.■^*^ 
 
 
 l_^'^{i,.^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 i^: 
 
 4 
 
The 
 
 rroperty 
 
 IlfflilT 
 
 CiimiTIiM ^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 nZ'IETY, 
 
 BARTON 
 
 SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 •IN Till! — 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 — OF THF. — 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
 
PUBLISHED BY DAVID J. BURR, NO. 50, CORNHLLL, BOSTON. 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [Extracted from the Pauoplist.] 
 
 A Letter to the Rev. Samuel C. Thacher, on the asfiersions, contained in a> 
 late number of the Panohlist^ on the Ministers of Boston and the vicinity. 
 By William E. Channing, minister of the church of Chnst in Federal 
 Street, Boston. Third edi'ion, nmth additional remarks. Boston: Wells 
 & Lilly. 1815. [July.] pp.36. 
 
 A Letter to the Rex>. Vl^illiam E. Channing, on the subject of his letter to the 
 Rev. Samuel C. Thacher, relating to the rrvieiv in the Panofilist on A- 
 merican Unitarianism. By Samuel Worcester, D. D. pastor of the 
 Tabernacle Church, Salem. Third edition. Boston: S. T. Armstrong. 
 1815. [July.] pp. 36. 
 
 Remarks on the Rev. Dr. Worcester's letter to Mr. Channing; on the "Re- 
 view of American Unitarianism," in a late Panoplist. By William E. 
 Channing, ?ni?iister,is'c. Second edition. Boston: Wells 8c Lilly. 1815. 
 [August.] pp. 39. 
 
 Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? or do you firefr the authority of Christ 
 to that of the Genevan Re foiiner? Both the form and the spirit of these 
 questions being suggested by the late revievj of American UnUurianism in 
 the Panofilist, and by the Rev. Dr. Worcester's letter to Mr. Channing. 
 To which are added some strictures on both those -works. By a Latman, 
 Boston: Wells & Lilly. 1815. [August.] pp. 72. 
 
 A Second Letter to the Rev. William E. Channing, on the subject of Unitari- 
 anism. By Samuel Worcester, D. D. pastor, is^c. Second edition. 
 Boston: S. T. Armstrong. 1815. [Augiist.] pp. 44. 
 
 Remarks on the Rev. Dr. Worcester's second letter to Mr. Channing, onA- 
 merican Unitarianism. By William E. Channing, minister, <Jfc. Bos- 
 ton: Wells 8c Lilly. 1815. [October.] pp.48. 
 
 A Third Letter to the Rev. William E. Channing, on the subject of American 
 Unitarianism. By Samuel iToRCEsrER, D. D. fiastor, ^c. Boston: S« 
 T.Armstrong. 1815. [December.] pp.80. 
 
 The controversy, which has been carried on at Boston in the 
 course of the last year, respectiiij^ modern Unitarianism, is cer- 
 tainly one of the most impvii-tant tlieological discussions, in which 
 our readers can ever be called to take an interest. It relates to all 
 the essential articles of tlie Christian faith; to the object of religious 
 worship, the moral condition of man, the penalty of the divine law, 
 the way in which sinners are reconciled to God, the nature, char- 
 acter and offices of the Savior, tl\e regard which is due to him, the 
 evidences of piety, the authoiity of the Scriptures, and the state of 
 mankind in the world to come, xill these topics, with an immense 
 "uriety of others, are involved in the controversy mow before the 
 1 
 
- Reviev) of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 public. With the best reason, therefore, may we solicit the atten- 
 tion oi' all, who have at licart the prosperity of the church and the^ 
 spiritual welfare of themselves and their fellow men, to whatever 
 may be laid before them on these subjects in our pages, if written 
 with the spirit of the Gospel, and witli that care and solemnity 
 which the momentous questions at issue rerpiire. 
 
 About a } ear since, a pamphlet was published at Boston, which 
 professed to give an authentic history of Unitarianism in America. 
 This pamphlet, as most of our leaders know, was reviewed at 
 some length in the Panoplist for June last. The review induced 
 Mr. Channingto write his Letter to Mr. Thacher, and occasion- 
 ed, more or less directly, the publication of all the pamphlets, whose 
 title-j)ages are copied, at the head of this article. Several other 
 pamphlets owed their existence to the same causey but we do not 
 iearn, that any importance has been attached to them. 
 
 As many of our present subscribei's were not subscribers to the 
 last volume, we propose to give a brief recapitulation of the review- 
 here referred to, and then to enter upon the consideration of the 
 publications before us. We are persuaded, indeed, that such a re- 
 •apitulation will be useful to all, who \^ ish to retain the prominent 
 points of the controversy distinctly in their minds. Let us turn, 
 tiien, to the reN iew. 
 
 We began by mentioning the silent, secret ju'ogress of a defec- 
 tion from orthodoxy i)i Boston and the vicinity, in its downwai-d 
 < ourse to the lowest Socinianism, and to the borders of infidelity. 
 We took notice of the artifice, which has been practised by lati- 
 tudinarians, in concealing their real opinions, and giving the pub- 
 lic to understand, that they do not differ materially from their or- 
 thodox brethren. Of this artifice we gave an instance, which had 
 recently occurred. I'hat our readers might be aware of the mean- 
 ing, affixed to the word Unitarianism by Mr. Belsham, the author 
 of the history which we were reviewing, we gave ample extracts 
 from his writings, and exjjressed the substance of those extracts, 
 in our own language, by way of summai'y. We examined the op- 
 position, wl.ich some persons feel, to all religious controversy; and 
 endeavored to show, that it is often absolutely necessary. Con- 
 ceiving that the essential doctrines of the Scriptures were covertly 
 attacked, and that attempts were constantly made to undermine 
 tiie foundations of the Christian's hope, we declared ourselves con- 
 scientiously bound to expose the evil, and to resist it, to the utmost 
 of our ability. We then gave an abridged account of the rise and 
 progress of Unitarianism in this counti-y, and of its propagation in 
 Harvard Crollege, for the materials of which we relied principally 
 on A?r. Belsliam*s authorities. A long letter, written by William 
 Wells, jun. Ks(j. we rj noted verl)atim from the pamj)]ilet. We took 
 notice of the ciiastiscment, which jNlr. Belsham inflicted upon the 
 Boston clei'gy, foj* their cowardice, as he evidently considered it, 
 in not avowing tiieir religious opinions. AVe described several 
 characteristics of Unitarianism. such as the following: Its disciples 
 propagate their creed by negativesj they ascribe their conversion 
 
Rsview of the Unitarian Controversy. 3 
 
 sot to the Bible, but to the works of Priestley, &c.; they systemat- 
 ically praise each other, and detract from their opponents. We 
 commended Mr. Belsham's frankness in declaring, that Trinitari- 
 ans and Unitarians could not be fellow- worsliippers in the same 
 temple, and in urging a separation. We urged tJic same thing; 
 and pointed out the temper and spirit, with which such a separa- 
 tion ought to be effected. We guarded against the charge of hav- 
 ing given an unfair representation of the Unitarians in this coun- 
 try, and referred the reader to most evident and incontrovertible 
 proofs. The review was closed by sonic strictures on Mr. Wolls's 
 letter, which was taken as a specimen of the nranner, in \\ hich (he 
 liberal party treat the opinions and chai'acters of their antagaiiislp. 
 
 Such is the substance of our review. We did not suppose it would 
 be palatable to Unitarians; but we did most seriously intend, that 
 it should afford them no just cause of complaint. That system of 
 concealment, which has beyond all question been generally practis- 
 ed by them, demanded, as we thought, to be exposed with consider- 
 able severity. Whenever we stated facts, on any other authoritv 
 than that of Unitarians themselves, we paid particular attention to 
 the evidence by whicli the facts could be supported. We said noth- 
 ing without deliberation; and we labored to express ourselves in 
 such a manner, as to make no impression whicii was not stricth 
 and literally ^correct, according to the most natural and obvious 
 meaning of our words. It was with some surprise, tlici'cfore, 
 though without the slightest apprehension or alarm, tliat we saw a 
 number of most serious charges brought against us by Mr. Chan- 
 ning; charges not only serious in their import, but couciied in the 
 most unmeasured and violent language. To tiie examination of 
 tliese charges we sliall soon invite the attention of our readers. 
 
 Before we proceed to tliis examination, we must be indulged in 
 saying, that controversial writings are often objected to, as de- 
 scending to personalities, when there is no foundation in fact for 
 the objection. If a writer fallf^ at once into a violent passion, com- 
 mits palpable blunders where it is easy to be correct, adopts the 
 grossest sophistries, repeats misrepresentations width liavc been a 
 thousand times detected, and appeals to violent prejudices in ii 
 strain of ranting declamation, it certainly may be very proper that; 
 these faults should be fairly exposed: and it is quite incorrect to 
 stigmatize such exposure as containing mere personalities. To 
 attempt victory in an argument by making an opponent porsojially 
 odious, is altogether unjustifiable^ but to exhibit tiie real delinquen- 
 cies of tiie writer^ is far from proving the existence of enmity or 
 unkindness towards tho man.. 
 
 Shall we be pardoned in saying a word, as to the temper with 
 which, unle^ss we deceive ourselves, we ejitcr upon this discussion? 
 When Mr. Channiag's letter first appeared, it was perused by u« 
 without the slightest feeling of ill-will toward the writer. We 
 knew that he had done great injustice to our language, our argu- 
 ments, and our intentions; and that his charges were in fact, and 
 could easily be proved to be, perfectly groundless, Shoidd full 
 
4 Rexieiv of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 credit be given to his representations, vvc knew that we must suffer 
 extensive!}' and severeh; yet we had no anxiety for the issue. 
 Time has shown, so far as we are capable of judging at present, 
 that we had no cause for anxiety. Our actual suffeiings, in con- 
 sequence of INli . Channing's attack, have as yet been so trifling as 
 to defy computation; while the advantages, which we have derived 
 from it, are important, anti proii ise to be durable. Our readers 
 •will give us credit for coolness, w hen tliey consider that we have 
 remained silent for nine months under charges of ihe most serious 
 natuie, preferred by a man of some influence and consideration, and 
 tending to excite against us no small degree of popular animosity; 
 charges, too, which we designed to refute, v\ hen the proper time 
 should ai rive. That time has arrived. 
 
 It may be asked, why we think it necessary, after so long a si- 
 lence, to say any tiling by way of rej)ly to Mr. Channing? To 
 this question we ofter several answers. Some persons, (we hope 
 their number is small.) are disposed to take silence for a confession 
 of guilt. Others are uisable to believe, till the fact is clearly prov- 
 ed, that high charges should be brought forward in a solemn i^nd 
 vehement manner, unless there is some foundation for them. But 
 our principal answer is, that we think a just exhibition of the man- 
 ner, in w hich this controveisy has been conducted, will serve to il- 
 lustrate the nature ol the conti oversy itself. If it shall clearly ap- 
 pear, that Mr. Channing, with all his reputation at stake, has fallen 
 i)ito the grossest misrei)rescntations, made the most unwarranted 
 statements, distorted the most innocent actions so as to give them 
 an odious appearance, and wiitten under the influence of a bitter 
 temper; these things w ill afford some presumption, that the ( ause 
 in which he is engaged is not a good one. Iw this point of view, 
 the manner, the style, and the temper, of theological disputants 
 are more important, tlian they are apt to iniagine. 
 
 After making these observations, and, as we trust, feeling their 
 applicability to the case before us, we shall certainly be very nuu h 
 to blame, if we indulge in violent language, or make a single un- 
 fair representation. We request the attention of our rcadt rs to 
 this subject, with a particular desire that they should examine, 
 with the utmost scrutiny, wjiat we have to say. AYe shall b»' imx- 
 cusable, if, after patiently remaining silent so long, aiid professing 
 to be dispassionate, we should become justly chargeable with the 
 same faults, which we repiehend in others. 
 
 "\A e propose in the first place, to examine the piincipal accusa- 
 tions preferred against us by Mr. Channing; secondh , to give a 
 brief analysis and review of the discussion Ivetween Mr. Channing 
 and Dr. Worcester; and, tliirdly, to close with such niiscellaneous 
 reflections, as the state of the controversy seems to require. 
 
 Mr. Channing's first chaige against our Ixeview is that of false' 
 hood. "Our conversation,"" says Mr. C. at the commencement of 
 liis letter to Mr. Thacher, — "Our conversation turned, as you re- 
 collect, on the falsehood of that Review; &c." p. 3. Mr. C. speaks 
 again, on the same page, of "noticing the false and injurious 
 
Revieiv oj the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 charges contained in this review." In several subsequent passages, 
 the charge of falsehood is strongly implied. This charge is after- 
 wards qualified as follows^ p. 9. <*'l'hat he [the Reviewer] intend- 
 ed to deceive, I am unwilling to assert; but the most charitable 
 construction, which his conduct will admit, is, tliat his passions 
 and party spirit have criminally blinded him, and hurried him into 
 an act, which could have been authorized only by the strongest 
 evidence, and the most impartial inquiry." This qualification is 
 not inserted, however, in immediate connexion witli tiie charges; 
 but the mind of the reader is left, for some time, to be iniiuenced 
 by the direct unexplained charge of falsehood, brought forward 
 with great assurance, and enforced by a most vehement style. 
 
 The manner in which Mr. C. supports his charge is now to be 
 examined. 
 
 "The Panoplist Review," says Mr. Channing, "asserts, 1. That the minis- 
 ters of this town and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal Christians, are 
 Unitarians, in Mr. Belshani's sense of the word." 
 
 "2. The Review asserts, that these ministers and liberal Christians are 
 guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments, and behave in a base, 
 cowardly and hypocritical manner ." pp. 4, 5.. 
 
 In stating these assertions, Mr. C. does not use marks of quota- 
 tion, but gives, as we are under the necessity of presuming, what 
 he vvisiies his readers to receive for a correct account of what we 
 had said. The first assertion he repeats in the same words; and 
 there can be little doubt, that, if he had left the matter here, every 
 reader would suppose him to have copied our words, thougii the 
 mai'ks of quotation had been accidentally omitted. Tlie reason is 
 very obvious. When one man undertakes to repeat what anotlier man 
 asserts^ especially if the assertion is represented as a heavy crime, 
 most persons would hold the accuser bound to give tlic very words 
 of the assertion, and not quite different words, which his angry 
 and agitated feelings might lead him to consider as expressing the 
 same tiling. Aftci* Mr. C. had given his statement of our asser- 
 tion, he attempts to fortify it by three quotations from the Pano 
 plist, in the following order; viz. 
 
 " "We feel entirely warranted to say, that the fircdomiriant religion oi thet 
 liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belshani's sense of the word." " 
 Pan. p. 267. 
 
 " "We shall feel ourselves warranted hereafter, to speak of the fact as cer- 
 tain, that Unitarianism," meaning Mr. Belsham's, "is the predominant relig- 
 ion among the ministers and churches of Boston." " p. 254. 
 
 " "The liberal party mutilate the New Testament, reject nearly all the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the Savior to the condition 
 of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man." " p. 271. 
 
 It will be observed, that in the second of these quotations, Mr. 
 C. has inserted the words, "meaning Mr. Belsham's," as an innu- 
 endo. Against the correctness ef tliis imniendo we utterly pro- 
 test. It is absolutely un\Aarranlcd. The third quotation is not 
 
6 Review of the Unitarian Vontroversij. 
 
 given with verbal accuracy, as it stands in the Panoplist, where it 
 is a scries of Cf)nnccted members forming part of a long sentence^ 
 but we do not complain of this circumstantial variation as having 
 imparted any new meaning. After protesting against the innuendo, 
 we are prepared to defend as strictly true, all that is said in these 
 quotati«)ns, if the passages are taken in their proper connexion, and 
 understood according to the obvious import of the language, in 
 which tliey are expressed. We have reason to complain, however, 
 of the manner in w hich Mr. C. has brought forward these quota- 
 tions. 
 
 In the first place, we regret that Mr. C. should have been will- 
 ing to prepossess his readers against us, by stating in his own 
 words, and in a most obnoxious form, the assertion which he at- 
 tempted to fasten upon us. This statement he made with a tone of 
 vast assurance, and in such a manner as to preclude all fuither 
 thought or examination on the part of those, who reposed implicit 
 confidence in liis fairness and accui'acy, or whose minds, already 
 in a state of high exasperation, were prepared to be thrown into 
 ungovernable rage by a small additional excitement. We need not 
 flay, that when a reader is in a violent paroxysm of anger, he is 
 poorly rjualihed to detect any inaccuracy, either of fact, or argu- 
 ment. A candid man wo^Ild indeed perceive, that Mr. C.'s ex- 
 tracts do not support his allegation; but even such a man might 
 suppose, that Mr. C. had blundered upon the wrong passages; or 
 tliat the passages quoted did in fact convey a meaning more favora- 
 ble to his statement, if taken in their several connexions, than when 
 considered in a detached form. Scarcely any man would easily 
 be led to suppose, that Mr. C. had gravely and repeatedly charged 
 us witli making an assertion, which we never made. Yet this i§ 
 the fact. 
 
 Secondly; we think ISIr. Channingwas quite unfair, in changing 
 the natural order of the quotations. His first quotation stands in 
 the Panoplist tiiirteeii ])ages after the second. As tlie quotation, 
 which he places tirst, contains the name of Mr. Belsham, to many 
 readers it would appear to su|)port the innuendo, which Mr. C 
 ventured to jdace in his second quotation. Let the reader decide 
 for himself, whetlicr this inversion of the natural order of the quo- 
 tations could have been made for any other reason, than the one Just 
 stated. If he shall beoi'o])iiiion that it could not, he will not hesi- 
 tate long in deciding, whether such a course of proceeding is justi- 
 iiablc. 
 
 Thirdly; it was uncaiulid in Mr. C. to give the passages, which 
 he quoted, as tlufugh they had been naked assertions; w hereas they 
 were gi\ en in the l'anoj)!ist expressly as conclusions, deduced Irom 
 a great variety of facts, which had b<*en distinctly stated. The 
 proper way of answering the Review was, to take up its several 
 parts in order, to re-rxaniinc the witnesses, and to form conclusions 
 at the end of Ciirh head, ratlierthan at the beginning. This would 
 have beeji thi^ course pursued by such men as the Edwardses and 
 ^^':tl!erspoon, in reference to any work which they might have 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 7 
 
 thought it their duty to answer. The last thing, whicli these illus- 
 trious men would have sanctioned by their example, is, to fly into 
 a violent passion at the commencement of a discussion, and thus to 
 disgust all readers, except those who can at once be roused into a 
 similar passioiu The profit, which this latter class of readei-s 
 would derive from an angry dispute, can easily be estimated. We 
 do not deny, that Mr. C. professes to examine some of the testimo- 
 ny, which we had brought forward; but this he does very cursorily, 
 and evidently with less reliance on any such investigation, than on 
 the vague and heated declamation with which his pamphlet begins 
 and ends. 
 
 Fourthly; Mr. C. brings together from every part of our Re- 
 view detached passages, for the purpose of proving, that we made 
 a general and indiscriminate charge, not only against the liberal 
 party, but against "the great body of liberal Christians." But he 
 entirely omits to notice two passages, which we inserted with the 
 express design of limiting and explaining what we had said con- 
 cerning the liberal party. The passages are as follows: 
 
 "The great majority of those, whose influence goes to swell the impor- 
 tance of the liberal party, are not involved in most of the censures, which 
 this Review implies, or expresses." p. 266. 
 
 "If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they are not willing to 
 be classed among his followers; let them declare their own opinions openlv. 
 But let them not yield all their countenance to Unitarians, and yet com- 
 plain if ranked in the same class, by those who have no means of learning 
 their opinions except by their conduct." p. 268. 
 
 Every person must see at once, that these passages are very im- 
 portant, in the inquiry concerning our assoilions, as they were 
 stated by Mr. Channing. Yet these passages are entirely over- 
 looked: we will not say designedly; for it is a maxim of law and 
 of common sense, that the suppression of truth, and the suggestion 
 of falsehood, are equally criminal: but we think ourselves fully justi- 
 fied in saying, that if Mr. C. had been as much engaged in making 
 a fair statement of what we did say, as in exciting the passions of his 
 readers by laying* to our charge things which we did not say, the 
 sentences which we have just quoted would have been candidly ci- 
 ted and considered by him. 
 
 We have just intimated, that Mr. C. laid to our charge things 
 which we did not say. This is easily shown. "The Panoplist Re- 
 view asserts," says Mr. C. "that the jninistci-s of this town and 
 its vicinity, and the great body of liberal Christians, are Unitari- 
 ans in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." This assertion, which 
 we are accused of having made, consists of two parts. We will 
 consider tliem in their order. 
 
 First, we are charged with having asserted, <that the ministers 
 of Boston and its vicinity are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense 
 i)f the woid.' The only passages which Mr. C. quotes, as proving 
 that we made this assertion, are those to which we have already 
 called the attention of our readers. Nothing is said, in either of 
 these passages, of the ministers in the vicinity of Boston^ nor is 
 
5 Review of' the Unitarian Controversy, 
 
 any thing said concerning these ministers generally, in any part of 
 tlie Review. Now, as the ministers in the vicinity of Boston are 
 much more numerous, than the ministers in Boston itself, the great- 
 er part of Mr. Ciianning's allegation falls at once to the ground. 
 Among the ministers in the vicinity of Boston, a large proportion 
 are decidedly ortliodox. We cei'tainly never thought of classing 
 these men \\ ith any of tlie sorts of Unitarians, \\ hom Mr. Channing 
 describes; nor did we ever thus class them. Nor did we say, in 
 cither of the passages quoted, by Mr. Channing, or in any other 
 passage, that the ministers of Boston were Unitarians, in Mr. 
 Belsham's sense of the word: nor did we say that the ministers of 
 Boston generally were Unitarians in any sense of the word. Thus 
 it appears, tiiat not a single clause of this part of Mr. Channiiig's 
 allegation can be suppoited by him. Let us now turn to the other 
 part. 
 
 Secondly, we are charged by Mi*. Channing with having assert- 
 ed, "that the great body of liberal Christians are Unitarians, in 
 Mr. Belsliam's sense of tlie woi-d." It might be sufficient to say, 
 at once, that this charge is totally unfounded. We never mention- 
 ed *»the great body of liberal Christians," in the whole course of 
 the Review. We very much question whether we ever used the 
 phrase "liberal Christians," in any place, or on any occasion what- 
 ever. It is a phrase, which we can by no means consent to apply 
 to such men as Mr. Belsliam and his friends in Great Britain, or 
 to the persons who constitute tlie liberal party in this country. The 
 l)hrase is very well in itself; but they, who should be forward to 
 claim it, as descriptive of their own character, might very probably 
 be least deserving of such a distinction. By the words used by 
 Mr. Channing, viz. "the great body of liberal Christians," we 
 should suppose all those persons to be meant, in every part of the 
 world, who profess to be Christians, and claim the epithet liberal. 
 Concerning such a general, undefined, and vai'ious class of pro- 
 fessed Christians, scattered tliroughout the world, we never 
 thought of making any assertion. We spoke indeed of the liberal 
 party; but tliis is quite a different thing. The phrase, liberal party, 
 we have used, occasionally, for the want of a better. We have 
 thouglit it as little offensive, as any other phrase, which could be in- 
 vented to designate the latitudinarians in our country, who deny 
 and oppose those doctrines of the Bible, which have been usually 
 railed the doctrines of the Reformation; and who, by cooj)erating 
 to decry these doctrines, and tlie doctrines of the Trinity and the 
 Divinity of Christ, have formed themselves into a religious party. 
 Tliongh we repeatedly spoke of the liberal party, we said nothing 
 M' the 'igrcat bathf of that party; much less did we say, that the 
 great body of that party were Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense 
 of the word. Should we permit Mr. Channing to amend his charge, 
 by inserting liberal party instead of liberal Christians, a favor which 
 v.e arc not under the smallest obligation to grant, still he could not 
 substantiate what he has said. It is remarkable, that the only pas- 
 a.age of the Review, which contains a description in any degree re - 
 
Heviexv of the Unitarian Controversy. 9 
 
 sembling the phrase in question, viz. **the great body of the liberal 
 party," implicitly disclaims the general, sweeping assertion, which 
 Mr. C charges us with iiaving made. "The great majority of 
 those,^' we say, "whose influence goes to swell tlie imporiaiice of 
 the liberal party, are not involved in most of the censures, which 
 this review implies, or expresses." 
 
 We have ehus shewn, tiiat we never made the asseilions, which 
 Mr. C. has laid to our charge. Let the reader here inquire, what 
 sort of a controversial writer he must be, who brings forward his 
 principal allegation in such a manner, as that not a single clause 
 of it can be supported^ and this, too, in a case where it was so per- 
 fectly easy to be accurate, and where all tlie errors, into wliich he 
 has fallen, are the result of exaggeration. 
 
 We now proceed to state what we did assert, and to justify our 
 assertions. It is necessary, in the first place, to assertain in what 
 sense w;' used the word Unitarianism, generally, throughout the Re- 
 view. Our readers are doubtless aware, that the word Unitarian 
 is claimed by all who refuse to believe in the doctrine of the Trini- 
 ty. As there have been a great variety of sects, uniting in tlie re- 
 jection of the Trinity, though disagreeing on many other points, it 
 seems desirable to know, at the commencement of any inquiry con- 
 cerning Unitarianism, in what sense that word is used by tlie wri- 
 ters or parties in question. We were about reviewing a history of 
 American Unitarianism. The reader would naturally wish to know 
 what sort of Unitananism the historian professed to be writing about. 
 We endeavored to satisfy this natural curiosity,by stating what Mr. 
 Belsham wished his readers to understand, w hen he used the word 
 Unitarianism. In doing this, we conducted the matter with the 
 most perfect upriglitness, not even suspecting it to be possible, that 
 our representations could be either blamed or contradicted. We 
 made large extracts from Mr. Belsham's writings, not for the pur- 
 pose of insinuatiiig that the liberal party in this country were re- 
 sponsible for these writings, but that our readers might have some 
 just view of the opinions held by the historian of Unitarianism in 
 America. This we expressed to be our design in making the ex- 
 tracts; and that this was a proper, fair, and laudable design we 
 have no hesitation in affirming. After closing tlie extracts we say, 
 «Such is the Unitarianism winch Mr. Belsham wishes to propagate, 
 and of which he professes to write the history; so far, at least, as 
 relates to its progress in this country. Of the existence of such 
 Unitarianism, in the metropolis of New-England, our readers have 
 generally been well pei'suaded; ^c." p. 247. The representation 
 here made is strictly accurate. Mr. Belsham \a as writing the his- 
 tory of the lowest Socinianism, and not of any higher sort of Uni- 
 tarianism; and that the lowest kind of Socinianism has existed in 
 Bos,ton, for some time past, is undeniable. 
 
 Whenever we used the word Unitarianism without restriction, 
 we left it to be understood in its large and indefinite sense. This 
 is very manifest from the fact, that in the sentence just quoted, and 
 in another to be considered hereafter, we ex])ress!y rostnctcd ih'e . 
 '3 
 
1& Review of the Unitariaii Controvei^sy. 
 
 term to the religious system of >Ir. Belsham; whereas, in the great 
 majority of instances, we left it entirely unrestricted. Thus, when 
 we enumerate several important doctrines of the Scriptures, p. 249, 
 we say, they «thcy are points, in which we differ essentially from 
 Unitarians." Now it is beyond all question the fact, that when 
 the points tiiere enumerated come to be explained, Trinitarians 
 differ, in respect to them, from Unitarians of every class. When we 
 said, tliat *we should feel ourselves warranted thereafter to speak of 
 the fact as certain, that Uiiitai'ianism is the predominant religion 
 amon)^ the ministers and cliiirches of Boston,' we left the reader 
 to understand the word Uiiitarianism, precisely as he should find 
 the evidence before him would authorize him to understand it. We 
 certainly did not rcstric t tlie woi'd to the. system of Mr^ Belsham, 
 unless Mr. Wells had tiuis restricted it. Whetlier he had thus re- 
 stricted it, oi' Tiot^ the reader coirid judge. Mr. Channing is very 
 willing to admit, that 3Ir. Wells used the word Unitarianism in its 
 large and indefinite sense; and yet v.'hen v/e n.=5e the same word, 
 witliout restriction or explanation, immediately after quoting Mr. 
 Wells's letter; and declare ourselves warranted to use it, in conse- 
 quence of the testimony contained in tliat letter; Mr. C. will have 
 it, that wc mea)it something essentially different from any thing 
 which was intended by Mr. Wells. We doubt wliether an entii'e 
 "want of candor was ever more strikingly evident. Will it be saidj> 
 Ihat Mr. Belsham uses the word Unitarianism in a restricted sense, 
 as descriptive of the lowest Sociniauism; that Mr. Wells, being a 
 disciple of Dr. Priestley, agrees substantially with Mr. Belsham in 
 religious doctrine; tl'at in writing a private confidential letter to 
 Mr,, Belsham, it niight naturally be supposed that Mr. Wells would 
 use language tvhich his correspondent would he able to understand; 
 and that the inference would naturally be. that Mr, Wells used the 
 Word in a restricted sense? If such should be the inference, wc, 
 surely, are not to blame. Mr. Wells did write the letter which we 
 quoted* He wrote it to Mr. Belsham: and he ought to have know n 
 in what manner Mr. B. would natin-ally understand him. Jn the 
 letter of Mr* Wells to the Editor of tlie Panoplistj which was in- 
 serted in the number for July last, p. 310, he eX})lains his meaning 
 as follows: 
 
 "I mii;lit net find it easy, and I do not think it at all necessary, to define 
 precisely tlic sense in which I use the very general terms Uniraricm and Uiii- 
 tariajtisni, but it would be very absurd to undei'stand nie as afiirining, thai 
 all the gentlemen, of whom I speak, are Unitari ms in precisely the same 
 bcnse with Mr. B. A Christian, not a believer in the Trinity, I ha\e been in 
 tlie lia!)it of denoiriinating an Unitarian. Mr. B. contends for a more limit- 
 ed sense. I did not advei t to this, and at that time, 1 believe, did not know 
 it. The sense in v.hich 1 use the term may serve to explain what is said in 
 my letter, of "Unitarianism consisting rather in tiot believing," upon which 
 the reviewer lays s'uch stress." 
 
 If, as Mr. Wells says, it would be nery absui'd to understand 
 him as affirming, that all the gentlemen of whom he spoke are Uni- 
 tarians in precisely the same sense witli Mr. Belsham,' is it less 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. l|t 
 
 absurd to understand us as affirming all this, when we take our 
 words from Mr. Wells, and use them expressl^y^ on his authority? 
 We have not the slightest reluctance to adniit Mr. Wells's explan- 
 ation of his meaning, though we ti»iiik his letter contains some 
 tilings, wluch seem to militate against it. For example; "Unitari- 
 anism," sa}s he, "consists rather in not heliex ing." Now this is 
 exactly descriptive of the Unitarianism of Dr, I'ricstley and Mr^ 
 Belsliam, which is little short of downright inftdditv; but it by no 
 means answers to the system taught by Uie author of Bible JNews, 
 wiiich requires more faith, not to say credulity, and is more com- 
 pletely enveloped in mystery, than any otiier system which can be 
 hamed, ;Mr. Wells says, that *he did not advert to the fact, tiiat 
 Mr. B. contends for a more limited sense of tlie word Uuitarian,* 
 and 'lie believes he did not then know it.* For a friend and cor- 
 respondent of Mr. B. to confess himself ignorant, or unmindful, of 
 the meaning which this heresiarch affixes to a word, which he assumes 
 as the distinguishing badge of his sect, is rather siugular, and could 
 hardly be expected. Mr. Belsiiara will receive Mr. Wells's ex- 
 planation as but a poor compliment. But whatever may have been 
 Mr. W.'s knowledge on the subject, it is unquestionably true, that 
 mode, n Socinians have claimed the word Unitarian as belonging 
 (exclusively to those, who believe in the simple humanity of Christ. 
 In Evans's Sketch of Religious Denoniinations, which was repub- 
 lished in this country in 1807, we find the following passage. *'But 
 the Socinians have appropriated to themselves the appellation of 
 Unitarians; and by tills name they are now more generally distin- 
 guished. I'hough to this appellation tkey have no exclusive claim, 
 yet it is somew hat more correctly descriptive of tiieir religious te- 
 nets than that of Socinians, since they renounce njany of the opin- 
 ions of Socinus." p. 52. W^e never said, be it remembered, that 
 Mr. Wells used the word Unitarian in the sense given to it by Mr, 
 Belsham, his correspondent; i, e, in the sense given to it by the 
 sect, to which Mr. Wells himself belongs. Whether we thought 
 so, or not, is immaterial; but we submit it to our readers, whethei* 
 a man might not have said and thought so, without any impeach- 
 ment of his understanding or his iioneaty. 
 
 In short, Mr^ Wells says, «Most of our Boston Clergy and re« 
 spectable laymen (of whom we have many enlightened theologians) 
 are Unitarian." Taking the words from iiis mouth, a-.id relying 
 expressly on his authority, we say, <»Ujiitarianism is the predomi- 
 nant religion among the ministers and churches of Boston.*' If 
 Mr. W^ells spoke the truth, we merely repeated it. If it should 
 hereafter be proved, that Mr. Wells was mistaken, (which will not 
 be proved,) still we could nexer be condemned for relying on his 
 testimony. If Mr, AVelJs is permitted to explain what he meant 
 by the word Unitarianism, it evinces a pitiable want of fairness to 
 refuse us the benefit of his explanation. If it is absurd to suppose, 
 that he meant any thing other than Unitarianism in a large and in- 
 ilciinite sense, it is perfectly clear that ve asserted nothing more^ 
 tlian that ynitarianisin^ in the same large aiul indefinite sense, is 
 
1~ Jieview of the Unitarian Cotitroversy. 
 
 the predominant religion among the minister and churches of Bos- 
 ton. That we were warranted to make tliis assertion, neither Mr, 
 Channing", nor any other member of the liberal party, will hesitate 
 to ackno\\ ledge. Mr. C. has stated his own views on this subject, 
 as follows: 
 
 ''But I have always abstained most scrupulously from every expression, 
 which could be c<,nstrued into an acknowledgement of the Trinity. My wor- 
 shi, and sentiments have been Unitarian, in the proper sense of that word." 
 Letter, p. 13. 
 
 ''As to my brethren in general, never have I imagined for a moment, from 
 their preaching or conversaiion, that they had the least desire to be consider- 
 ed as Trinitarians; nor have I ever heard from them any \'ievvs of God, or 
 ot Jesus Christ, but Unitarian, in the proper meaning of that word." ib. 
 
 We hope Mr. C. will not charge us with falsehood for concludijig, 
 at the close of these extracts, as we concluded, at tiie close of Mr. 
 Wells's testimony, that "Unitarianisni is the predominant religion 
 among the ministers and churches of Boston." 
 
 We now proceed to the consideration of the other principal pas- 
 sage, which is relied on to convict us of falsehood. It occurs thir- 
 teen pages after the one, which we have just disposed of, and is ex- 
 pressed as follows: "We feel entirely warranted to say, that ihe pre- 
 dominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in 
 Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." We made this declaration as 
 a conclusion, deduced from a great variety of facts, which weie 
 particularly stated. Whether the conclusion was warranted by 
 the facts, or not, is a question, which we are vci'y willing our read- 
 ers should settle for themselves. We designedly restricted the 
 word Unitaiian; a proof, as we have already intimated, that when 
 we did not thus restrict it, we supposed it Mould be interpreted with 
 moi-e latitude. AVe selected the words predominant religion with 
 great care, as expressing the precise meaning which we wanted to 
 communicate, and as giving, by a single phrase, the exact truth 
 \\'ithout any mixture of error. Tite sentence was repeatedly read 
 to a friend for consultation and advice; and the result was, that, 
 in our opinion, the description was perfectly accurate. 
 
 Writeis ai-e apt to be fond of their own language. They some- 
 times see, i)i their own phrases, a propriety which theii- readers 
 will not be able to descry. It is very possible that we weie not for- 
 tunate, in the selection of the obnoxioiis phrase. Had we foreseen, 
 that it would he made the ground of heavy accusations, we should 
 ha\ e explained the sentence, in w hich it occurs, as follows. By 
 saying, that the predominant religion of the liberal party is Unita- 
 rian, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word, we intend, that those 
 members of the liberal party, who believe in the simple humanity 
 of Christ, and agree substantially with Dr. Priestle} and Mr. Bel- 
 sham in religious opinions, actually possess a predominanl ivjiiience 
 in the party to w hich they belong. Me intend, that they possess a 
 greater share of learning, of talent, of sectarian activity, and of 
 influence in society, than all other classes of Unitarians put ti)- 
 
Rev-iew of the UnitarUin Co7it>'oversy. IS 
 
 gcther. Possessing these qualities, their system of religion may, 
 witliout inipropriety, be called the prcdcmiinant religion of the lib- 
 eral party. Thus should we have explained, had we been aware 
 that our language ^rould need an explanation. 
 
 It will be observed, that we said nothing about amajurihj ofnuvi- 
 be7-s. This we could not do; for we had not the requisite informa- 
 tion. The liberal party we knew to be divided into majiy classes. 
 The number of persons belonging to each class it would he impossi- 
 ble for any man to state with accui-acy. But theinfluence continu- 
 ally exerted was much less diflicult to he estimated. On tlie ques- 
 tion of numbers, Mr. C. represents himself and Mi'. Tliacher as 
 agreeing, 'that a majority of their bi'ethren believe, that Jesus 
 Clirist is more than man, &c.' This might be true consistently 
 with our declaration. Whether it be so, or not, wc have no ade- 
 quate means of foi-ming an opinion. Mr. C. afterwai'ds gives it as 
 his estimate, that those «who believe the simple humanity of Jesus 
 Christ, form a small proportion of the great body of Uiiitariaus, in 
 this part of the country.' We have no confidence at all in the acr 
 /curacy of tliis estimate. We do not believe that Di'. Freeman, or 
 the Layman, will admit it to be accurate. Though we do not i)ro- 
 fess ourselves able to form an estimate of the numbers, belonging to 
 the different sub-divisions of the liberal party, yet we arc much 
 mistaken if the Socinians, added to those who iiave no fixed (q)in- 
 ions concerning the character of our Savior, would not greatly out- 
 number all other classes of Unitarians in our country. liut it is 
 notpi'obable that the question of numl)ers will ever be settled in this 
 world; nor is it material that it should be. 
 
 We now turn, for a few moments, to tlic inquiry whether the So- 
 cinians had, or had not, a predominant influence in the liberal par- 
 ty, at the time the Review was written. We considered Ilarvaj-d 
 College as under the control of men, who publislied the Genej^al 
 Repository, and praised the Improved Version. If so, it is unques- 
 tionably under the control of Socinians. The General Repository 
 was published by gentlemen holding offices of instruction and gov- 
 ernment in the College. It is notorious that one of these gentle- 
 men was the Editor," and that others were contributors. A printed 
 circidar letter was issued, stating the extraordinary qualifications 
 of this Editor, and earnestly soliciting subscriptions to the work: 
 and this circidar was signed by a most active member of tlie coi-po- 
 ration of the College, (the same who wrote a wojulerfully temperate 
 pamphlet, which we shall notice presently.) and by tv.o persons of 
 distinction in Boston. The President of the College will not tleny, 
 that he was friendly to the General Rei)ositor}'. That work was 
 doubtless intended to be the great instrument of propagating Uni- 
 tarianism in this country; and the Unitarianisin, which it hihored 
 to propagate, was evidently Socinianism. Mr. Channing dors not 
 deny this; but simply declares, that 'he has heard some of its sen- 
 timents disapproved by the majority of those with wln>m he has 
 conversed.' Ee it so. This may only ju'ove, that Mr, C. cf>nvei"S- 
 
J* Review of the (Jnilatian Controversy, 
 
 ed more, on tlie subject of the General Repository, with those Uni^ 
 tarians who agiee with him in sentiment, than with others. AU 
 this is \eyy natural. In regaid to the Monthly Antholo.ejy, Mr» 
 <C, says 'he has read as little of that work as of most periodical 
 pnblications;' hut that Mr. Thacher has informed him, *tliat the 
 doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ is not once asserted in 
 it.' Very likely. It has not been the habit of Unitarians to avow 
 all their opinions clearly, not even in tlieir anonymous writings. 
 But there are arti( les in the Anthology, which any person of judg. 
 mcnt must pronounce to iiave been written by Sociiiians. 'J'he in- 
 decent leviiy with which the most sacred doctrines are rixliculed, 
 and the contemptuous manner in which the orthodox are treated, 
 declare jdainly enough the school, in which the writers learned their 
 logic and their manners. 
 
 it is worthy (if remark, tliat Mr. Channing seems disposed to 
 pay a very sliglit regard to the Anthology and the Repository^ and 
 to pass over them, as thougli they had been the productions of no- 
 body, and nobody was responsible for them. SVe liave observed 
 the same dis])osition in other members of the liberal party. Is it 
 then a fact, that either of these works had a dubious and obscure 
 origin; and that they are to he considered as mere foundlings, dis- 
 owned and deserted by all? Of the direction, under which the Re- 
 pository was issued, we iiave already spoken. If ever a party was 
 resixmsible for a publication issued under its auspices, continued by 
 its jiati-onage, conducted by its most distinguished members, and 
 nniforndy subservient to its cause, the liberal party in Boston and 
 the vi( inity are responsible for both the works in question. The 
 Anthology was edited by those clergymen and laymen of the liber- 
 al party, who have been most praised by each other, and by the 
 parly generally, for their learning, their talents, their catindicism, 
 and many other excellent qualities. ^Ir. Belsham, on tiie other 
 side of the Atlaiitic, is loud in his praises of that work, and of the 
 Repository. Yet Mr. C. intiniates, that he has read little of the 
 Anth(d(igy. Tiiis is but a sorry tale to tejl his brethren, who 
 doubtless supposed, that none but bigots could shut their eyes 
 against thp light, w hich shone from the pages of their favorite work. 
 But whether Mr. C. read tlie Anthology little or much, his breth- 
 ren were ileeply engagrd in pnAiding materials for it. Tliey met 
 veekly to confer respecting it, and to conduct its alfairs: unci they 
 Avrote all the promineitt articles w])icli it contained. Tlu'ir foster- 
 ing care was contiinied, till, as Ur. Morse has well observed, «it 
 snidv undei^the weight of its own sins;'' and, after a moderate in- 
 terval, the Repository ai-ose ;is its successor, and was ])ublished by 
 the Siune class oi' men. Me must be permitted, therefore, to assigii 
 tlieir ])j'oper impoitijice to tjie ailiries which appeared in both 
 these works. 
 
 To ( oncliule wliat we have to say on this topic, there can be no 
 doubt tluit the R<>pository was the favorite child of those, who had a 
 predcnninant iniliience in giving thecdogical instruction at Harvard 
 College. The U'.'posil(«ry was not only Socinian in H^ iuliucnx^': 
 
hev'kw of the Unitarian Controversy i it 
 
 generally, but seemed to take particular pleasure in bestowing cm- 
 phatical praise upon the Impi-oved Version uf the New Testament; 
 a sectarian work, which was published by Mi*. Belsham and his 
 friends. What stronger evidence can be required of us, that tlie 
 College was under the influence of Unitarians, who harmonize with 
 Mr. Belsham? It may be added, that the corporation olf Harvard 
 College consists of but six members beside the President; that two 
 of these gentlemen belong to Dr. Freeman's society, and that one 
 of the two Is considered as decidedly the must active member of the 
 corporation. 
 
 it is pi'oper to observe, that in judging of the religious charactei* 
 of the College, we do not refer to those instructors, whose province 
 has ho particular connexion with theology. What the religious 
 opinions of these gentlemen are, the public, we believe, have no 
 means of determining. 
 
 If the College is Unitai'ian in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word, 
 it follows almost of course, that the predominant religion of the lib- 
 eral party is this kind of Unitarianism. The College is intended 
 to exert, and does actually exert, a prodigious influence. The re- 
 ligion which is prevalent there will be tlie prevalent religion of the 
 party. 
 
 Besides, it is to be remembered, that those gentlemen, who are 
 known to be Socinians, and who possess great influence jiot only in 
 reference to the College, but in reference to other important sub- 
 jects, receive the unqualified fiupport of the whole liberal party. 
 This is a very material consideration* Mi-. C. will not pietend, 
 for a moment, that a gentleman's agieeing precisely with Mr. Bel- 
 sham would form any objection to liis being elected a member of 
 the corporation, or establislicd in a professorship. 
 
 We gave no opinion as to tlie kind of Unitarianism, which pre- 
 vailed in Boston. But let us look at the leligious state of this me- 
 tropolis, when the Review was written. Over the Congregational, 
 Ej)iscopalian, and Baptist churches, there were sixteen pjistors. 
 OF these, seven Were known to be decided Trinitarians. \i is prob- 
 able, that all the remaining nine are claimed by the liberal party. 
 Wlien our Review first appeared, and we were so loudly cliarged 
 with falsehood, it was unhesitatingly admitted, that three clergymen 
 in Boston were Unitarians of the Priestleian school. Now we hum- 
 bly conceive, that three form no despicable jjroportion of nine. It 
 might be ti-ue, without supposing any miracle, that throe sliould 
 have a predominant influence over six. Had \\v asserted, that Uni- 
 tarianism of Mr. Belsham's sort was tlie predominant religion of 
 the liberal party in Boston, a mere statement of numbers, such as 
 we have given, would by no means prove us mistaken. About two 
 months before our Review was written, one clergyman was settled 
 in Boston and another was dismissed. The latter gentleman is, 
 Ave believe, considered as a Socinian by the liberal party. He has 
 probably been praised more by the party, within two > ears past, 
 than any four of their most distinguished men; and this is saying a 
 goodded. If not a Socinian of the lowost class, which wf» bf?ievf 
 
16 Rcviexv of the Unitarian Coniroversi,; 
 
 to be the fa( t, lie is totally opposed to the scheme taught in a book, 
 which lias tiie modest iitlc (d" B'Mt ?s\ics. It appears, then, that 
 the (1(1 ;i;vuien in Boston, v.'ho m ere {i,enerally reputed Socinians, 
 \vereJo/<r in nmnot-r, but a short time before tlie Ileview was written^ 
 and tliat ail llie t>(ijer cleigymen of the liberal party, in that town, 
 weie but^^ri'. I'here have heen man}" changes among the clergy 
 of iJoston witliin six years past, and it is not always easy to ascer- 
 tain the relative inlluence of numerous individuals of the same par- 
 ty; but of this we are confident, that, during the whole course of 
 tin' jieriod mentioned, the Socinian part of the Bostoji clergy has rc- 
 eei\ed twice, if not five times, as much praise, as all the other Uni- 
 tarian clergy of the town. Praise may not be a very exact meas- 
 urt> of inlluence; but wiicre an exuberance of praise is bestowed, it 
 is natural to suj)pose tJuit some inlluence is possessed. It is our 
 deliberate opinion, that those clergymen in Boston, who, for sever- 
 al years past, have favored Sociniauism rather than ajiy higher 
 kind of Lnitarianism, have possessed m(»rc talents, morclearning, 
 moj-e activity, and moj-e inlluence, than the rest of the U)iitarian 
 t:lergy of Bos;on. h\ this opinion we may be mistakenj but it is 
 by no means peculiar to ourselves. 
 
 If we look at tlie ''respectable laymen," who are declared by Mr. 
 Wells to be Unitarian, those of tliem, who are generally reputed 
 Socinians, are by no means to be disreganled, in settling the ques- 
 tion of inlluence. The congregation of Dr. Freeman contains 
 many persons, who have no small share of weight in society. Of 
 these we have mcutioned two, as members of the corporation. Nor 
 arc the lay So(Mniaus of Boston conrmed to the congregation of Dr, 
 Freeman. We do not think tliat Mr. Wells shindd be entirely 
 overlooked. He is a man of literature; and, in consequence of his 
 connexion with the press, we doubt whether he has been second to 
 any erne, in the services which he has rendered to the Unitarian 
 cause. Leaving the metropolis, nearly all the laymen of the liber- 
 al party, who have been extolled foi* their learning, and their bibli- 
 cal erudition, have been represented to us as Socinians. 
 
 On tiie wliole, we solemidy declare to our readers, that we have 
 taken into consideiation the I'eputed learning, talents, and influ- 
 ence, of al! the j)rominent indiN iduals (sf the liberal party; we have 
 looked at these gentlemen, one by one, and endeavoi-ed to make an 
 impartial estimate of their relative and aggregate influence; we 
 have done this repeatedly, both before and since our Review was 
 publislied; and the result has uniforndy been a conviction, that the 
 predominant r* ligion of the libei'al party is Sociniauism; i.e. Uni- 
 tarianism in IMr. Belsham's sense of the word. By this we do not 
 intend, that the opeii, fixed, avowed Socinians form a majority of 
 the liberal party; but that these persons, and their adherents, ex- 
 ert a greater power in foi'miiig the religious character of this coun- 
 try, tlian is exerted by all other classes of Unitarians. 
 
 In foitning this opinion, we have considered, that as Socinians 
 are more fixed in tlieir i-eligious tenets, than their Unitarian breth- 
 ten are, or ever have been, the influence of Socinians is directly 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 17 
 
 and constantly operative in tlie promulgation (f their peculiar doc- 
 trines; while the influence of otiier Uiutai-iaus, so far as it relates 
 to tiiis subject, is piincipally exerted to produce a disbelief of the 
 doctrines of tne Trinity and tlie proper Di\ luity of Christ, leaving 
 their converts in a state of endless vacillation and perplexity, in re- 
 gard to the character of our Savior, till they .i^radually sink down 
 into Socinianisni. Dr. Freeman evidently considers the negative 
 preacliing, which he has so well described, as favoring- his own re- 
 ligious system. It is to be observed, further, t!iat the most popu- 
 lar Socinian writers do not hesitate to cliarge every species of Ari- 
 anism with the grossest absurdity j and to stiguiatize *as idolatry 
 that inferior kind of religious homage, which the higher classes of U- 
 nitarians render to Christ. Thus Socinians are able to direct against 
 Arians many of the most plausible arguments, wliich tlie latter al- 
 lege against the doctrine of the Trinity. This gives them no in- 
 considerable advantage. We do not believe, that Unitarianism. in 
 any form, is about to prevail in this country; but, should it prevail, 
 we have no doubt it will appear under the character of open, avow- 
 ed, Socinianism, which, in the opinion of Mr. Belsham and his 
 friends, is the only consistent Unitarianism. 
 
 The remaining passage, which Mr. Channing quotes from our 
 Review, for the purpose of supporting his charge of falsehood, is 
 the following: "The liberal party mutilate tiie New Testament, re- 
 ject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade 
 the Savior to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant 
 man." Wc cannot do better, in reference to this passage, than to 
 quote the vindication of it, which is to be found in Dr. Worcester's 
 First Letter. We are happy to give this long quotation, not only 
 because it is a perfect vindication of ourselves, but because it is a 
 fair specimen of the uprigiit, honorable, and forcible maimer, in 
 which Dr. W. conducts his discussion. If our readers suppose us 
 biassed in favor of a friend and advocate, all he have to say is, let 
 than judge for themselves. 
 
 "This is the last of the three passages wliich you have cited to shew that 
 the "Review asserts, that the ministers (if Boston and the vicinity, and the 
 great body of liberal Christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense uf 
 the word," and upon which you ground your principal accusation of falser 
 hood. But is it here asserted, that all the individuals of the liberal ]>artv 
 actually do the things, and all of them, which tlie party is said to dfi? Is this 
 a fair intei-pretation of the passage? Or if it admits of this, does it fairly ad- 
 mit of no otliei ■? 
 
 "The apostles. Sir, as you very well know, repeatedly charge the Jewish 
 rulers and people, generally, even "the great body" of the nation, with hav- 
 ing "crucified and slain the Lord of life and glory." Yet, as you also know, 
 but a very small part of that gre^nt bod\- actually imbrued their hands in his 
 blood. But some of them did;*^ and ol' the rest, some more, and others less di- 
 rectly, consented to the deed. Hence they were generally involved in the 
 guilt, and brought under the ciiarge; and upon the great body, eventually, 
 "wrath came to the uttermost." Such was the judgment of the apostles; 
 and such the judgment of Him, whose throne is established in righteousness. 
 — And, Sir, if among the liberal party, the things charged by the RcAiewer 
 arc dono; if some of the partv do actually, "mutilate the Nev,- Testament, 
 S 
 
]8 Revicvj of the Unitdrian Conirovcr&y, 
 
 reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the 
 Savior to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man," — and of 
 the rest, some more, and others less directly, consent to all this; if, as a par- 
 ty, or as individuals of the party, they bear no decided testimony against 
 these dtedii, and do nothing effectually to secure, or to purge themselves from 
 the guilt of them; then, is it not true, and right, and proper to say of the par- 
 ty generally, that they do these things-' and will they not generally, with all 
 who adhere to them, be held to answer for them at the bar of the righteous 
 Judge? 
 
 "But are not these things done: — I tremble, my dear Sir, while I put this 
 question to your conscience: — tremble, not because I feel that I am doing 
 wrong; but because I consider it a question of infinite solemnity. — It surely 
 "will not be denied, that "the New Testament is mutilated;" — it will not be 
 denied, that "the Savior is degraded to the condition of a fallible, peccable, 
 and ignorant man;" — nor should it any more be denied, that "nearly all the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are rejected." I do believe you will 
 yourself admit, that nearly all the doctrines are rejected, which by the ven- 
 erable founders of the New England churches were held as fundamental; — 
 which the great body of the Protestant churches, since the Reformation, have 
 held as fundamental. 
 
 "How great a proportion of the liberal party actually do all this, and to how- 
 great an extent the rest of them consent to it, I would be devoutly thankful, 
 that I am not particularly concerned to determine. But I must seriously ask, 
 Avhether, from the representations made in your Letter, were there no other 
 means of judging in the case, there would not be most fearful reason to ap- 
 prehend, that you and your liberal brethren generally have done but very lit- 
 tle to secure yourselves from the general charge; or, I must add, to purge 
 yourselves from the general guilt? — It grieves me, dear Sir, to state, that in 
 your Letter, you tell us, in so many words, that "to believe with Mr. Belsham 
 is no crime:" — by which I understand, no sin, — no offence against God — 
 against Christ — against the Gosjjel — against the cause and kingdom of truth 
 and holiness. — No sin — no offence, to hold Christ to have been no more than 
 "a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;" — to discard those pai-ts of the New 
 Testament which assert his pre-existence, his miraculous conception, his di- 
 vinity, and his atonement, as either spurious, erroneous, or ext^-avagantly hy- 
 perbolical; — to deny that his death was an expiatory sacrifice for sin, that 
 "we owe him any gratitude for the benefits which we are now receiving," 
 that "we have any reason to hope for liis futui-e interposition;" — to deny the 
 inspiration of the Scriptures generally, and reject all the fundamental, all the 
 peculiar doctrines of the Gospel! — You are also most studiously careful, most 
 exquisitely tendei', lest any "statement you make should be considered, as 
 casting the least reproach on those amongst us, who believe in the simple hu- 
 manity of Jesus Christ;" and, of course, agree with Mr. Belsham, if not in 
 all, yet certainly in the most material articles of his creed: — most studiously 
 careful, most exquisitely tender, lest you should wound their feelings, abridge 
 their influence, or iiinder their success in propagating their sentiments! And 
 from other parts of your Letter, it would seem that such has been the uni- 
 form feeling, and conformable to it the uniform practice, not only of yourself, 
 but of your liberal brethren in general. 
 
 "Now, Sir, if such is the real fact, however small a proportion of the lib- 
 eral party those may be, who actually do the things in question; yet is it not 
 perfectly correct to say, generally, that the liberal party do them. And if so, 
 where is the foundation for the serious charge of falsehood, so vehemently 
 urged aganist the Reviewer.-'" pp. 10 — 12. 
 
 It is in the way, wliicli Di*. W. describes, and in that way only, 
 that a ]mri^ can ever be made responsible for any thing. I'h'e lead- 
 ing, prominent, active members of a party arc always comjiarativcly 
 lew. Those, who do not act on a large scale, are responsible for 
 
Revieiu of the Unitarian Controversy. 19 
 
 yielding their influence to others who do act thus. This matter is 
 always perfectly understood in politics. Suppose the leader of a 
 political party to be chargeable with certain alleged misconduct; is 
 it impossible that the party should be made responsible for it? By 
 no means. If the leader in question is notoriously a leader of the 
 party, and if the party do not protest against his conduct, or dis- 
 claim it; especially if they give him new proofs of their confidence, 
 and do all in their power to sustain and augment his influence, they 
 are undoubtedly, in the eye of conscience, and of God, responsible 
 for what he has done. 
 
 Whether the liberal party patronized the Improved Version of 
 the New Testament, or not, we shall not now examine. On this 
 topic, we refer the reader to what was said in our number for April. 
 1813. Whatever may be said by Mr. C. or anyone else, we^osf- 
 tixelij know, that the liberal party patronized that work. To ex- 
 plain ourselves, we know that leading members of the party greedi- 
 ly purchased it, gave it away in charity, urged others to do the 
 same, applauded it, and publicly declared eoncernhig it, in the 
 General Repository, that it is "a version far more faithful, more 
 correct, and more intelligible, than that in common use." We ful- 
 ly believe, that leading members of the party once intended to be- 
 stow it in charity, under the sanction of Bible Societies. Our be- 
 lief is tounded, in part, on the opposition expressed by some of 
 these leading members to the formation of a certain Bible Society, 
 which opposition was supported by the express declaration, that 
 the pej'sons who made it were unwilling to give away the Bible in 
 our common versioii. And if the Improved Version is "far more 
 faithful, more correct, and more intelligible, than that in common 
 use," as it is declared to be, in a work published by gentlemen, 
 who hold oflices of instruction and government in Harvard College, 
 why should it not be given away by Bible Societies? Thougli 
 Mr. C would seem to disapprove of this version, it is remarkable 
 that his disapprobation, (if disfipprebation it can be called.) is 
 couched in the mildest terms. "1 can scarcely remember an indi- 
 vidual," says he, "who, in speaking of this version, has not ex- 
 pressed an unfavorable opinion at least of some of its notes." Ik 
 this all? If so, it goes but a little way towards proving, that the 
 liberal party did not patronize the work. Many an individual 
 might be very much engaged in circulating a book, and yet 'ex- 
 press an unfavorable opinion of some of its notes.' The Editors of 
 the Improved Version have most audaciously rejected whole chap- 
 ters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; and this, by their own 
 confession, against the authority of all the manuscripts and versions 
 extant; they have explained away nearly all the fundamental doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, and wrested the whole New Testament, so 
 that it may speak the language of their sect: and yet, all that Mr. 
 C. can find in his heart to say against this version, is expressed in 
 the cautious and guarded sentence just quoted. It is of very little 
 const quence, whether Mr. C. pronounces a faint or a full cctndemna 
 tion of the Improved Version. The weakness and absurdities o! 
 
. (!) Rcvieni) of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 that work have been set in so clear a light by Magee, Nares, Lau- 
 rence, and others, that it can never sustain any character, but a 
 bad one; and must gradually sink into oblivion, the eifortsofthe 
 General Repository to uphold it notwithstanding. 
 
 y\'e must bestow a word or tw o upon the following pjissage in Mr. 
 Chainiing's Letter. 
 
 "The conduct of the Revievver, in collecting all the opinions of that gentle- 
 man, [Mr. Belsham,] not only on the Trinity, but on evev\ other theokgical 
 subject, in giving the luhole collection the name of Unitaria72is7n, and in ex- 
 hibiting this to the world as the creed of liberal Christians in this region, is 
 ])erhaps as criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the records 
 of ti.euiogical controversy." p. 7. 
 
 After the preceding discussions, it cannot be necessary that we 
 should go into a particular examination of this charge. 
 
 "We did not <collectall the theological opinions of Mr. Belsham;' 
 but those opinions only, whicli relate to the most important sub- 
 jects of Divine Revelation. It was ob\ iously propei- to gi\ e his 
 views on these subjects, as our readers could in no other way be 
 made acquainted with the prominent features of his theological sys- 
 ten;; and Mr. C. knows very well, that the tendency of a sijstemis 
 not apparent to all readeis, from the mere statement of a ])aiticular 
 doctrine. The various j)arts of Mj-. Belsham's sciieme are depend- 
 ent upon each other. The history of modern Uuitarianisu) clearly 
 proves, that w lien the docti'ine of the Trinity is rejected, the de- 
 scent is rapid, and almost unifirm, to the lowest kind of Socinian- 
 ism. This is the last stage, in the course tow ard downright, avow- 
 ed, infidelity. It is impossible to go further, and claim tlie appclhi- 
 tion of C'luistians. But other classes of Unitarians ai'e in a state 
 of perjjetual fluctuation, doubt, aiul uncertainty. They cannot de- 
 scribe their own creed, so that the description shall answer for 
 any length of time. 
 
 S\t did not 'give to this collection the name of Unitarianism.' 
 Mr. Belsham, indeed, claimed that word, as the property of him- 
 self and his friends; and we have seen from Evans, that the ch.ini 
 has been extensively admitted. Mr. B. did not speak in his own 
 name only, but in the name of his party; and tlie same party, on 
 both sides of the Atlantic, now use the name as strictly, and often 
 as exclusively, appropriate to themselves. 
 
 AVe did not 'exhibit this collection as the creed of liberal Chi'is- 
 tians in this region.' There is n()thing to warrant such an asser- 
 tion, unless it be the passages, which luvve been already consider- 
 ed. How far they w arrant it, we leave others to decide. 
 
 \\ e remark here, that if our Review did iu\i jjcoperly describe 
 the liberal jiarty, as to its sub-divisi(,ns, and their iclative inihi- 
 cnce, our deli( iency must be ascribed to the facts, that Mr. Bel- 
 sham was the historian of the party, and that we placed much reli- 
 ance on him and his Boston correspondents; and to anotiier notori- 
 ous fact, that many of the clei'gy oi the liberal party have, till late- 
 ly, studiously concealed their religious opinions. We say tilt lately. 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversi; ■ ul 
 
 because a considerable cbange bas taken place, in tliis paiticular. 
 since our Review was piiblisbcd. troni Mr. Cbanning's account 
 6f liis own preacbiui^, we tbink it would be impossible for bis bear- 
 ers to tell wbat sort of Unitarianism be beld. Witb w liat proprie- 
 ty, tben, could be demand of us, that Me sbould know in exacti) 
 wbat class be, and bis particular friends, ougbt to be reckoned? Mr. 
 Belsbam wrote a professed bistory of Unitarianism in tbis country. 
 lie gave bis autborities witbout besitation or reluctance; and he was 
 no stranger to tbe party of wbom be wrote. He bas be^'n visited 
 by clergymen of ibe liberal party, wbo bave been in England; we 
 are informed tbey preacbed in bis pulpit; and be bas corresponded 
 "with otbers. He supposed be knew tbe party in tbis country per- 
 fectly well, and was abundantly able to write ibeir bistory. We 
 believe be knew mucb more about tlieir religious doctrines, tlian it 
 was easy for an ortbodox man to know. AVbile Me relied upon tbe 
 testimony of Dr. Freeman and Mr. Wells, we felt ourselves on safe 
 ground. But bad we attempted to go beyond tbese autborities, and 
 write a particular bistory of tbe various opinions beld by all tbe 
 clergy of tbe liberal party, we should have found ourselves deplor- 
 ably destitute of materials. 
 
 From wbat bas already been offered in tbis article, it must ap- 
 pear, we think, even to Mr. Channing himself, tbat tbe (barge of 
 falsehood is not tiie proper c barge to be preferred against us, if we 
 bad made an erroneous estimate of the influence of Socinians. 
 How often do men mistake, in weighing the influence of different 
 political parties? or of different and jari-ing interests in tbe same 
 party? And how indecorous is it, how ungentlemanly, to stigma- 
 tize every such error as a falsehood? Look, for example, at tlic 
 present state of France. Men of intelligence, wbo bave resided 
 long at Paris, are now divided in opinion, as to wbat wei'e tbe real 
 wishes of a majority of tiie French people, in reference to Napole- 
 on and tbe Bourbons, in tbe spring of 1814, and the fall of tbat 
 year, in the spring of 1815, and subsequently to tbe battle of Wa- 
 terloo. Some of tbese men ai-e doubtless mistaken in their esti- 
 mate of parties. Shall tbey of course be charged with falseboodi 
 We mean not to admit, tbat there is any good reaso)i to sujtposc 
 tbe statement, which we made, to be erroneous. But if it bad been 
 proved to be erroneous, which is far enough from tlie fact, a vehe- 
 ment charge of falsehood would never bave been resorted to, unless 
 tbe mind of Mr. C. bad been in a state very different from that, 
 which is favorable to a dis{)assionate inquiry after truth. 
 
 There is one more passage in Mr. Cbanning-'s Letter, which a 
 proper regai'd to our own cliaracter induces us to examine. It is 
 that, in which we are accused of having "di.storted" a })art of Mr. 
 Wells's letter to Mr. Belsham. In an early part of the Review, 
 we had quoted tbe whole of tbis letter; and towards tbe close of our 
 discussion we offered some remarks upon it, quoting plirases and 
 parts of sentences, as is universally custonniry, when writeis are 
 commenting on passages, ^bicb bave been previously quoted, or 
 which are already sufficiently known to their rradi>rs. Among 
 
22 .Revieio of the UnUarian Controversy. 
 
 those parts of sentences, thus quoted from Mr. Wells's letter, a pas- 
 sage occurs, whicli cvidejitly gave JNIi-. C. no common degree of 
 pain. After mentioning it, and la} ing it before his readei-s, he gives 
 vent to his feelings in the following words. 
 
 "This passage, as it stands in the Review, has the marks of quotation, as 
 if taken from Mr. Wells's letter. Let me ask you to look back, and compare 
 it carefully with the second sentence, which 1 have extracted from that let- 
 ter. You percieve, that by mutilating that sentence, and by printing the last 
 Avorcis in Italics, the reviewer has entirely done away tlie' meaning cf Mr. 
 Wells, and contrived to give to the common reader a directly opposite im- 
 pres ion to what that gentleman intended to convey. An unperverted mind 
 turns with sorrow and disgust from such uncharitable and disingenuous deal- 
 ing; and why all this labor to distort what is so plain? The object is, to iix 
 the character c)f knaves and hypocrites on a lai-ge class of Christians and 
 Christian ministers. 1 might here be permitted to dip my pen in gall; but I 
 do not write for those, wliose moral feeling is so dull, as to need indignant 
 comment on practices like these." p. 12. 
 
 In this paragraph wo arc plainly charged \\ ith having mutilated 
 a passage in Mr. Wells's Icttoi-, for the purpose of giving a false 
 impression, and of fixing the character of knaves and hyijocrites on 
 men, w!io do not deserve sucli a charactoi'. The language of Mr. 
 C. evidently assumcy it as an undoubted fact, that we had incurred 
 the guilt of wilCul and malicious falsehood, perpetrated in a very 
 base manncj-, and for a most detestable purpose. If this represen- 
 tation of our coiuluct is a just one, we freely confess that it admits 
 of no excuse nor apology,- and that nothing hut the sincerest peni- 
 tence, and the amplest reparation, could be urged as a reason why 
 a sentence of severe I'epi-obation should not be pronounced against 
 US. We have always considered, and wished our readei's to con- 
 sider, a designed niisqiuitation, niade for the purpose of injuiing a 
 writer, or any other person, as one of the foulest crimes. It is a 
 crime not unfrequcjitly committed, in this fallen worldj but, like 
 many other crjjites, it is not unlrequcntly chai-god upon the inno- 
 cent. Of this every ])erson must bo, convinced, who has read much 
 contro\ersy, either literary, political, or religious. AMien a writer 
 feels himself in difliculty, it is an easy matter to raise a clamor 
 about misrepresentation, or misquotation. It would be a wonder if 
 he could not say some things, on these topics, which w oidd appear 
 plausible to supcriicial readers, or to those who ai'c willing to take 
 liis word without examination. It is impossible to quote whole 
 chapters, whole paragraphs, or even whole sentences, every time 
 an autiior is alliuled to, unless the reviewer is disposed to incum- 
 ber his discoiii'se, so as to make it intolerably tedious to e\cry 
 j'oader. 
 
 We liavc aluavs beeji reli.i;iously scrupulous on this subject. 
 Vie ha^e been unifo»*mly carefid Jiot only to give the meaning, but 
 the words, (if the wiiter; and when we have found it necessaiy to 
 quote phi-ases and parts of sentences, we have been particularly 
 cautious thiit no injustice sliould be done through haste or inatten- 
 tion. A careless niis<[uotalion we think should be severely blamed^ 
 
Review of (he Unitarian Controversy. 2Z- 
 
 a wilful one, utterly abhorred. Whether we have erred through 
 carelessness, let the readers of our past volumes examine and de- 
 cide. Thai we have never been guilty of a wilful misquotation, we 
 certainly know. We should as soon think of robhing on the high- 
 way. 
 
 Lotus now look at the passage, which Mr. C. accuses us of hav- 
 ing misquoted for so base a purpose. This passage, as it was pub- 
 lished in tlie Panoplist, p. 253, where it forms a pai-t of Mr. Wells's 
 letter to Mr. Belsham, and is accurately printed from the London 
 copy of Mr. Belsham's book, reads as follows: '-Most of our Bos- 
 ton Clergy and respectable laymen (of whom we have many en- 
 lightened theologians) are Unitarian. Nor do they think it at all 
 necessary to conceal their sentiments upon these subjects, but ex- 
 press them without the least hesitation w lien they judge it proper.'* 
 In examining Mr. Wells's letter, we thought our readers would be 
 gratified by seeing, in a connected view, a long string of laudatory 
 epithets, w liich Mr. W. had bestowed upon the liberal party and 
 their cause. After quoting a high-sounding catalogue of honorable 
 qualities, which he had attrsltuted to his own party, we selected the 
 persons f whom he had distinguished by liis praises. Tiie list may 
 be found at page 2G9, and runs thus: ''Wiien we come to persons, 
 we find "Mr. Norton, an excellent young man," "the very wortiiy 
 and learned Dr. Ware," •»Dr. Kirkland the president," "most of 
 the Boston clergy and respectable laymen, (many of whom are en- 
 lightened theologians.) who do not conceal their sentiments, but 
 express tjieni, when thtij judge it propevy'- and "Judge Thatcher, au 
 excellent man and most zealous Unitarian:" tliese ai-e drawn up in 
 battle-array, in tlie liberal I'anks." Now the reader will easily see, 
 tiiat if we had quoted all tlie sentences, from which the foregoing 
 phrases are taken, we should have merely re-quoted a great part 
 of Mr. W.'s letter; a mode of proceeding, which would have been 
 altogethei' futile, as we bad previously given the whole letter. We 
 do not suppose, that Mr. C. is to be understood as blaming the 
 mere quotation of phrases and parts of sentences; for lie quotes in 
 scarcely any other way. But it is the alleged alteration of Mr. 
 W^ells's meaning, which he so strongly condemns. On this point 
 we are at issue with him. We deny t'lat the meaning of Mr. W. 
 was altered, in any other manner' than is implied in making a fail* 
 abridgement: and, as to the correctness of this denial, we confi- 
 dently appeal to our readers. When we wrote the abridged sen- 
 tence, we were particularly careful that Mr. W. should not suffer 
 from it. We considered, indeed, tliat the passage w as weakened 
 by any abridgment; but the alteration, inconsiderable as it was, 
 appeared to us favorable to the party which ]Mr. W. was describ- 
 Lng. We should have much prefei'red giving the whole of Mr. 
 W.'s two sentences, even for the purpose which we then had in 
 view, could we have done it, and yet form the whole string of 
 encomiums, so that they could be read in continuity. This we en- 
 deavored to do, but were not able. Mr. C. says, that the passage 
 ''has the marks of quotation, as if taken from Mr. Wells's letter.** 
 
^4 lieviev) of the Unitanan Co7itroverstj, 
 
 We reply, that it is taken from Mr. W.'s letter, though in au 
 abridged furni. He adds, that *'thc reviewer has entirely done 
 away the meaning of Mr. Wells." This we totally deny^ and we 
 regret much that Mr. C. did not state what that meaning is, \\ hich 
 we had done away. He j)i'occcds to allege, that we "contiived to 
 give to the common reader a directly opposite impression to \\hat 
 that gentleman intended to convey." We are here again obliged 
 to content ourselves with a positive denial; for Mr. C. docs not 
 vouchsafe us any explanation of what he means by that 'Hlirectly op- 
 posite impression,^' whicli we had "contrived to give to the common 
 reader." \^ e can see but one meaning, which any reader, common 
 or uncommon, can gather from the passage in question, eitlier in 
 its original or its abridged form. Does not Mr. Wells say, that 
 ♦•mf)st of the Boston clergy and respectable laymen do not conceal 
 their sentiments?" He says, at least, that <they d) not think it ne- 
 cessary to conceal their sentiments on tlicse subjects;' by whicli Me 
 ;>upposed him to mean, that tiiey do not, in fact, conceal their senti- 
 ments. Does he not say, that these clergymen and laymen 'express 
 their sentiments, when they judge it proper?' He says, tiiat they 
 '•express theni,"' [tiieir sentiments,] "without the least hesitation, 
 "when they judge it proper." "Wliere is the mighty difference be. 
 tween these statcmenls? ^^1icre is the occasion for the vehement 
 wrath, wliich Mr. C poured forth on this subject? We shall be 
 iold, perhaps, that the difference is too clear to require to be speci- 
 fied; and that our crime is too flagrant to need a particular expo- 
 sure. Such language is very cheap; and it may answer in the cir- 
 cle in which Mr. Channing moves; but, he may rest assured, it will 
 answer no where else. 
 
 It appears, however, from Mr. Channing's Remarks on Dr. 
 Worcester's first letter, that our princii)al criminality lies in print- 
 ing the last five words of the quotation in Italics. The phrase, 
 *^whcn they judge it proper,-' seems to have wonderfully discompos- 
 ed the minds of Unitarians. We supposed it would; not because it 
 is printed in Italics; but because it is one of those important cir- 
 cumstances, whicli add greatly to the value of Mr. W.'s testimony, 
 and wiiich prove, more conclusively than direct assertions, the con- 
 cealment which has been });'actised by the liberal party. Mr. C 
 alleges, in the pamphlet last referred to, p. 34, that the printing of 
 this clause in Italics "entirely changes the meaning of the sentence." 
 How it does this, and what the meaning is before the change, and 
 what afterwards, Mi-. C. does not inform us; nor can we evtn con- 
 jecture what the complaint of jMr. C. amounts to, unless it be, that 
 we did very wrong to call tlie attention of our readers to the clause 
 in question. We presume the legitimate use of Italics to be com- 
 preliended in this simple rule; viz. that a reviewer, or any other 
 writer, may print in Italics any quoted phrase or sentence, to which 
 he wislies to dinct the mind of the reader. All that we understand 
 hy the use of Italics, in quot; d passages, is, that the person who 
 quotes, and not the origimil writer, is desirous of calling attention 
 to such passages. The practice of the Christian Obser^'cr, and of 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controverstj. 25 
 
 every respectable modern work, is conformed to this rule. Nay, 
 the piiirticc of Mr. C. himself is conformed to the same rule; for 
 he (Uten prints in italics (pioted passages, which are not thus mark- 
 ed by the oi'iginal writers. It by no means follows, tliat every 
 cJause, which is, or may be, of great importance, is. considered to 
 be important by the writer. Far trom it. On the contrary, many 
 of the most important cii'cumstances seem to owe their appearance 
 to mere accident, or inadvertence. In the production and examina- 
 tion of oral testimony, it often happens, that great stress is justly 
 laid upon a word, or a phrase, w hich tlie w itness iiimsclf did not 
 thiidv of any importance whatever; and which he is surpi'i.sed to 
 lind taken up and dsvelt upon with such interest. We feel, there- 
 fore, that we had a perfect riglit to pi-int the words, *'7vheu they 
 judge it proper," in Italics; that we did no injustice to Mr. W. by 
 thus printing them; and that, should we have occasion to repeat 
 the:?i, we shall still possess the right of ushig Italics, or capitals, 
 just as we please. 
 
 It is not for the purpose of retorting, or retaliating, but to pro- 
 mote the sober ends of truth and justi( e, that we advise Mr. Chan- 
 ning to look at the manner in which his own quotations are made. 
 In extra( ting from Mr Wells's letter tiie very sentence, which fur- 
 nished him with a pretext for the violent attack upon us, he is 
 chargeable with a gross blunder. Referring to this sentence, as 
 we had abridged it, he says to Mr. Thacher; "Let me ask you to 
 look back and compare it cai-efully witii the second sentence, which 
 1 have extracted from that lettej-." Now one would think, that if 
 liC w ished Mr. T. to "compare it canfiilLij,'''' he would have felt the 
 necessity of quoting it carefully. Fai' otherwise. The sentence, 
 as he quotes it, reads tlwis: "iSor do they think it at all necessary 
 to conceal their sentin»ents, but expi-ess them tvithout reserve when 
 they judge it proper." The real sentence, as we accurately quoted 
 it at large in Mr. W.'s letter, has the latter clause thus: "but ex- 
 press them without the kast he^titallon when tiiey judge it proper." 
 This is a very material variaii(Mi. It so far alters Mr. W.'s testi- 
 nmny, as to make hini declare that which is certainly unfomidcd, 
 where he had said nothing but the truth: for thougli the clergy of 
 the liberal })arty may 'express their sentinjents,' or at least some of 
 them, *'rvilhout the least hesilatioii,'^ in conversation with their 
 friends, and "wiiEiV they judck it proper;" yet they never do, 
 and )iever can, ou any occasion whatever, as Mr. Channing's 
 writings sufUciently prove, 'expivss their sentiments generally wiif/i- 
 ont reserve.^ It might have been well, if Mr. C had thought more 
 about making a fair and accuiate (piotation himself, antl less about 
 *di})ping his pen in gall' to transform a perfectly innocent transac- 
 tion into a heinous crime. 
 
 liut this is not the worst misquotation, which Mr. C. is bound to 
 answer for. He professes to give, j). 10, what he calls "the sec-, 
 ond charge of the Review." In doing this, he prints a sentence of 
 five lines with marks of (piotatlcm, so tiiat every reader would sup- 
 pose it to have been taken rerhutim; and that it stood, in our Review, 
 4 
 
-5 Jicview of (he Uiii'arv.n Coninvers^j 
 
 {IS a contimicd sentence. Tlie fact is, tliatall the words oi'the sen- 
 tence are not to be ioiiiid, even in se])arate clauses, anv where in 
 the review,' but nearly all of tlnin are to be i'ound in the iollowins^ 
 manner. For the first line oi'the sentence you must searcii p. iI50 
 oi' the I'anoplist; for the second, p. 251, near tiie bottom: for the 
 third, p. 260; and the two last may be discovered in p. '262. A 
 fair and honorable way, indeed, of making; quotations! 'I'his is not 
 all. if our meaning had been correctly i^'iven, (supposing it possi- 
 ble that it coidd be correctly given, in a sentence thus patched nj),) 
 we should nttt complain. i5ut Mr. C represents us as directing 
 this obiioxious senlence against *»the ministei'S of Boston and the 
 vicinity, ami the most considerable members of the lil)eral ])arty,'* 
 whei-eas not a single clause of it is thus applied. One clause is 
 a})plied to the leading Unitai-ians in this country; another to cler- 
 gymen whom Mr. Oelsham rej)reliended so severely for their cow- 
 ardice; Hiijther to those, who wei'e im[)licated in Mr. Wells's re(). 
 i-esentation; and the r( iiiaining clause was not applied by us at all, 
 but was left as a mere gt'iieral observation, of which the truth was 
 so evident that it could not l)e deiiied. 
 
 We siiall leave this subject after noticing a circunistance, which 
 ISli: Channing cannot ])retend to Justify. It is this. Tliough he 
 brought against us a charg<^ of having misrjuctted a senteiice from 
 Mi-. Wells's letter, he entirely omitted to inform his readers, that 
 we had published the ivholt ojihat letter, in a preceding part of our 
 review, \\ here the sentence in qiustion was accui'ately gi\ en. I'his 
 is a fact which his readers ought 1;() ha\e known; I)ut which, as he 
 jnusthe aware, many of liicm never would know, unless he informed 
 then: of it. If we had eired, in the case alleged, (Ujr readers had 
 am}ile means of detecting the error; indeed an attentive reader 
 could not help detecting it; and this circumstance would afford a 
 sti-ong pi-esumption, that we had not eri'ed intoitionallj . IJut Mr. 
 C. inJlames tiie minds of his readers with the (barge, that we had 
 wilfully and maliciously misfjuoted a certain passage; while he for- 
 gets to tell them, Diat we had previously quoted th.e same passage 
 accurately; (which is more than //e was able to do;) and that we 
 liad (pioted it not b}' itself merely, — but with its w hole context. 
 Thus |)rone is ^li'. C to bi-ing forward infiamniatoiy and exagger- 
 ated charges, w ithout tJu" slightest support for them; and thus for- 
 getiu! of the plainest demands of justice. 
 
 The only remaining grand tojuc, on which Mr. Channing dwells, 
 for the pur))ose of suitstantiating the charge of falsehood, is ex- 
 j)ressed by him as follows: '•The Review asserts, that these minis- 
 ters and liberal Christians [i.e. the ministers of Boston and i!s vicinity 
 and the great body of lib<'i'al Christians] are guilty of hypocritical 
 conc«'almentol"their sentiments, and i)eha\e iii a base, cowardly and 
 hypocritical manner.*' ]). 5. JSow we have .showij at large, under 
 a ])receding head, that we made no assertion at all, concei-ning the 
 ministers of Boston generally, nor concerning the ministers of the 
 Aicinity geneially, nor concerning the great body of libeial Chiis- 
 tians. It did not then occur to us, that Mi'. Channing had e.v- 
 ]-)lai!ied himself, on that subject, in his Ileruurks on Dr. ^^'orccs-' 
 
Review of the UnitariaK Controversy. i? 
 
 ter's First Lrttcr. His explanation is in these wovflr): <«It is true, 
 tliat this passage may be understood as cjiarging tiie Review witli 
 asserting, that all the minisiers of Boston of all denominations are 
 Unitarians ol" Mr. BelsJiani's school. 1 ouglit to iiave said, that 
 the Review maintains — that the great hody of liberal ministers in 
 Boston ajid its vicinity, and of liberal ('hristians, are Unitarians, 
 in Mr. Belshanrs sense of the word.** p. 5. And of couise, Mr. 
 Channing, after this explanation, is to he considered as liaving 
 charged us with asserting, that "the great body of liberal minis- 
 ters in Boston and its vicinity, and of liberal Christians, are guilty 
 of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments, and behave in a 
 base, cowardly and hypocritical mainier.'' No such assertion 
 was ever made l)y us. We made no sweeping declaration concern- 
 ing 'the great body of liberal ministers iji Boston and its vicinity.' 
 AVc never mentioned the great body of liberal X!hristians. We an- 
 imadverted, indeed, with some severity, on the concealment, Miiich 
 had been practised by the leading Unitarians in tliis country; that 
 is, by a majority of these leading Unitarians; and from the repre- 
 sentations of Mr, Belsham, Dr. Freeman, and Mr. Wells, we cen- 
 sured what these three gentlemen evidently considered as a tempo- 
 rizing policy. Wc supposed the numlK'r of leading Unitarians to 
 be not very large; and as to tlie great body of liberal Christians, 
 or even tlie great body of the liberal party in Massachusetts, there 
 is nothing said in our Review, which can be tortured into 
 a charge of concealment, or hypocrisy, on tlicir part. In 
 ^lio^'t, nothing is said about them, in reference to tlie subject of 
 concealment or hypocrisy. So grossly inaccurate was Mr. Chan- 
 ning, even after the errors of his Letter had been exposed. His 
 inaccuracy unfortunately happens to be of a very mischievous kind; 
 for many of his readers would suppose, if they relied uj)on his 
 statement, that we had called them artful In pocrites, and would be 
 higldy exasperated, not only against as, but against Di*. AVorces- 
 ter and all who think as vv« do; wiicn in fact we had said nothing 
 about them, and had not even alluded to thejn in terms of reprehen 
 sion. AVe therefore propose to Mr. Channing ami his advocates 
 the following question, which they arc requested to ponder an<l 
 answer'-at their leisure: In what page or pages of our Re^ iew do 
 we assert, that "the great body of liberal Cin-istians are guilty of 
 hypoci'itical concealment of their sentiments, and behave in a base, 
 cowardly and hypocritical manner?" if they caniiot find any 
 thing, (as they most assuredly cannot.) wliich hears even a remote 
 likeness to this statement, let them confess tiiat the charge is alto- 
 gether unfounded; and let Mr. Cha.nnijig, before he attempts to 
 write contiof/ci-sy again, learn to state things as they are. 
 
 AN'e will now repexit in substance what avc did say, on the topic 
 under consideration. 
 
 1. AVc represented t^.ie 'defection from orthodoxy,' in Boston and 
 the vicinity, as havii^g 'extended xinQX'C silently and covertl'.}.- p. 241. 
 This is uiKleniably true, and is warranted by the testimony of D;-. 
 Freeman, 
 
 2. We declared it to be an *arti£ve practised systematically by 
 a majorily of the clergymen, "d'hc haxc kd the ivatj in this apo.sta- 
 
28 Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 sy, to inculcate the opinion, that they did not differ wnterially from 
 their clerical birthren throughout the country.' p. 942. This is 
 notoriously the fact. W'c produced a case to tlic purpose, and re- 
 lated seveial circumstances of it particularly, as an example of 
 V hat iuis oiten taken place. It is remarkable, that tliou.i^h Mr. 
 C. does not deny that these circumstances were related w itii pi'r- 
 foct accuracy; thou4>;li he probably kiiows that they were thus re- 
 lated; he is notwitiistau'liiii; in vcit ill humor witii us, for havini^ 
 produced a fact to verily our astjer'ion. Tliis is hard indeed. If 
 we make any serious allei^ation against the liberal pai-ty, and do 
 not produce some evidence in supp!)rt of it, the truth of the allega- 
 tion is vehemently denied, if, foreseeing this result, we biing for- 
 wai'd the declarations of leading membei's of the libei'al party; de- 
 clarations made with great earnestness, and on a public orcusionj 
 we are accused of the "degrading practice of publishing what peo- 
 ple say.'-* Thus, when we charged the liberal party witli having 
 patronized and circulated the Improved Version, the citaige was 
 very angrily repelled. We immediately produced a varitty of 
 facts, completely sufiicient, in our opinion, to support the charge. 
 The facts were not, and could not he, denied. Tiiey came into our 
 possession unsought. And yet for stating incoTitrovertible facts, to 
 refute a vehement cluu-ge of false.'iood and calumny, we were at- 
 tacked with nothing but sneers. We were represented as going 
 about for the jjurpose of collecting gossijnng stories. This disin- 
 geimous example Mr. (J. has been willing to imitate. , 
 
 We could state several facts in support of w hat we alleged as t() 
 the artifcCf which has been practised. We will state one. Mr. 
 Channijig may call it a 'vstory," if he pleases^ it is at any rate the 
 truth. When Mr. Codman was ])ersecuted, because he wouhl m)t 
 pledge himself to exchange minjstei'ial labors with certain mem- 
 bers of the liberal party, it was a comnum saying in that part} , that 
 he was not authorized to suppose there was any great dilferejice of 
 opinion between him and his clerical neighbois; and that they all 
 preached "those great truths and precepts," (to use the words of 
 Mr. C.) "about which tliereis little contention." 
 
 If it should be said, that our crime lies in caiiing this conduct by 
 the name of artifice, wheji it is no more than a charitable o])inion 
 respecting the differences among professed Christians: ami w hen 
 those, who expiTss such an opinion, do in faet honestly tiiiidv the 
 diffeiences between them and tlie orthodox to be comparatively un- 
 important; we answer: Fii'st; the declaration, that the ])ersons in 
 question do not differ matcridltij from the orthodox, produces a very 
 different ef^Qvi from that whicli woiild be produced l)y a fiank and 
 full statement of the poiids of diftej-em-e. This the liberal party 
 know pei'fectly well. Hence their attachment to general and am- 
 biguous terms. Sccojuily; t!ie«e very peivsons show, in nniny in- 
 stances, that they tiiemselves think these differences to I)e vastly im- 
 portant. Thirdly; whenever the liberal parly, in this or any other 
 country, have deemed itexj)e(lientor necessary tf) avow their opin- 
 ions openly, they insist strenuously on the amazing value of their 
 
 * -Mi*. Chr.nnitig's Letter, p. £6 
 
Jieview of tlie Unif avian Controversy. 29 
 
 improvements in theology. We feel justified, therefore, in having 
 used the word artifice. 
 
 S. We g;ive it as our judgment, tliat the conduct of the congre- 
 ijjation at the Stone Cliapei, "and of their minister, in coming out 
 openly, and avowing their sentiments to the world, is vastly prefer- 
 able to a hypocritical concealment of them." j). 251. Wcthen in- 
 timated, that 'other societies had not followed their example." 
 That we wei-e i-ight in this intimation Mr. >^ ells i)lain!y testifies. 
 
 4. A\'e said, that Mr. iJelsham's ol)ject. in j)uijlisliing a certain 
 letter, "was, douhtles>i, to chastise the Boston clergy for their cow- 
 ardice in concealing tlieir religious opinions." p. 2b0. That such 
 ^vas Mr. Belsiiam's object, no i)ei-son who reads that letter, and 
 Mr. Belsham's remarks upon it, can doubt lor a moment. If we 
 have been cori-cclly informed, some of the Boston clergy felt this 
 chastisement very keenly before our Review was written. 
 
 5. We intimated, that those 'advocates of Socinianisui, who had 
 clajulestinely crept into orthodox churclies, by forbearjjig to con- 
 tradict the faith of these churches, and had tiien moulded their 
 hearers by negative preaching,' were chargealde witli 'cunning and 
 policy;' that the apostles did not act thus; and that sucli conduct is 
 f'base and hypocritical," and "common honesty revolts at it." p. 
 260. The only question here must be, whether thei-e have been 
 any advocates of S(>cinianism, who have crept into ortlio{h>x 
 churclies in the manner her- desci'ibed. If there have been, we 
 contend that t!ie language, which we used, is not uinvarrantably 
 severe. lu that case, we have nothiii.'^ to retract, nor to repent of. 
 We frankly avow, tiiat we believe tiierc have been such persons. 
 Our ])roofs shall appear presently. 
 
 6. We said, "tlie idea that a minister believes the truths of tiie 
 fiospel to be of infinite imjxu'tance, ami still conceals tiiem, is in- 
 compatible eitiicr with fidelity or integrity." p. 9Gl. Tiiis was a 
 general observation, foi* tiu' correctness of which we appeal to the 
 consciences of Lnitaj'ians themselves. 
 
 We are not backward to admit, that the ])assages, to which Me 
 have now referred, contain language of strong censure and severe 
 reju'ehcnsion. Let us look a little at the documents which called 
 forth this reprehension. 
 
 Dr. Freeman, altei' statin.";* in his letter to Mr. Lindsey, that 'the 
 Unitarian doctrine was upon the increase,' and that 'he was ac- 
 quainted with a number of ministers, who avowed and publicly 
 preached it,' g'oes on to say; "I'here areotlicrs more caiiiioxs, who 
 content themselves with leading tficir hearers, by a couise of ration- 
 al but prudent sermons, gradunily and inscmihly to cnd)racc it. 
 Thougii tliis latter m-ide is not what I entirely ajiprove. yet it pro- 
 duces good effects. For the people are thus kept out of the reach 
 of false opinions, and are prepared foi* the impressions wliich will 
 be made on tliem by more hold and nrdo'f surccssoi-s, when these 
 timid characters are remo\cd off the stage." This jiassage we quo- 
 ted, at p. 252. Does it not ])Iainly charge "these liyn/fZ charac- 
 ters" v>ith concealment of tlieir o])inions? We gave great offence 
 by saying, that "many well-meaning people were led in the dark." 
 What savs Bi: F. about certain 'morccaidiotis; ministers, who con> 
 
JO licvia-j of the Uni:arian Controversy. 
 
 tented themselves with leading their hearers gradually and insensibhj 
 to embrace Uiiitaiiaiiisni?' These cautious men were expressly 
 distiiiguislicd by him from others, <who avowed and publicly 
 preached' their sentiments. It api)ears, too, that Dr. Freeman's 
 conscience could not approve of the conduct wJiich he describes. 
 Though tliese men were his friends; though they were embarl.cd 
 in the same cause with himself, and were really promoting that 
 cause; yet he could not help seeing the obliquity of the patb, in 
 Avbich they were travelling. In short, Dr. F. represents tliem 
 as being essentially different from wiiat their hearers supposed them 
 to be; as being themselves conscious of tbis difference; as opera- 
 ting secretly, by keeping what he calls "false opinions" from tbe 
 people of their charge; and as being induced to conceal their opin- 
 ions by timidibj. If Mr. Channi)!g thinks such conduct fair, open, 
 and honorable, we must be excused for forming and expressing a 
 very different judgment. 
 
 Let us now look at Mr. Wells's letter, with a particular refer- 
 ence to the subject of concealment, i)( Unitarianism, this gentio- 
 inan declares, that while "its tenets have spread very extensively 
 in New England, he believes there is only one church professedly 
 Unitarian.' AVhat a picture is here! A yect has prevailed rrrtf 
 extensively in a great country; and yet it compi'ises but a single 
 congregation of persons, who make an open profession of their (Uic- 
 trines. Volumes could not say moiv. jMi-. (Jhanning C()nte)ids, 
 that Mr. AVells used the word Unitarian in its largest sense, as 
 comprising all who are not Trinitarians; and Mr. Wells assures 
 us, that such was the fiu t. Of course, Mr. Wells here testifies 
 most explicitly, that but one congregation in New-Eiigland was 
 proffssedly Anti.triniturian; altliougli the sect had pre"\ ailed 
 very extensively, and altiiough, as he inifnediately after\\ar<!s in- 
 forms Mr. Belsham, Mnost of the Boston clergy and respectable 
 laymen are Unitarian,' i. e. Aiiti-trinitarian. Was there ever ^ 
 system of concealment more peifect, and more universal tliift) tlijs? 
 
 Again: Mr. Wells declares, that 'most of the Boston clerg} , 
 and rej!pe<table laymen, do not thiidc it at all necessary to conceal 
 their sentiments on these subjects, but exj)ress them without tiie 
 least hesitation, when ilicy Judge it proper.' We remark here, Lhat 
 ;Mr. Wells is obviously desii-ous of gi\ing liis correspondent a last 
 view of the state of tinitarianisni vi this country. He is comni::- 
 iiicating information; he is telling tie^vs. His \Qyy declaration, 
 that the Unitarians, clergy and laity, did not think it necessary to 
 conceal their sentiments, imports either that tliey had tJiought it 
 sieccssaiw, or that Mr. BeJsham supposed t!iey had. We believe it 
 imports both; for if the Unitarians had never thought it necessary 
 to conceal their sentiments, ysliy does ^h: Wells use the present 
 tense? Who ever thought, by the way, of saying that the orihodox 
 do not think it necessary to conceal their sentiments? Who ever 
 supposed the} did? Whether in a majoiity or a minority, whether 
 Mijoying religious libeit}' or suffering under j)ersecution, they ha^e 
 iievei' thought it nececsary to conceal their ftenliinents; but they 
 Iiave thought it necessai'v to avow, to preacli, and to defend, tlieir 
 sentiments, ms the truth ol' God, under every species of oblofpiy wpti 
 
RevL-xu of the Unitarian Controversy. 31 
 
 persecution, and at the hazard of their reputation, their personal 
 comfort, and their lives. >Ve suhuiit it to tiie reader, whether 
 Mr. Wells's expression does not imply further, tJiat tiie Unitarians 
 would conceal tlieir sentiments, if tliey tliought it at ail necehsaiy. 
 But these gentlemen 'express their scntiuients without the least 
 hesitatioJi!' Wheni^ Indeed, when should tlicy, but — "when tuey 
 JUDGE IT PROPER?" Very well. But when do they judge it pro- 
 per? Do these Boston clej-g-y, of whom Mr, Wells speaks, j/K%e it 
 proper to express their sentiments, on the amazingly im[)ortant 
 subject of tiic Trinity, from tiie pulpit? Not they, if Mr. Wells is 
 to be believed. We speak of the tiuie when Mr. W.'s letter was 
 written; i. e. March, 1812; for he expressly states, that, excepting 
 tlic Chapel, «*the controversy is seldom or never introduced into the 
 pulpit." Will it be said, that Mr. Wells means only, that Unitari- 
 anism was not discussed in the pulpit in a controvei'sial manner? 
 We reply, that Jje must !ia\'e meant more than this, for he after- 
 \vards says, that "the majority of those wlio are Unitarian are per- 
 haps of these sentiments, without any distinct consciousness of being 
 S({." Of course, this majoiity of Uidtarians never heard any thing 
 abo^jt the subject, certainly notliing clear and distinct on it, from 
 the pulpit. Wc think the inference altogether inevitable. IVople 
 have usually thought, that tiie pulpit is the place, whence a minis- 
 ter's religious doctrines ai-e to be learned; and the thought is not un- 
 natural. It is generally taken for grantee!, that the apostles de- 
 clared '^all the counsel of God," in tlieir public preaching. But in 
 these days of improvement, a considerable number of iJerg\mcn 
 abstain utterly from introducing into the pulpit a subject, which, 
 as all admit, forms a most impoHant part of the Christian scheme. 
 Do these Unitarians judge it proper to disclose their sentiments 
 through the medium of the press? Not under their own names. 
 Mr. Wells says, "if publications make their appearance attacking 
 Unitarian sentiments, they arecomnsoidy answered with spirit and 
 ability." But the ai>«\sers here referred to have always appeared 
 either in the Anthology, or the Repository: and if any charge is 
 brought against the libei-al party, on account of pieces contained in 
 these works, the very pieferring of such a charge is resented as a 
 high iiuiignity; and the Aiitholog} and Repository are laid aside 
 witii as little cei-emony, as I hough they were bundles of old alma- 
 nacs. If Me express a convi<;tipn, that a particular paper wsls 
 written by a certain individual, although it was notoriously and un- 
 deniably written by him, yet the vei-y suggestion of such a thing is 
 treated as though it were a slander cast upon the \\riter. I'r^dy 
 the liberal party must actjuire n»ore courage, or they can never 
 expect to be acknowledged as the open, frank, and prosperous sect, 
 which son^e of their late writings would persuade us that they are. 
 They must learn not to be ashamed of their own works, the fii'st 
 moment these woi'ks are laid to their charge. In reference to the 
 concealment, which has been practised, Air. Wells says, "This 
 state of things apjicars so favorable to the dissemination of correct 
 sentiments, that I should perhaps regret a great degree of excitc- 
 ntent in the public mind upon these subjects." >Ve believe that 
 
32 Revkvj of the Uidtariun Controversy. 
 
 Mr. Wills and Iiis pai-ty have jud.^cd w^yy correctly, in supposini^ 
 »such a state of tiiin,;i;s' to be ^lavtri-able to tl»e dissemitiatiou' oi" ilieir 
 sentiments. I'liis concealnient will be loss easily practised hereafter. 
 The public %vill see wiiat the event will Ik'. 
 
 >Ve sbail dismiss the subject of (•on(eah;ient liy a liasfy reference 
 to Mr. Jit'Jshaii). This gentleman, the histoi'ian of Unitai'ianisiu 
 m ISew Kn.^•land, the corresjiondent and friend of many individuals 
 of the liberal party in Boston, evidently took it for granted, that a 
 ssystcm of concealment |)i'evailed in triat j)arty; a concealment which 
 disguised itself under the plausible names of prudence, candor, and 
 alo\e of peace, but which appeared to him nothitig better t!)an a 
 cowardly abandonment of the trutii, the result of a miserable time- 
 ser\ing policy. This was !Mr. Beisliam's view of the matter; and 
 it must be confessed, that he had some opportunities of coming at 
 the true state of tlie case. In gi^ ing the account of Mr. Shcrman*s 
 tlisinission, ho animadverts, in strong terms, on the inconsistency 
 of the prudent council, as he ironically terms it. For this account 
 we refer the reader to p. £G4. in our Review. In his reflections on 
 Mr. Abbot's dismission, Mr. lielsham is still more severe. "Thus 
 again." sa} s he, "we see tiie sacred cause of Christian truth, sacri- 
 ficed to a mean and tcuiporixhig policy; and the faithfid champion 
 of truth, the amiable, usefui. and beloved ])astor, torn from his 
 weeping ilo( k, and consigned to povert}' an(i solitude, for the sake 
 of preserving a hollou\ (h'ceitjul, tenip;)rary peace. But this can- 
 not last long; nor can such a measure be approved by the great 
 Head of tlic chinTh." Let the liberal party look well to this piece 
 of Unitarian history. Let them consider, that tlie council, here de- 
 scribed was a Liberal council, and that their conduct is thus stigma- 
 lized by a liberal historian. What did this council sacrihce? "The 
 sacred cause of Christian ti'uth." To what did they sacrifice it? 
 "To a MEAX and temporizing policy." What else did they 
 sacrifice? "I he fiiithful champioji of truth." From \Nhat motives? 
 "P'or the sake of preserving a iiollow, deceitful, temporary peace," 
 How does God regard such a proceeding? It cannot "be approved 
 by the great Head of the church." Who says all this? Not the 
 Panoplist Reviewer, but Mr. Bels!)am. lict our readers weigh the 
 condemnation here pronounced, and judge whether it is not heavier 
 than any wiiich our Review contained. 
 
 Again; Mr. Belsham, in his conmients on a letter which he had 
 received from this country, goes upon the ])resumption, that con- 
 cealment was systematically practised by the Boston clergy. He 
 admits, that it ( antjot be expected, "upon the common principles 
 of human nature," that 'a body of clergy, nursed in the lap of ease 
 and afliuence,' shoidd make "an open profession of unpopulai- 
 truth." "Yet still." says he, "it cannot reasonably be hoped, that 
 truth will make a»iy visible and rapid progress, till her advocates 
 rise above the/car of man, and the love of case, and are willing, with 
 the ajjostles of Chi-ist, and the reformers of every age, to forsake 
 all and to sacrifice their dearest inlerests in her gloi-i!)us cause." 
 Mr. B. supposes himself to difter from his Boston friends, not only 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 33 
 
 in reference to the question of duty, but on the score of policy also, 
 lie thinks, that the open preaching of Unitarianism would accelerate 
 its progress wonderfully. Mr. Weils tliinks otherwise^ and we 
 are altogether of Mr. Wells's opinion. We therefore tliink it a 
 point of immense importance, aii acquisition of very great value, 
 that many membci's of the liberal party have been driven from their 
 concealment, and compelled to avow their sentiments. So far as 
 our Review has been instrumental in producing this result, we have 
 great reason to congratulate ourselves. 
 
 It is curious to observe how cautious Mr. Channing is not to of- 
 fend Mr. Belsham by finding any fault wiLh his lepresentations. 
 A book may be published throughout Great Britain, and parts of it 
 may be reprinted and circulated throughout this country, wiiich 
 parts contain severe animadversions on tlie Unitarians among us; 
 and yet all this is received with the most exemplary meekness, and 
 without a word of contradiction or complaint. The writer may 
 go on to accuse prominent men in the party of pursuing a mean 
 and temporizing policy, and to bestow upon them a variety of indig- 
 nant and reproachful epithets. All this lie may do as a friend, and 
 through anxiety for the cause in which he and they arc embarked. 
 But wiien we simply repeat his charges, and rely upon the accura- 
 cy of his representations, though tliey generally correspond with 
 all our own knowledge on the subject, we are assailed in the most 
 violent manner, as the basest of slaiulerers. In regard to the 
 cliarge of concealment and hypocrisy, let Mr. Channing settle his 
 accounts with Dr. Freeman, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsliam,- let hira 
 come forward to the public, ami not fear to rejieat the words from 
 the mouths of these gentlemen: let him take paragraph by para- 
 grapii, and sentence by sentence, and show, if he can, that these 
 tliree witnesses prove the libei'al paity to be frank, open, bold, and 
 conscientious, in the public avowal of their sentiments; and then, 
 hut not till then, let him complain of our statements. 
 
 Thus have we examined all the most important charges, which 
 Mr. Channing brought against us. We have stated the true mean- 
 ing of the offensive passages in our Review, and that meaning we 
 have felt hotli able and willing to defend. As a strong confirma- 
 tion of tiie positions which we have taken, it may be mentioned, 
 tiiat Dr. Worcester and the Reviewer in the Vermont Adviser, 
 each examining tlic subject for himself, came to ti»e same result, 
 and completely vindicated our Re\ iew from the charge of falsehood 
 and misrepresentation. 
 
 We now proceed to examine the controversy between Mr. Chan- 
 ning and Dr. Worcester. It may a])pear to some of our readers, 
 that we have occupied too many pages with an exposure of Mr. 
 Channing's unadvised and unfourided charges against us. But we 
 ask tbem to consider, wlietlior something was not due to our own 
 character, thus violently assailed by a clergyman of hi,:^h standing 
 in his party, a man who had no small share of reputation depending 
 on the validity of his accusath)ns. We are sanguinr enough to 
 suppose, also, that the iurther disclosure of the views, designs, and 
 5 
 
34 Revieio of the Unitarian Cotitroversy. 
 
 character of the liberal party, which the present article has al- 
 i-eady made, m ill not be useless; and that candid men cannot help 
 perccivini^, tliat all our disdosuresconr, rning this party ha^ehecn 
 made witli caution, deliberation, and a sacred regard to truth. 
 Our friends >vill also remeuiber, that when a complete answer is 
 attempted, it shouhl be reiilly what it professes to be, iind not a hur- 
 ried discussion; and that false charges may he made in half a page, 
 or even in half a sentence, which it must take many pages to re- 
 fute particularly and effectually. Should a similar attack be inado 
 upon the Panopli.'-t hereafter, it is probable that a a cry brief notice 
 of it will be sufficient. 
 
 The calm and disj)assionate maujier, in which Dr. Worcester 
 examines the charge of concealment, is truly admirable, and must 
 have been prodigiously moi'tifying to Mr. C. and his liberal 
 friends. Our readers shall be favored with the following speci- 
 men. 
 
 "It does, however, appear to me very clear, that Dr. Freeman, Mr. 
 Wells, and Mr. Belsham did snjjpose, ar.d that in the documents on which 
 the Reviewer princijially relies as his vouchers, they do represent, that lib- 
 eral ministers, and other liberal gentlemen have judged it proper, not to 
 make ordinarily a free and fall disclosuie of their senlinients: that they have 
 ni fact thought it expedient to temjxirizc. Whether, in this opinion of you 
 and your brethren, tliose gentlemen are correct or not, you must have been 
 apprised, that tiie oi)inion is not peculiar to tliem, but very extensively prev- 
 alent: prevalent, not among those only, wbom you would consider your ad- 
 versaries, but also among your friends. Hinitlreds and hundreds of times 
 have I heard it uttered from various quartci-s, with \-arious expressions of 
 approbation and disapprobation; and never, in any debate or conversation, 
 as I recollect, have 1 heard the truth of it denied, or called in question. It 
 seems indeed to have been received as an established, uncontested fact, that 
 ministers cf the liberal class were not accustomed to i)e uin-cser\ed and ex- 
 plicit in the public avowal and declaration of their sentiments. I confess to 
 you, Sir, that I had so received it; nor did I ever imagine that in so receiv- 
 ing it, tiiere was any thing injuricuis or uncharitable: for I did suppose 
 that you and your liberal brethren held it as a maxim, founded upon rea- 
 sons satisfactory to your own minds, that a degree of reserve and conceal- 
 ment, greater or less according to circumstances, was prudent, and justifia- 
 ble, and praiseworthy. In this supposition I have been from time to time 
 strengthericd, by conversations witii respectable hidividuals of the class, and 
 not a little confirmed by what I have occasionally heard from the pulpit. I 
 have now in very fresh remembrance some sentiments to this effect, deliver- 
 ed in a sermon which I heard at an ordination in Boston a few months ago; 
 and in which t)ie preacher very distinctly, and with considerable amplification, 
 held forth tliat, though in some places it might be well, and "contribute to 
 the faith and virtue of the people," for a nnnister openly and plainly to de- 
 clare his sentiments, j et in other ])laces it would not be prudent or pi-oper; 
 and in regard to this, the gentleman then ordained was affectionately and 
 earnestly advised to regulate himself, according to the hai>its of thinking and 
 iccling, the i)rejudicesor tVeedom fnim prejudice, which he should find to 
 prevail among his people." pp. 17, IH. 
 
 Dr. W. tlien expresses his surprise at Mr. Channing's denial of 
 ( oncealuu nt, on the part of himself and his brelhien. Tltis denial, 
 however, is accounted for, on theassuiuj)lion of Mr. C. that he and 
 his friends 'perpetually uj'ge those great truths and precepts about 
 
Review of the Umtarlari Controversij. S5 
 
 which there is little contentioiij* \vliile, as Dr. W. alleges, <they 
 studiously refrain fi-om encountering the opinions of any of tlie va- 
 rious denominations of Christians, who ditter from tlicn».' Dr. AY. 
 then urges, with irresistible force, that according to Mr. Chan- 
 ning's own account of the matter, the liberal clergy abstain from 
 expressing their opinions on 'any of the prinuiry, any of the pecu- 
 liar doctrines and institutions of the Gospel.' This is enough to 
 settle the question of concealment linaily and forever. 
 
 Mr. C. had said, <'to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime;'' 
 and yet Mr. C admits Mr. Belsham to be in great errors. Fur- 
 ther, Mr. C. has said, in a jn-inted sermon, that *hcwas unwilling 
 to believe that infidelity can never be traced to causes, which may 
 absolve it from guilt.' \\\ other vvoi'ds, infidelity nniy be perfectly 
 innocent. Dr. W. appeals to Scri})ture on this suhjeci; and we 
 need not say, that Mr. C.'s position must instantly fall under se- 
 vere condemnation, if Sci'iptnre is permitted to decide. Dr. W. 
 then urges the practice of the apostles, and tlic estimation in w hich 
 they held religious error, as being totally diftei-ent from the system 
 recommended by the liberal party and their champion. 
 
 The third topic of Mr. Cliaiming's fletter is occupied with the 
 subject of the5ej;a?a/io», which we had pressed upon the orthodox. 
 We have not been w illing to consider this topic as belonging ex- 
 clusively to ourselves; and have purposely left it to be discussed 
 as a part of the more general conti'OA ersy. Mr. Channing says, 
 indeed, referring to our Review, that he believes "this is the first 
 instance, in whicli Christians have been delil»erately called to deny 
 us [the Unitarians] the Cliristian name and privileges." It has 
 been an involuntary exclamation, when this pasaage has been read 
 |liy persons at a distance, "Mr. Channing must be a very ignorant 
 man!" We answer, not so ignorant as he is ])assionate and un- 
 guarded. It does truly evince a most dejdoralile inattention to 
 what is taking place, and has always been takirig place since the 
 Christian era, to say, that the name and privileges of Christians 
 have never been denied to Unitarians of any class, till our Review 
 set the example. Perliaps Mr. C. would confine his assertion to 
 this country. Very well. Let him look at this country. Sever- 
 al years ago. the General Association of Coimecticut, a body w hich 
 represents all the congregational clei-gy in that state, resolved, that 
 no clergyman ought to exchange ministerial labors with any man, 
 claiming to be a Christian minister, if he denied the Divinity of 
 Christ. Did not the Aiitliology complain of this decision? But 
 Mr. C. did not read the Anthology. Again; the General Assem- 
 bly of tlie Presbyterian Church iji the United States resolved, two 
 or three years ago, that bai)tism, administered by a Socinian, was 
 null and void; and tlie resolution v^as taken, as a practical conse- 
 quence of the opinion, that heretics of this class are not to be re- 
 ceived as Christians. Was not this decision loudly complained of 
 by the Boston clergy? and was not Mr. C. one of the complainers? 
 It is beyond question the fact, that the orthodox generally do con- 
 sider many of the clergy, who are members of the liberal party, as 
 
36 Review of the Unitarian ControveTsij. 
 
 exerting an influence hostile to Cliristianity; as leading their liear- 
 ers away from the truth; as depriving tlie pious of the great sources 
 of gratitude and consolation, and imparting a vain confidence and 
 presumption to careless sinners. That all the members of tlie party, 
 and all who are claimed as belonging to it, exert precisely the same 
 kind of influence, nobody supposes; but that the general influence of 
 the party is of the unhappy and misciiievous character just described 
 must certainly be admitted, if the doctrines of the Reformation arc 
 the doctrines of the Bible. The orthodox have examined the Scrip- 
 tures for themselves, as we presume they have a right to do; and 
 they are unwilling to give up tlie plain declarations of the word of 
 God, the testimony of their own consciences, and the result (jf all 
 their observation and experience, on the lofty assumptions of any 
 set of men. They conceive the doctrines of the Trinity, the Di- 
 vinity of Christ, the entire depravity of man, regeneration by the 
 Holy Spirit, the abs(dute and universal government of God, justifi- 
 cation by faith alone, the unalterable state of the I'ighteous and th.e 
 wicked in the world to conie, and many other doctrines connected 
 with these, to be clearly taught in the Bible. They conceive, also, 
 that these doctrines derive every possible confirmation and support 
 from the history of the church and the world, and from all tiiat 
 takes place within and around them. Thus conceiving, they can- 
 not but regard the subverters of these doctrines as tlie subverters 
 of the Gospel, and the prom idga tors of another Gospel, which, be- 
 ing essentially difftu'cnt from tlie true in all its fundamental articles, 
 is not to be received as the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Mr. Channing seems not to know- how to discuss the question of 
 separation on its merits; but resorts instantly to those topics, which 
 are calculated to awaken the passions of his friends and admiiers. 
 There is scarcely an attempt at argument, if we except a quotation 
 from Dr. Campbell on Heresy, a passage of which the liberal jiar- 
 iy are inmioderati'ly fond. It seems to contain the sum total of 
 tlieir learning, and their reasoning, on this subject. They have 
 published it, in substance at least, several times. They nniy rest 
 assured, hovsever, that Dr. Campbell's decision is not calculated to 
 trrrify any man, who can read the New Testament, and think for 
 liimself. So far as it clashes with the practice of the ortho<h>x, or 
 with the com se recommended in our Review, it can be easily refuted. 
 We have no I'oom to examine it here, but may take up tlie subject 
 on some future occasion. 
 
 Dr. Worcester discusses the call for separation with distinguish- 
 ed ability, 
 
 "Itistobelamented,"sayshe,"tliatonasuI)jectofthisseriousand momentous 
 kind, you should have thought it ])r()per so entirely to dispense with argument, 
 and with all the scriptural considerations which, ui relation to this subject, so 
 forcibly press themselves upon the conscience and the heart; and to indulge 
 so freely in \-ague declamation, poignant invective, and fervid aj^jjcal to pop- 
 ular prejudices and passions. I know full well, and too many know, that this 
 is the way to strike the minds of that great majority of mankind, to whom 
 "hought and reflection arc irksome; the method best adapted for the support 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy oT 
 
 of a bad cause. I am fully aware of your advantages in this respect. But, 
 Sir, a minister of Jesus Christ should esteem it a higher honor and a nobler 
 achievement, to enlighten the understanding and corrvct the conscience of a 
 single individual, than to rouse the passions and inflame the prejudices of 
 thousands. — Declamation is always, for a very obvious reason, diflicult to an-» 
 swer. Yours hoAvevcr, under the present head, is evidently bottomed on sev- 
 eral ass2im/}tio?ts, which I deem utterly inadmissible, and some of the princi- 
 pal of which I propose to consider." pp. 26, 27. 
 
 The first assumption considered bvDr. W. is this: "That the points 
 of doctrine, upon wiiich Mr. C and liis liberal brethren (litter from 
 their opponents, are comparatively small and trivial; not jmict'cal^ 
 but speculative merely, and such as do not materially affect Chris- 
 tian character." This assumption is shewn to be uttei-ly unfound- 
 ed. The creed of the higher classes of Unitarians is briefly com- 
 pared with that of the orthodox, and proved to be fundamentally 
 diflerent; and the difference clearly appears to be much of a prac- 
 tical nature. The scheme of Mr. Belsbam is then considered; for 
 Mr. Cbanning had pleaded for Mr. Belsbam with no less confidence 
 than for himself. This scheme is represented as "another Gospel" 
 than tiiat, which Paid preached; or at any rate, as a diverse Gos- 
 pel from that which the orthodox receive. If one be true, the other 
 must be false; so that there can be no foundation for communion 
 bet^^ een the adherents to these totally dif!erent systems. 
 
 The second assumption, which Dr. Worcester examines, is. 
 "That every separation between professed Christians is unjustifi- 
 able; a criminal schism, the guilt of which is chargeable upon those 
 who insist upon it as requisite." ]). 29. The nature of scliism is 
 here inquired into; and the discussion of this topic closes with the 
 two following' paragraphs. 
 
 "How, indeed, is the fellowship for which you plead to be maintained^ 
 Upon this point you and your liberal brethren have taken care that we should 
 be pretty fully informed. The orthodox churches must give up their creeds 
 and covenants, their Psalms and Hymns and Doxologies; must cease to insist 
 on, as important, the great doctrines which they now hold to be fundanicn- 
 tal and essential to the Christian faith; must exclude from their pulpits all 
 mysterious and controverted doctrines, — all that are not included in what is 
 fashionably called liberal or rational Christianity; mrst consent in a word, to 
 have their preaching and worship conducted on such principles, and in such 
 a manner, as will not disturb the minds of liberal Christians, or Unitarians 
 of any class! — Is not this. Sir, precisely the way most distinctly marked out, 
 and most strenuously insisted on, in your periodical publications, in your or- 
 dination sermons, and in all your discourses and con\ersatious on this sub- 
 ject? If the orthodox ministers and churches will only consent to all this, the 
 thing is done; all will be love, and peace, and fellowship. That is, if they 
 will consent to vield up as unscriptural or unimportant the doctnnes of faitii 
 and the principles of worsliip, which they now hold most essential to Chris- 
 tian character, devotion, and practice, — to hold it "no crime to believe as 
 Mr. Belsham believes," and, to worship as he worships; and thus cease to 
 be orthodox, or in any lespect materially difierent from those called liberal 
 Christians; all the difficulty will be removed, and tlie way will be open and 
 easy for an esta!)lished and permanent fellowship between them and Uni- 
 tarians of all degrees. — Yes, Sir: and if Unitarians would cease to be Unita- 
 rians, and become orthodox Christians, the way would be equally unob 
 structcd. 
 
38 " Review 0/ the Unitarian Controversy, 
 
 "But here lies the difficulty. The orthodox ministers and churches will not 
 consent thus to yield up their faith and their worship: and from the earnest 
 and abundant labor i..\d pains which you and your liberal brethren have 
 employed, to bring them to these terms, it is manifest that, unless tliey will 
 consent, you do not yourselves suppose there can be fellowsliip between you 
 and them. Because they do not consent, you contiiuially charge them witli 
 being bigoted, illibei-al, uncharitable; and now seem disposed to charge them 
 even with schism and heresy. But, Sir, if on account of their steadfast ad- 
 herence to their faith and worship a separation and non-fellowship ensue, 
 does it not deeply concern you, as well as them, very seriously to consider on 
 which side the guilt will lie? Unquestionably, notwithstanding any thing wliich 
 you have said of your own, or quoted from Dr. Campbell, it must lie on that 
 side, which the Redeemer and King of Zion shall judge to have removed it- 
 self from the foundation of the apostles and propiiets." pp. 30, 31. 
 
 The sentence, with which this passage concludes, is well worthy 
 «f being considered by Mr. C. a)Kl by all latitudinarians. The 
 question, <'Uhat is schism?*' will be decided, not by a majority ot* 
 votes; not by men of any class or character; particidarly not by 
 men, who rely on tbeir own reason as sufficient to direct them in 
 the way to heaven, and who seem to take great credit to themselves 
 for kindness, when they make the path of lifeso bro.id, that nearly 
 all may fancy themselves travelling in it: but tbis momentous ques- 
 tion will be decided, according to tlie immutable word of God, with- 
 out giving up one iota to the plausible declamation, or earnest 
 wishes, of self-deceivers. How idle, then, is it, bow arrogant, bow 
 presumptuous, to attenipt to settle such a question, by a clamorous 
 appeal to the expectations and hopes, the wishes and prejudices, of 
 a narrow circle of persons, who may choose to call tliemselves lib- 
 eral and enliglitened. The only rational and scriptural way of ex- 
 amining any subject, which relates to the great doctrines and <\\i 
 ties of the Bible, is by a sober appeal to the Bible itself. We ad- 
 mire a passage quoted from Kirwan's Sermons, in the review of 
 that work by the Christian Observer. "But in the midst of tins 
 scene of continual revolution, the Scriptures remain unchangeable 
 as the Source from which tbey sprung. Such as the hrst Cbris- 
 tians received and understood tJiem, such are they at this hour; and 
 such will tiiey be when the heavens and the eattli ha^e ])assed 
 away. Neither tbe fore e nor corruption of times can lender them 
 more austere or more indulgent,'' 
 
 The last assumption, which Dr W. takes up, is this: <*That it 
 can be only from a bigoted, uncharitable, and malignant spirit, — 
 a "proud, censorious, and overbearing temper," that a separation 
 can be proposed." p. 31. Here Dr. W. remarks, tbat Mr. C. is di- 
 rectly at \^riance \\ ith Mr. Belsliam and others of the same party, 
 w ho loudly demaiid a separation. He then exposes the abuse of the 
 word cluuity. the so])bis(ry to which this abuse leads, and advances 
 to tills question: "AVOuld it conduce more to the promotion of truth 
 for tbe believers '\u the true Gospel to hold fellowship with tbe be- 
 lievers in anotliej" Gospel, than to separate from them?" It will not 
 be easy for Mr. C. or any other man to answer tlie reasoning on 
 this topic. If an answer should be attempted, we recommend that 
 the first point to be established should be this; That it is impossible 
 
Revieiv of the iTnilarian Controversy. S9 
 
 for any man wlio says lie is a Christian, and appears to lead a mor- 
 al life, to embrace fundamental errors. When this point shall be 
 clearly established, it will follow, that a larj^e part of the New- 
 Testament is mimeanini^, unrcasojiahle, and of no authority what- 
 ever. At this stage, in the course of their descent, Mr. Belshain 
 aiid his particular friends have long since arrived. When the New 
 'Testament is arraigned, tried, condemned, and rejected by such 
 men, they may easily imagine themselves to have pi'oved any 
 thing, which may be flattering to their pride, or grateful to tlieii- 
 feelings. , 
 
 Dr. W. closes the discussion of this topic with the following pa- 
 thetic expressions. 
 
 "In the mean time, Charity, heaven-born Charity, must be alloivcd to weep 
 and lament over the inroads of error and the desolations of Zion. Yes, Sir, 
 charmed not at all witli the so loudly chaunted praises of increased "light," 
 —abashed not at all by the disdainful sneers at imputed fanaticism, — she will 
 weep — that her adored Lord is denied his divine honors, in tlie beloved city 
 of our solemnities, where our fathers saw his glory, and delighted to celebrate 
 his wonderful works of love and mercy." p. jj. 
 
 Mr. Clianning did not think it proper to be silent on the appear- 
 ance of Dr. Worcester's First Letter. The flauie, which his own 
 letter to Mr. Thacher liad kindled, was deadened, if not entii-cly 
 quenched, by the flood of reasoning and eloquence so readily poured 
 forth. It would not do to be silent. Sometliing must be said. But 
 Ave tliink most attentive readers will be convinced, tliat Mr. C. be- 
 gun his Remarks w ith a mortifying consciousness of inferiority to 
 his opponent; a consciousness, w hich no reasonable man will con- 
 demn him for feeling. As he advances in his discussion, he writes 
 with fluency and animation, though with a most deplorable deficien- 
 cy of argument. Not one of tlie great points of Dr. Worcester's 
 Letter is taken up carefully, and examined leisurely, and with a 
 view to produce conviction. The utmost that Mr. C. appears to 
 have aimed. at, was, to escape without disgrace from the contest. 
 Two apologies may be made for him. One is, that Dr. Worcester's 
 Letter could not be answei-ed, as such a production should be, (even 
 on the supposition that its main positions were capable of being- 
 answered,) in a hasty i)amphlet, designed to make a popular im- 
 pression. The other is, that Mr. C. is most eminently unfitted to 
 become a controversial writer. He wants the patience, the accu- 
 racy, the coolness, the sagacity, the powei'S of discrimination, 
 Avhich are indispc^nsable to the able management of a controversy. 
 On this subject, we suppose there is but one opinion, among those 
 who are qualified to judge, whether friends or opposei-s. 
 
 The great points of Dr. W.'s Letter were, as our readers have 
 seen, a Vindication of our Review from the charge of falsehood; an 
 examination of Mr. C.'s declaration, that to believe in error is no 
 Clime; an exposure of the concealment i)ractised by the liberal party; 
 and a detection of the various assumptions, which had aftorded Mr. 
 C. topics of such fervid declamation. As to the vindication of our 
 Review, Mr. C. confesses that he had fallen into a slight inaccura- 
 
40 Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 cy; but repeats substantially tbe same cliarges as before^ chai-ges 
 which we luivc shewn to be unfoiiiuied. In one thing we cordially 
 THiite wi-h hiinj that is, in referring the reader to the Review itselfc 
 As to the other points, not one of them is fairly met. Wc will give 
 a few specimens of Mr. C.'s entire failure, to say the least, on 
 subjects of very great consequence. Dr. Worcester inquires, 
 
 "Is not Mr. Btlsham's Gospel, as set forth in his crccCi, c7iother Gospel, 
 than that which Paul preached? If you are not willing to admit this; vet sure- 
 ly you cannot hesitate a moment tf) admit, that it is another, than that which 
 is held by orthodox Christians, — which is pi^eaclied by orthodox ministers: — 
 essentially different ia every particular from the foundation to the top stone. 
 One or the other of these schemes, tlien, must be wliat St. Paul denominates 
 "another Gospel," and against which, and its abettors, he solemnly pronoun- 
 ces his apostolic anathema. The leading doctrines of Mohammed are not 
 iTiore diverse from the orthodox views of Christianity, than are those which 
 you would have us hold in our IvUowship. The followers of Mohammed be- 
 lieve in Jesus Clirist as a good man, and a great prophet; and are accus- 
 tomed to regard him, I believe, with as high veneration, as are the lower 
 Unitarians." pp. 28, 29. 
 
 In the passage here alluded to, St. I*aul says, *'Though we, or 
 an angel fi-ora heaven, })reach any other Gospel unto you, than that 
 which we have preached unto you, let iiim be accursed. As we said 
 before, so say I now again, if any man [any one, whether man, 
 or celestial spirit] preach any other Gospel unto you, than that ye 
 have received, let liim be accursed." It has been the fashion with 
 writers of the liberal party to soften, and explain away, eveiy 
 scriptural expression, which seems harsh to their ears. But the 
 mildest interpretation, which we remember to have seen, of the 
 phrase, let Mm be accurseiU is this; '<let him be separated from youj 
 bold no communion witli him; acknowledge him not as a Christian 
 teacher, or a Cin-istian man." We have, tlien, an apostolical com- 
 mand to withhold conununion from those who teach "another Gos- 
 pel." How does jMr. C. interpret the passage? He avoids any di- 
 i-ect notice of it, though Dr. Worcester had formally cited it, in a 
 preceding page. But the substance of what Mr. C. has to say on 
 this subject, is contained in the following sentences: 
 
 "We do not pass sentence like apostles on many sulojects of controversy 
 among Christians, for tliis very plain reason — that we are not apostles. We 
 nre, what we lal)or never to forget, uninspired and fallible men; and we are 
 apt to distrust ourselves, when persons of intelligence and piety, see cause to 
 differ from us in the interpretation of Scriptui-e. We dare not preach like 
 apostles, on points which have perplexed and divided men of the pi'ofound- 
 est thought and the purest lives; and we know from the genius and leading 
 principles of Christianity, that these points are not, and cannot be, essential 
 to salvation." pp. 11, 12. 
 
 What is this to the purpose of rejecting those, »who preach anoth- 
 •M* Gospel? Di-. W. did not say, tliat ministers at the })resent day 
 are apostles; nor did he urge any man to form new rules for the 
 government of the church, and deliver them with the authority of 
 an apostle. All he insisted on was, that Christians should obey the 
 plain and express diiections of one who 7vas an apostle, who 
 
Review of the Uiiitarian Controversy . 41 
 
 wrote under the influence of divine inspiration, and who delivered 
 an authoritative rule of conduct lor tlie cliurcli in every age. We 
 do not hesitate to say, that the turn which Mr. Channing attempt- 
 ed to give to this subject is one of the most miserable suhterfuges, 
 to which a vanquished and forlorn disputant ever had recourse. St. 
 Paul was not informing the churches of Galatia what he was about 
 to do, or what iie had done, in the execution of his apostolical com- 
 mission, and under tlie guidance of tiic Holy Spirit. He com- 
 manded thtm what to do, in the exei-cise of a sound discretion and 
 with a pure conscience; and through tliem he has commanded 
 Christians of the present day what to do, in reference to any, who 
 subvert the Gospel of Christ. Yes, he directed the plain, unedu- 
 cated Christians of Galatia, and the same class of Christians in 
 every age, to reject in the most decisive mannei', every teacher of 
 another Gospel. God himself has tauglit mankind, in this passage, 
 tliat plain Christians, who have heartl the true Gospel clearly 
 preached, are able to distinguish it from any otiier Gospel; that 
 they are howulthn^ to distinguish it; and that, far from being un- 
 charitable in withholding communion from the teacliers of anotlier 
 Gospel, this is a duty from which they cannot be excused. Mr. C. 
 speaks of 'points, on wliich men of the profoundest thought, and 
 the purest lives, are divided;' and whicli ♦•we know," says he, *«are 
 not, and cannot be, essential to salvation." Hvw does Mr. Chan- 
 ning know, that none of those points, 'on whicli men of the pro- 
 foundest thought, and the purest lives have been divided, are essen- 
 tial to salvation?' What our readers may think on the subject we 
 know not, but for ourselves, we set very liglitly by this knowledge 
 of Mr. Clianning's. Before it can be entitled to a moment's consider- 
 ation, Mr. C. must produce a revocation of the Apostle Paul's au- 
 thority', and a substitution of his own; for it would be difficult to 
 vStatea more absolute contradiction, than that which exists between 
 him and the Apostle. Mr. Ciiauuiug would establish this infallible 
 rule, in determining what doctrines are non-essential to sal- 
 vation; viz. that every doctrijie, concerning which men of the pro- 
 foundest thought and the ])urest lives iiave been divided, is to be reck- 
 oned in this class; so tiiat none of these doctrines, nor all of them put 
 together, can constitute ''another Gospel." But what saystlie Apos- 
 tle? The passage whicli ^^e have quoted, may be paraphrased thus: 
 "Though I myself, commissioned, received, and accredited as an apos- 
 tle, should attempt to subvertthe Gospel which I first preached to you; 
 — though a celestial spirit, from the regions of light and glory, should 
 promulgate another Gospel; — you are bound immediately to reject, 
 as the case may be, either me or him, as a false teacher, a repro- 
 bate, lying under tlie curse of God. Should any one, I repeat the 
 weighty decision; — should any one, whatever his character may 
 he; how great so ever his attainments, his eloquence, his zeal; how- 
 ever pure and holy his life may seem; though he appear to unite 
 every desirable quality, from the intellectual power and dignity of 
 the highest seraph to the amiable docility of the loveliest child; vet, 
 if he preaches a different Gospel from that which you have already 
 6 
 
42 Jlsx'kiv of the Unilarian Controversy, 
 
 received, he is to be rejected as a false teacher, a reprobate, lyinsf 
 under the curse of God. And whether lie does pieach a different 
 Gospel, or not, yon, plain Christians of Galatia, are to be the judg- 
 es, williout relying on his own plausible declarations, or those of 
 his abettors. The question is decided, once for all, that the doc- 
 trines of CA eiy future preacher of the Gospel are to be judged of, 
 not by his pretensions, not by his attainments, not by his apparent 
 character, but by the unerri)ig rule of Divine Revelation." Wliat 
 becomes of Mr. Channing's rule about men of the profoundest 
 thought, and the purest lives? 
 
 The same apontie says, in another passage, "Let God be true, 
 but {^\x'Yy man a liar;" that is, as we understand it, "Let the plain 
 declarations, which God lias made in Ills word, be received accord- 
 ing to tJicir obvious import; and let every man, who contradicts these 
 dvclaralions, be esteemed as a liar, a false teacher, a contemner of 
 God's word, whatever the pretensions of such a man may be, and 
 however distinguished he n)ay appear for integrity, sincerity, and 
 sanctity." AVhich is to be followed, the Apostle, or Mr. Chan- 
 iiing? 
 
 Happy is it for mankind, that the rule which Mr. Channing de- 
 livers with such confidence, is pointedly condemned in the Bible. 
 If adopted and acted upon, it v.'ould prove an ignis fatuus, leading 
 into endless perplexity and difficulty, and abandoning its followers 
 in the "great Serbonian bog" of universal skepticism. The direct 
 tendency, if not thf> intention, of sanctioning this rule is, to per- 
 suade the world, that there can be little danger in following, where 
 n)en of the pi-ofoundest thought and the purest lives have led the 
 \vay. All tiiat a person has to do, then, in order to prove the safety 
 of the doctrines which he holds, is to find some man, who is worthy 
 to be acknowledged as a file-leader. The only inrpiiries to be set- 
 tled are these two: Is the leader in question a man of profound 
 thought? Is he a man of a jiure life? These questions once answer- 
 ed in the affirmative, it is impossible that any doctrine, which this 
 leader rejects, should be essential to salvation. 
 
 It is not difficult for a man to ar([uire the reputation of a deep- 
 thi)ikei', especially with his own fi)llo\\ei's. And when the reputa- 
 tion is once acquired, it will be perpetuated in the sect, so long .is 
 the spirit of propagandi.sm exists. It may justly be admitted, in- 
 deed, that the founders of most sects have been men of uncomnma 
 taleuls, of considerable acquirements, and of assiduous study. 
 They have no doubt generally been well persuaded of the truth of 
 their schemes, and heartily devoted to them. But all this does not 
 prove, that their schemes have been any thing better than "wind 
 and ciii!rusi«)n." 
 
 Nor does it injply the existence of true religion, to have obtain- 
 ed the reputation of leading a pure life. AVe think it very easy 
 ibr an infi<lel to lead as good a life, as that which has been in fact 
 exhibited, by many professed Christians, who have been canoni/.- 
 ed, and almost idolized, by their friends and followers. 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 43 
 
 Let us see, for a momrnt, liow an inquiry after trutli would ap- 
 pear, if conducted upon these principles. A certain man embraces 
 a doctrine, which is founded in dangerous error. He is warned of 
 his danger; but replies, <>I have no fears; this doctrine has been 
 embraced by men of the pi-ofoundest thought iuid the purest lives." 
 Suppose the fact to be, that his leaders are men of stupid mi)ids and 
 corrupt lives; how is he to be convinced of it? AVhoever under- 
 takes the task of convincing iiim, will rini the hazard (jf being re- 
 proached as a bigot, a calumniator, an unauthorized, and censf)ri- 
 Gus judge of his fellow Christians. Thus the cojitroversy, inslcad 
 of resolving itself into a scx'iptural inquii-y, degenerates into a mis- 
 erable altercation about the j)ersonal cbaj-actcr of certain leaders, 
 who lived centuries ag(i, and titousands of milrs from the scene of 
 controversy; and whose ibaractcr, if they \\ere living, and on the 
 spot, could be justly ewtimated by no other than the Uiuniscient. 
 Of all questions, those, wliich relate to tiie personal character oi' 
 individuals, who are hated by one i)arty and the favorites of anoth- 
 er, are the most unlikely to be amicably settled. In tbe first phice, 
 all men have faults, which the eagle eyes of their enemies will be 
 very apt to discover and magnify. Secondly; many virtues are 
 changed into faults by the j)rejudiccs of an adversary. Thirdly; 
 most men possess qualities, which bear some resemblance to virtues, 
 and which the voice of friendship, or of favoritism, can eulogize as 
 the most splendid of virtues. 
 
 If a reputation for purity of life in a teacher is to be the pass- 
 port for all the doctrines which he teaches, so far as to assure his 
 f(dlowers, that there can be nothing dangerous in those doctiines, 
 then the question, Wlud is jjiirltij of life? will fui-nisJi a subject oi" 
 endless debate. On no question whatever would there be a more 
 radical difference of opinion. Must the purity of a teacher equal 
 that of Dr, Price, who, as Mrs. Barbauld is confident, might de- 
 mand admission into heaven as a matter of justice? Or will it be 
 sufficient to come up to the standard of Hume, who, in the opinion 
 of Adam Smith, approached «<as nearly to the idea of a perffdly 
 wise and virtums man, as perhaj)s the nature of human fi-aiUy A\ill 
 permit?" Or shall Rousseau be the i|iodel, who, after a life of impi- 
 ety, vice, and infidelity, boasted that he was about to surrender his 
 soul pure into the hands of his Maker? 
 
 It has always been the policy of Unitarians to pi*aise each other 
 most extravagantly, as being possessed of every intellectual and 
 moral endowment. The reason of this policy is very obvious, li' 
 the praise, which they lavish so freely, is not allowed to be just, 
 they exclaim^ What bigotry! AVIiat ifliberaiity! What an attach- 
 ment to s.ix:t that must be, which can see notliing good out of its 
 own pale! If the justice of their praise is in any respect admitted, or 
 even if tiie subject of pei-sonal character is passed over in silence, 
 they dwell long and often on the question, "Is it possible that such 
 great men, such good men, the rerif be.'^t men in the icorld, can be 
 fundamentally erroneous?" In either of these alternatives, their 
 appeal is not in vain to the passions and feelings of a large class of 
 
44 Review of the Unitarian Controverity. 
 
 readers. Yet these are the writers, who profess to dcci'y a reli- 
 ance on human authority! 
 
 To leave this topic, on which we have dwelt lonajer than our lim- 
 its can well afford, Dr. Worcester had used the word ortiiodox, as 
 it is commonly used, as a term of distinction, not of praise. Mr. 
 C. endeavors to take an advantage of tliis use of the word, under- 
 stands it as a term of praise, and seems to make a very serious bu- 
 siness of it. As tiie meaning of Dr. AV. is perfectly apparent, we 
 really wonder what could induce Mr. C. to refuse his antagonist the 
 common and proper use of a very common word. Drowning men 
 catch very eagerly at straw s. 
 
 jMr. Cha)niing says, p. 23, that the doctrine of the Trinity "has 
 for ages perplexed and distressed the mind of almost every reflect- 
 ing Christian." This is a specimen of the loose, random manner, 
 in which Mr. C. customarily ventures his assertions. AVe are con- 
 fident, that he labors under a great mistake on this subject. We 
 have been personally acquainted wiih many reflecting Christians, 
 in different conditions of life, from the aged, learned, pious divine, 
 or the venerable, contemplative matron, to the thoughtful, devout 
 farmer or mechanic; from persons who resemble the late Dr. Rodg- 
 ers and the late Mrs. Graliam of New-York to those who ai-e not 
 unlike the Shepherd of Salisbury Tlain; and we have not found 
 them distressed in the manner described by Mr. Channing. We 
 therefore utterly discredit his statement, it appears by Dr. 
 Worcester's Third Letter, that the doctrine of the Trinity d.)es not 
 ^distress his mind;' and we know, that *many reflecting Christians' 
 most cordially feel as he does, and unite with him in considering 
 this doctrine, as a theme of delightful meditation, as a source of 
 perpetual and holy joy. 
 
 Unitarians have always endeavored to make a display of their 
 own numbers; and, in doing this, they have often set all truth and 
 decency at defiance. When the subject of their great numbers is 
 exhausted, they attempt to persuade their readers, that most pro- 
 fessed Trinitarians are in fact tnitarians, if they only knew how 
 to tell what they believe; and, when driven from this ground, they 
 dwell upon the distressed and comfortless condition of Trinitaiians. 
 But these arts, separately or conjointly, will not answer the pur- 
 pose intended. We mean not to deny, that the minds of indivi(hi- 
 als have been distressed on the sijbject of the Trinity. Tiiat is 
 probably the case with most of those, w ho ultimately become Uni- 
 tarians. But this distress can be traced to other causes, than the 
 mysterious nature of the doctrine itself; jind facts are far, very far, 
 from warranting the broad assertion, which we have Just quoted. 
 
 Mr, Channing says, p. 27, that the presept conti-oversy "pi-i- 
 inarily relates to t|ie moral character of the great body of liberal 
 Christians." This is another random assertion, for which there is 
 not the least color, or pretence. Neither our Reyiew, nor Dr. 
 Worcester's Letter, said a single word, directly or implicitly, about 
 the "moral character of the great body of liberal Christians.'* 
 We are sorry that 3Ir. C. had not taken some pains not to nnike 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 45 
 
 groundless assertions; especially such as have a direct tendency to 
 arouse the passions of this "great body of liberal Christians" with- 
 out any reason. 
 
 In answer to Dr. Worcester's declaration, addressed to Mr. 
 Channing, "The Savior whom you acknowledge is infinitely inferi- 
 or to ours," Mr. C. says, p. 26, "We believe that GOD saves us 
 by his son Jesus Christ, in whom lie dwells, and through whom he 
 bestows pardon and eternal life. A highej- Savior we do not know, 
 and cannot conceive." To this passage Dr. W. very properly re- 
 joins: «'I did suppose you would yet acknowledge JESUS 
 CHRIST to be your SAVIOR. Your declaration, however, if it 
 has any pertinency, plaiidy imports that you do not." Mr. C. en- 
 deavors to evade the force of this rejoinder, in the Note to his sec- 
 ond series of Remarks. It is impossible, however, to make out 
 this evasion. Whatever Mr. C. intended, his language clearly 
 disclaimed Jesus Christ as his Savior; and the declarations which 
 he has quoted from Scripture, as his justification, are not at all 
 similar to the one in question. 
 
 Mr. Channing's defence of what he had said concerning our Re- 
 view rests entirely upon the assumption, that he had stated nothing 
 more than the "impression," which it made on iiis own mind, and 
 which it had a tendency to make on the minds ot readers at large. 
 He implicitly admits, tliat a "verbal critic, with a dictionary in his 
 hand," might make a great deal less of it, tlian he had actually 
 made. In other words, we were not to be judged by the language 
 which we had used; but by tlie impressions, which men excessively 
 goaded and iriitated by our disclosures, and greatly excited by 
 inparting their angry feelings to each other, had hastily received 
 from it. Mr. C. applies the same rule of interpretation to Dr. 
 Worcester's Letter. He accordingly sums up, in a very obnoxi- 
 ous form, what he states to be "the obvious import of the conclud- 
 ing part of" that letter. As we have not room to enter i»ito pai-- 
 ticulars, we do not quote the passage. Soon after Mr. Channing's 
 Remarks appeared. Dr. W. addressed to him a Second Letter. A 
 prominent part of this letter is occupied in proving, that Mr. C. 
 had made "a flagrant misstatement," where he professes to give 
 the "obvious impoit" of the First Letter; and in calling upon him 
 "to retract." After connecting this misstatement, and several 
 others of minor consequence. Dr. %V. proceeds to show, at some 
 length the radical difference between Trinitaiians and Unitarians. 
 He shows, that the orthodox believe in the plenary inspiration of 
 the Scriptures, and that Unitarians disallow such an inspiration; 
 that the orthodox believe in the doctrine of the Trinity; that they 
 hold this doctrine to be fundamentally important; that they believe 
 in the divinity of Christ, in his incarnation, in his expiatory sacri- 
 fice, and in justification by faith alone; while Unitarians reject 
 these doctrines, or entirely explain them away. 
 
 At the commencement of this Letter, Dr. W. expresses his Hleiib- 
 crate judgment, in which he had the concurrence of all A\ith whom 
 he had conversed, that Mr. C. had not directly met him at a siitgle 
 
46 Review of the Unitarian Controversff. ' 
 
 point, shown him to be incorrect in a single statement, nor refuted 
 liim in a single position, or argument^ and, in a word, that ISIr. 
 C.'s Remarks were no real ans\\er to his First Letter.' Dr. W. 
 then inquires, by what means Mi's C. had been able to give his 
 Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer; for that it had tluit 
 appearance and that effect, in tbe view of some persons, is admit- 
 ted. By a very dear and powerful analysis Dr. W. shows, that 
 the Remarks ot Mr. C. owed whatever elHcacy they possessed, to 
 the imputation of a bad intention; to his representing Dr. W.'s Let- 
 ter as %/iiEflnr/ /r//ftH,§-; to his diverting the reader's attention from 
 the point and the argument; and to misstatement. 
 
 Tliis Second Letter is written with moderation, solemnity, and 
 great ability. It bears evident testimony, not only to tbe consci- 
 cntionsness of tbe writer, but to his care, patience, and diligence, 
 as well as to bis profound veneration for tiie Scriptures, and his 
 habit of fair and close investigation. 
 
 Mr. Channing, having been called upon in a solemn manner to 
 retract, judged it expedient to publish Remarks on Dr. Worcester's 
 Second Letter. He attempts to vindicate his interpretation of the 
 obvious import of the First Letter, by a particular examination of 
 seAci'a! passages. His grand rule of interpretation contiimes to be 
 the ''impression,'' which a writing makes on bis mind, and tbe 
 minds of his friends. He makes some further developements of 
 the creed of the liberal ])arty in this country, and proceeds to con- 
 sider what he is pleased to call *<tbe methods of i-enderiug Unitari- 
 ans odious." These methods are, according to Mr. C. •painting in 
 the strongest colors the diftcrences between Unitarians and Trini- 
 tarians;' 'representing Unitarians as obliged by their sentiments to 
 give up the doctrhic of tlic atonement;' 'asserting that tbe\ disbe- 
 lieve the doctrine of the Trinity because ri is njystericms;' 'address- 
 ing the feai-s of Christians;' and charging Unitarians 'with at- 
 tempting to conceal the differences between themselves a)nl 'I'jini- 
 tarians.' The Remarks are concluded with a consideration of what 
 Mr. C. calls "the system of exclusion and denunciation." On this 
 subject, he goes througli the common topics of Unitarian declama- 
 tion, with rather uncommon z^'al and spirit. Though he has notli- 
 ing, which can be called fair argtunent. he ocrasio)ially rises into 
 the region of elocpience. He concludes with a!i earnest attem})t to 
 ilissuade from an open, forsnal separation between Ti'initarians and 
 Unitarians. jNot a few of his reasonings and assei'tions are con- 
 tradictory to each other; but, as a whole, the pamphlet was calcu- 
 lated to produce some effect upon tiie party in whose behalf it was 
 written. All the great points in Di*. Worcester's l^etters were 
 omitted, or evaded, as before; and recourse is had by Mr. C to his 
 former subterfuge, that Chiistians of the present day are not oblig- 
 ed to reject the preacliers of '"another Gospel," because these 
 Christians are not themselves apostles: tliat is. Christians are not 
 obliged to obey a plain rule of Scripture, because they ai-e not 
 Iheinselves inspired. 
 
Revieiv of the Unitarian Controversy. 47 
 
 Dr. Worcester's Tliird Letter is one of the ablest paniplilcts, 
 which any controversy has produced. It ought to be generally cir- 
 culated and read; and we are persuaded it cannot be read, without 
 producing a deep and lasting effect iiighly favorable to the cause of 
 truth. The vindication of Mr* C.'s misstatement, which that gentle- 
 man had attempted, was quickly and eftectually despatched; and Dr. 
 W. advanced to an examination of the further developcment of tlie 
 creed, which Mr. C. had given, as common to himselt and his par- 
 ticular friends. After quoting a passage fi-om this creed, Dr. W, 
 proceeds, in the following eloquent strain. 
 
 "With these "liberal Christians," then, it is a matter of utter uncertainty, 
 o£ endless doubt, and, it would seem, of cold and lofty indifference, who the 
 Savior of the world is! — whether he is a created, or an uncreated being; 
 whether he existed from eternity, or begun to exist in time; whether he is a 
 God, who, though inferior to the "supreme God," has yet a rightful claim to 
 i-eligious worship, or only their fellow servant, to whom no divine honors be- 
 long! From other passages, on which I shall have occasion in another place 
 to remark, it appears that the same uncertainty, and doubt, and indifference 
 exist with these same "liberal Christians," in regard to what Jesus Christ 
 has done for them: — whether he died to expiate their sins with blood of inesti- 
 mable merit, or whether "in coiisequeiicc'" merely "of what he has done and 
 suffered, the punishment of sin is averted from the penitent;" as it may have 
 been, in consequence of the sufferings and labors, the instructions and inter- 
 cessions of Paul and other good men, by whose means sinners have been 
 brought to repentance! — Of course, there must be similar uncertainty, doubt, 
 and iiidifTereuce, as to the obligations which they owe to him; as to the love 
 and trust, the thanks and honors to which he is entitled. — Do they then hon- 
 or the Son, even as they honor, or should honor the Father? They do not 
 know who or what the Son is. Are they blessed in putting iheir trust in him? 
 They do not know to what extent, or for what purposes he is to be trusted. 
 Do they delight to join in the heavenly anthem, "\\'(n-thy is the Lamb that was 
 slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and 
 glory, and blessing.''" They do not know that he is worthy thus to be adored 
 and praised! — Ah! where arc we? Into what a region of frost, of darkness, of 
 the shadow of death are we advancing! — Is tiiis, Sir, the light which is so ar- 
 dently hailed, and so loudly proclaimed by the "rational Christians," of this 
 favored age? Is it here that we are to find the gr^nd consummation of divine 
 knowledge, that "purer system of Christianity," to which you and your "lib- 
 eral" brethren would guide mankind? Is it in this chilling, dismal clime, that 
 professed Christians of every name are to meet together in one blessed fel- 
 lowship? No wonder then that Jews and Infidels, Mohammedans and Pa- 
 gans are invited to participate in the blessedness. And no wonder, that they 
 who adore the Lord Jesus, as '■'■the true God and eternal life" and delight in 
 the ascription, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his 
 own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, — 
 to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever," should decline the invita- 
 tion." pp. 13, 14, 
 
 Dr. W. then urges the uiu'casonablencss of supposing, that the 
 Scriptures have left the primary subjects of inspiration in such ob- 
 scurity, as the wiitings of Mr. C. and other Unitarians would lead 
 us to believe. He examines tlie question, whether the appellation. 
 Son of Gody implies any inferiority of nature, and shows the doc- 
 trine of the pi'imitive church on that subject. He states the sysr 
 tem of Dr. Clark, and concludes, justly for auglit that we can see, 
 that "if there ^^ as ever a Trithcist in Ciiristcntlom, Dr. Clark was 
 
48 JReview of the Unitarian Controversy. 
 
 one; and if, (as Mr. C. had asserted,) "the liberal Christians in 
 this part of our countiy agree substantially with Dr. Clark," in- 
 stead of being Unitarians, they are TritheisLs." He goes into a 
 very sublime, because a very scriptural, explanation of tbe doc- 
 trine of the Trinity; of which we should gladly quote several pa- 
 ges, did our limits permit. He introduces a very weighty passage 
 from the Bishop of Durham, whom Mr. C. had called the "pro- 
 found Butler," and claimed as an ally, but whose belief, on the 
 smbject of the Trinity, was most directly opposite to Mr. Chan- 
 ning's. The popular objection of Unitarians and infidels, that "it 
 is out of our power to believe a proposition of which we do not knoTV 
 the meaning.*' is scrutinized; and it clearly appears, as an inference 
 from Mr. Channing's most abundant concessions, that Unitarians 
 do not know the meaning of the single essential article of their 
 creed; viz. "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God;" nor of 
 the proposition, "Christ died for our sins." 
 
 Dr. W. does not concede, however, that tlie case is the same 
 with Trinitarians in regard to the doctrines which they believe. 
 He contends, that himself and his brethren "understand the mean- 
 ing of the proposition. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three 
 Divine Persons in one God." We are very happy that this sub- 
 ject fell in the way of Dr. AVorcester. It is one, which has afford- 
 ed Unitarians much self-complacency, and on which they seem to 
 think themselves triumphant. For a year or two we have intend- 
 ed to examine it, and are not a little pleased, that the discussion has 
 fallen into abler hands. On the objection of mystery, we quote a 
 short paragraph: 
 
 "The objection of mystery, which you and other Unitarians are perpetu- 
 ally urging against the Trinity, might be urged, and has been urged, with 
 equal reason, and with equal force, against all the principal doctrines of re- 
 ligion, both natural and revealed. If we are to fly before this objection, we 
 must fly not only from orthodoxy to Unitarianism, but from Unitarianism 
 to Deism, from Deism to atheism, and from atheism to universal skepticism. 
 If the pretensions of the "rational Christian" to superior wisdom, because, 
 to avoid mystery, he denies the Trinity, are well founded; then for the 
 same reason, the Deist is wiser than the rational Christian, the atheist is 
 wiser than the Deist, and the universal skeptic is the wisest man of all. And 
 upon this scale, I suppose, the pretensions to wisdom ai-e actually gradu- 
 ated." p. 32. 
 
 Dr. W. next examines the creed of Unitarians, that is, of Mr. 
 C. and his friends, on the subject of the atonement; and this discus- 
 sion forms a very interesting part of the pamphlet. He shews, 
 that Mr. C.^s views of this doctrine are entirely vague and ambig- 
 uous; that he evidently framed a creed, which should embrace all 
 Unitarians, whether they believe in the atonement or not. 
 
 In answer to what Mr. C. had said respecting the evils of sepa- 
 ration, and the obligations of charity, Dr. A^^ inquires into the 
 scriptural meaning of charity, and illustrates the subject by the ex- 
 ample of our Savior and his apostles. He forcibly contrasts this 
 x^harity with the indifference to religious doctrines contended for by 
 
lieview nf the Unitarian Confroversy. 49 
 
 Tir. Price, and many other Unitarians, beside Mr. Channing. 
 He then comes to the question, whetlicr, as Mr. C's whole system 
 of fellowship supposes, it is impossible for an uninspired man to at- 
 tain any certainty repecting the great truths of the Gospel. This 
 discussion is so atlmirable, that we cannot resist our inclination to 
 lay it before our readej's, as containing a specimen of the powerful 
 reasoning eni]!loyed tiiroughout the pamphlet, and as exhibiting in 
 a very sti-ong light the true question at issue, 
 
 "Is it however so, that no uninspired man can know, nor has a right to 
 judge what the true Gospel of Clirist is? For what purpose then were the 
 apostles and the prophets before them inspired? Was it merely for their own 
 benefit? or at most for theirs, and the benefit of otiiers of their own times? For 
 what purjjose then were the revelations which were communicated to them, 
 committed to writing, and transmitted with so much care to succeeding gen- 
 erations? Of what use are the Scriptures, if no uninspired man can know 
 with any certainty what are the doctrines contained in them? — The cele- 
 brated Hume has asserted, that miracles could be of no use, as attest- 
 ations to a divine revelation, excepting to such as were eye-witnesses of 
 them; because no other j)ersons could have sufficient evidence of the facts. 
 But I belie\ e tliat even that gigantic adversary of tlie Gospel never went so 
 far as your argument goes: nc\er vuidcrtook to assert that a divine revelation, 
 though well attested, could never make any doctrine or truth certain, except- 
 ing to inspired men; because no other persons cou'd ever know with any cer- 
 tainty what doctrines or truths are revealed. Had he liglited upon this dis- 
 covery, he would have found an argument against revelation, incomparably 
 more available than any which he has urged; an ai'gument wliich, if correct 
 in its premises, must be decisive in its conclusion; for unquestionably a God 
 of infinite wisdom and goodness would never communicate a revelation, 
 to the world, for the instruction and faith of uninspired men, if none but 
 tlie insyjired could understand it, or attain to any certainty in regard to its 
 doctrines. Upon this Unitarian principle, inspiration, to answer its purpose, 
 nuist be continutd throughout all ages; just as Hume contended that miracles 
 must be. 
 
 "This point demands very particular attention, for it is the very hinge on 
 wliich the question respecting fellowship tiuMis. Let it then be again dis- 
 tinctly noted, that you have found yourself compelled to concede, that the in- 
 spired apostles did exclude from fellowship those who embraced another 
 (iospel, or- doctrines or opinions subversive of the Gospel of Christ. This 
 esrablisheir the principle decisively, that it would be right to separate from 
 such now, could it only be determined what the Gospel of Clirist is, and what 
 another Gospel. But this, you contend, no uninspired man or body of men 
 has a rig!it to determine. The Unitarian system, as set forth by Mr. Bel- 
 sliam, is clearly opposite, in every essential point, to the orthodox system. 
 Yet no miinspired man has a right to determine, whicli of these two opposite 
 systems is the true Gospel; no one has a right to pronounce either of them 
 false! And, therefore, tlie believers in eitlier of them have no right to separate 
 from the believers in the othei-! — If it be really so, then let us hear no more 
 of the great Protestant princijile, that (he Hcri/ilun'f/are a sufficient ride of 
 faith; for instead df being a sufficient rule, they are no rule at all. They 
 do not enable or warrant us to decide between two systems, fundamentally 
 and dianietricallv opposite, wliich is true, or whether both of them are false. 
 What the (iospel of Christ is, no uninspired man can tell. If any undertake 
 to determine, and to pronounce an o]j])osite system another Gospel, they are 
 to be regarded as illilieral and uncharitable men, "proud and arrogant" pre- 
 tenders "to "infallibility," ignorant "bigots," and odious "persecutors." 
 
 "The question respecting fellowship or separation certainly resolves itself 
 into this point. If the Scrijitures are a sujticient rule of faith, if from tiiem 
 uninspired men can know what the doctrines of Christ are, or wiiat the 
 true Gospel is; then they have apostolic, divine authority for withdrawing 
 and withholding feIlov>'ship from those, who reject the true, and en^brace 
 7 
 
jO Review of the UnUariaii Controverny. 
 
 another Gospel. If the Scriptures are not a sufficient rule of faith; if no uh- 
 inspired man can know what the Gospel of Christ is; then the "faith of 
 Christians is vain, and our preaching also is vain;" and we have yet to 
 wait, in gloomy uncertainty, in dismal darkness, until God in his sovereign 
 goodnesss shall again bless the world, or some portion of it, with the gift 
 of inspiration." pp. 52, 53. 
 
 We should really be pleased to sec ^Ir. Chauning undertake to 
 grapple with this passage. If he should not be willing to try his 
 strength upon it, let hiui take a long passage, whicii Di*. Worcester 
 quoted from Chillingworth, in the conclusion of which that able 
 wi'iter declares, "I do heartily acknowledge and believe the arti- 
 cles of our faith to be in tliemselves truths as certain and infallible, 
 as tbe very common principles of geometry or metaphysics." 
 
 Mr. Channing had assumed it as a fact, tliat the false teacliers, 
 in the days of the apostles, were men of much worse character than 
 any class of teachers in our days; that they knew distinctly that they 
 were opposing the tiuth, and were therefore justly excluded from 
 Christian fellowship. Dr. W. exposes the fallacy of these assump- 
 tions; and concludes, that "there is no evidence to show, nor rea- 
 son to believe, that the adversaries of the truth were not as sincere, 
 as candid, as virtuous, and as respectable, in the first days of the 
 Gospel, as they are in the present age.'* 
 
 Mr. C. had complained, that a condemning sentence should be 
 passed upon tbe characters of men; by wliich Dr. W. understands 
 him to mean <a sentence of non-communion.' The inquiry is then 
 made, whether Unitarians do not claim and exercise the right of 
 excluding from their fellowship persons who deny their one essen- 
 tial article? And yet a denial of this article results merely *lrom 
 difference of opinion,' from 'mistake in judgment,' and may, if Mr. 
 Channing is to be trusted, be perfectly innocent. Not only does Mr. 
 C. exclutle from Christian fellowship on account of opinion; but, 
 on the same account, passes 'a condemning sentence on the charac- 
 ters of men.' Dr. W. then selects only a small part of the passages, 
 in which Mr. C. had pouicd forth a torrent of obloquy and reproach 
 against all, in every age, w ho have thought it right to exclude pro- 
 fessed Christians from the church, on account of their doctrinal 
 errors. We think Mr. C. must have been somewhat startled at the 
 number, violence, and opprobrious character of the epithets, which 
 had flowed so volubly from his pen; and which clearly indicated, 
 that the habit of using the language of vituperation and abuse was 
 but too prevalent with him and his friends. At the close of this ex- 
 posure Dr. W. declares, that <it was with no common feelings of 
 grief he found himself compelled to say, that a heavier sentence 
 than Mr. Channing's, against the disciples of the Lord, against 
 «the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of tlie truth," 
 liad never, he believed, been pronounced, by the bitterest of enemies, 
 either jiagan or infidel.' 
 
 Mr. C. bad insisted, that the <*only standard of Christian charac- 
 ter is the ij/e." Dr. W. was not disposed to controvert the declaration 
 of our Savior, "By their fruits shall ye know them." He showed, 
 however, at large, and with decisive eflcct, that /ruifs, in the scrip- 
 tural sense, do not intend external morality merely. Indeed noth- 
 
Review of the Unitarian Controversy. 51 
 
 m^ can be clearer, than that/rwiis are relied upon in conh-adistinc- 
 tion from mevc professions, as the test of character. Under/7-«i^s arc 
 comprehended all discoverable evidences of a person's real char- 
 acter, in opposition to his own unsupported jn-ttensions to virtue 
 and piety. The Scriptures plainly teach, that the reception of the 
 cardinal doctrines of Christianity is not less indispensable, than the 
 practice of its moral precepts, to the very existence of the Chris- 
 tian graces. 
 
 The Letter closes witli a view of some of the ^frightful conse- 
 quences,' which Mr. Channinsj apprehends from the contemplated 
 separation. 
 
 We have faithfully given the outlines of this masterly production, 
 and can assure our readers, that it is well W(n-thy of deliberate and 
 rejjeated perusal, and to be kept on the shelf as a complete and un- 
 answerable refutation of the most common and plausible sophistries 
 of Unitarian writers. We understand Mr. C. pronounces it to be 
 so bad, that he w ill not answer jt. We applaud this resolution. 
 
 It now remains, that we introduce some miscellaneous topics, 
 which it seemed most proper to reserve for the close of the article. 
 
 Dr. Worcester observes, in his First Letter, that Mr. Channing 
 <setms to forget that his liberal brethren in England have not only 
 proposed a separation, but have actually carried the proposition into 
 effect.' p. 31. Mr. C. in his Remarks on this letter, p. 22, assumes it as 
 a fact, that the separation made by Unitarians in England is much 
 less to be dreaded than the one proposed by Dr, W. as the former is 
 only "a separation in worshifi^ a separation produced by the adoption 
 of prayers, hymns, and doxologies, accommodated to theirpeculiar sen- 
 timents." Dr. W. asks, in his Second Letter, p. 20, "What is this, I 
 pray you, but a thorough disruption of fellowship, a complete non- 
 communion?" In his last pamphlet, p. 47, Mr. C. describes the worship 
 of the English Unitarians as "singularly free from peculiarities;" and 
 says "that all Christians may join in it without hesitation or pain.** 
 "I learn," says he, "that Mr Lindsey introduced inio his chapel the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England, omitting only the few parts, in 
 which the doctrine of the Trinity is recognized, and directing all the 
 prayers to the Father through the Son. This is the worship, which is 
 most common among all denominations in this country, and by which 
 no Christian can be offended. Most sincerely do I wish, that our 
 public services may be marked by this liberal character." 
 
 Doubtless "all denominations in this country" profess to offer 
 prayers "to the Father through the Son." But if Mr. Channing 
 means, that they so direct their prayers to the Father through the Son, 
 as to withhold divine worship from the Son, his assertion is notorious- 
 ly and grossly incorrect; if he does not mean this, he means nothing 
 to the purpose. Is Mr. Channing serious in supposing, that all Chris- 
 tians may, "without hesitation or pain," join in prayers, from which all 
 worship to the Son and the Holy Spirit is designedly and systematically 
 excluded? He ought to know belter. Are we to take, as a specimen 
 of Mr. C.'s accuracy, his assertion that the Liturgy of the Churcii of 
 England recognizes the doctrine of the Trinity in a 'l/ew parts" only? 
 If we are, this is a pretty fair sample. As to the •wish^ expressed by 
 !Mr. C. in the last sentence quoted above, we think Trinitarians, who 
 alter their prayers for the sake of pleasing Unitarians, are chargeable 
 with a very unwarrantable compliance. If they believe the Lord 
 
52 Review of the Unitarian Controversy, 
 
 Jesus Christ to be worthy of the highest divine honors; and that he 
 receives, and will forever receive, these honors from saints and angels 
 in heaven; how can they pretend to excuse themselves for withhold- 
 ing that worship which they believe justly due? and withholding it for 
 the s^ke of gratifying those, whom they believe to be in dangerous 
 error; thus, in their own^judgment, sacr-ficing truth to error? 
 
 The design of Mr. C. in the passage now under consideration, was 
 to prove, not only that Trinitarians and the lowest Socinians may hold 
 each other in fellowship, but that they may acuially unite in pulilic 
 ■worship ''without hesitation or pain." In proving this, he evidently 
 supposed he should shew Dr. W. to be incorrect, in what /le had al- 
 leged concerning the separation recommended by Unitarians in 
 England. But could Mr. C be ignorant, that Dr. \V. relied on the 
 representations of Mr Belsiiam? And does not Mr. Belsham say, 
 concerning the system of Trinitarians compared with that ot Unitari- 
 ans, "No! No! Opinions such as these can no more harmonize with 
 each other than light and darkness, than Cluist and Bel'al. They 
 who hold doctrines so diajiietrically olifioaite cannot be fellow- wor- 
 SHiPPFRs IN THE SAME TEMPLE." Now wc huuibly coMceive, that 
 Mr. Belsham is here the advocate, both of separation in worship', 
 and of non communion. If Trinitarians and Unitarians "cannot Le 
 feilow-worshippers in the same temple, " we do not see how they can 
 jom,(as Mr C. says they can,) in the same worship ^'without hesiia- 
 tion or pain." And as to communion, Mr. C. must either admit Mr. 
 Belsham to be the advocate of "separation," of "exclusion," of "de- 
 nunciation/' or he must prove, that light and darkness mean sub- 
 stantially the same thing, and that Christ and Belial may really be on 
 very good terms with each other. 
 
 Mr C. inquires, in the note to his last pamphlet, p. 46, "why can- 
 not this controversy be conducted with calmness, without impeach- 
 ment ol character or motives, and without appeals to popular feel- 
 ing?" Indeed, why can it not? We think Mr. C. ought to answer his 
 own question. We should be extremely fond of knowing, whether 
 Mr. C. considers his three pamphlets as being distinguished for 
 calmnes/i. If he does, his mind must he one of the greatest curiosi- 
 ties, which the moral universe contains. Again; why did Mr. C. fiiul 
 it necessary to impeach the character and motives oi Dr. W. and of 
 orthodox Christians generally, who hold to the duty of excluding men 
 from Christian fellowship for religious error? As to afi/wals to pofi- 
 ular feelings if we may judge of the tendency of a writing by its ap- 
 pearance to our own muid, or by its tflfccts on the public, no pam- 
 phlets were ever more entirely and characteristically made up of such 
 appeals, than are the pamphlets of Mr. Channing. The Layman en- 
 tirely fails in this particular. He rouses nobody's passions but his 
 own. Mr, C.'s Letter to Mr. Tiiacher excited a more uncontrollable 
 tempest of indignation, rage, and a desire of revenge, than has ever 
 been observed in this region within the memory of man; and this, 
 if not I'.s only etTect, was the prominent one. Dr. W.'s Letters 
 have, on the contrary, assuaged the stormy passions, directed the 
 jtiinds ot men to topics of soljcr inquiry, and given great consolation 
 on the bed of sickness and of death. 
 
 We had intended to give some specimens of Mr. C.'s contradic- 
 tion of himself. For one ol these we refer the reader to the note, at 
 p. 66 of Dr. W.'s Third Letter. We briefly mention another. Mr. 
 «J. expatiates very freely, after the manner of all latiludtiiavians, sn 
 
Review of the Unitarian Coyitroveray. 55 
 
 the evil of being positive, dogmatical, and censorious; and on the duty 
 of being diffident, modest, meek, and remembering that ail men have 
 their frailties, their prejudices, and their attachment to system. "Let 
 lis be" — says he to Mr Tdacher — "Let us be wliat we profess to be, 
 patient inquirers after truth, open to conviction, willing to listen to 
 objections, willing to -renounce error, willing to believe that nue as 
 nuell as others may have been warped in our opinions, by education and 
 situation, and that others may have acquired important truths which 
 through weakness or prejudice, we may have overlooked." pp. 28, 29. 
 '■'■Every 7nan" says he in his last pamphlet, "is partial to his own opin- 
 ions, because they are his own, and hix self-will and fir id e are wounded 
 by contradiction." p. 32. We migbt quote many passages, which re- 
 commend diffirience in forming and expressing opinions. Indeed, al- 
 most all Mr. Channing's declamation fails at once to the ground, un- 
 less this proposition can be supported; viz. that no proiessed Chris- 
 tian has a right to say, that any other professed Chiisiian embraces 
 fundamental or important errors. As a practical comment on the di{- 
 fidence, which he had been recommending, his last pamphlet contains 
 this passage: "But Unitarians [and of course Mr. C. with the rest j 
 never stop here. They always declare that Scripture with one voice 
 DISOWNS the doctrine of the Trinity, and thai of all the fictions of 
 THEOLOGIANS, the doctrine of three persons in the one God, has per- 
 haps the /fc.v? countenance from the Bible."' This is the 7?2orfc6r man. 
 the enemy of all positiveness and dogmatism! 
 
 When Dr. W. wrote his P'irst Letter, he was careful that Mr. C. 
 'should receive a copy, accom.panied by a note of fraternal courtesy, 
 before the pamphlet was published for sale. This attention was not 
 reciprocated by Mr. C. 'in either of these respects;' and when he 
 thought proper to attempt an answer to the letter, he addressed his 
 Remarks to the public. The same course of conduct was adhered to 
 by each party, we understand, through the whole controversy; and 
 Dr. W. continued to address his letters very respecifully to Mr. C. 
 while the latter turned away from his antagonist, and addressed his 
 speech to the public. We should not mention this, weie it not a fair 
 example of the politeness, the urbanity, practised by the liberal party 
 toward their opponents. We have known several instances, when, 
 on public occasions, gentlemen of the liberal party have been treated 
 with courtesy and respect; not worshipped, indeed, as though their 
 opinions were infallible, or their arguments incapable of refutation; but 
 listened to with seriousness and candor, and regarded as gentlemen oi 
 education, and of high standing in society, should be regarded. We 
 have not seen this courteous treatment generally reciprocated; biu 
 have several times taken notice that it was riiCt with a sour, morose 
 repulsive aspect and demeanor. Let those of our readers, who bavt 
 the means of observation, bear in mind this trail ol the liberal party 
 If we are in an error, we should be happy to see it corrected. 
 
 Mr. Channing complains, that our representations arc injurious to 
 himself and his brethren; particularly by giving to persons at a dis- 
 tance a false account of the clergy ol tue liberal party, of their preach- 
 ing and their doctrines. We state, lor his serious considtration, the 
 following fact. There have been many instances, in which genlienun 
 of education and gr-^at respectabiiity have visited this region Irom a 
 distance, and have used all the means in their power to learn 
 the nature of the theology taught by the clergy of the liberal 
 party. Of these gentlemen a considerable number have been 
 
5 1 Rcviexo of the Unitarian Controversy, 
 
 men of piety, well acquainted with the Scriptures; and not a few 
 have been clergymen. They had heard much ot Boston divinity, and 
 had seen our representations. They of course heard all the preachintj 
 they could, and attended to it with great interest. Not one of these 
 gentlenjen, so far as our knowledge extends, ever expressed an opin- 
 ion that the clergy of the liberal party had been injured. Many, to 
 our certain knowledge, have declared, that the preaching generally 
 heard from gentlemen of that party was more deatifute of the Gospet, 
 and often njore contranj to the GosfieL-, than they had ever before im- 
 agined. 
 
 ?vlr. Channing has applied to our Review many approbrious epi- 
 thets, of which we are not disposed to take the least notice. That ar- 
 ticle has received the approbation of men, in whose presence Mr. C 
 would not assume any tone of superiority; — -of men whose consciences 
 are not less tender, whose motives are not less pure, and whose deci- 
 isions are not less weighty, than those of Mr. C. and his brethren. We 
 do not mean to inipiy, tliat tlie approbation of men, however great and 
 good, is a safe rule of conduct. But, in the present case, our own de- 
 liberate opinion of what was right is confirmed by the judgment of 
 persons of high standir.g in the churches, on both sides of the Athin- 
 tic. This we think sufficient to counterbalance the ''denunciations,'* 
 wiaich weie so autlioiitatively uttered by Mr. Channing. 
 
 It is remarkable, that in the Christian Instructor published at Edin- 
 burgh in June last, (the same month in which our Review appeared,) 
 there was a Review oi' certain Unitarian pamphlets, which had recent- 
 ly been published in Scotland. The occasion is seized by the Reviewr 
 cr to expose the ridiculous and insufferable manner, in vvhich Unita- 
 rians praise each other; and the whole article evinces most cJeatly 
 that the sect is i)reciseiy the same on each side of the water. 
 
 It was maiiile'st in our Review, t*hat Unitarianism of the Priestlcian 
 sort, is in the near neigliborhood of infidelity. This is abundantly 
 proved, in the ai tide to which we have just referred. "The sincere 
 and coiiscieiuious Deist," says INIr. Cogan, as quoted by the Christian 
 Instructor, ''cannot be far from the kingdoni of heaven." "The ob- 
 jections of a rational and virtuous Deist," says the same writer, "can- 
 not be against the pure primitive principles of our religion; they can 
 only be opposed to doctrines of fallible men, some of which must be 
 spurious, and others of an inferior importance. They are all of u mere 
 speculative nature." 
 
 In short, this Unitarian wrilcr goes on, in sucli a manner as would Ifi-id to the conclu- 
 sion, that every "rational and victuous Deist," (that is, every Deist wiio sai/s he is ration- 
 al and virtuous,) ought to he received into Christian t'ellowsliip; a conclusion to which Dr. 
 ■\Vorcester proved that Mr. Channing's principles uould lead him. "Did the general 
 creed of Christians," says Mr. Smith, the Unitarian coadjutor of Mr. Yates, "comprise 
 only ihc Kin)i)le and sublime docti'ine of Uuitarianisni, ami were the lives of its ]>rofessors 
 in any degree consistent « ivli their avowed belief, I am persuaded that there would scarce- 
 ly he an inridel to be found: for in this system there is nothing which the understanding 
 Can reject as uni:.easouable, or the heart oppose as malevolent; the enlijjhtened must per- 
 ceive it to be just, and the good must wish it to be true." What a direct opposition is 
 this to the whole tenor of our Savior's preaching. What a contradiction to the uniform 
 testimony of Scripture on the subject of urdjelief And yet Mr. Smith can talk of his rev- 
 erence 4or the Scriptur-es, with as much tkieacy as Mr. Channing. He is not afraid, how- 
 ever, to speak of "the common doctrine of future punishnient as a doctrine which, he is 
 liappy to dcclire. Unitarians have sense enough to distrust, and goodness enough to de- 
 test." In this irreverent, presumptiu)us, profane manner, <lo leading Unitarians permit 
 themselves to speak of the most soienm and awful truths of revelation; and with such 
 men as these does Mr. C. insist, tli.ii the orthodox should hold Christian communion. 
 
 Our readers will remember, that Mr. Wells wrote a short letter to the Editor of the 
 Panoplist, which was published in our number for -hdy, and which we have already once 
 mentioned in i!vs article Though >ve by no uieuris agree witli Mr. Wells, in the inter- 
 
Revienv of the UnitaYian Controversy. 55 
 
 pretationof his letter to Mr. Bclsham, we do cordially agree with hira in referring that 
 letter, with his observations iqion it, to our readcs. It was with pleasure that wcmseil- 
 ed his short explanatory letter; particularly as he did not, like Mr. Channiiig and the Lay- 
 man, fall into a passion, nor utter sucli re'proache.s, as would have Seen ill suited to his 
 character as a scholar and a gentleman. We can even apolo::izL- for the obnoxious part 
 of his letter to Mr. IJelsham; that in which he made so tree with the characters of the 
 orthodo.t. The letter was wi-itien in harte, without any expectation that it would be pub- 
 lished; and v/e presume the expressions which it conlalied were not weiglu-d with mucb 
 accuracy. In this way it may have come to pass, tliat several paragraphs, probably with- 
 out much consideration, were filled w itii the cant of tiie party. 
 
 We intended to cjuote the first pnragrapli 01" the La\ man's pamiihlet, and to exhibit, in 
 as brief a manner as possible, tiie folly ."extravagance, and pi'rvei-se igaorance, or total dis- 
 regard of truth, which ai-e manifest in that paragraph alo.ie. Our rLadcrs would then be 
 able to judge what soji of a writer the L.ayman is, and to \>hat credit his representations 
 are entitled. But wc have not tnc rc"m necessary for this puri>03e. Dr. Worcester ap- 
 propriated twopai^es, in a postscript, totlie consideration of ihe Lavman's rhapsody of 72 
 pages; which was quite as much as it deserved. Let not our re:ulei-s suppose, that we con- 
 sitier the liberal party as responsible foi- tliis pamphlet. We have never heard, tint it 
 was approved by a single individual of that party, except the writer; and, unless wehavd 
 been misinformed, it has been regarded by the i)arly in general with entire disgust and 
 contempt. VV e do not see how any man could more effectually destroy his own reputation 
 as a writer, than the Layman has done by the pam])hlet, in question. Still we are not to 
 forget, that this miserable compound of rant and malevolence is the production of a man, 
 who has been di Uinguished in the liberal pai ty by his talents and his zeal, and w ho is now- 
 Considered as tl»e most active member of the Corporation of Harvard College. The Lay- 
 man will probably suppose, that we wish 10 prevent bis pampjilct from being read. This 
 is not the case. It is true that we cannot conscientiously advi.se any otie to buy such an ef- 
 fusion, unless for the mere purpose of seeing how wretchedly a man of talents, and <>f 
 learning on some subjects, can write in a b.ad cause. For the futui-e, we think there is lit- 
 tle hazard in asserting, that tiie writings of the Layman, whether he attacks the character 
 of individuals or of l.irge bodies of men, will receive as little attention, and exei t as little 
 influence, as his adversaries could desire. 
 
 Both Mr. Channing and the Layman have introduced the President of Harvard College, 
 and attempted to vindicate him iVom the observations made concernin<j; him in onr Ue- 
 view. We had mentioned "a letter of consolatitm and eijconragement, written by Dr. 
 Kirkland to the New Utiitarian (.'hnrch in Philadelphia;" Mliich, as we st.ited, ihev ha<! 
 "been complaisant enough to publish by shewing it to several of their orthfHlox friends." 
 This statement we made on v h.ii we deemed good authority; and we believe anj* candid 
 man would have so deemed it. Rut we now lind, that the letter in qin-stion wasnot;uJ- 
 dressed formally to the Unitarian Church; but to "a zealous member" of the Sociniaa 
 Society in Philadelphia; and that it may not have been published to the orthodox, any 
 otherwise than by relaung- its conU'nts. We have made ililigcnt inquiry on the subject; 
 and, after considering the extract in the note to the Layman's pampldet, have no reasoa 
 to doubt, that the letti^r of Dr. K. was subst:inti:illv, ih'>ugli not fi)rinally, what we repre- 
 sented it; and that it was intended by the w riter to promote the cause of Socinianism in 
 Philadelpliia. 
 
 "The story ^vhich the Reviewer tell.s," says Mr. Channing, "of a number of men ns- 
 sembling on the evening of Cominencenient, and putting tog'-ther their observations on 
 the President's prayer, sounds badly." We quote this passag'- for the sake of showing 
 Mr. Channing himself, how easy it is to misrepresent; and to give an (mIIous appi arance. 
 to the most natural ^nd innocent act:ons. Wc told no "story" of "a number of men as- 
 sembling." We s.iid, "seveial gentlemen of echu-ation and respectability, from different 
 parts of the .\mcrican union, came to the rnaniinous co:iclusion, 8ic." The f«ct was 
 that some of these gentlemen were in one place, ami some were in another; but they .all 
 came to the same "unanimous conclusion." N'or did those, who were in one place, "<;*• 
 semhle," for the sake of "putting t(.>gether their observations on the President's prayer," 
 as Mr. Channing's language would intimate. The prayers of the President did, indeed, 
 excite the astonishment of these gentlemen; and tlii'^ astonishment ihey expressed to eacU 
 other, as we suppose tliey had a right to do. Those of th'vi,, w ho were from distant 
 j)arts of the country, liad not before imagined, that such prayers were ir-ver offered in a 
 Christian lan<l; especially by a clergyman, who was at the head of » great literary institu- 
 tion. Mr Channing, having added from his own invention the circumstance of "assjjn- 
 bti7ig;" proceeds to make a very odious comparison, which imj.lles the existence of sev- 
 eral other odious circumstances; thongii for these insinuations tiiere was not the sligiitest 
 pretence. He concludes, by representing these gentlemen as "spies," because they had 
 been so wicked as to observe and converse about the President's prayer; "spies," for 
 listening to the prayers of Dr Kirkland, on commencement day, in the midst of twu 
 thousand people! We did not publish our account of these prayers without delib-mtio.T. 
 "We should despise any thing like a verbal criticism ou i>ublic devotional services, We 
 should equally despise the j,ublica:ion of strictures on the more private conduct of any 
 gentleman, holding an important pulMic office; because such conduct might receive a color, 
 or appearance, from carelessness, inadvertence, occasional levity, or a thousand other cau- 
 ses. But we do not conceive oursr'ves to have infringed the rules of the most scrupulous 
 
56 i. Review of the Unitarian Controu crsy . 
 
 decorum, in having adverted to the general and peculiar charactfr of public services; 
 ■which character nmst have been the result of a religious sj-stcni, and could not be imput- 
 ed to iuadvcrtciici , carelessness, or any temjiorarj cause. M'e tliought it a very solemn 
 tact, that the f;(M)eral character of devotional exercises, on commencement day, in Har- 
 vard College, this tavoi-ite instituliou of our venerable forefathers, should be sunk down 
 to the level oi' sober Deism. Others have thought it a solemn fact. 
 
 •'There is anoiher charge against the Piesident of Harvard University,'" 9«ys iNlr. 
 Channing, "« hich no one cert.iiiily will expect mc to notice; it is the charge of having 
 ■written an article in the Anthologj above four years ago. 1 am not in the habit of asking 
 gentlemen, uheihwr tliey are the authois of pieces which appear x\ilhout a name; nor 
 do 1 conceive that the President of llarvaid University is bound to answer to the pubUc, 
 vh'-never an anonymous publicalioi\ shall he laid to his charge " 
 
 '1 his paragrapii was uritlen because Mr. Clianning felthimself obliged to say someZ/iin^, 
 Did Mr. Cha.ning wish his reaiiers to believe, that tlie President of Harvard College did 
 not write <he article in question ? If he did wish his i^eaders to believe so, we solemi»ly 
 pui the question to his conscience; Uid he himself believe, what he wished to make oth- 
 ers believe ? If he did not wish his readers to believe so, why did he write the paragraph? 
 Can any well inloruied man, x\ iio lives wiihin fifty miles of Boston, doubt whether Mr. 
 Channing was ignoraiu, who the writer of the article was ? 
 
 Again; does .Mr. C. wish to be understood, that the circumstance of the article hav- 
 ing been written *\foitr i/eurs ago" diminislies the criminality of having written 
 it .'■ Is there a statute of limitalions, which can be pleaded at the bar of the Christian 
 public, of conscience, and of God, in justification of aii_\ offence against religion, which 
 may have been committed "above four years ago?" If there is, it will be a happy dis- 
 covery for the wliole race of scolfers; and there are many other articles in4.he Anthology, 
 the authors of which will gladly lake advantage of the statute. 
 
 V\ by did not Mr. Channing let the public know, whether he approved or condemned 
 the passage, which «e quoted from the article in the Anthology' 1'" the passage v.as in- 
 nocent, it must have been a .small ot'teiice in us to ha\e imputed it to any one; if the writ- 
 ing of the passage was a heii\ous offence, Mr. C. ought to have acknowledged it to be so, 
 or not ■lO have mentioned l!ie subject at all. 
 
 'I'he tact IS, v\hatever ^Jr. Channing may savor think on the subject, that the article, 
 vhicli we qiujtcd from the Anthology, made a very deep impression upon the Christian 
 public, it cannot be winked out of sight. It cannot be excused or palliated. It is con- 
 sidered as one of the most pernicious, and one of tlie most culpable examples ot scoffing 
 ^t religion, which can any where be found; as holding up to ridicule all religious anxiety, 
 kll concern toi^ the sahation of the soul; as deriding the holy joy of the penitent sinner, 
 who casts himself upon the mercy of his Savior, and glories in tlie doctrines of the cross. 
 Thus it is understood : and there are several other passages in the same article, whicli 
 sustain the same unhappy character. 
 
 A gentleman of the liberal parly informeil a fiiend of ours, that he was present •when 
 tlie article was read in manuscript foi- the approbation of the conductors of the Authob;- 
 gv, at one of their weekly meetings. 'I'he writer was frequently interrupted, while read- 
 ing llie ai tide, by peals of ungovernable laughter; so that it w as not wiihout (hfficuUy 
 th t he was able to proceed. Mr. Channing appears to have a great sensibility to "sneer," 
 "iu.sult," and "sarcasm," in any case where he imagines these weapons to be directed a- 
 gainst himself or his brethren. N\ hat does he think of .several clergymen and laymen 
 "absembling" by appointment; and one of ihe clergymen takitig out of his pocket a string 
 of bue'.'is and sarcasms, written in the coolness and stillness of academic bowers;— of sneer ■■ 
 and sarcasms, directed, not against the weaknesses or even the virtues of his fellow -men, 
 hul A'^Mwst thons ffreat truth.s "f reliqiofiy which have been ^the consolation of the pioii> 
 in every age.' ^^'llllt does he think of such a siiii;g of sneers and sarcasms being read u- 
 miilst a i^oar of laughter, and loud cheering, fiom every part of such a learned, liberal, 
 clerical auditory r Is not this "sitting in the seat of the scornful;" 
 
 ^^"e designed to make a few observations on the effects of the present controver.^y; but 
 •we must crowd vhat we have to say on ttiis subject into a single paragraph. We observe, 
 then, thht in the early part of the controversy there w as a most uncommon exhibiiion of 
 anger and indignation, throughout the whole exicnt of the liberal party. 'Ihese wr.'sth- 
 ful passions have been succteded, in many instances, by deep and pathetic lauientations 
 over the evils of coiuroversy, ai d of sejiaralion. Vv e have not heard w bother any of the 
 party suppose Mr. Channing to have the belter of the argument. Possibly sonic of them 
 do; we bchevfe- mo.st of them do not. On the other sitle, the temper and the feelings 
 have been very differerit. We have neither seen nor kmiwn any ortliodox person angry, 
 throughout tbe whole discussion. We have heard no fears, no anxiety, ex[>re?se<t among 
 our friends, as to the resiill. They have been satisfiul, that the cause of truth would be 
 the gainer. 'Ihey b:ive been persundrd, that, in the language of Dr. ^\ orcester, it is 
 not A "violation of the great law of love, for the friends of truth to decline communioi, 
 ■vt'iih its rejecter.s." Though we lament the unchristian feelings, the violent animositie.^, 
 of which the controversy has been the occasion; we rejoice that the minds of men in this 
 region, are awakened to consideration, and that the disclosures which have been made 
 are so many and so importani, as that the coiicealmeiiL of a minister's religious Jysituk 
 TH ill hereafter be difficult, if not iraprutticable. 
 
\ 
 
I 
 
w