 before defined to be Mr. Belsham's) was the predominant 
 religion of the ministers and churches of Boston. 
 
 7th. That the predominant religion of the liberal party 
 is decidedly Unitarian in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. 
 And lastly, they implicitly admit, that they did charge the 
 liberal party with holding Mr. Belsham's opinions, and jus- 
 tify it. 
 
 Let us now see, whether the whole of Mr. Channing's 
 assertion in his first proposition, and especially the one I 
 advanced, is not supported ; viz. that the Panoplist asserts, 
 that the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the great 
 body of liberal christians, are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's 
 sense of the word. 
 
 Dr. Worcester not only has failed to defend them suc- 
 cessfully on this point, but he has most unhappily plunged 
 himself into the same difficulty, by justifying in one line what 
 he denied to exist in a preceding one. 
 
 It is where he defends this malicious sentence of the 
 Panoplist, " the liberal party mutilate the New-Testament, 
 reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, 
 and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, pec- 
 cable, and ignorant man." 
 
 Dr. Worcester first attempts to shew, that it does not 
 mean the whole party ; that the whole is sometimes used for 
 
OR A €ALVINIST? 35 
 
 .a part, that it was therefore wrong in Mr. Channing to apply 
 it to all of them. He has scarcely finished this piece of 
 fine reasoning, before he proceeds In three long pages to 
 shew, that every one of the party are liable for the deeds 
 of every other one ! That the Reviewers had a right to 
 consider Belsham's opinions as applying to all Unitari- 
 ans since he spoke in the name of all ; thus the doctor ex- 
 hibits a new species of reasoning. He denies a fact, sup- 
 ports his denial with much argument, and then proceeds to 
 justify that fact as an acknowledged and admitted one. 
 
 The Calvinists certainly will do us a favour by selecting 
 Dr. Worcester as their advocate, but we sincerely rejoice 
 that he is not on our side of the question : we could not 
 stand such a defence, though we fear no attack from any 
 quarter. 
 
 The second point is, " Did the Reviewers in the Pano- 
 plist charge the clergy or ministers, who doubt the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, with base and hypocritical concealment of 
 their opinions ?" 
 
 Here Dr. Worcester is a little more cautious. He deals 
 in general denial, he brings forward but one passage, which 
 I shall examine : But he does make one or two assertions 
 that astonish me. One is, that of all the quotations made 
 by Mr. Channing, he thinks "he may safely assert there is 
 not one sentence or scrap of a sentence which appears in 
 the letter of Mr. Channing, with the same aspect and 
 bearing as in the Review." This charge, if true, goes 
 deeply to the moral character of Mr. Channing; but it is 
 utterly unfounded. 
 
 It will appear to be one of the most singular mistakes or 
 misrepresentations by clerk or layman. It is distressing to 
 be obliged to apply such expressions to a divine, but if a 
 man will fight with poisoned arrows, he must expect to be 
 treated as out of the pale of civilized warfare. The fact? 
 
36 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 I am now about to state, and the exposition which I am 
 about to present, wilLbe thought to bear still harder on the 
 fairness of Dr. Worcester as a theological combatant. 
 
 If that reverend gentleman intended, in the manner of 
 some of the subtleties I have so fully detected above, to 
 justify his assertion by saying, that after these sentences 
 and scraps of sentences were transferred to Mr. Channing's 
 letter, they did not stand in the same typographical order 
 or relation to each other, and to the context in the Pano- 
 plist, let him enjoy his triumph, such as it would be. 
 But if he meant, as he did, to convey the idea, that those 
 sentences, and parts of sentences, were not correctly appl ed 
 by Mr. Channing, I shall prove it to be otherwise. 
 
 The "aspect and bearing,'' and the only " aspect and 
 bearing" which they have in Mr. Channing's letter, are 
 expressed in three short words, " We are accused ;" and if 
 we examine the text which was the occasion of introducing 
 this note, we shall find, that the persons to whom Mr. Chan- 
 ning refers as accused, are the ministers of Boston and the 
 vicinity, and others of the liberal party. Now if the minis- 
 ters of Boston are distinctly accused of all the things stated 
 in the extracts, then the aspect and bearing are the same 
 in Mr. Channing's letter as in the Review, for they are a 
 part of the persons accused, and a part stand for the whole. 
 See Dr. Worcester and the Panoplist passim. 
 
 We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of the " syste- 
 matical practice of artifice." In page 2d of the new edition 
 of the Review, there is the paragraph cited below. I shall 
 in every instance give the whole context in order to convict 
 the reverend Dr. the more fully. After asserting that the 
 editors of the Panoplist had long known and often apprized 
 the christian world of this dark secret, Unitarian defection, 
 they say, " But as the work of errour was carried on for 
 the most part in secret, as many well-meaning people were 
 
5R A CALVINIST? 37 
 
 led in the dark, and as proselytes were made principally 
 by suppressing truth, rather than by explicitly proposing 
 and defending errour, it was a difficult matter so to expose 
 the evil, as to present its character, extent and design in 
 full view, before the eyes of its friends and enemies." [Here 
 follows the clause selected by Mr. Channing.] " It has 
 " been an artifice practised systematically by a majority 
 " of the clergymen who have led the way in this apostasy 
 " from the faith of the Protestant churches, and (as we 
 " believe we may safely add) in this apostasy from chris- 
 " tianity, to inculcate the opinion, that they did not differ 
 " materially from their clerical brethren through the coun- 
 " try." 
 
 Now we ask whether the words, " artifice practised syste- 
 matically," taken in connexion with the rest of the Pano- 
 plist and with the contrast of the word country, do not 
 apply to the Boston clergy. Whether they are not as clear 
 as if they had named Lathrop and Channing, and Thacher, 
 ' and others ? There are but two evasions I can think of. 
 One is, that Mr. Channing says, " we are accused of the 
 systematical practice of artifice," and the Review only says, 
 ( * an artifice practised systematically." 
 
 To be sure, laymen would call this a quibble, but as 
 it is in character with some other parts of Dr. Worcester's 
 letter, and as it is on such verbal niceties that many of the 
 Calvinistick errours repose, I should not be surprised to 
 see him resort to it. 
 
 It may also be said, that the Reviewers do not accuse all 
 the Boston clergy, nor even all who have led the way in this 
 pretended apostasy ; neither does Mr. Channing say they 
 did. He only says, " we are accused," and surely all the 
 Anti-Trinitarian clergymen are accused, except Dr. Free- 
 man, who is praised, and who alone is praised, for his 
 openness. 
 
38 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 Case 2d. We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of "hy- 
 pocritical concealment." In the first place, in page 7, new 
 edition, the Panoplist says, that their readers had long been 
 apprized of the existence of such Unitarianism (which I 
 have proved to be Belsham's) in the metropolis of New- 
 England, (this fixes the locality) " but some have not be- 
 lieved (they add) that it was making considerable progress, 
 because they could not persuade themselves that men, 
 occupying important places in church and state, and stand- 
 ing high in publick estimation, were capable of concealing 
 their true sentiments." This is only, I admit, very broad 
 insinuation, but it serves to connect other charges, by shew- 
 ing that they were designed to apply to the Boston clergy. 
 I dare say the doctor would justify this species of calum- 
 ny, by saying, that it makes no assertion. 
 
 In page 10, the Reviewers say, that Belsham has shewn 
 us, not that he has merely asserted it, "that many of his 
 order in our country would have one Veligion for the vulgar 
 and another for the wise, that it is a fundamental maxim 
 among the great body of leading Unitarians here not to 
 expose their sentiments directly to the inspection of the 
 world at large, and to challenge investigation, but to 
 operate in secret." 
 
 I introduce this to shew the same general design, and 
 also that the charge is made against the whole body. 
 
 All these extracts are produced as introductory to the 
 following in page 11, speaking of the society in Tremont 
 street (King's chapel.) We must say (say the Review- 
 ers) that the conduct of this society and of their minister, 
 in coming out openly and avowing their sentiments to the 
 world, is vastly preferable to an hypocritical concealment 
 of them. 
 
 This is a slander by innuendo. It means that other socie- 
 ties did hypocritically conceal. But the Rev. Dr. Wor- 
 
OR A CALVINIST? S§ 
 
 cester triumphs here. He says, there is not a direct charge, 
 He quotes it as far as I have now done ; but who will ever 
 believe without consulting the book, that this divine, who 
 charges his brother Channing with mutilation, took this ex- 
 tract and left the words which immediately follow ? " Had 
 other societies followed their example, we should long since 
 have known with whom we were contending, and not have 
 been obliged to guard against ambushes instead of combat- 
 ing in the open field." Which those other societies were, 
 is made known by the above extracts from pages 7 and 10, 
 and from the whole tenour of the Review. The other 
 societies in Boston, who are not Trinitarian in their senti- 
 ments, are then charged with " hypocritical concealment," 
 and a fortiori their pastors are so charged, who are more 
 than ten times distinctly noticed in the Review. 
 
 Case 3d. We are accused of " cowardice in the con- 
 cealment of our opinions," " of cunning and dishonesty," 
 " of acting in a base hypocritical manner, a manner at which 
 common honesty revolts ;" " a manner incompatible with 
 fidelity and integrity." 
 
 I put all these distinct cases together, because they are 
 supported by the same evidence. 
 
 Speaking ot Mr. Wells's letter, page 20, the Reviewers 
 say, that his apology for his cautious brethren, sufficiently 
 indicates his views of their conduct in regard to their pub- 
 lick teaching. This shews of whom they considered him 
 to be speaking, that they were ministers, publick teachers. 
 They then proceed, " Thus it is, and thus it has been for 
 years. Knowing that the cold skepticism of Socinianism 
 cannot satisfy the wants nor alleviate the woes of plain 
 common sense people, its advocates in general have not 
 dared to be open, (here is the cowardice.) They have clan- 
 destinely crept into orthodox churches by forbearing to 
 Contradict their faith, (this shews who are intended— that it 
 
40 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 is the clergy) and then gradually moulded them by their 
 negative preaching, to the shape they would wish." In 
 the same paragraph and in the same allusion, again, " Who 
 does not. see that there is great cunning, and that there is 
 great policy in all this. [Here the charge of cunning is 
 advanced.] " But then, the honesty ! That is another 
 matter. Did the holy apostles act in this manner when 
 they preached to Jews and heathens 1 Did they teach by 
 negatives ? [This shews they mean the persons above 
 referred to.] Let those blush, who profess to follow the 
 apostles, and yet behave in this base, hypocritical manner. 
 Common honesty revolts at it. The idea, that a minister 
 believes the truths of the gospel to be of infinite importance, 
 and still conceals them, is incompatible either with fidelity 
 or integrity." 
 
 It makes one blush, to feel obliged to prove so self-evi- 
 dent a proposition, as that these charges were made against 
 Mr. Channing and the Boston clergy. It makes us blush 
 still deeper, to find any persons with the christian name 
 capable of writing such language ; and we shudder when we 
 perceive that any man could affect to doubt their intended 
 application. 
 
 But if Dr. Worcester had confined himself simply to a 
 denial of the charge, if he had even gone no farther than to 
 charge Mr. Channing with false and unfair quotations, he 
 would not have sunk so much in our esteem. But there is 
 an affectation of fairness, and of sentiment, and tenderness, 
 which doubles his condemnation. He says, that when he 
 read these extracts in Mr. Channing's letter, he was excited 
 in regard to the Reviewer, [meaning that he felt angry] and 
 iie was surprised, that he had not felt the same excitement 
 when he first read them in the Review. This is a stroke 
 of art, first, to make the reader believe his candour, and 
 that he should have felt very indignant at such charges ; 
 
OR A CALVIMST? 41 
 
 secondly, To heighten the belief, that the passages in their 
 natural connexion bore no such meaning. 
 
 Now what shall we say, when we see that they have the 
 same aspect and bearing in the Review, as Mr. Channing 
 stated them to have ? — That his assertion was strictly, lite- 
 rally, and technically true, true in the most rigid construc- 
 tion of law and language, true to learned and true to vulgar 
 apprehension in the hidden and the obvious meaning ? 
 
 But this is not the worst of the case for Dr. Worcester. 
 He stands self-accused. By saying, that he felt excited, or 
 angry, at the accusations of the Panoplist as stated by Mr. 
 Channing, he implicitly admits them to be calumnies, rea- 
 sonable causes of offence ; and yet this very consistent de- 
 fender, who felt abhorrent at such suggestions, and denies 
 that the Panoplist made those charges, in the aspect and! 
 bearing stated by Mr. Channing, advances in substance the 
 same charges, and seems astonished that Mr. Channing 
 should have felt indignant at them. Let us furnish our 
 proofs. 
 
 In page 17 he attempts to shew, that the same charges 
 of hypocritical concealment are true, he first cites the 
 authority of Mr. Freeman, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham, 
 and then adds, " you must be apprised that the opinion 
 [that they concealed their sentiments, and temporized] was 
 very extensively prevalent, prevalent not only among your 
 adversaries, but also among your friends. Hundreds and 
 hundreds of times have I heard it from various quarters, and 
 never have I heard, as I recollect, the truth of it denied or 
 called in question." 
 
 Again. " I did suppose, that you and your liberal 
 brethren held it as a maxim, that a degree of reserve and 
 concealment, greater or less according to circumstances, was 
 prudent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy.'* 
 6 
 
42 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 And pray, if Dr. Worcester believed all this of them, it 
 he really thought them hypocrites and afraid to avow their 
 opinions, why was he excited against the Panoplist, when 
 he saw the charges collected by Mr. Channing 1 
 
 Will he say, that he did not look upon concealment a& 
 any offence, or any breach of duty I He goes on to de- 
 scribe this failure of openness to be the greatest degree of 
 infidelity to God and Christ. 
 
 1 shall now say a word or two on the third proposition^ 
 that the Rev. Dr. Worcester has either mistaken or mis- 
 represented the course of preaching, which Mr. Channing 
 stated, and most clearly stated, to be that of himself and 
 friends. Dr. Worcester, in page 22, chooses to understand 
 Mr. Channing as saying, that he did not introduce any great 
 controversial points into his discourses. 
 
 Mr. Channing* s words, cited at length, and not garbled 
 and mutilated, have a very different "aspect and bearing." 
 " As to that very small part of our hearers, says he, who 
 are attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, while we have 
 not wished to conceal from them our difference of opinion, 
 we have been fully satisfied, that the most effectual method 
 of promoting their holiness and salvation, was to urge on 
 them those great truths and precepts about which there is 
 little contention, and which have an immediate bearing on 
 the temper and life." 
 
 A more delightful and rational rule could not, one would 
 think, be adopted. 
 
 What is Dr. Worcester's course as to this sentence? He 
 says, There has been great contention about all the great 
 truths of Christianity, and therefore against the positive de- 
 claration of Mr. Channing, that he does urge certain great 
 truths of the gospel, Dr. Worcester makes the following, 
 enumeration. " The doctrines concerning the Saviour's- 
 person and character, his priesthood and atonement, his 
 
OR A CALVINIST? 43 
 
 offices and work; the doctrines concerning the moral stale 
 of mankind, regeneration by the holy spirit, justification by 
 faith, pardon and eternal salvation through the merits of the 
 one Mediator, the resurrection of the body, and the final 
 judgment, " the everlasting destruction of those that obey 
 not the gospel," are subjects of continual and earnest con- 
 tention among those who profess themselves christians. 
 These, doctrines then, according to your own representation, 
 you and your liberal brethren refrain from bringing into dis- 
 cussion before your hearers." 
 
 This is the last and worst quotation I shall make from 
 Dr. Worcester. He affects to believe, that Mr. Channing 
 admitted, that he never preached concerning the person, 
 character and works of our Saviour, nor the moral state of 
 mankind, nor the doctrines of pardon, nor eternal salvation, 
 nor the resurrection, nor the final judgment ! ! ! 
 
 Did he believe it to be so ? Even charity can scarcely 
 admit it. Such a course of argument would merit a fine 
 or degradation in a Sophomore, but in a minister of Christ, 
 what are we to say of it ? Is it to be understood, that the 
 orthodox clergy generally approve of measures, at which all 
 men of sentiment revolt ? 
 
 I can only say, that if any religion or any doctrines per- 
 mit or allow of such proceedings, it is a sufiicient reason for 
 rejecting them. 
 
 Our disposition to fairness induces us to say, that we 
 have no doubt that the Rev. Dr. Worcester had, in the 
 passage to which we refer, a mental reservation, which 
 entirely reconciled this representation of Mr. Channing's 
 preaching to his own conscience. It is however melan- 
 choly to reflect, that theological controvertists often 
 have recourse to measures, which appear to laymen 
 who consider a God of truth as an enemy to subterfuge, 
 very improper. The doctor will doubtless say, "have 
 
44 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 there not been .violent contentions as to the "nature, 
 " extent, and degree of future punishments, and the time 
 " and manner of final judgment ? Had I not a meta- 
 " physical and abstract right then to say, though I did not 
 " believe, that Mr. Channing omitted these points ?" I 
 answer without hesitation. No, Sir, you had no right to 
 make an inference which you did not believe to be true. 
 Neither you, nor any man in Christendom could believe, that 
 the Boston clergy omit to urge on their hearers the doc- 
 trines of final judgment, and punishment. You might pre- 
 sume from what Mr. Channing said, that they did not enter on 
 this doctrine of purgatory, and the specifick nature, extent 
 and duration of punishments at the last day, but neither you 
 nor any one of your brethren, ever believed that they refrain- 
 ed from teaching their hearers, that there would be a day of 
 final judgment, in which men would receive a sentence 
 according to their deeds. 
 
 If the liberal clergy have not arrayed the Deity in all the 
 terrours which suit the gloomy imaginations of some men, 
 they have not been wanting in representing him as a just 
 being, delighting in the virtue of his creatures, and justly 
 offended with their vices, and that his rewards and punish- 
 ments would be proportional to their conduct in this life. 
 God grant, that at that solemn day, all those who have been 
 so forward in censuring others may be able to render as 
 good an account of their stewardship, as those whom they 
 have rashly accused. 
 
 I have now completed the design which I had originally 
 in view-; which was, to place in alto relievo, in a prominent 
 light, the calumnies of the editors of the Panoplist. I am 
 not certain that those gentlemen will not thank us, for proviug 
 their true meaning and design against the defence of Dr. 
 Worcester. 
 
OR A CALVINISM? 45 
 
 I shall make a few remarks on various miscellaneous 
 heads, all connected with this grand bill of presentment, 
 which the exclusive saints have made against the great 
 body of herelicks, called liberal christians, before that 
 venerable tribunal, the mob, in a language and temper just 
 suited to their court, 
 
 THE MOTIVE FOR THIS ATTACK OF THE PANOPLIST, 
 AND ITS CONSISTENCY. 
 
 That in a free country every man has a right to address 
 the people on any topick, which he may think useful, can- 
 not be questioned. He has a strict legal right also to mani- 
 fest in himself a most diabolical, revengeful temper, and he 
 can escape punishment, if he will make his accusations so 
 vague, as that no individual can prove himself dis- 
 tinctly charged with a moral or legal offence. As in our 
 country it is no crime and scarcely a disgrace, to entertain 
 opinions on religious subjects differing from the majority, 
 so there is no remedy, when any malicious writer shall 
 under cover of the press, charge persons with opinions 
 which they do not profess, or misrepresent and mistake 
 those which they do. But though such slanderers can 
 escape what they deserve, without question, judicial punish- 
 ment, yet there are tribunals of a higher kind, both human 
 and divine, which they never will escape. 
 
 There is a moral court, erected in the breasts of all men 
 of common honesty, to which they are answerable. To this 
 court I appeal, in behalf of those venerated men, who have 
 been shamefully abused. 
 
 What authority has Dr. Morse, or Dr. Worcester, or Mr. 
 Evarts, or any body else, over Mr. Channing, and Mr. 
 Thacher, and Mr. Lowell, and their parishioners ? Is there 
 any ecclesiastical power in our State confided to them, when 
 both pastor and people agree ? We know there is not. But 
 
46 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 it is urged, that on so solemn a subject the duty of apostles 
 is paramount to human laws, and that St. Morse, St. Evarts. 
 and St. Worcester, reinvested with the power of the Holy 
 Spirit, which descended on St. Paul and St. Peter, are 
 bound to mount the apostolick chair and excommunicate the 
 hereticks. Grant it. It may soon be too dangerous to 
 deny the authority of these apostles. But it must be ad- 
 mitted, that the glory of God and the advancement of true 
 religion ought to be not only the motive, but the end 
 proposed. 
 
 It appears to me then that the editors of the Panoplist 
 Review most apparently had neither. 
 
 In the first place, its temper is so bitter, so full of sarcasm 
 and levity, that it could not have proceeded from a pure 
 desire to promote the cause of Christ. 
 
 In the second place, it was 'inconsistent; for if these 
 Anti-Trinitarian clergymen had been so ashamed or/ afraid 
 of their opinions, as to conceal them studiously from their 
 parishes, as the Panoplist contends, the doctrines could 
 spread but very slowly, and it was a proof, that those who 
 held them were not eager to make proselytes. 
 
 It seems to shew at least, what Mr. Channing asserts, 
 that though their researches led them to reject the Calvinis- 
 lick doctrine, they did not think it necessary to direct 
 their publick instructions against these specifick errours ; 
 as not involving questions essential, however important. 
 Now to attack these gentlemen, who, as the Reviewers 
 allege, studiously concealed their opinions ; to attempt to 
 create a popular impression, that their forbearance on these 
 controverted points is a heinous crime, and thus lay men of 
 their learning and talents under the necessity of defending 
 (heir alleged heresy, and shewing it to be the real gospel, 
 could not fail to extend the opinions, which, according to 
 these accusers of he brethren, ought to be reprobated and 
 
OR A CALVINIST? AX 
 
 dreaded ; and it shews, that every thing but truth was the 
 object those zealots for orthodoxy. 
 
 The gentlemen of this school talk much about their 
 openness. They would have it believed, that they are as. 
 much more disinterested and honest in religion, than the 
 class of temperate theologians, as they are more forward, 
 and dogmatical, and denouncing. This is claiming too 
 much in all reason, considering how many interested and 
 natural, if not criminal feelings, may be gratified by this 
 vaunted openness. I have no doubt, there are in the 
 ranks of the party, persons of amiable or timid character, 
 whom it costs some struggle with their disposition, and 
 perhaps their conviction, to dogmatize and rail at the bitter 
 rate demanded by the leaders and whippers in of the sect. 
 But with respect to others, especially of the prominent 
 sort, the sacrifice would be in suppressing, rather than in 
 publishing their peculiar creed. Shall partisans and cham- 
 pions of a creed and sect, who claim exclusive posses- 
 sion of the truth, who think the distinctions between 
 themselves and others essential, who are able to avenge 
 themselves in this world on those who dissent from them, 
 by holding them forth to the multitude, and fixing the 
 brand of heresy upon them, and who profess to expect to 
 be avenged by the final Judge at the last day, think much 
 of raising their standard, and boast of their openness ? Hav- 
 ing a majority in numbers at least with them, deriving con- 
 sideration and influence, places in publick seminaries, and 
 pulpits, from their sectarian peculiarities, it does not seem 
 to require any great portion of the spirit of martyrdom to 
 proclaim their faith most loudly. 
 
 A SMALL BLUNDER OF THE fANOPLIST. 
 
 The truth will somtimes force its war through lips the 
 least disposed to its utterance. Take for example this 
 unfortunate sentence of the Panoplist. 
 
48 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN" 
 
 Speaking of the Anti-Trinitarian, or scriptural clergy, 
 who, as they pretend, have gradually by " negative preach- 
 ing," (I use their verv words) moulded their people to the 
 shape they would wish," [a pretty singular mode, it must be 
 admitted, of moulding men's minds by negative preaching,] 
 
 They add, 
 
 " The people after a while, (by the means of this nega- 
 tive preaching, which means silence as you will see) never 
 hearing of atonement, nor of special grace, or the kindred 
 doctrines, forget that they belong to the christian system, 
 and by and by regard as a kind of enthusiast or monster a 
 man who preaches these doctrines." These are the very 
 words in their true bearing. 
 
 Is this the Panoplist ? Do my eyes deceive me ? Your 
 effemies never said any thing so bad of those doctrines. 
 " The liberal clergy creep silently into orthodox churches, 
 " preach negatively (that is, are silent) on certain contro- 
 " verted points, the good seed is soon lost, and simply by 
 " not hearing these doctrines, for some time, (that is, " after 
 " a while'') when they hear them anew they are shocked 
 " at them, and consider the man who utters them a mon- 
 " ster ! ! !" 
 
 God forbid that your doctrines should be so bad, gentle 
 men. God forbid that you should denounce such men as 
 Charming, for disbelieving doctrines, which, you say, even 
 orthodox churches, after a short interruption, receive with 
 horrour and disgust. 
 
 I do not cite this as affording a triumph. It is a noble sen 
 iitnent and true. It is a generous and ingenuous confession. 
 
 I declare to you, honestly, as a layman, there is nothing, 
 as you justly observe, that so soon bristles my hair with 
 Horrour as some of the doctrines maintained by the orthodox 
 
OR A CALVINIST ? 49 
 
 THE REMARK OF THE PANOPLIST, SO TRULY APOSTOLICK, 
 THAT THE " UNITARIANS PRAISE ONE ANOTHER." 
 
 I do not wonder that they are so partial to this sally of 
 wit, it has all the qualities of this production of Altica, ex- 
 cept brevity. It is so rare a quality too among the 
 orthodox ! and it is so precisely suited to the solemnity 
 and awful nature of such a subject ! 
 
 I was convinced, last summer, when the same writer 
 caught this idea, and run it down through several octavo 
 pages, that he valued it too much to let it sink into oblivion. 
 I had no doubt, that, like the murdered Starrett, it would 
 " re-appear." I am not mistaken ; and much as I pity the 
 temper of the editors of the Panoplist, I have yet so much 
 of a christian spirit, that I would not willingly deprive them 
 of the pleasure of repeating this truly Attick jest every 
 year, if I did not owe something to truth. 
 
 It is admitted, that certain men who agree in denying the 
 truth or the importance of a particular dogma, and in the 
 excellence of a catholick spirit, do praise one another. 
 
 To make this a reproach, (and if it is not a reproach it 
 should not have been introduced, for it cannot be believed 
 that on so solemn a question, as that of the Unity of the 
 supreme God, orthodox men would indulge in ridicule and 
 levity, and wit,) if it be a serious reproach, it should have 
 been accompanied with the proof, that the persons charged 
 denied this praise to others, or that those who were praised, 
 were undeserving of it. 
 
 I do not see that any due praise is withheld from the 
 orthodox party. I presume they do not expect us to allow 
 that the superiour learning, or fairness, or candour of 
 some, whom they put forward, is the ground of their selec- 
 tion. Full credit is given by us to the learning and cha- 
 racter of the Calvinists. They do not, I conceive, insist, 
 7 
 
j0 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 that their peculiar sentiments shall be acknowledged as the 
 result of their pre-eminent spirit of research, or acquaint- 
 ance with sacred literature ; neither can we feel obliged to 
 consider their intolerance and censoriousness the effect of 
 their piety and benevolence. I think it quite enough in 
 favour of the best of those persons, who promote division, 
 and awaken hateful passions against honest men for being 
 honest, and preferring the Bible to a formula, to allow their 
 anathematizing spirit to be consistent with virtue, but not 
 to be a part of it. With regard to others, they cannot 
 claim more charity than they give. 
 
 As to learning, we do not deny the metaphysical powers 
 of Edwards and Hopkins, and the ingenuity of Dr. Em- 
 mons ; and do not dispute the reputed or known abilities 
 of the Andover professors — but that critical learning, which 
 is applicable to the interpretation of the scriptures, and that 
 literature, which serves to illustrate and adorn religious and 
 moral truth, as is well known, has been in very little repute 
 among the high Calvinists in this part of the countiy. A 
 regard to the credit and influence of the sect, and the effect 
 of their institution, is doubtless causing a change in this 
 respect, and will probably cause an abatement of their 
 bigotry. On the other hand, will it be denied that the 
 praise bestowed on the Unitarians is well deserved ? Will 
 any man question the personal virtue of such men as La- 
 throp, Channing, Thacher, and the great body of the liberal 
 clergy ? 
 
 Our country is too much given to self-commendation I 
 admit. ~ But when the orthodox shall produce such works 
 as the writings of Belknap, or the sermons of Clarke, and 
 Buckrninster, and Freeman, and so much learning as is 
 found in Everett's answer to English, we will admit that 
 they are as much entitled to praise. At present we cannot 
 compare Morse's Geographical works, or his sermons, such 
 
©R A GALVINIST? £1 
 
 as we have seen of them, or even Dr. Worcester's letter, 
 with those respectable productions of our country. 
 
 But as to this habit of praising one another, you are ex- 
 tremely disingenuous in not feeling and acknowledging the 
 motive. It is to bear up these victims of your vengeance 
 against your slanders, that such things are said. You are 
 the majority. With all the insolence of conscious strength, 
 and with the malignity of enemies, you are assailing, not their 
 opinions and christian standing only, but their probity in 
 the discharge of their function ; and when a friend is indu- 
 ced by your calumnies to speak of them with respect, 
 you call it praise. 
 
 How consistent is this course in men, who arrogate to 
 themselves en masse all the Christianity and all the virtue 
 in the country ! ! How consistent in men, who sometimes 
 promote to offices of the highest honour those whom they 
 themselves despise, and whom the publick have long since 
 condemned. Let us then hear no more on the subject of the 
 self praise of the Unitarians, until you are prepared to 
 shew that it is ill-deserved. I can see no reason why I 
 should not praise a learned man, because he happens to 
 agree with me, in a doctrine, upon which men of sense, in all 
 ages, where there was freedom of opinion, have been found 
 prone io agree. 
 
 HARVARD COLLEGE. 
 
 A large proportion of the Review in the Panoplist is de- 
 voted to an attempt to render odious the officers of this 
 institution, and to withdraw from it the confidence of the 
 publick. Aware, however, of the hold it has upon the affec- 
 tions of the people, they have thought it necessary to pro- 
 fess a regard for it. 
 
 This is, in truth, rather suspicious. The reputed editors 
 of the Panoplist, and authors of the Review, are Alumni of 
 
52 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 other colleges, and one or more of them sent into this state, 
 for the purpose of punishing and pursuing the college for 
 refusing to become sectarian. It is remarkable, that almost, 
 all the sons of our Alma Mater should be so outdone in filial 
 respect and tenderness by these strangers, whom she 
 never knew ! This foreign patriotism, however popular 
 in our country, is attended with some inconveniences. I 
 wish these volunteers in supplying the defects of our mother's 
 own children, had a little different way of shewing their 
 regard. They love her so well, that if she will only give 
 herself up to their views, and cease to consider the peculiar 
 dogmas of their creed as subjects of inquiry and discussion, 
 but will declare them to be first principles, and suffer no 
 liberty upon these points to any of her officers, they will 
 admit, that she is as great a blessing to the publick, as she 
 was in good old times ! These generous keepers of their 
 neighbour's vineyard would have it thought, that there is a 
 ereat change in the theological character of the college, that 
 is, of its superintendents and officers, within the last twenty 
 years. Every one knows, that for sixty years, at least, 
 this institution has been distinguished as the temperate re- 
 gion of theology ; that the five points, and other points of 
 violent theorists and zealots for orthodoxy, have never been 
 inculcated, and that the Calvinists and Hopkinsians have 
 always considered Harvard College as a place, where a man, 
 instructer or pupil, might refuse to wear their badges with- 
 out any forfeiture of reputation or influence. 
 
 The Panoplist editors and Reviewers admit, that the col- 
 lege has been, in many points of view, the pride and glory 
 of our western world. Its excellent benefactors they allow 
 to have been pious men, and they agree, that it has been 
 the nursery of a long and illustrious train of civil and reli- 
 gious characters. But they omit to state, that the liberal 
 Hollises are amongst its benefactors ; that Mr. Adams, the 
 
OR A CALVINIST? 53 
 
 president of the United States, and Gore, and Parsons, and 
 Ames, and a multitude of others, who are its present, or 
 have been its late supporters, are ranked in the class of 
 liberal christians. They omit to state, that Clarke, and 
 Belknap, and Osgood, and Porter, and Kirkland, and Chan- 
 ning, and Buckminster, and Thacher, and Norton, and 
 Everett, and others are among its pupils, who have been 
 more distinguished than almost any who preceded them. 
 
 They say, we shall resort to a clamour, that the interests 
 of learning are in danger. We shall take no such course. 
 We say that all the charges against our Alma Mater are 
 false. That true religion, pure and unadulterated Chris- 
 tianity, is the great object of her pursuit. She maintains, 
 that Christianity can be well understood and firmly sup- 
 ported only by diligent, and fair, and impartial inquiry. 
 
 The college was originally devoted to " Christ and the 
 church," and at no period of its history did the Christian 
 religion engage there so large a proportion of academick 
 instruction. 
 
 At the present day, the study of the christian religion 
 forms the most prominent part. There is, however, no 
 attempt to disseminate Unitarian or any other sectarian 
 principles. The minds of the youth are left to the opera- 
 tion of free inquiry. The books which are taught, Butler, 
 and Paley, and Grotius, are the works of men eminent 
 for their piety, and read and approved in orthodox semi- 
 naries. 
 
 The Reviewers speak of the munificent founders of 
 ancient times. The whole records of the University can- 
 not furnish an example of such a donation, as the late noble 
 endowment for a professorship of Greek ; one of the main 
 objects of which is to aid in the critical examination of the 
 holy scriptures. 
 
£4 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 The donation of the Hon. Mr. Dexter, a man of en- 
 lightened mind, and pious affections, for the promotion of 
 (he study of Biblical criticism, is also almost unexampled 
 in past times. Of the same character, and meriting equal 
 applause, is the donation of Mr. Parkman for a foundation 
 of a new theological professorship. 
 
 The gossiping tales, about the prayers on publick occa- 
 sions, are worthy of the cause which they are introduced 
 to sustain. It would be unworthy of the defender of the 
 most noble institution in America, to descend to reply to 
 them. 
 
 ONE WORD ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY WHICH HAS PRO- 
 DUCED THIS DISCUSSION. 
 
 It would be unpardonable in a layman to leave this ques- 
 tion here. He ought to recollect the time, when these 
 scholastick disputes were as little familiar to himself, as 
 they generally are fb the great body of laymen throughout 
 our country. 
 
 The opponents of true Christianity and free inquiry 
 iave chosen to deal in general terms, and they rely on gen- 
 eral denunciations rather than on reasoning. They raise 
 the cry of heretick and infidel, because they hope it will 
 be as effectual, as that of " church and king" in England. 
 
 But they must not be permitted to remain under the 
 almost impenetrable cover of their mysteries and their 
 watch-words. 
 
 If our doctrines are heretical, let it be known. If they 
 are scriptural, let them be defended. 
 
 I rejoice in this occasion, as it will compel our clergy- 
 men to expose the errours, which their aversion to contro- 
 versy has induced them to spare. The great point which 
 has given occasion to this libel is, that many of our divines^ 
 
OR A CALVINISTJ 55 
 
 •after deliberate research, do not find the doctrine of the 
 Trinity in the holy scriptures. They do not believe, 
 that the great Jehovah hath any copartners in his power. 
 They do not believe, that the great God himself dwelt upon 
 the earth in human shape, and was buffeted and put to death 
 by men. They believe in the Divinity, or divine mission, 
 though not in the Deity of Christ. They believe, that the 
 Son was what he declared himself to be, inferiour to the 
 Father ; that the works which he wrought, were those of 
 God who sent him. Whilst the subordination and depen- 
 dence of the Son appear to them undoubted, they agree in 
 the most noble and exalted ideas of the Saviour. They 
 desire to honour him in all the offices he is represented to 
 sustain in behalf of mankind, and believe and acknowledge 
 all respecting his nature and rank, which the scriptures, 
 upon examination, are found to teach. They differ from 
 each other in their conceptions on this point, as the Trini- 
 tarians do in their definitions ; but they consider, that 
 these differences, being such as may perfectly consist with 
 the love of truth, ought not to be a ground of denying each 
 other's Christianity. 
 
 As to the general doctrine of the inferiority and deriva- 
 tion of the Son, they think it every-where taught in the 
 New Testament, and necessarily inferred from innumerable 
 passages. But this their adherence to scriptural religion, 
 and what they suppose declared in Christ's gospel, is re- 
 garded as a crime, unless they also believe in it, as explain- 
 ed and delivered in words of man's device, by certain 
 ecclesiasticks, transported by the rage of controversy, who 
 lived three hundred years after the death of the Saviour, 
 and in following periods. 
 
 Besides the obscure or contradictory statements of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, which the Calvinists would have us 
 believe, there are other points, for doubting which our 
 
M ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 teachers are anathematized, and we their hearers are en- 
 joined to renounce them ; which points I think it would be 
 well should be laid open. It is really important to know 
 whether the scriptures teach such doctrines as these scho- 
 lastic^ divines pretend ; because if they do, we must 
 review the evidences of the sacred book, and see if it be 
 possible, that a good and just God can have made such a 
 revelation. 
 
 We must believe, they say, the imputation of the sin of 
 Adam ; according, however, to the last edition of the doc- 
 trine. (For these gentlemen, who call us infidels, for not 
 taking our creed as laid down by the reformers, with whom 
 this doctrine did not come into dispute, or the Westminster 
 divines, have taken the liberty for themselves to new model 
 this article,) we must believe, as I understand them, that 
 God willed the sin of Adam, and moreover willed, as it was 
 formerly, that the guilt of this sin should descend upon 
 all his posterity ; but as it is laid down in the Improved 
 Version,* that, in consequence of his disobedience, all his 
 descendants were constituted sinners — born with a nature 
 totally depraved, utterly incapable of any act of virtue — 
 but subject for this sin of their progenitor, or the moral 
 impotence which it entailed upon them, to the wrath and 
 curse of God, and the pains of Hell for ever.f 
 
 Corresponding to this doctrine of original helpless depra- 
 vity and guilt, are the doctrines of irrespective decrees and 
 special grace ; by which we learn, that some, elected from 
 eternity of mere good pleasure, without any regard to their 
 disposition or character, are the subjects of a special super- 
 
 * See creed of the Andover Institution. 
 
 f The eternal misery of those dying in infancy, except the children 
 of believers, (?'. e. Calvinists,) was long considered the necessary infer- 
 ence from this doctrine of original sin. The orthodox now, I believe, 
 are so good as to say, that possibly they may not go to Hell ; or, if 
 they do, it will not be to the worst part of the iuferual regions. 
 
OR A CALVINIST? 57 
 
 natural influence, giving them saving faith, a particular ex- 
 ercise towards the Saviour, which orthodoxy seems to put 
 as the sign or the substitute of the whole of duty which 
 secures their admission to Heaven ; whilst the other part 
 of the race, and the great majority, incapable of any accep- 
 table act without this grace, which yet God will not give, 
 and which they can neither do any thing, nor even desire 
 nor try to do any thing, to procure, are doomed to eternal 
 wrath. 
 
 Then follows the comfortable doctrine of Saints 1 perse- 
 verance, which teaches, that having received this grace, 
 they will never lose it ; they need not fear being cast off, 
 whatever sins they may be left to commit 
 
 These and other views of religion, contained in this iron 
 system, appear to many laymen as well as clergymen, most 
 false and pernicious, proceeding from a vain spirit of specu- 
 lation, and the dotage of system, contrary Jo the general 
 tenour of the scriptures, and supported only by single, 
 detached, and figurative expressions, understood in the 
 gross and literal sense. They appear to us hurtful to 
 general morality, opposed to the true character of God, 
 tending to produce intolerable spiritual pride and bigotry 
 in one class, often the least worthy, and causeless anxiety 
 and tormenting oppression in another ; whilst aversion and 
 skepticism towards all religion are often generated by them 
 in the minds of multitudes. 
 
 I am glad that these subjects will now be investigated 
 and displayed before the publick. 
 
 Much is said about the early reformers, and the faith 
 which they held, and it is made an accusation against the 
 real christians of the present day, that they do not adopt 
 all the opinions of the first reformers. It would be strange 
 indeed, and against all analogy and experience, if these had 
 passed suddenly from great corruptions to the most perfect 
 
j3 ark you a christian 
 
 light. Some of the early prejudices of their youth an'J 
 education would adhere to Ihem ; and it is an historical fact, 
 that no sooner were they relieved from the thraldom of the 
 .Romish church, than they adopted the same spirit of 
 persecution, and maintained the same abominable doctrine 
 of the supremacy of the church, tLat the Pope had done. 
 
 Some however had more calholick ideas, and I shall con- 
 clude tills essay with the sentiments of the venerable Mr. 
 Robinson* the pastor of the church at Ley den, who were after- 
 wards the founders of New-England. " Brethren, if God re-- 
 veal any thing unto you, be as ready to receive it as you 
 were any thing by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded, 
 I am very confident, that the Lord lias more truth yet to 
 break forth out of his holy word. For my part, I cannot 
 sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, 
 who are come to a period in religion, and will go no farther 
 than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans 
 cannot be persuaded to go beyond what Luther saw, and 
 the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by 
 that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This 
 is a misery much to be lamented. For though they were 
 burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetra- 
 ted not the whole counsel of God, but, were they now 
 living, would be as willing to embrace still farther light, as 
 that which they first received. It is not possible the 
 christian world should come so lately out of antichristian 
 darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break 
 forth at once." 
 
 Suclrwere Ihe Catholick sentiments of one of the foun- 
 ders of the New-England church, in the early days of the 
 reformation ; and now, when we have had the light of two 
 centuries added to the knowledge which the world then 
 possessed, centuries, in which Christianity has been better 
 discussed, and more research has been made in the 
 
OR A GALVINIST? 59 
 
 scriptures, than in all the ages which preceded them, inclu- 
 ding that of the Genevan Reformer, we are told by a set 
 ©f men, who had rather dictate than study, that we must 
 not alter a letter in the creed of Calvin ! 1 ! 
 
 If any should be disposed to censure the temper in 
 which this vindication is written, they should remember, 
 that we are not the assailants. They should peruse the 
 Panoplist Review. They will perceive that it is written 
 with the most unchristian spirit, and is couched in the most 
 offensive terms, of any writings, which these evil time have 
 produced. 
 
 There is a moderation, sometimes, which betrays, and 
 which is as unbecoming as the want of it is at others. 
 
 If when our venerated pastors and friends are treated as 
 if they were the worst of felons, we imitate the modern 
 Tartuffes, and meet their calumniators with a smile, and a 
 placid and serene countenance, we shall be thought to Jbe 
 pleased or indifferent rather than indignant. 
 
 It is from the scriptures, that we are to learn what ought 
 to be our behaviour in such cases. Even our Lord and 
 master always adapted his language to the persons and the 
 case. When he had occasion to speak of the scribes and 
 Pharisees of h is day, he scruples not to treat them as they 
 deserve. 
 
 There was something in their spirit very much like that 
 of the Review in question. 
 
 Do men believe, that the race of scribes and Pharisees 
 has failed ? or do they imagine, that they arc not at this day 
 as deserving of the censure of our Saviour, as their prede- 
 cessors in Jerusalem ? 
 
 What condemnation would our Saviour pass on those men, 
 who make his gospel a cloak to cover, while they gratify, 
 the most unholy passions ? 
 
t, ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 This must be my defence. I have no personal feeling 
 towards these accusers. The greater part of them I never 
 saw. I judge of them only by their fruits ; and by their 
 fruits I should say, that I have no wish to know them more. 
 It should be recollected, that it is the cause of laymen that 
 I defend, against an attempt to control the freedom of their 
 opinions, and their right of selecting their pastors. 
 
 CONCLUDING ADDRESS. 
 
 TO LAYMEN OF ALL SECTS. 
 MY BRETHREN, 
 
 It i3 impossible that you should have read with atten- 
 tion the history of the church of Christ, without being 
 deeply impressed with the conviction, that human passions 
 are never so strong, and the powers of reasoning never so 
 much perverted, as when employed upon the controverted 
 points of religion. It is true, that this is the most momen- 
 tous of all concerns ; but it is as true, that the interests of 
 Christianity cannot be promoted by a temper, which that 
 religion expressly condemns, and the opposite to which 
 forms its most distinguished glory and praise. Whether 
 this vehemence, injustice and intolerance, this odium theo- 
 logicum, which have marked, while they have impeded and 
 injured, the progress of Christianity in all ages, (at least 
 since the apostolical influence ceased to operate) are to be 
 attributed to the shelter and security which men feel in the 
 indulgence of unworthy passions, under the specious cloak 
 of conscience, or whether these bigots (for there have been 
 such on all sides) are really more transported beyond the 
 bounds of moderation on this topick, than on any other, I 
 leave to others more versed in the human character to de- 
 cide. 
 
©R A CALVmiST?- 61 
 
 This however we all know, that the over zealous leaders 
 on theological questions have been generally ambitious and 
 intriguing men. They have acted in all times, as if their 
 own glory and advancement, and not those of religion, were 
 the objects of their pursuit. 
 
 We cannot review the state of religious controversy in 
 Massachusetts, and the recent clamours which have been 
 excited against certain pastors and certain tenets, without 
 recollecting, what we know to be the fact, that for many 
 years, Dr. Morse, and those who have chosen to identify 
 their cause with his character and views, knew as well 
 as they now do, that many of the Boston clergy held 
 opinions opposed to* those of Calvin, and in conformity 
 with the simple doctrines which our Saviour himself 
 taught. They knew also, that these opinions were gene- 
 rally prevalent among the laity in their parishes. Yet, 
 during all this period, Dr. Morse courted their friendship, 
 and held an intimate intercourse with the men he now de- 
 nounces as heretical. It was not till after his ambitious 
 views on the college were defeated, and till most of the 
 parishes in Boston felt a repugnance to his introduction into 
 their pulpits, on various grounds, that he became an open 
 assailant. 
 
 We naturally ask, is it possible that the great body of 
 intelligent laymen in Connecticut and Massachusetts can 
 countenance an attempt to invade the rights of conscience, 
 originating in the ignoble passions of aspiring and intriguing 
 men ? Can they believe, that a great part of the citizens of 
 the metropolis of New England will be driven from their 
 faith by threats and insults, as impotent as they are unbe- 
 coming ? 
 
 Could a German monk, like Luther, encounter the power 
 and brave the resentment of such a potentate as Charles 
 the V. and do they believe that we are to be awed into 
 
62 
 
 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 silence, or frowned into submission, by a few intolerant and 
 assuming men ? 
 
 No. Our opinions are too firmly rooted, and our know- 
 ledge of our rights too deeply settled, to permit them to 
 form such hopes. But the friends of Christianity have more 
 interesting considerations to weigh. Whether they consi- 
 der us as orthodox or hereticks, still they know we make 
 open profession of Christianity. We support it as far as 
 we are able by our morals and manners, our publick pro- 
 fessions, contributions and zeal. 
 
 They should recollect, that our country presents a motley 
 mixture of atheists, deists, and sectarians of all shades and 
 all opinions. 
 
 Surely, in such a state of things, it cannot be deemed ad- 
 vantageous to the cause of Christianity, to engage in a cru- 
 sade against men, who are among the most pacifick and sin- 
 cere friends of Christianity, whose example, influence, and 
 exertions are uniformly directed to its support and exten- 
 sion, and whose greatest crime is, that they have shewn 
 an indisposition to proselytism. 
 
 If our faith be as heretical as is pretended, it cannot be 
 for the inlerest of those, who call themselves the only wise 
 and sound part, the orthodox, to give us the zeal, the form, 
 and consistency of party. 
 
 We are all well aware, what were the hopes entertained 
 and the designs formed by a few bigots, who have calum- 
 niated our teachers, and attempted to undermine their influ- 
 ence by arts, which would be a reproach to any cause, and 
 which are scandalous in one of so solemn a nature. 
 
 They hoped, that the cry of heresy would operate like 
 the spiritual thunders of the Vatican. Like Paul IV, they 
 intended to revive the spirit of persecution of another age, 
 forgetling, like him, that the day of spiritual tyranny had 
 gone by, and that the thunder would be heard, like the 
 niimick artillery of the stage. 
 
OR A CALVINIST?, G$ 
 
 If I were a zealot in favour of liberal Christianity, which 
 I am far from being, if I wished to see it extended and 
 triumphant, I should say, "Persecute us, compel us to 
 exert our talents, to take the form and assume the spirit of 
 a party. Undented and uncorrupted Christianity, so long 
 restrained by civil power in other countries, might then 
 spread. Become a sect and distinction, it would soon have 
 all the energy which belsngs to other sects." But this is 
 against our principles. We wish it to make the silent but 
 sure progress, which truth will always make, as knowledge 
 and virtue extend themselves. 
 
 As to the zeal which is now displayed in favour of Cal- 
 vinism, you must all be sensible, that it is not greater than 
 that, which so long supported, and still supports the worst 
 doctrines of the Romish church. 
 
 It is not comparable to the ardour and sincerity of those, 
 who in the days which the orthodox call so enlightened, 
 persecuted the persons charged with sorcery. 
 
 Yet we well know, that after the delusion of the moment 
 had past away, men saw none of those open interferences 
 of the devil, none of those supernatural agencies, which so 
 long deceived a fanatical people, and the belief of which-, 
 to the disgrace of our nation, found its way even into the 
 sanctuaries of justice. So too, we would fain hope and sin- 
 cerely believe, that when the present infatuation shall have 
 subsided, we shall not find men placing religion in those 
 miraculous conversions which afford such consolatory mat= 
 ter for the Panoplist. Strange consolation indeed ! won- 
 derful perversion of human reason ! to exult over the 
 unhappy victims of deluded fanaticism ! 
 
 Not a year passes over our heads, in which there are not 
 many persons of amiable and susceptible feelings, driven 
 by mistaken views of God and religion, to the desperation 
 of suicide. I count not the thousands who suffer tortures 
 
64 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 produced by a melancholy which neither amends the heart 
 nor purifies the life, while it renders the subjects of the 
 malady useless to society, and a burden to themselves. 
 Such are the frequent fruits of a doctrine derogatory to 
 God, and wholly unfounded in scripture ! Laymen naturally 
 take simpler views of religion, than those who are involved 
 in the subtleties of scholastick divinity. 
 
 We ask not, what may possibly be the construction of an 
 obscure passage in scripture, written in a language suffi- 
 ciently, but at best imperfectly, understood, addressed to 
 men who had particular prejudices, which it was the object 
 of the apostles tooxercome ; we rather ask for distinct and 
 intelligible rules, for facts, for narrative, for examples. We 
 search the scriptures in vain for precedents of those gloomy 
 conversions, which are now represented as the only sure 
 tests of regeneration and acceptance with God. Were the 
 catechumens, or newly converted christians, required to 
 shew such a morbid and melancholy state of mind, as are at 
 this day considered the proofs of the gracious interference 
 of God ? No. Is there a case of suicide produced by the 
 picture given by the apostles of the attributes of God ? Not 
 one. It is not more true that the doctrines taught by our 
 Saviour did not produce these bitter fruits which the tree 
 of Calvinism brings forth, than it is, that we seldom see this 
 sudden conversion, or this morbid melancholy, among the 
 conspicuous leaders and teachers of these doctrines. No. 
 The penance belongs altogether to the laity. The chief 
 <luty of the spiritual fathers is to preserve their authority, 
 and extend the influence of their body. Hence we have* 
 seen in our day a new creation ; extended associations with, 
 indefinite powers. A new " society of Jesus" with more 
 than one Loyola at its head. 
 
 People who are acquainted with ecclesiastical history 
 will not smile at the idea of this new combination. The 
 
Or a calvinist? G,5 
 
 Panoplist may ridicule as much as it pleases the suggestion 
 that they aim at Ecclesiastical tyranny. We perceive 
 from their spirit, that the power only is wanting. 
 
 These new associations, if not watched and made the 
 objects of jealousy, will soon become tremendous engines in 
 the hands of skilful and ambitious men. The Roman pon- 
 tiff who dethroned monarchs, and brought the emperours of 
 Europe to his feet, was only the simple successour of St. 
 Peter, who walked barefooted to Rome, and fell a martyr 
 to his faith, in that city where his successour sat enthroned 
 in purple. 
 
 At this moment, the general associations, though created 
 with the view of forcing conformity to Calvinism, and extir- 
 pating heresy, appear very harmless. They terminate in 
 pleasant tours at free cost : much respect and good cheer to 
 the delegates. 
 
 If the end should be defeated, the reward is felt in the 
 honour and distinction of those employed. If succesful, 
 and heresy should be put down ; if they can force the in- 
 habitants of opulent towns to reject their beloved pastors, 
 much fame will attend the labourers, and some solid rewards. 
 
 Laymen in general, I fear, have not noticed this alarm- 
 ing inroad on our ecclesiastical constitution. A new form 
 of government has been introduced, without the authority 
 of the people or the state. For nearly two hundred years 
 the discipline of our churches rested on the Cambridge 
 platform. There were no general associations, no ecclesi- 
 astical, assemblies which arrogated to themselves the right 
 of settling matters of faith. All these things were regulated 
 by councils either mutual or ex parte, called for each par- 
 ticular case. The general convention of Congregational 
 ministers never assumed to itself supervisory, or legislative, 
 or judicial powers. If any publick body had a right to 
 assume them, certainly that body had. 
 9 
 
66 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 
 
 Suddenly we find rising up, associations in every state, to 
 which only one party are invited, and these again are 
 strengthened by similar associations through almost all the 
 northern states. 
 
 To what valuable or even honourable end these societies 
 can be directed, it is difficult to perceive ; but that they 
 may have the most pernicious effects on the rights and lib- 
 erties of the citizens in matters of faith we can all see. 
 
 The authority of general councils, and of the Roman 
 see, took its rise in commencements infinitely more feeble. 
 
 Once established and acquiesced in, they might proceed 
 as the associations in Connecticut have sometimes done, to 
 separate a parish and its pastor, where they were perfectly 
 harmonious ; and to strip a clergyman of his sacerdotal 
 character, for being faithful to his master. 
 
 At present, however, the scheme appears to us as absurd 
 and quixotick as it is bold and unjustifiable. 
 
 A set of men, surrounded with enemies in their own 
 camp, with Methodists, and Baptists, and Universalists, 
 scarcely able to meet their parochial and domestick foes, 
 combine to carry their spiritual arms into the territories of 
 their natural allies, the liberal christians ; allies who, at- 
 tached to Christianity on principle, convinced of its truth, 
 zealous for its propagation, but determined that it shall not 
 suffer by a misrepresentation of its principles, have no 
 other end in view, than union and harmony in the christian 
 church, and the liberty of worshipping God conformably to 
 what they believe the scripture rules. 
 
 Although, from necessity, I have used general terms when 
 speaking of the orthodox, because such terms were assumed 
 by Dr. Worcester and the editors of the Panoplist, yet I 
 do not contend (as they do) with regard to Unitarians, 
 that all the persons, who agree with them on some points, are 
 •. csponsible for all their opinions or unfair proceedings. 
 
OR A CALVINIST ? 6? 
 
 I rejoice to believe that the greater part of the Calvinists, 
 or the orthodox, or the true christians, (or whatever other 
 name they may choose to assumes) disapprove the very 
 improper, uncharitable measures, adopted by these persons 
 "who have undertaken to speak in their name. 
 
 I would fain believe, nay, 1 do verily believe, that there 
 are not ten clergymen in this state, who do not in their 
 hearts condemn the shameful article in the Panoplist, and 
 the violent and indecent measures taken to bring about a 
 theological quarrel. If I am mistaken in this, I shall be 
 compelled to withdraw much of the respect I yet have for 
 the Calvinistick clergy. 
 
 I am aware that it may be said by the orthodox, we con- 
 sider your opinions as heretical, we view them as hostile 
 to the essential doctrines of Christianity, and that we are as 
 much bound to oppose them as the attacks of avowed unbe- 
 lievers. But it should be recollected that this is the same 
 language which was employed by the Catholicks in opposi- 
 tion to the Reformers. If these gentlemen are sincere in 
 this opinion, let them adopt the only course which the prin- 
 ciples of the reformation admit. Let them attack these 
 heresies, if they deem them such, by argument, not by as- 
 sociations. Names and numbers have no tendency, in such 
 an age as this to enforce the belief of opinions which must 
 depend on argument and fact. Let them assert the doc- 
 trine of the infallibility of the early reformers, and shew, 
 that they arrived at once from the the darkest super- 
 stition and the most absurd opinions, to the most perfect 
 light — that they possessed the gift of inspiration, and that 
 to their opinions full and implicit faith is due. 
 
 But surely the course which has been adopted is not con- 
 sonant to fair reasoning, or the spirit of the gospel. It 
 cannot be reputable for any sect to set forward the most 
 audacious and least respected of their party, to overwhelm 
 their adversaries with abuse and calumny. To place at 
 
68 AllE YOU A CHRISTIAN, &c. 
 
 their bead, men in whom neither party have confidence. 
 Let them rather select the ablest and purest, and meekest 
 persons of their party, and depute them to display and de- 
 fend their doctrines in a temperate and rational manner- 
 It is by force of reasoning alone that Christianity has made 
 its principal progress in the world. It is one of its most 
 powerful arguments and supports in opposition to Mahome- 
 tanism and other false religions, that it has not generally 
 employed the sword, but has relied on its intrinsick merit 
 for its support. 
 
 This principle ought not to be deserted in cases of dis- 
 sension as to the more minute doctrines of the gospel. To 
 use the weapons of scurrility and abuse on this most sol- 
 emn subject, to excite the worst passions of mankind, and 
 more especially to form combinations to put down free in- 
 quiry and excite odium against those who hold opinions 
 differing from ours, would argue a spirit little less hostile 
 than the expedient of the darker ages, the condemnation 
 of hereticks to the stake. 
 
 We therefore hope, that all parties will unite in condemn- 
 ing this illiberal spirit. That there will be a common con- 
 sent to denounce, as unworthy of the cause of Christ, such 
 publications as the Review in the Panoplist, and that the 
 orthodox will with one voice agree to advise Dr. Worcester, 
 to adopt a course in some small degree consonant to the 
 spirit of the gospel, and to the enlightened age which it has 
 pleased God to permit us to enjoy. In a struggle to elicit 
 truth, to establish the fundamental articles of Christianity, 
 we engage that the liberal clergy will not shrink from their 
 share of the labour, and we pledge ourselves, from our 
 knowledge of them, that they will not be outdone in zeal 
 for Christianity, in efforts to draw from the rich mines of 
 literature and biblical learning the means of informing th« 
 minds, and settling the faith of christians. 
 
 A LAYMAN. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 I have said, that I could not condescend to notice the scurri- 
 lous attacks of the Panoplist on the revered head of our Uni- 
 versity. . . ( . .... „ 
 There seemed to be something so base, in setting children 
 to watch the exercises on publick occasions, and collecting " re- 
 spectable gentlemen from different parts of the American union 
 to act as inquisitors upon the occasion, that I could not persuade 
 myself, that such measures would produce any other sensation 
 than contempt. 
 
 But as I have an opportunity of shewing the temper witti 
 which the Panoplist is conducted, and the means which it has 
 adopted to cast an odium on the college, I think I ought not to 
 omit it. It was stated in the Panoplist that Dr. Kirkland had 
 written " a letter of consolation and encouragement to the new 
 Unitarian church in Philadelphia." 
 
 We presumed this must have been true. We could not have 
 believed that any clergyman would have dared to suggest such a 
 thing without evidence. 
 
 It seems, however, from the evidence we are now to exhibit, 
 that it was not true. 
 
 One of the gentlemen who officiate in that church having seen 
 the Panoplist, of his own accord wrote in a letter to his friend 
 in Boston, the original of which is now before me, as follows : 
 
 " I perceive he, Dr. Kirkland, is accused of having written a 
 letter of consolation and encouragement to the new Unitarian 
 church in Philadelphia. 
 
 " Had the fact been so, there is nothing to call forth any cen- 
 sure, as not a word of the letter is even quoted : but the truth is, 
 no such letter was ever written. 
 
 " I have made strict inquiry, and find that there was a letter 
 written by Dr. Kirkland to Mr. Vaughan, in answer to some 
 queries as to the terms of admission and tuition at Cambridge, 
 and the rules of the college, and this, or a non-entity, must be the 
 letter of encouragement and consolation, which we, like our 
 apostle Belsham, have been complaisant enough to publish, by 
 shewing it to some of our orthodox friends. " Our apostle Bel- 
 sham," with whom we have neither intercourse nor correspon- 
 dence, and to whose creed, as set forth in the Panoplist. I hazard 
 nothing in saying not one of us would assent. 
 
TO NOTES. 
 
 " I should like if it were possible, to put such a man as the 
 writer of the article in the Panoplist to the blush, to ask him 
 when this letter was written, to whom it was addressed, who was 
 made acquainted with its contents, and what it really did contain. 
 
 " After so gross a falsehood, the strictures on the prayers of 
 the President can only deceive those who are resolved to sup- 
 port what they call orthodoxy at the expense of truth and con- 
 sistency. Perhaps it may not be amiss to mention the fact now 
 stated. You well know my situation in our church, and that if 
 any letter of consolation had been sent from so respectable a 
 quarter as the above, I could not have been kept in ignorance 
 either of its contents or existence. You also know that we have 
 never been in a situation to need consolation. Among ourselves 
 we have had uninterrupted harmony, and all the calumnies and 
 denunciations of ' the pious,' the ' orthodox,' and the ' evan- 
 gelical' have been unheeded." 
 
 NOTE 2. 
 
 After the foregoing remarks were put to the press, I received 
 the last number of the Panoplist, which contains the proceedings 
 of one of the new grand associations, to which I have referred, 
 and whose object is now more distinctly developed, than it has 
 heretofore been. It is too late for me to enter into the conside- 
 ration of the deep project which is now laid open, to break down 
 the constitution, by which the churches of this state have been 
 governed for more than a century and an half. It will require a 
 separate and more enlarged examination than I can possibly give 
 to it in the present stage of my essay. I have no doubt that it 
 will excite such feelings as will call forth the ablest champions 
 of the rights of the church. 
 
 This project, though covered by as much art and sophistry, as 
 has ever been displayed by men aiming at secret encroachments 
 on fhe rights of others, is simply this, under colour of enforcing 
 and amending, to abrogate and annul, the Cambridge platform, 
 which has been the rule of discipline, and palladium of our reli- 
 gious liberties, from the earliest settlement of our country, and to 
 substitute in its place a new ecclesiastical tribunal, unknown to 
 our ancestors, and subversive of our religious rights. 
 
 To give it some degree of respect from antiquity, an obsolete 
 manuscript of Dr. Cotton Mather has been drawn forth from the 
 rubbish of the last century, and is now attempted to be imposed 
 Upon the christian churches of this state as the rule of their 
 government. Even these gentlemen did not venture on their 
 ►pylarity to hazard such an innovation and revolution in 
 
NOTES'. 71 
 
 (he church. Even they are constrained to admit that it was so odi- 
 ous in Massachusetts, in 1 706, when it was proposed, " that there 
 were some considerable persons among the ministers, (even in 
 that day) as well as of the brethren, who thought the liberties of 
 partiadar churches to be in danger of being limited and infringed 
 by them. In deference to these, the proposals were never prose- 
 cuted beyond the bounds of mere proposals" 
 
 In other words, they did not dare attempt to carry the propo- 
 sals into effect, at a time when religious liberty was less- under- 
 stood, and the rights of conscience less valued than at this 
 moment. 
 
 And why did they not ? Because the proposals go to the utter 
 abolition of the right of churches to govern themselves. 
 
 They confer the right on ecclesiastical councils, to put any 
 church out of the pale of christian communion. They confer 
 the right on these councils, not chosen by the parties, to refuse 
 ordination, and to depose any clergyman, even against the con- 
 sent of any member of his own church and parish. The reserva- 
 tion of not extending the power beyond the churches who may 
 join this confederacy, against the liberties of the people, we know 
 how to appreciate, by the conduct of the Tolland association. 
 
 We are however encoumged to accept it, by the suggestion 
 that Connecticut did at that day adopt it. Yes, she did, and we 
 have seen its fruits. The recommendation in brief is, that Mas- 
 sachusetts shall abolish her religious charter, and conform her dis- 
 cipline to that of Connecticut, though she nobly refused so to do, 
 one hundred years ago. 
 
 I am pleased to see, that the association had not sufficient in- 
 discretion to recommend this project for immediate adoption. I 
 flatter myself that the greater part of them disapprove it. If 
 adopted, it will prove a fatal blow to the influence and standing 
 of the Congregational clergy. The forcing through such a plan, 
 in derogation of our present church constitution, and tending to 
 destroy the only check which laymen now have on ecclesiasti- 
 cal usurpation, I am afraid would be the signal of commotions iu 
 the church, which would only end in the utter destruction of 
 Congregational churches and discipline. This is no idle fear. 
 It is solemn conviction. Many are the hours which most dis- 
 tinguished laymen have spent, and great have been their exer- 
 tions, to stem that torrent of innovation and opposition to the 
 regular clergy, which for twenty years has threatened to under- 
 mine the feeble props which they still enjoy under the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 But if the minority feel that they are to be oppressed, if revo- 
 lutions are to be set on foot by those whom the laity have 
 laboured to protect, they must suppose them to be mare than 
 
72 IVOTEe. 
 
 men, if they continue to offer themselves a* a rampart to protect 
 ihose who are labouring to destroy their dearest rights. 
 
 It would be easy to shew, and it will be shewn, that this project 
 is also a direct violation of the constitution, laws, and liberties of 
 Massachusetts. Men can make any associations they please, but 
 they cannot give them the smallest practical efficacy or power 
 without the aid of the government. If they invite that govern- 
 ment to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs, and to regulate the dis- 
 cipline or faith of churches, they will soon find, that they have 
 entered a path beset with thorns, from which they may in vain 
 wish to extricate themselves. Abolish the Cambridge Platform 
 and the Congregational churches will soon be found on a tempes- 
 tuous sea, without compass, or rudder, or pilots. The courts of 
 law will however protect the people against such usurpations. 
 
 We ask, if such a plan was deemed proper, why did they not 
 submit it to the Convention of Ministers in Massachusetts, to 
 whom it was first submitted by Mr. Mather ? 
 
 Why ask the consent of a body unknown to our laws and 
 usages, a body self created, and naturally liable to suspicion, as it 
 excludes all who differ from it in articles of faith ? 
 
 Such proceedings must and will excite distrust. They furnish 
 a new proof, that clergymen are too apt to neglect the most useful 
 study, that of mankind, although their chief object ought to be to 
 know them thoroughly, in order to be useful to them in their 
 ministry. It will not tend to render the new scheme more 
 acceptable to the publick, that its arrangement was confided to 
 those who do not enjoy much of the publick confidence. — The 
 project appears to have been formed, and is subscribed, only 
 by Jedidiah Morse of Connecticut. It. is worthy of considera- 
 tion, whether there should not be a covenant instantly formed 
 by the friends of religious freedom, and of the Cambridge Plat- 
 form, for its defence against all schemes of innovation, and a 
 publick convention of laity and clergy of those opinions, called 
 to adopt measures to counteract this conspiracy against the 
 church and its ancient rights. 
 
 The foregoing strictures were principally written and in the press, at a time when it 
 was supposed that Mr.Clianning would not reply to sucli a letter as Dr. Worcester*; 
 Had it t>een known that Mr. Churning would have undertaken his own justification, 
 many of the foregoing remarks would have been suppressed as unnecessary. 
 
*tf,<M?;7 
 


 •As 
 
 1 
 
 &**T