^ 
 
 7* if3i>v ' ■ 
 
 
 ^m 
 
 ^ 
 
 5^ 
 
 1% /■ ! 
 
 
 
 -_-_. -v-.-^V, 
 
 ^ 
 
 f*<,.^,. 
 
1 Tlie 
 
 rropertry 1 
 
 IlEfflDiT 
 
 MBBEITIBIIIIST 
 
 o 
 
 ^ilTilV'T. 
 
 BARTON 
 
 SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED ' 
 
 1 
 
 LIBRARY-" 
 
 — OF THi:— _' - 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
 ■' 1 
 

 * 
 
A CAKDID AND CONCILIATORY 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OP THE LATE 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 or tmj: 
 
 Reverend Dr.WorcestT with the Reverend \\'illiani E. Channing, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 t)u6iert of ©nitattanism* 
 
 BY A SERIOUS JXQUIRER. 
 
 «' And not a little influence is exerted to prevent people from read- 
 
 Jne_more than one side. Still, liowever, there are many who do read 
 and will read both sides. The points in discussion are among the most 
 important that could be offered to the attention of the christian communi- 
 ty. Though some ill effects may ensue, as, in a world like this, is always 
 to be expected, when any thing'is attempted for the cause of truth ; yet 
 the persuasion, I believe, is continually extending and gaining- strength, 
 that the good effects will greatly preponderate." .... Br. Worcester. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PRINTED BY LINCOLN & EDMANDS, FOR THE AUTHOR. 
 1817. 
 
 ^f^t^l7[tH 
 
Dear Sir, 
 
 IN compliance with j^oiir urgent and repeated request, 
 I take my pen, after much, and serious deliberation, to 
 communicate to you " some of my thoughts" respecting 
 the late correspondence of the Rev. Dr. Worcester, with 
 the Rev. Mr. Channing, " on the subject of Unitarianism.'* 
 
 In doing this, I wish to appear rather as an inquirer than 
 a judge. — My inquiries, if not exclusively, will principal- 
 ly relate to Dr. Worcester's -views and arguments in re- 
 lation to the "doctrine of the Trinity," and the " persons" 
 who are supposed to constitute a " Triune God." 
 
 I desire to come to these subjects of inquiry with my 
 mind duly impressed with their magnitude and solemn 
 importance, and with a strong conviction of the difficulties 
 which they involve. Fervently praying for Divine illumi- 
 nation and guidance, I shall inquire, in tiie first place, 
 whether the Doctor's views of 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 
 
 are to be admitted as correct ? This, it seems, is, " upon 
 the whole, your belief." — A belief, which, if well founded, 
 1 most sincerely hope will be strengthened and immovea- 
 bly established in your own mind, and become universal. 
 But as I cannot admit the Doctor's views of this subject 
 as " unquestionahlif correct, I must be permitted to 
 question, before I can undoubtingly receive them. 
 
 In his Second Letter to Mr. Channing, Dr. Worcester 
 observes, p. 30, " On the authority of the Scriptures, or- 
 thodox christians believe that the one Jehovah exists in 
 a Trinity, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 These we call persons^ because we have no better word by 
 which to denote the distinction," &c. 
 
 In his Third Letter, p p. 19, 20, 24, 31, 33, 69, the 
 Doctor says, " The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are 
 either three Divine Persons, united in one Godhead^ or else 
 three separate Divine Beings. The former is the ortho- 
 
dox doctrine.'- " Ordiodox christians hold that the three 
 Divine Persons are tmited in one Godheads " They ex- 
 ist, and act, and are blessed Ibrevermore, as one God." 
 " That three Divine Persons are one God, or that the one 
 God exists in three Divine Persons, is revealed with suffi- 
 cient clearness." " No one can saj', that the supposition 
 of three Persons in one God is contraiy to reason." " It 
 is a well attested fact, that, by the great' body of christians 
 fron^ the days of the Apostles to the present, thedeniers of 
 the Trinity, or of the proper Deity and atonement of Jesus 
 Christ, have been regarded as being eminently subverters 
 of the Gospel." — Such are Dr. Worcester's statements of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity ; and in his Second Letter, p. 
 26, he says, addressing Mr. Channing, "We worship. Sir, 
 THE Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Do you wor- 
 ship this same God '?" 
 
 Before I consider the arguments urged in support of this 
 doctrine, I deem it necessary-, to asctirtain w hat the doc- 
 trine z>, or what is to be understood by three Divine Per- 
 sons united in one Godhead^ or God ; as otheru ise words 
 may be used without any tiefinite or intelligible ideas ; nor 
 can it be s^itisfactorily determined how any argument ap- 
 plies to the subject. What then are we to imdcrstand by 
 the term /J6>r^<9w, as used by Dr. W. ? and in what does 
 their union consist, by which they are constituted 0!ie 
 God ? Does he mean by Persons, modes or relations of 
 God, such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier ? As 
 some things occur in his Letters which seem to favour this 
 supposition, I am not entirely satisfied that this is not his 
 meaning. Some of the most distinguished Trinitarian 
 w Titers explicitly say, " This is what we mean, and all wc 
 mean, when v;e say that God is three Persons." And this, 
 I am persuaded, is all that incmy reputed Trinitarians be- 
 lieve in relation to the subject. If Dr. W. holds this doc- 
 trine, you, Sir, probably admit it as correct. But you 
 ^yill permit me to ask, Is the term persons, ever used in 
 Scripture, to denote the three relations of God — Creator^ 
 Redeemer, and Sanctifier? Did these relations always 
 exist in God, even before any created being existed ? Are 
 these relations or modes to be considered as objects of 
 worship, instead of God himself, in w horn tliey exist ? Tiie 
 advocates of this figurative, or metaphorical Trinity, ought 
 
 ispicion 
 
 of holding a form of Trinitarian words, while they deny 
 the substance of the Trinitarian doctrine. 
 
 But the doctrine r.s above stated, would not, I am inclined 
 to believe, be admitted by Dr. W. as conect. His defini- 
 
tion of persons can hardly be supposed to be consistent 
 with it. *' They" (the three Divine Persons) he admits. 
 Letter 3d, p. 29, *' are reallj' and truly intelligent agents, 
 each possessing all divine attributes, and performing in 
 union with the other two, all divine w orks." In his t iist 
 Letter, p. 27, he says, " Between a being essentially di- 
 vir.e, as by us the Saviour (the Son of God) is held to be, 
 and a mere creature, however ' exalted,' there is, you will 
 readily admit, an infinite disparity." In Letter 3d, p. 24, 
 he speaks of the " Son as essentially equal, and one with 
 the F ather." Of the Holy SjDirit, he observes. Letter 2d, 
 p. 36, that " Orthodox christians believe that He, like the 
 Father and Son, is tmly and essentially divine." And in 
 Letter 3d, p. 30, he observes, " From the Scriptures then, 
 we learn, and understand, that there is a Father, a Son, 
 and a Holy Spirit : that the Father possesses divine attri- 
 butes, and is therefore God ; that the Son ])ossesses divine 
 attributes, and is therefore God ; that the Holy Spirit also 
 possesses divine attributes, and is therefore God ; and that 
 the divine Three so exist together, as to be one God." 
 
 These quotations exhibit, in a connected view, Dr, 
 Worcester's theory of the doctrine of the Trinity. I know 
 not that any passage in his Letters has been omitted, which 
 would assist in formmg a more correct and clear idea of it. 
 The import of the quotations, as I understand them, is, 
 that the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit, Q7 e truly ^ essential- 
 ly, equally divine persons, but so united^ and so exists as to 
 constitute but one God, 
 
 In relation to this doctrine, I shall make some inquiries 
 and remarks. But before I do this, it may be proper to 
 state M'hat the Doctor says respecting the unioji of the di- 
 vine Three. " The unity of the three divine Persons is 
 the highest and most perfect possible : not merely a moral 
 union, such as exists between holy men and angels, but an 
 essential oneness, suph as constitutes one Godhead. If all the 
 knowledge, and A\isdom, and power, and goodness of the 
 Father are also in the Son and in the Holy Spirit ; then in 
 their nature, in their attributes, in their designs, in their 
 works, in their blessedness, in their glory, they are one.'* 
 
 Is this view, my dear Sir, of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, unquestionably correct ? You will not deem it as 
 irreverent and presumptuous, if I make some queries, in 
 reference to it, and suggest some diflicaities existing in my 
 own mind which operate as a hinderance to my receiving 
 it as an unquestionable veritj\ 
 
 By persons, according to Dr- W. v/e are to understand 
 "really and truly intelligent agents, each possessing all di- 
 vine attributes, and performing in union with the other two 
 uU divine vvorks." These agents are tiirce beings. This 
 
it is presumed the Dr. will not hesitate to admit, as he 
 holds that the Saviour, (the Son of Ood,) is " a beirig es- 
 sentially divine." But must not three divine hein'^s be 
 three Gods ? Let Dr. W. decide. " The Father pos- 
 sesses divine attributes, and is therefore God ; the Son 
 possesses divine attributes, and is therefore God ; the Ho- 
 ly Spirit also possesses divip.e attributes, and is therefore 
 God." — According to the Dr.'s theory then, the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, are three persons — these persons are 
 three agents — these agents are three be/?igs, and these 
 beings are three Gods. And yet these " di\ine Three so 
 exist together as to be one God." But " what is there," 
 asks the Dr. " in all this which, as matter of fact, we do 
 not understand?" — W hether you, my dear Sir, understand 
 a// t/iis, I will not presume to say. Bat there is much in 
 it, I freely confess, which /do 7iot understand. Although 
 I will not decisively s;.y, the supposition that three persons, 
 or agents, or beings, or G(k1s, are one God, "is contrary to 
 reason ;" yet I dare not say that it is compatible with rea- 
 son. Does reason teach or admit the existence of t/iree 
 Gods equal, and infinite in " divine attributes ?" Should 
 3^ow revolt at this statement as polytheistic, and there- 
 fore as inadmissible, let me ask — does reason teach or ad- 
 mit the existence of three beings equal and infinite in divine 
 attributes ? Should you object to this statement, then, let 
 tlie question be, — does reason teach or admit the existence 
 of t/rree agents or persons equal, and infinite in divine at- 
 tributes ? To this statement, I presume, you will not ob- 
 ject. But A^^hat is the difference between three Gods or 
 beings equal and infinite in divine attributes, and three 
 agents or persons equal and infinite in di\ine attributes,? 
 Must not these attributes have a subject or subjects to 
 Avhich they belong ? But must not the subject or subjects 
 be precisely the same, whether they be called persons, 
 agents, beings, or Gods ? The application of dift'erent 
 names to beings, or thin.gs, their attributes remaining the 
 same, neither produces, nor is capable of producing any 
 alteration or change in the beings or things themselves. 
 Can you, Sir, j^erceive any other tlian a mere nominal 
 difference between three persons possessed of infinite 
 divii^e attributes, and three Gods possessed of the same 
 attributes ? If there be any perceptible difference, most 
 devoutly do I v,ish that I had the ability to perceive it. It 
 does, Sir, appear to me as disingenuous, — -is trifling with 
 a most serious subject, to attempt to make any real dis- 
 tinction betvvcen three infinite persons, and three infinite 
 Gods. But is it to be admitted that there are three Gods 
 possessing equal and infinite attributes? I do not see, I 
 confess, vv hy this should not be admitted, on the supposi- 
 
tion of the existence of three persons possessing such attri- 
 butes. Yet I am not prepared to admit the supposition 
 "as matter ot fact." — Nor, were this admitted, do I see 
 how I can " understand" that^ three Gods, or beings, or 
 agents, or persons, equal in divine and infinite attributes, 
 either do, or can exist, as one God. I am, I assure you, 
 completely confounded when I attempt to contemplate 
 three such existences, each omnipresent, omniscient, om- 
 nipotent, &,c. and each " willing, doing, and enjoying" what 
 the others, will, do, and enjoy, and yet being but one. 
 
 *' The Father, Son, and H()ly Spirit, (says the Doctor,) 
 are either tiiree divine persons, lunted in one Godhead^ or 
 else three separate Divine Beings.^ Tlie former is the 
 orthodox doctrine." But is it not difficult to conceive of, 
 and contemplate three divine persons otherwise than so 
 many separate and distinct beings ? If we ascribe to each 
 divine and equal attributes, is it not necessary to consider 
 each as separate from the others ? If " what the Father 
 knows, the Son knows, and the Holy Spirit kno\'\'s ;"-7-if 
 " what the Father wills, the Son wills, and the Holy Spirit 
 wills;" if " what the Father does, the Son does, and the 
 Holy Spirit does;" arid if "what the Father enjoys, the 
 Son enjoys, and the Holy Spirit enjoys," is not the knowl- 
 edge, the will, the actions, and the enjoyments of each, his 
 own knowledge, will, actions and enjoyments ? Must we 
 not then contemplate each as separate from the others "? 
 To me. Sir, it is extremely difficult, to say the least, to 
 conceive of a person who knows, and wills, and acts, and 
 enjoys, and yet is not a separate and distinct person or being 
 from all other persons. The idea that three persons, each 
 possessed of "divine attributes," have, or can have a com- 
 munity of one and the same perception and will, of the 
 same individual act, and enjoyment ; or that these things 
 are common to the three, is too mysterious for my appre- 
 hension. Is not the supposition unintelligible? Is it not 
 as contrary to, as it is above reason ? 
 
 But let us see again what the Doctor says re- 
 specting the subject. " It appears that the unity 
 of the three Divine Persons is the highest and most 
 perfect possible, not merely a moral union^ such as 
 exists between holy men and angels, but an essential one- 
 ness^ such as constitutes one Godhead." This unity, then, 
 is morale although not simply or wholly so. It is" such 
 as exists between holy men and angels." But what is the 
 unity vvhich exists between these holy beings, but that of 
 concord, or an agreement in afection, design and pursuit ? 
 This unity, however " high and perfect," is so far from 
 constituting them one individual being, that it has no ten- 
 dency to such an effect. As the unity then of the three 
 Divine Persons is the same in kind with diat wliich exists 
 
between *' holy men and angels," it neither docs, nor can, 
 it appears to me, constitute them one God. Is it not in- 
 deed wholly incompatible with such a supposition? But the 
 Dr. adds that this unity consists in." an essential oneness, 
 such as constitutes one Godhead," or " one God." — Es- 
 sential oneness — What arc we to understand by this? 
 That^ the three persons have between them one, and but 
 one individual consciousness, understanding, will, &c. 
 But can such a oneness be consistent with a 7voral unity ^ 
 such as exists between holy men and angels ? Can there 
 be any concord, or agreemcnc in affection, design, and pur- 
 suit between them, if they are so united as to be but one 
 mdividnal God ? Can a moral union exist between the one 
 God/ Tht Dr. has indeed attempted an explication of the 
 essential 072e7i€ss of the three divine persons. He supposes 
 that "all theknowkdge, and wisdom, and power, and good- 
 ness^ of the Father are also in the Son and in the Holy 
 Spirit ;" and that all these perfections va hich are both " in 
 the Father and in the Son, are also in the Holy Spirit." — 
 This representation is to my mind not a little ambiguous, 
 if ue are to understand l3y it that the Father possesses indi- 
 vidual, separate, or distinct kno\A'ledge, ^visdom, power and 
 jgoodness, and yet that these verj^ attributes or properties 
 are in the Son, I VAould ask — can they be ?"«, and belong to 
 the Father and the Son at the same time ? Is it not very 
 difficult to conceive that the property oi one person or being 
 should be the proj^erty, and in the possession, at the same 
 time, of another person or being ? If the knowledge, wis- 
 dom, &c. of the Father be in the Son, must not these attri- 
 butes be exclusively the Son's ? And if the knowledge, 
 wisdom, &c. which are in the Father and in the Son, are 
 also in the Holy Spirit, must they not be the exclusive 
 attributes of the Spirit '? If all divine attributes exist in 
 the Holy Spirit, an.d these attributes properly belong to the 
 Spirit, as a person, I do not see that they either are, or can 
 be the attributes, either of the Son or the Father. But if 
 Doctor W. will not allow this to be a just representation of 
 the "essential oneness ofthe three Divine Persons," I would 
 ask vvhetlier h^e is to be understood as conveying the idea, 
 tiiat each is a sharer — an equal sharer of one common stock 
 of knowledge, wisdom, power and goodness, and in such 
 a mysterious manner, that each may be considered as 
 possessing and using the whole ? Whether this explication 
 of the essential oneness under consideration meets the Doc- 
 tor's views, I am not prepared to say. I can only say that 
 it appears to me the most rational and consistent that can 
 be given. Yet it is attended with difficulties, to my mind, 
 which, if not invincible, are so great that I see not how they 
 are satisfactorily to be removed. 
 
But apprehensive that I may not ha^'e ekicidated the 
 Doctor's meaning, I will make, at present, no further in- 
 quiries respecting it, but examine the/?;*oo/"of his theory 
 according to his own statement and explanation of it. — ■ 
 " The one Jehovah exists in a Trinity, called the Futher, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These we call persons.'''' 
 These persons " are really and truly Intelligent agents, each 
 possessing all divine attributes, and performing in union 
 with the other two, all divine works." These " intelligent 
 agents," are be'ings ; and each of these beings, " is GodJ'^ 
 
 The Proof 
 
 Of this triune doctrine, as exhibited by Doctor Worcester, 
 is now to be examined. In support of it, he observes. 
 Letter 2, p. 30, " On the authority of the scriptures, ortho- 
 dox christians believe that the owq Jehovah exists in a 
 Trinity, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 These we call persons ; because they apply to each other 
 the i^ersonal pronouns, /, Thou, and He, and to themselves 
 together, the plurals we, us, and ow?-." — If this application 
 of the personal pronouns to each other by the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, were to be admitted as a matter of 
 fact, I do not see that it would prove that the " One Jehovah 
 exists in a Trinity." But is it a fact that the application of 
 the personal pronouns is ever made according to Dr. W.'s 
 statement ? Do either of the persons ever apply the personal 
 pronoun /, to the other persons ? Does either the Father 
 or the Son apply the pronoun Thou to the Spirit ? Or 
 does the Spirit apply either of the pronouns to the Father, 
 or the Son, or to himself? Does the Son ever apply the 
 plurals 7ve, us, our, to himself, to the Father, and to the 
 Spirit connectedly ? Or does the Spirit ever, in like man- 
 ner, make the application ? And is it not very doubtful, 
 to say the least, whether the Father ever applies the plural 
 pronouns to himself, his Son and his Spirit, collectively 
 considered ? The Doctor's statement being thus essen- 
 tially incorrect, no argument can be drawn from it in favor 
 of his hypothesis. 
 
 " We believe," continues the Doctor, " this doctiine, 
 because we find it in those scriptures, which we receive as 
 given by divine inspiration. In the scriptures the original 
 Hebrew name, by which the Supreme Being is most com.- 
 \non\y cdXkid., 'is plural fAleim, Gods."^ Bu: does the 
 circumstance, that the word Aleim, or Elohim, is plural in 
 its termination, prove that it has a plural imp6rt ? If so, it 
 proves only that there are more Gods than one ; but without 
 determining the ^^recise number. . But yr we to admit the 
 existence of a plurality of Gods — supreme Gods ? This I 
 B 
 
i.O 
 
 dare nnt. But itAIeim has a plural signification, and ought 
 to be rendered Gods, instead of God, or Jehovah, is not 
 the doctrine of polytheism to be admitted as a Bible truth ! 
 From this single consideration I am inclined to believe that 
 the word in question, is, in its import, with application to 
 God, strictly singular. Besides, is not this word in the 
 Septuagint always translated by the >vord Theos^ in the 
 singular number ? But did not the translators, who were 
 native Hebrews, and perfectly understood their own lan- 
 guage, consider the word Aleun to be singular in its import ? 
 And does not this circumstance afford the strongest e\'i- 
 dence that it is not plural in its sense and meaning ? I 
 would further ask — Is it not very strange that if the word 
 Aleun import plurality of persons, that the v/ord corres- 
 ponding to it in the Afew Testament should always be 
 singular, and especially as the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 thought to be revealed here much more clearly than in the 
 Old Testament scriptures ? Did our Saviour give the least 
 intimation when he quoted Deut. vi. 4. " Hear, O Israel, 
 the Lord our God is one Lord," that the word under con- 
 sideration signified plurality of persons in the one God ? 
 Rather did he not seem clearly to convey the idea that God 
 is but one person ? I would further ask — Is not this same 
 word, and other Hebrew words of plural termination, used 
 to designate a false divinity and one numerical man ? As 
 you will not question that this is indeed the case, ought 
 you not to consider this circumstance as affording very 
 strong and presumptive proof, that the word Aleim^ the 
 original name by which the Supreme Being is called, does 
 not express plurality of persons ? 
 
 "In coincidence with this plural name, other plural words, 
 (the Doctor observes,) are used. * Let us make man in 
 OUR own image,' &c. *' This remarkable use of plurals 
 which runs through the Hebrew scriptures," he thinks, 
 " clearly denotes a plurality of persons." But if the use of 
 the plural pronoim, in speaking of God, denotes plurality/ of 
 persons in God, ought it not to be admitted that a similai" 
 use of a singular pronoun, denotes that God is but one per- 
 son ? The fact however is, that " this remarkable use of 
 plurals, which runs through the Hebrew scriptures," but 
 very seldom occurs. The singular pronoun, /, Me ; Thou, 
 Thee ; He, Him, is almost invariably used in speaking of 
 God. But does not this circumstance furnish very strong 
 evidence that God is one person only ? Do not princes 
 and men of distinction, when speaking of themselves indi- 
 vidually, very frequently use the plural pronoun JFe, Our, 
 Us ? And is not Dr. W. himself in the habit of thus using 
 it ? We have indeed a very considerable number of exam- 
 ples of this kind in the scriptures. When Rehoboam took 
 
11 
 
 eounsel with the young men that were brought up with 
 him, about a grievance and request of his subjects, he uses 
 with respect to himself, the plural pronoun. ^^"^5 
 counsel give ye, that we may answer this people ?" And 
 St. Paul, you must be sensible, in speaking of himself, very 
 frequently uses the plural pronoun we^ our^ us. But are 
 we hence to infer that in Rehoboam, and St. Paul, there 
 was a Trinity of persons ? Is it safe — is it justifiable then 
 toinfertheexistenceof a Trinity of persons in God, be- 
 cause in speaking of himself, he uses a very few times^ the 
 same plural pronoun ? Since this majestic expression is 
 so common among men, considered as individuals, is it to 
 be wondered at that the Great Supreme should sometimes 
 employ it ? Is it not rather a subject of wonder that the 
 examples are so few ? Is it not pertinent also to remark, 
 that in most, if not in all languages, there are words of plural 
 termination which have a singular meaning ? Besides, it 
 is not only an idiom of the Hebrew language, but perfectly 
 agreeable to its syntax^ that " words which express ma' 
 jesty, h.c. are often put in the plural." On supposition, 
 then, that God is but one person, it cannot be considered 
 an impropriety that, in speaking of himself, he should^ use 
 the plural pronoun, JVe^ Our^ Us. But on supposition 
 that he is three persons, agents, or beings, would it not be 
 contrary to the established usages of all speech, were he to 
 employ the singular pronoun /, My, Me ? Although a 
 single person, in speaking of himself, often employs this 
 plural pronoun, it is never the case that several persons, in 
 speaking of themselves, employ it in the singular. These 
 things considered, I cannot but strongly apprehend, to say 
 the least, that Dr. W.'s proof of a plurality of persons in 
 God from this remarkable use of pku-als is essentially de- 
 fective. 
 
 As a further proof that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, " exist as one God," Dr. W. observes. Letter 3, 
 p. 24, that " the scriptures do abundantly ascribe to each 
 of the adorable Three, the same divine names, attributes, 
 works, and honours." This positive, and confident, and 
 unqualified assertion, has frequendy been made by advo- 
 cates for the Trinitarian theory. And to this, it is not un- 
 likely, that the unshaken belief of many serious christians 
 in that theory, is in a great measure to be traced. Nor, 
 admitting the truth of the assertion, is it a matter of won- 
 der, that the doctrine should, bv so many, be embraced. 
 Yet It may be a question, whether, if the assertion were 
 strictly true, it would not rather support polytheism, than 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. But is the assertion, my dear 
 Sir, to be admitted as true ? Although I will not positive- 
 ly sax, m contradiction -to Dr. W. and others, that it is not 
 
12 
 
 true, yet I must be permitted to say, that I cannot find 
 evidence that it is true. But on the su imposition that the 
 scriptures do ascribe to the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, " the siime divine names, attributes, works, and 
 honors," may it not,^ nevertheless, be a question, whether 
 the scriptures so ascribe them to the " adorable "I'hree," as 
 to prove, either that they are three persons equally divine, 
 or that they exist as one God ? what the proper answer to 
 this question should be, may more salisH^.torily appear in 
 another place. I will only add here, that I think Dr. W. 
 has expressed his belief, in relation to the subject, in too 
 strong-, decisive and unguarded a manner. 
 
 Page 25, of his Third Letter, Dr. Worcester observes, 
 '^ that in the institution, by Avhich we are initiated into the 
 christian community, a solemn act of \vorship is prescrib- 
 ed to be done to the Holy Spirit, in union with the other 
 Divine Persons. The high command is, ' Go, and teach 
 all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Shall man 
 then dare to ' put asunder, what God has joined together,' 
 m the \Qvy name and nature of God P^ — On this text, as 
 proof of his theory, the Doctor seems, with much confi- 
 dence, to rely. "But whether it affords sufficient ground 
 for this, I would query. — Because three are here mention- 
 ed, is it necessary to infer, either that they are three divine 
 and equal persons, or agents, or beings, or Gods ? In com- 
 missioning his apostles, one of the Three, (the Son,) says, 
 " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 
 But does not this seem very strongly to imply that the Son 
 is dependent on, and inferior to the Father, who gave him 
 the poorer ? Is it not " more blessed to give than to re- 
 teive .^" And is it not a truth, " and without all contradic- 
 tion, that the less is blessed of the better ?" God the Fath- 
 er, of w hom, and through whom, and to whom are all 
 thiiigs, gives to all liberally, but receives from none. I 
 would query further — whether the form of the rite of bap- 
 tism is to be considered as strictly implying an act of re- 
 ligious worslrip ? The words of the institution do not seem 
 to imply any address either to the Father, the Son, or the 
 Holy Spirit, What then is there in the words, or in the 
 2/5-<?ofthe words, in relation to baptism, of the nature of 
 '.vorship ? But will the circumstance that the names of the 
 Three arc joined together, be urged as proof that they are 
 equal persons, or, that they are o;?^' God ^ This, I think, 
 cannot be urged with much force. It is not uncommon 
 with the sacred Avriters to mention God and the creature 
 together, and in as solemn a manner, as the Three are 
 Tiuentioned in the text under consideration. One or two 
 instances will suffice as a specimen, " And all the con- 
 
gregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed 
 down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the 
 kingy " I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christy and the elect angels^ that thou observe these things," 
 &c. Is king David, or are the elect angels, to be consider- 
 ed as equal to, or one with God, because they are men- 
 tioned in so intimate and solemn connexion with him ? or 
 is it to be supposed that there was no difference in the 
 worship paid by the Israelites to their God, and their tem- 
 poral king ? But will it be urged, that baptizing in the 
 72«;72(? of a person, furnishes clear proof of the divinity of 
 that person ? If this be admitted, will not the proof go too 
 far? How many were baptized unto Moses^ and unto 
 Jo/m ? But to be baptized unto Moses and John may be, 
 and probably is equivalent to being baptized in the name 
 of Moses and John. Yet neither the baptist, nor Moses, 
 was a divine person. Besides, if baptizing in the name of 
 a person imply the divinity of that person, can it reasona- 
 bly be supposed that the apostle Paul would have asked 
 the Corinthian christians, w hether they had been baptized 
 in his name ! Farther- — It seems to be worthy of particular 
 remark, that the form of baptism under review was never 
 used, so far as w^e know% in the apostolic age. By the sa- 
 cred records we are assured that converts to Christianity 
 were baptized in the name of Christ, or in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus. But they make no mention of baptism hav- 
 ing been performed in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Is it not then highly probable 
 that baptism, whether it be received in the form of words 
 prescribed by Christ, or in his name only, is to be consid- 
 ered as an expression of a firm belief in, and acknowledg- 
 ment of the truth of christianitj-, which, by the appoint- 
 ment and direction of the Father, was promulgated by 
 Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit ? Baptism 
 may also express dedication to God, and obligation on the 
 part of the persons dedicated, to observ^e and do whatever 
 God has revealed by his Son, the truth of which he has es- 
 tablished, by the stupendous signs and wonders performed 
 by his Spirit. Whether any thing, and if any thing, what, 
 and how much more is implied in christian baptism, I pre- 
 tend not to decide. 
 
 The happiness which results from society among equals, 
 is a consideration which Dr. Worcester thinks, affords 
 proof that God exists as a Trinity of persons. Agreeably 
 he observes. Letter 3d, p. 34, " In the most Holy Three 
 in One, we see what can never be seen in a single Divine 
 Person : we see a society, infinitelj'^ perfect and blessed. 
 When we turn our thoughts from a Trinity to one Divine 
 Person, inhabiting eternity, in solitary existence, we find 
 
 I 
 
14 
 
 it impossible to conceive how lie can be happy. If he ex- 
 isted in one solitary person, where could he find an ade- 
 quate object of infinite love, and how could he be infinitely 
 happy ? when we contemplate a Trinity, a far different 
 view is presented to our minds. God is love. The 
 Tlii'ee adorable Persons, unlimited in all perfections and 
 excellencies, inhabit eternity together ; dwell everlastingly 
 in each other, in mutual, perfect, unmeasurable love." — 
 " This is a theme on which my mind delights to dwell ; 
 and which I cannot exchange for the solitary Deity, and 
 the philosophical heaven of Unitarians." 
 
 What, my dear Sir, am I to think — what shall I say of 
 this representation of the " Holy Three in One !" Am 1 
 to think that one divine person, or being, "' unlimited in 
 all perfections and excellencies," cannot possibly " be hap- 
 py ^'''^ — that He cannot " find an adequate object of infinite 
 love," — and that we cannot find an object in one " solitary 
 .Deity" on which the pious mind can delight to dwell !" 
 In stating, and in the contemplation of these queries, I 
 cannot but realize confused, strange, and painful emotions. 
 If one person, of all, and unlimited perfections, cannot be 
 happy, but in society ; and if to be associated with one 
 other such ])erson, were not sufficient to make him happy, 
 is it not difficult to conceive that an association with two 
 other such persons, would be competent to his complete 
 happiness ? Vv^hy would not the happiness of the individ- 
 ual be increased in proportion to the increase of the num- 
 ber of persons associated? Besides, if one person of all in- 
 finite perfections, cannot, in those perfections, find an ade- 
 quate object of infinite love^^ — and if in two such persons 
 he cannot find this object, is it not difficult to conceive that 
 this adequate object can be found in three such persons ? 
 Would not this object increase in excellence, in propor- 
 tion to the increase of such supposed persons ! These 
 questions, I am sensible, seem to border on an irreverent 
 treatment of a most serious and solemn subject. But they 
 are questions which Dr. W's. statements strongly sug- 
 gested to my mind, and which, I think, naturally grow out 
 of his statements. In proposing tliem, however, I feel no 
 emotion of levity, or of irreverence. The very reverse is 
 the case. — I am filled with commiseration, mingled witli 
 astonishment. 
 
 Pages 27, 28, Letter 3d, Dr. Worcester speaks of " the 
 many thousands of holy men in the orthodox church of 
 Christ, who, from the days of the apostles, to the present, 
 have worshipped the Faiher, the Son, and the Holy Spir- 
 it," and as having been *' valiant for the truth," &c. Al- 
 though in this passage he does not expressly say, that 
 christians, generally, in the first and purest ages of chris- 
 
15 
 
 tianity, worshipped the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit as three equal persons in one God, yet I think there 
 can be no doubt that he means to convey this idea ; as 
 otherwise they could not, in his view, have been " valiant 
 for the truth." And that he considers this supposed fact 
 as a circumstantial evidence in favor of the triune doc- 
 trine, is not to be questioned. Nor is the fact, if satisfacto- 
 rily supported, to be considered as a weak argument for the 
 truth of the doctrine. But has the Dr. supported the sup- 
 posed fact ? I think not. His quotations from the " prim- 
 itive Fathers," in support of the doctrine, p. 29, do not, to 
 my mind, afford satisfactory proof, that the orthodox doc- 
 trine of the primitive church was trinitarian. They admit 
 of a fair construction, I conceive, which would by no 
 means support, or even favor Dr. W.'s hypothesis of the 
 Trinity. That primitive christians generally considered 
 both the Son and the Spirit of God as divine in a qualified 
 sense, and worshipped them as such, is perhaps to be ad- 
 mitted. But that they believed the Son and Spirit to be 
 consubstantial and co-equal with the Father, and worship- 
 ped them in this character, I am not prepared to admit, as 
 I do not find sufficient evidence of it. 
 
 The doctrine of the trinity, if at all, but very little arrest- 
 ed the attention and employed the pens of the earliest Fath- 
 ers in the christian church. They but incidentally touched 
 upon the subject ; and when they did this, they expressed 
 themselves in a loose, if not inconsistent manner. Nor 
 did the doctrine appear in any regular form before the 
 council of Nice, towards the close of the fourth century. 
 But the doctrine as contained in the creed of that council is 
 inconsistent with the idea that Christ was without origin^ 
 or God of himself. In this creed Christ is represented as 
 derived from his Father, and, of course, as not properly 
 equal to his Father. It was not till after that council that 
 the " divinity of Christ was carried to a supreme height." 
 But whether the Nicene Fathers are to be considered as 
 having been, in a qualified sense, Trinitarians, I will not 
 decide. Nor will I peremptorily say that the earlier Fath- 
 ers were not so. But if they were, even in the most lax 
 sense of the word, I know not how to account for it that 
 they should express their opinions in the following man- 
 ner — " Jesus Christ is the servant, the Son of God. He is 
 Lord of the people, having received all power from the Fath-^ 
 er." " Be ye imitators of Christ, as he is of the Father.'' 
 ** He never did any thing, but what that God, who made all 
 things, and above whom there is no God, willed that he 
 should do, or say. He is subservient to his Father's will^ 
 and only called God by way of figure." " The Father on- 
 ly is the Good i Md the Saviour, as he is the image of the 
 
16 
 
 invisible God, so he is the image of his goodness." " The 
 Saviour and the Holy Spirit are more excelled by the 
 Father, than he, and the Holy Spirit excel other things." 
 " We must not pray to any created being ; not to Christ 
 himself* but only to God the Fatlier of all, to whom our 
 Saviour himself prayed." " The Son is less than the Fath- 
 er, because he is sanctified by him." " God the Father is 
 Maker and Creator of all, who alone has no origin, invisible, 
 immense, immortal, eternal, the one God, to whose great- 
 ness, majestj', and power, nothing can be preferred, or com- 
 pared." " If Christ had been uncreated, and likewise un- 
 begotten, there would have been two unbcgotten, and 
 therefore two Gods. The Son does nothing of his own 
 pleasure, nor does he come of himself; but in all things 
 obeys his Father's commands. He approved his fidelity 
 to God ; for he taught that there is one God, and that he 
 only ought to be worshipped ; nor did he ever say that he 
 was God. For he M'ould not have preserved his allegiance, 
 if, being sent to take away a multiplicity of Gods, and to 
 preach one God, he had brought in another, besides that 
 one." " Christ, being neither the Supreme God, nor an 
 angel, is of a middle nature between them, the only begot- 
 ten Son of God." " It is allowed, that as in the great mul- 
 titude of believers, who admit of difterence in opinion, 
 there arc some who say that the Saviour is God over all; 
 but we do not say so, who believe him when he said, mi/ 
 Father h greater than /." 
 
 These quotations, my dear Sir, are made from the prim- 
 itive Fathers of the christian church \'\'ho were its brightest 
 ornaments ; and from whose writings modern Trinitarians 
 endeavor to support the doctrine of the Trinity. — Now, 
 in the view of these, and many more similar passages, which 
 occur in the writings of these Fathers, I cannot, to say the 
 least, but very strongly doubt their belief in the Trinitarian 
 doctrine. Although some passages occur in their writings 
 which, separately considered, seem to countenance this 
 doctrine ; yet so many, and so unambiguous are the pas- 
 sages to be foimd in them in opposition to it, that I see 
 not how it can reasonaijly be supposed that either they, 
 or private christians generally, were believers in the su- 
 preme divinity of Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 As we find but little said by die primitixe Fathers 
 respecting the character of the Holy Spirit, and that little 
 not favorable to the idea that he is a person co-equal w ith 
 the Father, there is much reason to suppose that they did 
 not believe that this was the case. 
 
 These things considered, do wo. not find very consider- 
 able evidence, at least, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as 
 it is held by Dr. W. and others, was neither taught nor be- 
 
17 
 
 iieved by the apostles of our Lord ? For had they believed 
 and taught this doctrine, would not the primitive Fathers 
 have known it, as some of them were contemporary withKhe 
 apostle John ? But had they learnt this doctrine from that 
 inspired apostle, would they not, in the most explicit and 
 earnest manner, have taught and inculcated it ? The 
 subject has certainly a strong claim to our serious 
 and candid consideration and research. If it be true, 
 as Dr. W. seems to suppose, that holy men, generally, 
 in the earliest ages of the churchy worshipped the Father, 
 the Son and the Holy Spirit, as co-equal persons in one 
 God, it is to be regretted that he has not produced more 
 satisfactory evidence in support of the supposed truth. — • 
 With respect to after ages, down to the reform :tinn by 
 Luther, Calvin, and others, the Trinitarian belief and wor- 
 ship a])pear, generally, to have prevailed in the christian 
 church. But these were eminently the " times of dark- 
 ness." There were, however, during the lapse of that long 
 and dark night, dissenters to be found from what w^as 
 deemed the orthodox faith and worship. Their number, 
 at times, was verj^ considerable, particularly from about 
 the middle of the twelfth century to the time of the refor- 
 mation, a period of more than 300 years. These dissenters 
 were called Waldenses and by other significant and appro- 
 priate names. Tliey were considered, generally, as " holy 
 men." In " morals and life they were good ; true in 
 words, and unanimous in brotherly love ; blameless and 
 without reproach among men, and obeying the divine com- 
 mands with all their might." Their faith was simple. 
 They professed to " believe in and to worship one God, 
 through the one Mediator^ and by the influence of the Holy 
 Spirits And the probability is that but few, if any of 
 them, \vere believers in, or worshippers of a triune God. 
 Even Trinitarian writers of ecclesiastical history admit 
 that some of them " were Arians, Unitarians, Sec." The 
 truth seems to be that no uniform system of doctrines was 
 common to them all ; but that diversity, in both religious 
 opinion and modes of worship, existed among them. I 
 am, however, far from being satisfied that aiiy of them held 
 Dr. W.'s theory of the Trinity. But these " holy men," 
 are considered by Protestant writers, generally, as having 
 constituted the true church of Christy during the dark pe- 
 riod in which tliey existed. I cannot but think, therefore, 
 that the Dr. has expressed his belief in relation to the wor- 
 ship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, partic- 
 ularly in the primitive ages of the church, in a very un- 
 guarded and unjustifiable manner. Although I will not 
 positively say his belief is unfounded, yet I do think tl^t 
 
18 
 
 he has been very far from producing conclusive or even 
 forcible evidence that it is not. I think also that the Dr's. 
 assertion, p. 69, is not sufficiently supported. He says, 
 *' It is a well attested fact, that by the great body of chris- 
 tians, from the days of the aposdes to the present, the de- 
 niers of the Trinity, &c. have been regarded as being em- 
 inently sub vcrters of the gospel." — If the fact be indeed 
 *'well attested," although it is not to be admitted as de- 
 cisive evidence in support of the doctrine of the Trinitj^ 
 yet it may reasonably be considered as a witness in its 
 favour. But this supposed fact is not, I conceive, so well 
 attested as to claim belief. The fact, probably, is, that 
 but few, if any christians in tlie first and purest ages of 
 Christianity, M'ere Trinitarians, in Dr. W.'s sense of the 
 word, whatever might have been the case during the 1000 
 years' reign of darkness which succeeded those evangel- 
 ical ages. But however this may have been, the truth or 
 falsehood of the Trinitarian theory is to be tested by a more 
 sure rule than that of general opinion, the word of prophecy. 
 To this it " becomes us to take more diligent heed." 
 
 I now pass to an examination of W'hat Dr. Worcester 
 says respecting the person or character 
 
 OF GOD THE TATHER. 
 
 On this great and all important subject, he says but 
 litde distinctly. It is to be inferred, however, from many 
 passages in his letters, that, although ho. professedly admits 
 the existence of but one supreme God, he does not believe 
 that this God is the Father, or that the Father is the Su- 
 preme God. Nor does this article of his belief appear 
 merely from inference. He expressly avows it. "The 
 Father," he says, Letter third, page 25, " does not 
 exist * alone,' nor is he alone the Supreme God." 
 !But yet, page 29, he admits that the Father " pos- 
 sesses all divine attributes," and is truly an " intelligent 
 agent." He admits also, that the Father is " God." — ^Now, 
 my dear Sir, let me ask — Is it indeed true that the Father 
 is an intelligent Agent, and God, possessed of all divine 
 attributes, and ycX. is not alojie the Supreme God ? Does 
 any thing more than all divine attributes exist in the Su- 
 pre?7ie God ? But this is not the God whom Dr. Worces- 
 ter and others worship. " We worship," he says. Letter 2, 
 page 26, addressing Mr. Channing, "the father, son, 
 AND holy ghost. Do you worship this same God ?" 
 Again, Letter 1, page 28, " The God whom you worship 
 is different from ours." — Although I would indulge the 
 hope that the difference between the object of Trinitarian, 
 and the object of Unitarian worship, is rather seeming than 
 
19 
 
 real, yet I kiio\v not that I have sufficient ground to say 
 that the difference is not reaU and as great as the Dr. seems 
 to suppose. It is a fact, however, that he, and others in 
 sentiment with him, profess to beUeve in one Supreme 
 God as the only adequate object of supreme worship. 
 But do not Unitarians profess the same belief ? And do 
 not both these denominations professedly worship this same 
 God ? So far as I know, Unitarian christians of all descrip- 
 tions avow their belief in the existence of one Supreme 
 God possessed of all divine attributes. And this one God 
 they professedly worship. But do Trinitarians profess to 
 believe in and to worship more Supreme Gods than one ? 
 However ambiguously they may express their sentiments 
 on this subject, they will not admit, I presume, that they 
 have more than one Supreme God as the object of their 
 worship. But is this their one Supreme God, or object 
 of worship, possessed of more than one class or set of" all 
 divine perfections ?" If not, how does he differ from the 
 Unitarian God "? Most earnestly do I wish for a clear and 
 satisfactory answer to these questions. A fair and candid 
 answer to them might go far towards a mutual understand- 
 ing of each other, between Trinitarian and Unitarian 
 christians, and towards a christian union and intercourse 
 between them. Nor is it impossible that a proper answer 
 to the questions, would go far tovvards convincing Trini- 
 tarians, that the Father " alone" is the Supreme God. 
 But however this might be, it is certainly a question of 
 no common importance, whether the Scriptures teach this 
 doctrine. If they indeed do, the doctrine is worthy of all 
 acceptation. Nor can we reject it and be guiltless. 
 What then say the Scriptures in respect to it ? — Unto 
 us there is but one God^ the Father^ of whom are all things. 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. One God and Father of all, who is above 
 ally and through all, and in you all. Eph. iv. 6. What, 
 my dear Sir, is the most obvious import or meaning of 
 these passages with respect to God the Father ? Is it not 
 that HE '''' alone'^\ is the Supreme God ? As there is but 
 one God, as this one God is the Father, and as all 
 things are of the Father, who is of course above all, does 
 not the inference seem necessary that he alone is the Su- 
 preme God ? 
 
 Do not the Scriptures limit the knowledge of some fu- 
 ture events to the Father ? " Of that day and hour," 
 says Christ, " knoweth no man, no, not the angels of 
 heaven, but my Father only." Matt. xxiv. 36. The 
 parallel text in Mark has the addition of the Son — " nei- 
 ther the Son, but the Father." This express declara- 
 tion was made by the faithful and true Witness. He ob- 
 serves also, Acts i, 7, addressing his apostles, " It is not 
 
so 
 
 for you to know the times, or the seasons, which the Fath- 
 er hath put in his own power." Whether by that day we 
 are to understand the destruction of Jerusalem, or the day 
 of judprncnt, is a matter of but Httle consequence. The 
 important inquiry is, whether any person or being, aside 
 from the Father, knew, previously to its taking place, the 
 precise time when the event would happen. If no man 
 knew this, or no owe — not the a;;?^'^*?/* of heaven, nor even 
 the Son of God himself, but the Father onlij^ or alone^ 
 iTtiust not the Father alone be the Supreme God ? Can 
 any person or being be the Supreme God who does not 
 know, and foreknow all future events, — a// future " times 
 and seasons '?" But as the Father hath put these in his own 
 power ^ I cannot but apprehend that the assertion, " the 
 Fc tiler alone i§ not the Supreme God," was made by Dr. 
 W. w iihout a due consideration of the subject. 
 
 Through tiie whole of the Ne^A'-Testament scriptures 
 we are expressly taught that the Father is both the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ also ex- 
 pressly ackno\vledges him as his God and Father. As 
 the correctness of this statement will not be questioned, it 
 were needless to refer to particular passages. But does 
 not this title seem clearly to indicate the superiority, and 
 the exclusive supremacy of the Father ? Is it not difficult 
 to conceive that Jesus Christ should have a God over him^ 
 and yet that he himself should be the Supreme God, or 
 equal to the Supreme God ? Or that God should be his 
 Father, and yet that he himself should be self existent^ 
 and independent ? It may be said, I am sensible, and Dr. 
 Worcester does not hesitate to say it. Letter 3d, p. 17, 
 that " there is no aljsurdity in saying that Jesus Christ is 
 both the Son of God, and himself God," "possessed of 
 all divine perrectio»is." But if to say this implies no ab- 
 surdity, it must imply a dij/icultr/, which does not easily 
 admit of a satisfactory solution. Nor do I see how it can 
 be reconciled \a ith the declaration that " there is one God 
 and Father of all, wlio is above all," or with what Christ 
 himself has saicj in relation to the subject — " This is life 
 eternal, that they might know thee the only true god, 
 and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.^^ 
 
 The scriptures not only teach that " the Father" is the 
 "'One God," but the " only wise God" to whom "glory' 
 through Jesus Christ" is to be ascribed ; — that he is the 
 ** only true God," as distinguished f'om Jesus Christ ; that 
 lie " only is holy" — that he is the " only Potentate" — that 
 he " only hath immortality." Such are the express de- 
 f^larations of scripture. But if the Father is the onh/ wise, 
 trife and holy God — if he is the only Potentate — if he on- 
 /[y hath immortality, must not he -' alond''^ be the Supreme 
 
21 
 
 God ? Can these declarations be so construed as fairly to 
 admit the supposition that his glory is not unrivalled? 
 
 The Scriptures teach us thatthe Father is possessed of 
 wisdom in the highest sense. " To God only wise, be 
 glory through Jesus Christ, forever." Rom. xvi. 27. 
 But does not the term only in this passage seem evidently 
 to exclude from Supreme Divinity all other persons or be- 
 ings, even Jesus Christ himself ? If glory is to be given 
 through Jesus Christ to the Father as the only wise God, 
 must not the Father alone be the Supreme God ? 
 
 Do not the scriptures teach us that the Father alone is 
 Almighty ! The word Almighty ^ very frequently occurs 
 in the Old Testament, and is applied to the Father^ as his 
 appropriate character. It occurs also several times in the 
 New Testament, ancf is applied, there is much reason to 
 believe, exclusweh/ to the Father. " We give thee thanks, 
 
 Lord God Almighty:' Rev. xi. 17. " And he (Clirist) 
 treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of Al- 
 mighty God." Rev. xix. 15. " And I heard as it were the 
 voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, 
 and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia : 
 for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. Let us rejoice and 
 be glad, and give honor unto him, for the marriage of the 
 Lamb is come." Rev. xix. 6, 7. " And I saw no temple 
 therein ; (the holy city, the new Jerusalem) for the Lord 
 God Almighty, and the Lamb are the temple of it." Rev, 
 xxi. 22. Is Lamb of Go(/a title expressive o^ omnipotence ? 
 Does it convey the idea that he is " himself God ?" Is the 
 honor given to tlie Lord God Omnipotent, on account of 
 the marriage of the Lamb, consistent with the supposition, 
 that the Lamb is possessed of all " divine attributes," and 
 the object of supreme worship ? Or is his treading the 
 wine-press of Almighty God, reconcilable with the hypoth- 
 esis that he is himself (he Almighty ? As we are assured, 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 15, that the Father is the ^^ only Potentate,'' 1 
 am afraid to say or think that he alone is not the Supreme 
 God. 
 
 Do not the scriptures teach us that God the Father is 
 the great original or Creator of all things ? '■ Thou art the 
 God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth ; 
 thqu hast made heaven and earth." 2 Kings, xix. 15. " In 
 ^x days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all 
 that in them is." Ex. xx. 11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, 
 to receive glory, and honor, and power ; for thou hast 
 created all things ; and for thy pleasure they are and were 
 created." Rev. iv. 11. Many other passages ascribe the 
 work of creation to God the Father as the Great and 
 Original Efficient, In whatever sense the work of creation 
 is to be ascribed to Jesus Clirist, yet may we not reasonably 
 
22 
 
 conclude, that it is not to be ascribed to him as the first, or 
 original cause ? For "to us there is but one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 by whom are all things" — " by whom he made the 
 worlds" — " by whom, and for whom all things were 
 created." If all things are of the one God, even the 
 Father, and only by or through Jesus Christ ; — if the 
 Father made the worlds^ although it were by the instru- 
 mentality of Jesus Christ; and although he tlius made 
 them for Jesus Christ — to be in subjection to him, must 
 not the work of creation be ascribed to the Father as the 
 Prinie or Original Agent ? In this sense are wo, not to 
 consider him as having " stretched out the heavens alone^'''' 
 and as having " spread abroad the earth by himself V In 
 this sense God the Father appears to have been considered 
 as the Creator of the universe by christians generally, if not 
 universally in the first and purest ages of the church. If 
 this were not the case, how is it to be accounted for that 
 the work of creation is ascribed exclusively to " God the 
 Father Almighty," in the apostles' creed, which, of all 
 others, in the christian church, is the most ancient, and 
 which was considered by the " great body of pious and 
 godly christians" as strictly orthodox ? But does not this 
 creed in the most decisive manner ascribe the work of 
 creation exchisively to the Father as the First Cause, or 
 Great Efficient ? Do we not find also the work of creation 
 thus exclusively ascribed to the Father in the Nicene creed, 
 which was signed towards the close of the fourth century 
 by no less than three hundred and fourteen bishops, and 
 which was generally received as orthodox by the christian 
 church ? However ambiguous and exceptionable this 
 creed may be in several of its expressions, yet it seems 
 very clearly to ascribe the work of creation to the Father 
 as the Great Supreme. " I believe," is the language of 
 the creed, " in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of 
 heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ; 
 and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of 
 God," &c. The members of the council who composed 
 and adopted this creed appear to have believed that what- 
 ever of divinity Jesus Christ possessed, was derived from 
 the Father, and that he was not without origi?i, or of him- 
 wlf, as the Father was. The equality of Christ to the 
 Father, or his supreme and independent divinity, is 
 language which we shall not find, I believe, or any thing 
 equivalent to it, till a later and more corrupt period of the 
 church. 
 
 Do not the scriptures teach us that the Father alone is 
 the living God? Jesus Christ instructed his disciples to 
 consider the Father as *' the living Father y^^ and that he 
 
23 
 
 himself " lived by the Father." Agreeably Peter, speaking 
 of his own, and of the faith of the other disciples, earnestly 
 says, "We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, 
 the Son of the living God.'" John vi. 69. Paul and 
 Barnabas urge tl-ie inhabitants of Lystra " to turn from 
 their vanities to the livmg God,'''' Acts xiv. 15. ^ The high 
 priest adjures Christ by " the hving God ;^'' which shews 
 that this title or character, with application to the Father, 
 was well known and in frequent use. In a very considera- 
 ble number of places in scripture it is applied to the 
 Father, but never to Jesus Christ. Now as the title, " the 
 living God,''"' is thus appropriate and discriminating ; and 
 as the life of which Christ is possessed is, by his own 
 declaration, the gift of his Father, I cannot but think the 
 assertion that " the Father alone is not the Supreme God,'* 
 indicative of too much confidence, and the want of due 
 attention to the great and solemn subject. 
 
 Do not the scriptures teach us that the Father alone is 
 hob I and good, and true in the highest sense ? The song 
 of Moses and the Lamb is thus sung by heavenly inhabit- 
 ants, " Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God 
 Almighty ; just and true are thy ways, O King of saints^ 
 Who would not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name, 
 for thou only art holy ?" Rev. xy. 3, 4. " And behold 
 one came and said unto him, (Christ) good Master, what 
 good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ? And 
 he said unto him, why callest thou me good ? there is none 
 good but one, that is God,'^ Matt. xix. 16, 17. " This is 
 life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, 
 and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," John xvii. 3. If, 
 my dear Sir, the Father only is holy—^ii he only is good — 
 and if he only is the true God, does it not seem that He 
 ' olone^ is the Supreme God ? In the passage quoted from 
 the Revelation, Jesus Christ is styled the Lamb. And the 
 Lamb seems to be represented as uniting with the holy 
 inhabitants of heaven in ascription of praise to his Father, 
 the o?ily holy One. As the song which they sing is the 
 Lamb^s song, it seems that it is sung as well by him, as by 
 those who had "gotten the victory over the be^ist." In the 
 other passages Christ has taught us that his Father only is 
 good and true in distinction from himself. Is it not too 
 much, and too adventurous then to say that the Father 
 alone is not the Supreme God ? 
 
 Do not the scriptures teach us, that the Father alone is 
 the Most High — the Highest ! The angel in his message 
 to Mary say's, " Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, 
 and bring forth a son, iuid shalt call his name Jesus. He 
 shall be great, and called the Son of the Highest. The 
 power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore 
 
also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called 
 the Son of God ;" "the prophet of the Highest,'''' Luke i. 31, 
 35, 76. " The Most High dwelleth not in temples miide 
 with hands." " These men are the servants of the Most 
 High God,'''' Acts vii. 48, and xvi. 17. This title ire- 
 quentiy occurs in the Old Testament scriptures as the 
 appropriate title of God the Father. Thus the writers of 
 the New Testament seem to have understood it. Agree- 
 ably they apply it exchisively to the Father, even the God 
 and Father of Jesus Christ. Now, as the Father c/ow<? is 
 the Highest — the Most High God; and Jesus Christ 
 " the Son of the Highest,'^ does not the inference seem 
 natural, if not necessary, that " the Father alone'" is the 
 Supreme God ? 
 
 Do not the scriptures also teach us, that the Father is 
 *' above all'^ — "/f/r above all Gods" — that " among the 
 gods there is ?ione like unto him'''' — diat in an appropriate 
 sense he is that " King eternal," " who w, who was, and 
 who is to come ?" But do not these descriptions of God 
 the Father seem strongly to indicate that He alone is the 
 Supreme God ? ^ 
 
 1 have now, my dear Sir, presented to your view a veiy 
 considerable number and variety of names or titles of God, 
 the Father, which I believe I may venture to say are 
 applied to him alonb, and never applied to Jesus Christ. 
 Whether thej^ will produce conviction in your mind, that 
 the Father alone is the Supreme God, I presume not to 
 say. Nor will I say that they demonstrate the supremacy 
 of the Father. Yet may I not be permitted to ask, whether 
 they do not amount to veri/ strong evidence in proof that 
 this is indeed the case ? By what warrant, or by what 
 authority then has Dr. W. said that " the plain humble 
 christian finds in the Bible all divine attributes, works and 
 honors ascribed to the Son, his adored Redeemer and 
 Saviour," as "are ascribed to the Father ?" Letter 3. p. 31. 
 I cannot but think. Sir, that had the Doctor paid all that 
 attention to the subject, which its vast importance demands, 
 he would not have made the assertion in so confident and 
 decisive a manner. When I consider his distinguished 
 talents, and the great influence he has on the minds and 
 faith of a large portion of the christian community, I cannot 
 but feel and express very deep regret, mingled with sur- 
 prise, at his making an assertion in respect to a most 
 solemn and interesting subject, with so little apparent 
 ground for its support. Most devoutly do I hope that he 
 will very seriously review the subject, and that his readers 
 will not admit his assertion as true, until they shall find it 
 to be so, liom a careful examination of the scriptures for 
 themselves. 
 
25 
 
 From Dr. Worcester's speculation of the character of 
 the Father, let us now pass to an examination of his idea^ 
 respecting the 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE SON. 
 
 We have already seen that the Doctor believes that 
 Christ, the Son of God, is " a Divine Person" — " realiy 
 and truly an intelligent agent, possessing all divine attri- 
 butes" — a " being essentially divine," and "is therefore 
 God." Here, Sir, you will permit me to ask, whether, 
 admitting these statements, as correct, Jesus Christ must 
 not alone be the Supreme God ? Is not the Supreme God 
 2i divine person — ^n intelligent a !^ent^ being or God^ pos- 
 sessing all divine attributes ? But what inore than these 
 can he possess ? Were I to suppose, with Dr. W. that 
 Christ is "truly God"— " the true God"— " God him- 
 self" — " God over all," and " essentially equal to the 
 Father," must I not admit, either that Jesus Christ is alone 
 the Supreme God? or that he and his Father are two 
 Supreme Gods ? I see not how this is to be avoided. 
 But this is not the only difficulty which the Doctor's opin- 
 ion of Christ presents to my view. He supposes, Letter 
 2. p, 7, " Jesus Christ to be God and man united in one 
 person." But can this supposition be admitted as true, 
 consistently with the idea that the Father is equal to the 
 Son ? If the Father possesses all divine attributes, and 
 these only^ how can he be equal to the Son, who not only 
 possesses, cdl divine ati?'d)utes,''^ but also all the attributes 
 belonging to a man^ and a man too unspeakably superior 
 to any other man ? Whether this supposition is merely 
 gratuitious, I shall not particularly inquire in this place. 
 My first inquiry will be, whether he has supported his 
 position that Jesus Christ possesses all divine attributesy 
 and is therefore God — the true God — God over all. 
 
 Dr. Worcester must have been fully awai*e that the truth 
 of _ this position could not be supported but by scriptural 
 evidence that Jesus Christ existed from eternity. He 
 therefore produces the following texts. Letter 3, p. 15, 
 in support of his eternal existence. " His goings forth 
 have been from of old, even from everlasting " — " la 
 the beginning he was with God, and was God" — " The 
 same yesterday, and to-day, and forever" — " Alpha and 
 Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the 
 Last."_ These are the principal, if not the only passages 
 on which he seems to rely, as affording conclusive evidence 
 of Christ's eternal existence. But to my mind they do 
 not exhibit such evidence. Were it true that these pas- 
 sages might admit of a construction favourable to the doc- 
 trine of Christ's eternal existence, or that he is co-eternal 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 with the Father ; yet must it not be acknowledged thiit 
 they admit also of a construction which is by no means 
 favourable to that doctrine ? And may not the latter con- 
 struction be susceptible of the best support ? 
 
 The first of the passages above quoted is from Micah, 
 V. 2. " His goings forth have been from of old, even from 
 ever lasting. '''' His goings forth. May not this expression 
 signify the birth of Christ, the " Ruler" spoken of in the 
 former part of the verse, who was " to come forth'*'' from 
 " Bethlehem Ephratah," an event which had been pre- 
 dicted "from of old," and as having been appointed " from 
 everlasting ?" But admitting that the expression is to be 
 referred to a period long before the event of his birth, yet 
 does it indubitably refer to an eternal, and a self existence ? 
 Does the term everlasting necessarily express without be- 
 ginning'^ Instead of this, it generally expresses a limited 
 though a long period. Is it safe or justifiable, then, to 
 infer from this word, as used in the passage under consid- 
 eration, that Jesus Christ existed from eternity, or that he 
 is self-existent? May it not indeed be reasonably suppos^- 
 ed that the expression from of old is equivalent to everlast- 
 ing ? But is not this expression very far from proving 
 Christ's eternal, or self-existence ? I w^ould further ask, 
 whether the expression goings forth, in reference to Christ, 
 does not strongly favor the supposition that his existence is 
 derivative, and therefore dependent? That this was really the 
 fact, the fourth verse will hardly permit us to doubt. " He 
 shall stand and feed his fiock in the strength of Jehovah, 
 in the majesty of the name ol Jehovah his God.'''' 
 
 ''''In the beginnino^ was the fFord, and the JVord was 
 with God, and the IFordivas God.^^ ^ John i. 1. This pas- 
 sage suggests to my mind several inquiries — Is the eter- 
 nity of Christ's existence to be inferred from the circum- 
 stance that he existed in the " beginning" with God ? Has 
 eternity a beginning ? These queries are respectfully sub- 
 mitted. But is the eternity of Christ's existence to be 
 inferred from the circumstance that he existed " with 
 God," or that he " was God ?" If Jesus Christ existed 
 %vith God, although at, and even before the beginning of 
 the creation, does it follow, that he is either that God with 
 whom he existed, or eaiial to him in " power and glory '?" 
 But the \V ord, or Christ, was God. Must he not have 
 existed then from eternity ? This conclusion must be 
 admitted, if it be true that Christ is the Supreme God, 
 But if it be true that Christ is God Supreme, or "possess- 
 ed of all divine perfections," and if it be also true that the 
 God with whom he existed is. God Supreme, must there 
 not be txvo Supreme Gods ? \ do not see how this conclu- 
 sion can be satisfactorily avoided. Have we not, then, 
 
27 
 
 much reason to believe that, as " there are gods nfiany botii 
 in heaven and in earth," Jesus Christ must be God in a 
 subordinate or inferior sense ; and therefore, that he did 
 not exist from eternity ? 
 
 " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday^ today, and forever ^ 
 Heb. xiii. 8. Whether this passage, as Dr. Worcester 
 seems to suppose, proves the eternity^ of Christ's exist- 
 ence, demands rather our careful consideration than bur 
 immediate belief. May it not indeed be a question wheth- 
 er it does not refer rather to the doctrines, than to the per- 
 son of Christ ? The scope of the passage seems, I think, 
 to favor this suggestion. Ver. 7. " Remember them that 
 lia\'e the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the 
 Word of God ; wliose faith follow, considering the end of 
 their conversation." Ver. 9. " Be not carried about with 
 divers and strange doctrines." As these verses stand in 
 immediate connexion with the passage under considera- 
 tion, the supposition that Jesus Christ may intend his 
 doctrines or gospel, is not to be considered either as extrav- 
 agant or unnatural. According to this supposition, the 
 meaning of the text seems to be, that the doctrines of 
 Christ, or of the gospel, continue invariably the same. 
 
 But on the supposition that the person of Jesus Christ 
 is intended in the text, must not the expressions " yester- 
 day, to-day and forever" be understood in a figurative 
 rather than a literal sense ? Is it a literal truth that Jesus 
 Christ, who has undergone various changes— been placed 
 in various situations — suffered hunger and thirst, poverty 
 and humiliation, sorrow, distress, and death itself ; — was 
 raised from the dead by the Father — ascended into heaven, 
 and ^vas by the Father highly exalted — and is hereafter 
 to deliver up the kingdom to the Father — " Is it a literal 
 truth," that he has suffered no variation or shadow of 
 change ? or that he will always be the same and in all res- 
 pects that he now is ? This, 1 think, cannot reasonably be 
 pretended. Besides, does the term yesterday necessarily 
 imply existence from eternity ? 
 
 " Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending ; 
 the First and the Last.^'* Rev. xxii. 13. Whether this 
 passage is to be considered as spoken by, or as referring to 
 Jesus Christ, may, I think, be doubted. It is indeed the 
 settled opinion of some whose researches after truth, with 
 respect to Jesus, have been deep and indefatigable, that 
 the title " Alpha and Omega, kc." " always denotes the 
 Father in the book of Revelation." But admitting that 
 the passage under consideration was spoken by Christ and 
 with application to himself, is it thence to be inferred that 
 he existed from eternity, or that he is self-existent ? — May 
 we not consider the title, Alplia and Omega, with applica- 
 
28 
 
 •tion to Christ, as importing that he js the Author and the 
 Fimsiier of our faith — or that he is the Beginnbig of 
 the creation of God, and the Finisher of the great \\ork 
 for which he was commissioned bj^ the Father '? — The 
 First and the Last. May we not consider this title as 
 signifying that Christ is " the first-born of every creature" 
 — that he is, next to his Father, first in dignity and office, 
 and that no one of like character \\iil ever exist after htm, 
 or as his successor ? Although I would not be confident 
 that this is the just, and only admissible construction of 
 die text, yet I would beg leave to ask whether it ^ill ad- 
 mit of any other construction in reference to Jesus Christ, 
 so rational and consistent ? Can it reasonably be pretended 
 that Jesus Christ existed pi'ior to any other " person," 
 *' being," or "agent?" If this were indeed the case, then 
 the existence of the Father must, it should seem, have 
 been posterior to that of the Son — for prioi'ity with re- 
 spect to the existence of txvo pejsonsj agents^ or beings^ is 
 too palpable an incongruity to be admitted, as possible. 
 
 Let us now examine several passages on which Dr. 
 Worcester seems to place his principal dependence, as 
 proof, that " Jesus Christ possesses all divine atti'ibutes, 
 and is therefore God." — " this is the true god, 
 and eternal hfe^ "our great god and Saviour je- 
 
 SUS CHRIST." "god OVER ALL, BLESSED FOREV- 
 ER MO RE." "./'/// things were made by him, ajid roR 
 HIM." — " Upon authority such as this, (observes the 
 Dr.) we believe that the Son is essentially divine, — essen- 
 tially equal to the Father." 
 
 This is the true God and eternal life. 1 John v. 20. 
 This verse entire, reads thus ; — " And \\t know that the 
 Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding 
 that we may know him that is true, and Ave are in him 
 that is true, e\ en in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the 
 true God and eternal life." In relation to this passage I 
 have to observe, that the word even is not in the original. 
 It was inserted in the text by the translators, and proba- 
 bly without any sufficient warrant or authority. In an 
 English version of the Bible, 1549, instead of even^xhi 
 word supplied is through. — " We are in him that is true, 
 through his Son Jesus Christ." And that this is the just 
 rendering of the verse is, I think, highly probable, if not 
 certain. The true import of the passage seems to be 
 this — " We are brought to the knowledge of the true 
 God, or have an understanding given us to know him by 
 the instrumentality of his Son Jesus Christ, who is the 
 way, the truth, and the life ; for he is the teacher or 
 preacher of eternal life.'''' That the expression. This is 
 the true God, is to be referred to the Father, and not to the 
 
29 
 
 Son, appears highly probable, not only from a careful at- 
 tention to the passage, but especially from the considera- 
 tion that Jesus Clii'ist has in the most explicit manner as- 
 sured us, John xvii. 3, that his Father is the " only true 
 GOD," and in distinction from himself'. " This is life eter- 
 nal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If the Father is 
 the only true God^ is it not difficult to conceive that any 
 other person, or agent, or being, should be the true God ? 
 Is there any other true God besides the true God? But 
 if Jesus Christ be this very God, can it be true, also, that 
 the Father is this very God, or that he is another God of 
 like character F What, Sir, shall we say to these things ? 
 How, according to Dr. W's belief, are these difficulties to 
 be avoided "? 
 
 Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Titus ii. 13. 
 This passage cannot, I think, be apposite to the purpose 
 for which Dr. Worcester has quoted it, unless the title 
 Great God, is given to our Saviour Jesus Christ. But 
 is this indeed the case ? Although I \vould not perempto- 
 rily decide diat the title is gi^'en exclusively to the Father, 
 yet I do think it highly probable, if not certain, that it is. 
 *' The appearing of the glory of the Great God, and of 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ," is the literal translation of the 
 text. — Our Saviour Jesus Christ will appear at the last 
 day, in his own glorj^, attended with the appearance of his 
 Father's glory. This seems to be the plain and just 
 meaning of the text. Must not the Great God then in- 
 tend the one God the Father, \\ho is every where distin- 
 guished from our Saviour Jesus Clirist, to whom this 
 magnificent title, it is belie\ed, is never given by any in- 
 spired \^Titer ? 
 
 God over all blessed for evermore. Rom. ix. 5. ^ This 
 passage is not so coiTcctlj^ quoted as could be wished. 
 The whole verse reads thus ; — " Whose are the fathers, 
 and of whom as conceming the flesh, Christ came, who is 
 over all, God blessed forever. Amen." — According to 
 the translation and pointing of this passage, Christ seems 
 to be designated as God over all. But as the Greek 
 words are of ambiguous construction, it is far from being 
 certain, that the title God over all belongs, or is to be ap- 
 plied to Christ. The words may signify either — Ofivhom 
 Christ came : God, who is over all, be blessed forever. 
 Amen. — Or, Of whom Christ came, who is over all : God 
 be blessed, forever. Amen. That either of these render- 
 ings is fairly admissible, cannot, I am persuaded, be rea- 
 sonably questioned. And that one or the other of them is 
 to be admitted as probably correct, may be inferred from 
 the consideration that the word Blessed seems to be an 
 
30 
 
 appropriate name of the Father^ and that Jesus Christ is 
 the So?i of the Blessed. As a circumstantial argument in 
 support of the above renderings, it may be observed, that 
 the constant doctrine of the cLurcli, in its earhest periods, 
 appears to have been that Christ is not the God over all ; 
 but that tliis title is peculiar to the Father. 
 
 .411 things were created by him and for him. Col. i. 16. 
 The import of this passage may be more obvious if view- 
 ed in connexion with the context. I will therefore exhib- 
 it it in this connexion. Verses 15 — 17. " Who (Christ) 
 is the image of the invisible God, the first born of eveiy 
 creature. For by him all things ^vcre created, that are in 
 heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether 
 they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : 
 all things Mere created by him, and for him." This 
 passage, it is thought by many, affords very strong, and 
 even conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ " is essentially 
 divine — essentially equal to the Father." But to my 
 mind, it does not afford this evidence ; for the apostle 
 seems cai-efuUy to have avoided the use of such terms or 
 titles \vith application to Jesus Christ, as are peculiarly 
 descriptive of God the Father. He speaks of Christ as 
 the linage of the invisible God. But can it reasonably be 
 supposed that the image of the invisible God is a person, 
 agent or being, who is himself the invisible God, or equal 
 to the invisil^le God ? But if the supposition is to be 
 admitted, must it not also be admitted in relation to the 
 first progenitor of the humxan race, who was made in 
 Ood''s own image ? The apostle speaks also of Christ as 
 the first born of every creature^ and as \!<i\t first born from 
 the dead. But can these things be said, with truth, of the 
 self existent and unchangeable God, or of any person or 
 being equal to the self existent and unchangeable God ? 
 Was the self existent God, or any person equal to him, 
 ever bom — ever dead — ox ever raised from the dead^ and 
 by another being too, called his Father ! The apostle 
 adds, for it pleased the Father that in him all fulness 
 should dwell. But if ail fulness dwelt in Christ by the will 
 or pleasure oi the Father, must not this fulness have been 
 si derived fulness ? Does it not seem to iniply, that, for 
 -all the attributes or excellencies which Christ possessed, 
 he was dependent on his Father ? In the view of these 
 things, is it not reasonable, 1 would ask, to conclude, al- 
 though " all things were created by him (Jesus Christ) 
 and for liim," that he was the subordinate or instrumental 
 creator of them ? That this must have been the case, 
 seems highly probable not only from the above suggestions, 
 but especially from the consideration that all things are of 
 God, and only by Jesus Christ, and that God made the 
 
31 
 
 worlds bit or through Jesus Christ. Nor is it unimportant 
 to remark, that in the passage under consideration, the 
 original word rendered by ought, as I believe, to have been 
 rendered by the particle in or through. Had this been the 
 rendering, the passage would read thus — " All things were 
 created in or through him, and for him." According to 
 this rendering, the meaning of the passage evidently is, 
 that the Father made all things in or through his Son 
 Jesus Christ,yor him, or to be in subjection to him. These 
 remarks, my dear Sir, are submitted to your serious con- 
 sideration, as, probably, exhibiting the truth with respect 
 to Jesus ; and I may add, as expressing the views of chris- 
 tians, generally, in the early and pure ages of the church. 
 Its most distinguished luminaries did not scruple to say-; — 
 " All things were made through the Word, not by him 
 (as the original cause) but by one superior and greater 
 than the Word." " All things were made by (or through) 
 the Word, as the ministering cause, that so he might refer 
 us to the supreme power and efficiency of the Father, as 
 the Maker of all things." 
 
 Letter 2, p. 38, Dr. Worcester supposes that Jesus 
 Christ is essentially divine from the consideration that " all 
 men are required to honour the Son, even as they honour 
 the Father.'^ John v. 23. That this passage should be 
 considered as requiring us to honour the Son with the 
 same kind and degree of honour as is due to the Father, 
 may very possibly arise from the want of suitable attention 
 to the passage itself, to its context, and to the general scope 
 and connexion of the scriptures. And that this is really 
 the case, there is much reason to apprehend. ^ The Greek 
 particle rendered as, or even as, never, I believe, denotes 
 strict or perfect equality, but only a greater or less degree 
 of resemblance. A few examples may suffice as proof of 
 the truth of this remark. '' Be ye kind, forgiving one 
 another, even as God for Clirist's sake hath forgiven you." 
 *' Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, as 
 unto Christ." " Be ye perfect, even as your Father which 
 is in heaven is perfect." Do these injunctions, Sir, require 
 us to grant forgiveness to our fellow men in the same seiise 
 and degree, as God grants forgiveness ? — or that servants 
 should obey their masters, in the same se?ise and degree, as 
 they should obey Christ? — Or that we should be per- 
 fect, i7i the same sense and degree, as our heavenly Father is 
 perfect ? This you do not suppose. Will the particle as^ 
 then, justify the belief that we are to give the same kind 
 and degree of honour to the Son as to the Father ? This. 
 I tJiink, cannot reasonably be admitted, and especially 
 when the reason which is assigned for honouring the Son 
 is duly considered, viz. that *' the Father hath committed 
 
32 
 
 all judgment to the Son." As Christ is dependent on his 
 Father for " all judgment," it should seem that he is not 
 to be honoured as the Supreme and Independent Being, 
 but as a Judge of the Father's appointment, and as his 
 ambassador. " He," therefore, " that honoureth not the 
 Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him." Whoever 
 docs not honour the Son as the appointed Judge, whom 
 the " Father sent,"_ does not honour the Father. But is 
 the honour, which is due to a judge, the same, in kind and 
 degree, with that \yhich is due to the chief magistrate who 
 vested him with his office ? Or is the honour which is 
 due to an ambassador — one who is sent, the same, both 
 in kind and degree, with that Avhich is due to the sovereign 
 by whom he is sent ? 
 
 Letter 3, p. 17. " M:/ Father worketh hitherto, and I 
 work. Therefore the Jews sought to kill him, because — 
 he said that God was his Father, making himself equal 
 with God.'''' John v. 17, 18. The Jews, Dr. Worcester 
 observes, " understood Christ to call God his Father, in a 
 sense which made God his natural Father, and himself in 
 nature divine and equal with the Father." And that the 
 Jews understood Christ as he meant to be understood, is 
 the Doctor's belief; for he says, that Christ's "being 
 Son, does not imply inferiority in nature to the Father. 
 On the contrary, it imports sameness and equality of 
 nature." 
 
 The expression, natural Father, in this quotation, if not 
 exceptionable, I consider as very ambiguous. But in 
 whatever sense it is to be understood, it seems inconsistent 
 with the supposition that Jesus Christ is a self existent and 
 independent person, or being ; or that he is equal to his 
 Father. Nor is it very likely that the Je^vs understood 
 Christ as claiming equaUty with the Supreme God. But 
 if they did, it is very far from being certain that they rightly 
 apprehended his meaning. It is to be observed that the 
 occasion of his saying. My Father worketh hitherto, and 
 Ixvork, was the accusation of the Je\N's, that he had broken 
 the sabbath, by healing an impotent man, and their attempt 
 on that account, to kill him. Is not this then the most 
 natural meaning of his words — " As Almighty God has 
 always performed works of mercy and beneficence, as well 
 on the sabbath, as on other days, so I, his Son, perform simi- 
 lar works." "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's 
 business ?" — that " I must work the works of him that 
 sent me, \\'hile it is day ?" But Mill you chi'jge me with 
 violating the sabbath, because I imitate my Father in 
 works of beneficence ? Or will you accuse me of making 
 myself " equcil with God," because I call him my Father ? 
 Or because I tell you that I perform, as well as my Father, 
 
$3 
 
 works of mercy ?^ " Verilj-, verily, I say unto yoii, the 
 Son can do nothing of himself, but w hat he seeth the 
 Father do. I can of mine own self do nothing. As I hear, 
 I judge, and my judgment is just; because I seek not 
 mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent 
 me. If I bear v\ itness of myself, my witness is not true. 
 There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know 
 that the witness which he w itnesseth of me is true,'' verses 
 19, 30 — 32. If Christ meant to be understood by the 
 Jews as claiming equdlity with his Father, and as perform- 
 ing miracles by his own independent agency, is it reason- 
 able to suppose that he would have spoken of himself, as 
 learning of his Fath.er, as dependent on his Fcther for 
 whatever he did, and as seeking not his own, but the will 
 of his Father ?^ Had the Jew s been impressed widi the 
 belief that Christ claimed equality with God, does not his 
 solemn asseveration seem to have been designed to efface 
 the impression ? Yet Dr. W. supposes that Nathanael, 
 when he addressed Clirist as " the Son of God," "evidently 
 understood this appellation to import true divinity." " It 
 cannot reasonably be doubted," he adds, "diat such was the 
 understanding of Peter and Thomas, and the other disci- 
 ples, when they acknowledged Jesus to be ' the Christ, 
 THE Son of the living God,' and worshipped him 
 as their ' Zorc/, and their God.'*' But this representation 
 I must consider as not a little inaccurate, as Nathanael 
 does not appear to have considered Christ as truly divine, 
 or God. If Thomas viewed and worshipped Christ as 
 his Lord and his God, yet I think Dr. ^Vorcester can 
 hardly be justified in saying that " the other disciples'* 
 worshipped him as ""their Lord and their God ;^^ as 
 he has not scriptural authority for saying so. But is 
 it certain thit Thomas worshipped Christ as God, 
 equal to tlie Father ? The text to which Dr. W. refers, 
 only states that Thomas " said unto him, (Christ) my 
 Lord and my God." But is this unquestion..bly an act 
 of worship — of supreme worsliip paid to Christ ? Thomas 
 does not say to Christ, thou art my Lord and my God ; 
 but exclaims in a transport of admiration, on being con- 
 vinced that he was indeed risen from the dead, my Lord f 
 and my God! ^hich, so far as we know, might have been 
 directed to the Father, who had raised him from the grave. 
 That this was really the fact, was the opinion of a distin- 
 guished ancient Father of the fourth century, who says 
 that Thomas " did not call Christ, Lord and God ; but 
 being astonished at the great miracle of iiis resurrection, 
 and the full evidence of it that he had afforded hiin, he 
 praised God who had raised him from the dead." J3ut 
 whether this is the true import of die words of Thomas, I 
 E 
 
34 
 
 pretend not positively to decide ; yet I see not but it may 
 safely be decided, that if Thomas addressed Jesus Christ 
 as his Supreme Lord and God, he must have done it to 
 the exclusion of the one God, the Father ; for there is but 
 one Supreme God. When I consider, my dear Sir, that 
 Thomas was a Jew by birth and education — that he be- 
 lieved that die Lord his God, the God of Israel, was one 
 Lord, and that besides him there was none else, I find it 
 difficult to conceive that he should have considered and 
 worshipped Jesus Christ, who he knew had been crucified 
 and slain, as his Supreme Lord and God. Nor is this 
 difficulty lessened, when I further consider that Christ had 
 never required either Thomas or the other disciples to 
 w^orship or acknowledge him as God, but his Father only. 
 But if it were really the belief of Thomas that Christ was 
 God Supreme, must not this belief have been contradictory 
 to the belief, or assurance of Christ himself? Did not 
 Christ know that the one God, even the Father, was his 
 God, as well as the God of Thomas and his other disci- 
 ples? Did he not, in speaking to them after his resurrec- 
 tion, say, " I ascend to my Father and to your Father, and 
 to my God and your God ?" Is this consistent with the 
 supposition that Jesus Christ is God — the Supreme God f 
 If so, the consistency seems to me a very strange one. 
 
 Dr. Worcester supposes, Letter 3, p. 31, " that the same 
 divine honours are ascribed in the Bible to the Son as 
 to the Father." — If this be really the case, I much regret it, 
 that he has not more satisfactorily su{)ported the supposed 
 fact by Bible authority. That the Bible represents Jesus 
 Christ as an object of honour and \v orship, I readily ac- 
 knowledge as truth worthy of all acceptation. But when I 
 consider that this honour or ^vorship is to be paid to him as 
 "the Lamb that was slain," as " the first begotten of God, 
 whom he brought into the world," and that it does not ul- 
 timately terminate on him, but "is to the glory of God 
 the Father,'''' I cannot be satisfied that " the same divine 
 honours are ascribed in the Bible to the Son, as to the 
 Father." And do you, Sir, find no difficult}' in believing 
 that a person or being who was slain — who was begotten^ 
 and brought into the world, is to be worshipped as the Su- 
 preme, self-existent, and independent God ? Can we easily 
 believe this ? Or must we consider those as " advancing 
 into a region of frost — of darkness— yof the shadow of 
 death," who do not \\ orship Jesus Christ as the Supreme 
 God ? This Dr. Worcester supposes. Nor can Trinita- 
 rian christians, if I understand him, " meet in blessed fel- 
 lowsliip" with those who do not thus \\orship the Son of 
 God ; for they " adore him as ' the^ true God and eter- 
 nal life^^ and delight in the ascription, * Unto him tliat 
 
55 
 
 loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 
 and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his 
 Father,' &c." — In view of this passage I would ask wheth- 
 er the christians, whom Dr. W. and others cannot con- 
 scientiously admit to their fellowship, do not professedly 
 worship one true God'} But does he, or do they who are 
 in sentiment with him, worship more than one true God, 
 or do they admit the existence of more than one God of 
 this character ? As unto us there is but " one God, the 
 Father," and as the " Father is the only true God,^^ is it 
 not difficult to conceive that Jesus Christ also should be 
 the true God ? Besides, is it not equally difficult to con- 
 ceive that " the true God'^ should have " washed us from 
 our sins in his oxvn blood, and made us kings and priests 
 unto God and his Father ?" 
 
 Letter 2, pp. 34, 35, Dr. W. observes " that Jesus 
 Christ is revealed as our Redeemer and Saviour" — " that 
 he is the foundation of all our hopes for eternity," and 
 " that we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins 
 solely on account of the merits of his blood." — In other 
 places, as we have before seen, he speaks of this same 
 Redeemer and Saviour, as an agent, being, God, essential- 
 ly divhie, and as possessing all divine attributes. He 
 must therefore be understood as representing Christ, as 
 our Redeemer and Saviour, not in a subordinate or inferior 
 sense, but in the first, or principal sense — and that, in this 
 sense, we are dependent on him for redemption, and for all 
 our hopes for eternity. — But if we are solely dependent on 
 Christ for redemption and salvation, he must be our Re- 
 deemer and Saviour, not only in the supreme or highest 
 sense, but, as it appears to me, to the exclusion of every 
 other person, being, or thing. I cannot therefore but 
 strongly apprehend that the Dr.'s belief with respect to 
 Christ as Redeemer and Saviour, and with respect to oiir 
 dependence on, and obligation to him, is not founded in 
 truth. 
 
 In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament God 
 is represented as the only Redeemer of his people. Nor is 
 Redeemer ever applied to Christ in the New Testament. 
 Christ is indeed once said to be redemption ; but in ini- 
 mediate connexion with this, we are assured that he is 
 made redemption of or by God. God the Father has ap- 
 pointed him the instrument of his goodness and mercy, in 
 conveying to us deliverance from sin and death.^ Christ 
 has thus been made redemption, "that according as it iswTit- 
 ten, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord,y Jehovah^ 
 who made him redemption. Jesus Christ is indeed rep- 
 resented as a Redeemer, Deliverer, &:c. But is he not so 
 represented in a subordinate or inferior sense ? " When 
 
36 
 
 the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son- — 
 made under the law, to redeem them that were under the 
 law." Gill. iv. 4, 5. But as Christ was sent of God, and 
 7Jiade under the law, is it not difficult to conceive that he is 
 Qur Supreme Redeemer ? If Christ, in this sense, is our 
 Redeemer, why are we required to " glorify God,'''' be- 
 cause " we are bought with a price ?" and to give " thanks 
 unto tlie Father who hath deli\'ered" or redeemed " us 
 from the power of darkness ?" Although '' Christ hath re- 
 deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse 
 for us," by " having been slain," yet does not the cir- 
 cumstance that he was made a curse, by being slain, very 
 strongly indicate that he is only our instrumental Redeem- 
 er ? Are we not then chiefly to glory in, and to glorify 
 God the Father V 
 
 Jesus Christ, according to Dr. Worcester, is revealed in 
 the gospel not only as our Redeemer, but as our Saviour^ 
 and in the highest sense. But his he proved this great 
 point ? To my satisfaction he hds not. That the title of 
 Saviour is applied to Christ in the gospel is unquestionably 
 true. It is equally true also that the same title is applied 
 to other persons. But is it not applied to God alone^ in the 
 highest or supreme sense ? If this is not the case, what 
 are we to understand by the unequivocal declaration of 
 God ? " I, even I, am the Lord ; and beside me there is 
 710 Saviour.^'' " There is no God else beside me ; a just 
 God and a Saviour ; there is none beside me," Isa. xliii. 
 11, and xlv. 21. This same God is devoutly acknowl- 
 edged by Mary, Luke, i. 47, as her Saviour. And " God 
 our Saviour^'' is distinguished from " Christ our hope,'''' 
 1 Tim. i. 1. "The living God is styled the *So?y/o/^r of 
 all men, especially of those that believe." He is " the only 
 wise God our Saviour,'''' Jude 25. Several other pas- 
 sages might, were it necessary, be quoted, in which the 
 God and F.ither of our Lord Jesus Christ is styled our 
 Saviour. Here we see not only that God, the living God^ 
 the only wise God, is revealed as our Saviour, but as a Sav- 
 iour, beside whom there i^ none else, and in distinction from 
 Jesus Christ our hope. Can it be true then, as Dr. W. 
 supposes, that Jesus Christ is revealed to us as such a 
 Saviour ? Is it to be supposed that the self-existent and 
 Supreme Saviour, was " bor7i, sent into the world, exalted 
 and raised up, &:c.?" But all these things are true with re- 
 spect to Jesus Christ ; and for all these things he was depend- 
 ent on his Father. The " Father sent the Son to be the 
 Saviour of the w orld," and " exalted him to be a Prince and 
 a Saviour," Accordingly the great muhitude who stand 
 before the throne of God, the Father, "ascribe to Him 
 Gidvation." And this tiiey are under the strongest obiiga- 
 
37 
 
 tioii to do, as He " appointed them to obtain salvation 
 through, or by, Jesus Christ." In the view of these things 
 can it reasonably be doubted that we are to magnify God 
 our Saviour in the most exalted sense, \\'ho raised and sent 
 Christ to be a Saviour ? and especially when we consider 
 that Christ himself prayed to God as his Saviour^ who 
 aloTie was able to save him. " Father, save me from this 
 hour." In " the days of his flesh he offered up prayers and 
 supplications, with strong crying and tears unto Him 
 who was able to save him from death." Is a praying 
 Saviour to be considered as a self- sufficient and inde- 
 pendent Saviour ? Or is such a Saviour " the founda- 
 tion of all our hopes for eternity," as Dr. W . pronoun- 
 ces him to be ? If so, what must be die situation of those 
 who " set their hope in Gor/" — w hose " faith and hope are 
 in Gof/" — of them that " hope in his mercy ?" Or with 
 what propriety could the prcpliet say of God, " he is my 
 portion, therefore will I hope in him^ Did he consider 
 Christ as the foundation of all his hope ? Or did an apos- 
 tle consider him as such a foundation when he expressed 
 his *' hope towards GodV If God be not the principal or pri- 
 mary foundation of hope, how could he have been "the 
 hope of Israel, and the Saviour thereof in time of lroul)le ?" 
 Or with what propriety could they have been exhorted to 
 " hope in him," and with tiie assurance of " blessedness," 
 if they did so ? Can these things, my dear Sir, be duly 
 considered, and no foundation be found for any hope but 
 Jesus Christ ? Jesus Christ is indeed a foundation — a sure 
 foundation. But by v>'hom is this foundation laid ? By 
 " the Lord God." " The prophets and apostles" also are 
 " a foundation" of which " Jesus Christ himself is the 
 chief corner stone." Yet as the Lord God laid the foun- 
 dation, must he not be the. chief obj ect — the principal foun- 
 dation of our hope ? "He is the rock ; his work, is perfect.'' 
 But who is a foundation — " \\\\o is a rock" in the high- 
 est sense, " save our God V Let us not then " lightly es- 
 teem THIS Rock of our salvation ;" — this everlasting and 
 immovable "Foundation of all our hopes for eternity." 
 
 Dr. Worcester not only says, that Jesus Christ is 
 revealed as the foundation of all our hopes for eternity, 
 but " that we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins 
 solely on account of the merits of his blood." Whether 
 his view of this very important and interesting subject 
 is correct, I am not prepared to decide, as I am far from 
 being satisfied diat I understand what it is. He represents 
 Christ, indeed, as our surety, our substitute, as a vicarious 
 sufferer, and the propitiation for our sins, in different parts 
 of his Letters, and produces several passages from the 
 New Testament which he diinks sufficient to justify thai 
 
38 
 
 representation. Nor will I say that he has not sufficient 
 ground for thinking so. Yet it seems to me that he has 
 tlirovvn no light upon the subject. His expressions are too 
 general and vague to convey clear and distinct ideas ; nor 
 can I but be apprehensive that some of them are calculated 
 to lead many of his readers to improper, if not dangerous 
 conclusions, particularly the sentence under consideration. 
 If " Ave have the forgiveness of our sins solely on account 
 of the merits of Christ's blood," nothing else but that 
 blood, it seems, is necessary to forgiveness ; and that 
 forgiveness is bestowed on ?io other consideratioji. Besides, 
 if Christ's blood completely merits the forgiveness of 
 sins, I do not see that the forgiveness of the sinner can be 
 an act oS. grace or favour in God. Can grace or favour, 
 in forgiving sin, be compatible with the consideration that 
 forgiveness of sin has been merited? Moreover, if Christ, 
 by his blood, has merited the forgiveness of sins, I see not 
 that any argument can reasonably be urged agiiinst the 
 doctrine of universal salvation ; for Christ '' died /or «//." 
 Nor do I see Avhy all have not a claim to forgiA'eness as a 
 matter of rights if forgiveness has been merited for them. 
 Pt rhaps, however, the Doctor's theory of forgiveness, does 
 not lead to these conclusions, although it seems to do it. 
 Instead therefore of peremptorily deciding upon the sub- 
 ject, I will invite your attention. Sir, to several passages of 
 scripture relating to the forgiveness of sin, which seem to 
 clash with Dr. W.'s belief. " For thy names' sake, O 
 Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great." " O Lord, 
 hear, O Lord, forgive, for thine own sake." John the 
 baptist was to make known the doctrine di x^^^ forgiveyiess 
 of sms " through the tender mercies of God." And John 
 the apostle observes, " If we confess our sins, he (God) 
 is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
 from all unrighteousness." " When ye stand praying,'* 
 said Christ to his disciples, "" forgive, if ye have aught 
 agai)ist any ; that your Father also M'hich is in heaven, may 
 forgive you your trespasses." " If ye forgive men their 
 trespasses, your Father who is in heaven. Mill forgive you." 
 Is not the import of these passages plain and obvious ? 
 Do they not teach us, and without a figure^ that God for- 
 gives sins for his own name''s sake — his mercy'' s sake — 
 through his tender tnercies — through his faithfulness and 
 justice to himself; and that the conditio?! of his forgiving 
 us, is otir exercising forgiveness toxvards others who ha\'e 
 oftlnded us? That we have any meritorious claim, how- 
 ever, to the divine forgiveness, founded on the consideration 
 that we forgive ofl'enders, is very far from my belit f The 
 doctrine of personal merit in this great affair is utterly to be 
 disclaimed. Nor would I be understood to insinuate that 
 
29 
 
 the pardon of sin is not bestowed on sinners, who repent, 
 bt/, or through, or in reference to " the blood of Christ." 
 That it is in this way bestowed, I fully believe. But that 
 " we have the forgiveness of our sins solely on account of 
 the merits of Christ's blood," seems to me irreconcilable 
 "with the scripture passages cited above. But as I am very 
 uncertain whether I rightly conceive the meaning of Dr. 
 Worcester's position, I would not be understood as pro- 
 nouncing against it an uncjualified condemnation. I must 
 say, however, that I consider his manner of expressing his 
 belief as exceptionable, and calculated to impress on the 
 minds of many, the idea that we are much more indebted 
 to Christ the Son of God for pardon and salvation, than to 
 God the Father ; that by his death he has rendered the 
 Father merciful or propitious, and that he is the chief 
 object of our love and confidence. As I view such a belief 
 repugnant to the whole tenor of revelation, I cannot but 
 think that much caution ought to be used by religious 
 instructors in their discourses and publications to prevent 
 its impression, and injurious influence. My dear Sir, is it 
 to be admittecl as a doctrine of revelation that Jesus Christ 
 has, by his blood, "recompensed the justice of God 
 for innumerable sins ?" If in any other than a qualified 
 and highly figurative sense he has done this, I see not how 
 God can pardon those sins either on principles of justice, 
 or mercy. If, in a strict and proper sense, his justice has 
 been " recompensed," must not the innumerable sins for 
 "which the recompense has been made be completely can- 
 celled ? How then, after this, do they admit of forgive- 
 ness on a7iy consideration ? 
 
 It was my original design to make no remarks on Dr. 
 Worcester's statements in relation to the doctrine of the 
 atonement. But as they appear to have been made with 
 the view, partly at least, to support the essential divinity 
 of Christ, i thought it not irrelevant to my principal object 
 to make the above strictures upon them. Should they be 
 instrumental to a more thorough investigation, and to a 
 more clear and satisfactory developcment of this great and 
 difficult subject, I shall greatly rejoice. 
 
 I shall now examine several things advanced by Dr. 
 Worcester, which, akhough they relate principally to the 
 character of Christ, may be considered, not improperly, . 
 as 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES. 
 
 The first relates to the union of Christ the Son, with 
 God the Father ; which union, if I understand Dr. W. 
 furnishes evidence, in his opinion, of the essential divinity 
 of the Son, and of his equality to the Father. A few re- 
 
40 
 
 marks have already been made upon this subject : But 
 its importance demands a more particular consideration. 
 
 *' Jesus," the Dr. observes, Let. 3, pp. 20, 21, 22, "in his 
 memorable intercessorj- prayer with his disciples, says," 
 * Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also u Inch 
 shall believe on me through their word, that they all may 
 be one ; as thou Father art in me and I in thee, 
 that tliei/ also may be one ifi z/.9,' John xvii. 20, 21. And 
 christians are abundantly exhorted in the scriptures to seek 
 •and preserve the most perfect unity.'' But " in whiit," 
 asks the Doctor, " does this unity consist ?" " Un- 
 doubtedly," he answers, " in being, as St. Paul expresses 
 it, ' perfecdy united together in the same mind, and in the 
 sunie judgment' — * being knit together in love.' When 
 christians are thus in mind, in judgment, and in love, 
 perfectly joined and knit together, they are in the most 
 important and interesting sense, one, &c." " Were they 
 perfectly holy ; had they also exactly the same thoughts on 
 every subject, the same vicAvs of every object, the same 
 affections, an.d regards towards every being and tiling ; and 
 Jiad they moreover a perfect knowledge of each otlurs' 
 minds and hearts, their union \\ould be most complete." 
 *' A union of this Avwf/does exist in a greater or less degree 
 among believers, and will increase, until it attain its highest 
 perfection in the heavenly world. This is the oneness into 
 which Jesus prayed that his people might be brought, and 
 which he resembled to tliat \\hich exists between him and 
 his Father," akhough it " fdis infinitely short of it." 
 W''hether the Doctor is correct in saying that the luiion 
 existing between believers, fills bifimtely short of the 
 union which exists between Christ and his Father, may be 
 reasonably questioned. But ho\vever this mav be, it is 
 admitted that there is a resemblance between them ; — that 
 they are alike in hind. The Uiuon in both cases is of a 
 moral nature^ a iinmi in love^ &c. But because Chi-ist is 
 thus united to his Father, is it necessarily to be inferred 
 that he is " essentially divine," that he is " possessed of all 
 divine attributes," and that " he is equal to his Father '?" 
 *' If believers may be one, both in Christ and in the 
 Father," — iithey miiy " be one, as,'*'' and " even as Christ 
 and the Father are o;?/?," must it not be difficult to conceive, 
 that the oneness betueen Clirist and his Father is anu other 
 xh'Mio^ ^. moral jiat lire ? But does such a union impiv, 
 either that Christ is equ^l to his Father, or that he and his 
 Father are one being or God ? I do not see tliyt it implies 
 either of these suppositions. 0:i examining the chdpler 
 from which Dr. W. quoted the intercessory pruytr of 
 Jesus, I find him praying to his Father, to glorify him — 
 acknowledging his dependence on his Father ibr the power 
 
41 
 
 which he possessed — speaking of his Father as the only true 
 Gocl, and of him sell" as sent from God, &c. How, my 
 dear Sir, are these things to be reconciled with the suppo- 
 sition that Jesus Christ is " one God with the Father," or 
 " that all the iniinite knowledge, and po\Acr, and wisdom, 
 and goodness of the Father, are in the Sour"' But Ictus 
 see how Dr. Worcester maintains the supposition. 
 
 It is an assertion oi" Christ, he observes, " / and mu 
 Father are one.'''' — But how are they one '? — one God^ If 
 so, the fact completely destroys the doctrine of a triune 
 God. For if Christ and his Father are so united as to 
 constitute one God, a third person cannot be associated 
 with the Godhead. That one which is constituted of twOj 
 cannot at the same time be constituted of three. But if 
 this oneness is of a moral kind, implying union in love, 
 design and pursuit, \\ hat e\ idence docs it furnish that 
 Christ and his Father are one God ? Are not christians 
 united to the Son and to the Father, even as the Son is 
 united to the Father ? " Believe me^ that I am 'm the 
 Father^ and the Father in ;???." But are not christians 
 both ?;2 the Son, and in the Father ? How then does this 
 circumstance prove that Christ is equal to, or one God 
 with the Fathtr ? 
 
 *' ./\b man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten 
 Son^ which is in .the bosom of the Father^ he hath declared 
 him.'''' But have not many men seen C hrist ? How then 
 can Christ be God, since God is invisible ? As Christ 
 was begotten^ how could he have been self-existent ? As 
 he was cherished in the bosom of his Father, must he not 
 have been dependent on his Father ? And as he declared 
 his Father, must he not have been his Father's messenger ? 
 
 '''' Jls the Father knoweth me^ even so know I the Father. ^^ 
 The iriference of Dr. \V. is, that " the Son has a perfect 
 knowledge of his Father's infinite mind and will." But is 
 this inference to be admitted as indubitably ti'ue ? If so, 
 will not the spirits of just men in the future world have a 
 perfect knov. ledge of the infinite mind and \\ill of God ? 
 for in that aa orld " shall they know" God, " even as^ they 
 are known" of God. But as no man will ever even in the 
 future w orld liave a perfect knowledge ol the infinite mind 
 and Mill of God, is it ]iot presumptuous to inter from the 
 above text that the knowledge of Christ is co-extensive 
 with the knowledge of his Father, and especially as he has 
 expressly declared that he does not know all that his Father 
 knows ? 
 
 " The Son can do nothing of himself but what (but asy 
 
 Campbell's translation) J\e seeth the Fathei' do ; for what 
 
 Phings soever he doeth^ these also doeth the Son bkewisc.^^ 
 
 Dr. Worcester supposes the meaning of this passage to be, 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 *' that all that is clone by the Father is in the same manner, 
 and at the same time, done by the Son." But if the Dr's. 
 supposition be true, what are we to understand by the 
 declaration that " all things are of God," and only " by 
 Jesus Christ ?" Does tliis imply that Christ does all 
 things in the same manner as they are done by the Father ? 
 The " Father hath pat the times or the seasons in his oxvn 
 power y But is this cx)nsistent with the supposition that 
 Christ hath put these same times or seasons, in the power 
 6f his Father^ or in his own power ? The Father begat 
 the Son, sent him into the world, gave him a command- 
 ment what he should do, and what he should speak-— 
 committed all judgment to him — -ordained him to be the 
 Judge of the world — set him on his holy hill of Zion — 
 gave him a kingdom — anointed him with the oil of glad- 
 ness — -delivered him into the hands of wicked men to be 
 crucified— forsook him on the cross— raised him from the 
 dead — exalted him to his own right hand, and gave him a 
 more excellent name or dignity than angels. These things, 
 my dear Sir, God tlie Father did in relation to his Son. 
 But did the Son do all these things, and in the same manner 
 and at the satne time his Father did them ! How could 
 the Son beget himself^ send himself &c. These things 
 are too mysterious for my comprehension. Nor can I 
 conceive that two persons or agents ever did, or that it is 
 possible they should do any one thing at the same time and 
 in the same manner, I must think, therefore, that Dr. W. 
 is not a little incorrect in saying, " that all that is done by 
 the Father is in the same manner, and at the same time, 
 done by the Son." If this were true, with what propriety 
 could the Son have expressly declared that he " could do 
 nothing of himself'*'' and in reply to the accusation of the 
 Jews, when they said that he made " himself equal with 
 God ?" The truth, as stated by the evangelist, is, that the 
 works which Christ did, " he did in his Father'' s name''"' — 
 and that " x}i\^ Father who dwelt in him did the works^ 
 Agreeably Christ prayed to the Father when he wrought 
 miracles, and acknowledged his dependence on the Father. 
 '*/« him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily y " He is the brightness of the Fathefs glory ^ and 
 the express image of his person^ "Therefore he says, 
 * He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also.'' Such 
 is the unity of the Fajher and the Son," — a unity which 
 Dr. W. supposes implies, "that the will and power of 
 Christ, are the same with the will and power of the Father." 
 And of course that the Son is equal to, and one with the 
 Father. But do the above quoted passages prove this 
 doctrine ? Because the Godhead, or God, dwells in 
 Christ, does it follow that Clw'ist is himself God? If so, 
 
43 
 
 must not christains be the subjects of real divinity ? for 
 *' God dwells in theni !" Should it be said that it is not 
 to be inferred that Christ is God, simply because God 
 dwelleth in him, but because all the fulness o{ the Godhead 
 dwelleth in him, may it not pertinently be replied, that 
 christians are " filled," or are capable of being " filled with 
 ^'^ the fulness of God /"' Should stress be laid on the term 
 lead, as implying a triune God, may it not with pro- 
 cy be asked whether there is not a great incongruity in 
 supposition that the Father, the Son and the Spirit, all 
 ell in the Son ? But if thtre be no incongruity in this» 
 ; I would ask whether, if the fulness of the "Sacred 
 hree" dwell in the Son, the Father and the Spirit can be 
 qual to the Son ? The fact however is, that the fulness 
 which dwells in Christ is the fulness of the Father. But 
 what is this fulness aside from those " treasures of wisdom 
 and knowledge" imparted to Christ by the Father for the 
 benefit of the church, or to c^ualify him to fulfil his great 
 commission? Is it not by this fulness that ^^he is the bright- 
 ness of the Father"* s glory, and the express image of his 
 person ?" Whatever may be intended by the expres- 
 sion, the brightness of the Fathefs glory, it cannot imply, 
 it should seem, that the Father's glory is the glory of 
 Christ ; but rather that Christ receives his brightness from 
 his Father's glory. Nor can the phrase, the express image 
 of his person, imply, I should think, that Christ is the sub- 
 stance or essence of the Father ; for image seems evidently 
 to denote something different from the person, substance, 
 or essence of which it is an image. It is to me. Sir, very 
 difficult to conceive that Christ can be both the substance 
 or essence of his Father, and the image of his substance or 
 essence. Must not the image of any person or thing, 
 however " express," be entirely distinct from that person 
 or thing ? Is it then to be inferred from the consideration 
 that Christ is the brightness of the Father's glo^, &.c. that 
 he is equal to his Father, or so united to the Father as to 
 be one God with him ? Or is this inference to be made 
 from the consideration that " he that hath seen the Son, 
 hath seen the Father also ?" If this declaration of Christ 
 be strictly and literally true, I see not but the Father must 
 be literally visible. But as " no man hath seen God at 
 any time," as " he is the invisible God," the passage under 
 review is not to be taken in a strict and literal sense. Its 
 import seems to be, tiiat Christ was his Father's represen- 
 tative — the revealer of his will — that the wisdom and power 
 of the Father resided in him, and were by him displaj'ed to 
 the view of men, so that they who saw Christ, and the 
 works which he wrought by the power of the Father, might 
 be said, in a figurative or qualified sense, to have seen the 
 Father. 
 
44 
 
 Letter 2, p. 7, Dr. Worcester views Christ as possessed 
 of two natures, divine and human. " Do you not know, 
 (he asks,) that Trinitarians hold Jesus Christ to be God 
 and man united in one person — that this complex person 
 suffered and died, and that his death had all the importance, 
 all the merit, all the elficacy, a\ hich could be derived to it 
 from the infinite dignity of" such a person ?" Pages 32, 2>3^ 
 he observes, " The scriptures teach us that the same 
 Word, who was in the beginning with God and was 
 God, was MADE or a woman, niade under the law ; — 
 that though being in the form of God, he thought it 
 not robbery to be equal with God ; yet he made hunself 
 of no reputation ^ and took upon hjm the form of a 
 
 SERVANT, AND WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF 
 
 MEN ; and being found in fashion as a man, /?e I tumbled 
 himself^ atid bceame obedient unto deaths even the death of 
 the cross.'''' Phil. ii. 6, 8. " We therefore believe, that in 
 the person of the Son, God was manifest in the flesh, 
 in our own nature ; that, in the person of Jesus Christ, 
 God and man were united." *■' Viewing him, then, in his 
 two natures, di\ ine and human, we see a perfect consistency 
 in his being represented, as he is in the scriptures, both as 
 God and man ; as essentially equal to the Father, and yet 
 in other respects unequal." '■ This doctrine, (adds the 
 Doctor,) we feel ourselves bound to believe as a most 
 interesting and important truth." This union of two 
 infinitely unequal natures in the person of Christ, he 
 acknowledges to be an incomprehensible mysterj\ But 
 being clearly rexealed, as he supposes, in the word of God, 
 he thinks it must be received as a most important truth. 
 Nor should I qtiestion, my dear Sir, < ur obligation thus to 
 receive it, however incoinprehensible the doctrine, were I 
 satisfactorily convinced that it is a doctrine of revelation. 
 But is this to be admitted ? Do you find no difficulty. Sir, 
 in believing that a pers«:)n or being essentially divine^ and 
 equal to God the Father, was 7)mde of a woman — made 
 under the law — thi.t he was made in the likeness of men^ 
 and that he became obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross ? But all these things Dr. Worcester applies to 
 the " J Ford,'*'' whom he considers as God in the supreme 
 or highest sense. Whether he intends to be understood 
 according to the most obvious meaning of his expressions, 
 T know not. If he does, I dare not assent to his belief, 
 and especially A^ hen I consider that die same person or 
 being, " w ho thought it not robberj^ to be equal a\ ith 
 God," was, in consequence of his humiliation, obedience 
 and death, rewarded by his Father, in that he *' highly 
 exalted him, and gave a name which is above every name." 
 |b it not very difficult to conceive that a person or being, 
 
45 
 
 who is God in the highest .se?ise, should be thus rervarded 
 for his obedience and sufferings unto death, by another 
 person or being, whom he obeyed, and by whose appoint- 
 ment he suffered and died ? Is it not much more reason- 
 able to suppose that this person or being is God, in an 
 inferior or subordinate sense ? My mind cannot but 
 revolt at the idea, " that the ever blessed God suffered and 
 died on tlie cross." Nor does this idea seem exactly Xo 
 comport with Dr. Worcester's view of the subject. He 
 says, Letter 3, p. 37, " This phrase is not mine." "We 
 hold Jesus Christ to be God and man, united in one person ; 
 and that this one complex person suffered and died." 
 *' We do not saj- that the ever blessed God, separately 
 from man, suffered and died, but we do say that Jesus 
 Christ, as God and 7nan in one person, did suffer and die." 
 But if the " ever blessed God," as united with man, 
 " suffered and died," then a person somewhat greater than 
 the ever blessed God, must have suffered and died ; as the 
 union of the ever blessed God to a man, by which he 
 became one person with the man, must, so far as I can see, 
 have constituted that person a greater being, than the 
 person of God separate from the supposed union. This 
 conclusion, however, may be considered as inadmissible, 
 although I cannot see that it is so. I will therefore only say, 
 that if the ever blessed God, as united \\\\h. man, suffered 
 and died, his sufferings and death must, to say the least, 
 have been as reed and as great as if he had not been united 
 to the man. Should it be said, that notwithstandiiig 
 this " complex person suffered and died," yet essential 
 divinity was not subject to suffering, nor to the pains of 
 death, may it not be pertinently asked, how then could 
 *' God and man in one person suffer and die .^" If two 
 natures, "divine and human," constitute one, and but one 
 person ; and if that self same pe7'so?i suffered and died, 
 does it not necessarily follow, that the divinity as well as 
 the humanity was subject to suffering, and the pangs of 
 death ? This consequence does not, as it seems to me, 
 admit of evasion. Should the consequence, however, be 
 denied, must it not of course be admitted that the humanity 
 only of this complex person suffered and died ? If both 
 the natures did not suffer and die, then surely but one of 
 them suffered and died ; — and if tlie divine nature did not 
 suffer and die ; then the human jiature only suffered and 
 died. But if the human nature only of the supposed com- 
 plex person of Christ suffered and died, what is "c//the im- 
 portance, all the merit, allxht efficacy," thence resulting ? 
 The sufferings and death of a man could not, I should 
 think, make an infinite atonement, or " recompense the 
 justice of God for innumerable sins." But if on the otlier 
 
46 
 
 hand a " person, or being, or God, possessed of all divine 
 attributes," suffered and died upon the cross, with what 
 propriety could he have exclaimed in his agony, " My 
 God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" Could 
 one person, being, or God, possessed of all divine attri- 
 butes, be so forsaken of another person, being or God of 
 the same description, as to feel the need of divine support 
 and consolation ! 
 
 Several other difficulties arising from the supposed com- 
 plex character of Christ present themselves to my view , 
 and weary me with painful conjectures. — If " Jesus Christ 
 be God and man, united in one person," when did this 
 union commence? at the birth of Jesus ? If so, do you 
 find no difficulty in supposing that this holy child, when 
 lying in a manger and nourished at his mother's breast, 
 and when subject to her authority, and to the authority of 
 Jos-ph, his reputed father, was God in the highest sense of 
 the word? Is it not irreverent thus to view and speak of 
 the self-existent and eternal God? Is it not highly 
 improper and incongruous to suppose that a person 
 or being possessed of all divine attributes, had a 
 mother and ancestors traceable to remote antiqui- 
 ty ? that he had brothers and sisters ? that he grew 
 in stature and in knowledge, and that he wrought for a 
 series of years at a servile occupation ?— -that he M'as sub » 
 ;iect to all the sinless infirmities of human nature ? — that 
 he had flesh and blood, as we have ? that he was suscep- 
 tible of, and actually experienced the sensations of hunger, 
 and thirst, and bodily pain ? Is it not equally difficult to 
 conceive that he should realize grief, and fear, and distress, 
 and son-ow of soul even unto death ! How caji these things 
 be ? Yet you will not deny or question that they axe all 
 true with respect to the person of Jesus Christ. But if 
 you will not allow them to be true of a person possessed of 
 all divine attributes, must you not of course deny that 
 these are the attributes of Jesus Christ ? Perhaps however 
 you will say that whatever of infirmity and of suifering 
 is ascribed to Christ, is to be understood of his humanity 
 only. But if this be admitted, how is the supposed com- 
 plex character of Christ to be maintained ? for this com- 
 plex character, it is to be remembered, constitutes but one 
 person. Is nothing then of infirmity and suflfering to be 
 applied to Christ's person ? If not, how can they be ap- 
 plied to Christ himself ? Is not the term Christ equivalent 
 to the Xtrm person of Christ.^ Besides, if nothing of in- 
 firmity and suffering were incident to the person — Xhtwhole 
 person of Christ, how shall we find an unspeakable 
 value-^a;z infinite merit in his death ? 
 
47 
 
 I have further to ask—- What is intended by that union 
 of divine and human nature which are supposed to con- 
 stitute one person^ <5ne Christ ? Does this supposed union 
 consist in a coalescence and intermixture of *' God and 
 man," so as to constitute a person or being possessed of 
 one soul — one consciousness — one intelligence — one will — 
 one power of action, £s?c. ? If this is to be admitted, what 
 is the ground of distinction between the supposed divine 
 and human natures, or between the divine and human 
 soul of Christ ? No such ground seems to exist. Nor, so 
 far as I can see, is there any sufficient reason for ascribing 
 some things to the divine and other things to the human 
 nature of Christ. When he prayed, must it not have been 
 the act o^one soul ? Must not his joy and his sorrow have 
 been realized by one numerical consciousness ? Must 
 not all that he said of himself have been the result of 
 one and the same intelligence ? hvA must not all that he 
 did, have been the effect of one individual will and power 
 of action ? Why then should two intelligent natures, the 
 one divine, and the other human, be ascribed to Christ ? 
 How is this consistent with his " having in all things been 
 made like unto his brethren*'* — beings of the human race? 
 Have beings of the human race two intelligent natures, the 
 one divine and the other human ? Or have they tivo human 
 intelligent natures'^. y^\\Y then should it be thought that 
 Christ has t'vo intelligent natures ? Is not this supposition 
 mereh/ gratuitous ? Should it, however, be contended 
 that Jesus Christ is possessed of two distinct souls, con- 
 sciousnesses, &c. I have then to ask whether it is not 
 verj^ improper to speak of these two souls, consciousness- 
 es, &c. as constituting one numerical person, or Christ ? 
 How is it possible that two distinct intelligent natures 
 should constitute one individual intelligent person or be- 
 ing ? But on the supposition that this were possible, and 
 the real fact with respect to Jesus Christ, yet, I would 
 ask, how is it to be ascertained w^hat names, titles, words, 
 and actions, are to be ascribed to the 07ie of these natures, 
 and what to the other ? 
 
 If Jesus Christ be really God and man united in one 
 person, what reason can be assigned why the things which 
 he said and did should not be ascribed to his complex 
 person ? But did not Jesus Christ say — " Of that day and 
 nour knoweth no one but the Father only." " My Father 
 is greater than I." " Of mine own self I can do nothing.'* 
 *' The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.'* 
 " The words that I speak, I speak not of myself." " I am 
 not come of myself." *' My soul is exceeding sorrowful^ 
 even unto death." *' My soul is troubled." " Father, 
 into thy hands I commend my spirit." Did not Jesus 
 
48 
 
 Christ say these things of his whole person ? l^ut if he 
 were God and man united, could he have said that he did 
 not know what his Father knevv ? that his Father was 
 giieater than himself ? that of his own self he could do 
 nothing ? that his soul was exceeding sonowful, &c. P 
 On the supposition that his person consisted as well of 
 essential divinity^ as of humanitj'', his person must have 
 known every thing his Father knew — his fjerson could not 
 have been less than the person of his father — //e could 
 have done every thing with his own underived and inde- 
 pendent power — and his person must have been incapable 
 I should think of sorrow and of suffering. Should it be 
 said that in these and similar declarations Christ refeiTcd 
 exclusively to his human nature ; by what authority, I 
 would ask, is this asserted ? Did Christ ever say, or even 
 intnnate that this was the case ? I do not recollect that 
 he ever speaks of himself as other than ojie simple person^ 
 or that he ever intimates that he possessed more than one 
 uncompoimded intelligent nature. He speaks of his soul 
 and spirit^ not as complex, but as simple and uncom- 
 pounded ; and as connected with flesh and bones, as is 
 the case with other simple and uncompounded souls or 
 spirits. But if Christ referred in the above declarations, 
 to but owe, and to the lo^vest of his supposed natures, he 
 could not have made them with reference to his supposed 
 person ; for this person possessed two natures, which two 
 natures are essential to the person. This consequence, 
 must, I think, be admitted. But should it be urged that 
 Christ might have said the things imder consideration with 
 reference to his person, although he meant only his hu- 
 man nature, I have then to ask — Is it not very strange 
 that in speaking of himself he should refer to a pffr^ of 
 himself onlij, and to that part, which, iif comparison v\ ith 
 the other part of himself, is as it were nothing — less dian a 
 ray of light when compared with the immense body of the 
 sun — less than an atom, when compared with the uni- 
 verse ! Is it not. Sir, very strange, is it not, indeed, utterly 
 unaccountable, that Jesus Christ should, in this manner, 
 speak of himself to his disciples and to the multitude of 
 his hearers ? I see not how it can reasonably be admitted 
 that THE TRUTH, iu whom there was no guile, should 
 imiformly or even generally, in speaking of himself , 
 his ownself have reference only to an infinitely minute 
 part of himself? Could he have thus used the figure 
 termed synecdoehe without deceiving his hearers ? I know 
 not that we have any evidence, that either his disciples 
 or others supposed that he used it. Why then should 
 not we consider him, when speaking of himself, as having 
 used plain and intelligible language, importing his Ww/e 
 self? 
 
49 
 
 If two natures, divine and human, composed the peVson 
 of Jesus Christ, I have once more to ask, whether these 
 two natures constituted the whole of his character, exist- 
 ence, or being ? If so, must not his supposed union with 
 the Father and the Spirit, so as to constitute one God, be 
 wliolly unfounded ? But if the two supposed natures are 
 iwt to be considered as constituting the whole character, 
 existence, or being of Christ, will it not be difiicult, if not 
 impossil>le to conceive vvhat his character, existence, or 
 being is ? Jesus Christ, according to Dr. Worcester, is a 
 *'' being'''' possessed of all divine attributes, and is therefore 
 God. To this being two other beings, possessed of all 
 divine attributes, and therefore each God, are united. 
 And these Three constitute one God._ Must not this one 
 God then possess three sets of all divine attributes ? If 
 not, where is the ground for the supposition thnt the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct co-equal 
 persons, agents or beings ? Besides, must not the " Sacred 
 Three" be equally united to man, or human nature ? I 
 see not but the Father and the Spirit must have been as 
 really incarnate as the Son, and that they must have done 
 and suffered every thing which was done and suffered by 
 the Son. Moreover, as christians are one with Christ, as 
 Christ is 07ie with the Father — as they are one both in the 
 Father, and in the Son, why must it not be admitted, on. 
 Dr. Worcester's principles, that the second person in the 
 Trinity is as truly, and in the sa?}ie se?ise, united to all 
 christiajis or good men^ as he is to the man^ Christ Jesus ? 
 And as the second person in the Trinity is so united to 
 the other persons as to constitute one God, must not the 
 union so embrace all christians or good men as to include 
 them in the Godhead ? 
 
 These queries, Sir, I make not with the view needlessly to 
 embarrass the subject, or perplex your mind. My object 
 is to state the difficulties w hich the supposed union of two 
 infinitely discrepant natures in the person of Christ present 
 to my view, with the hope to have them removed. If you, 
 Sir, can fairly and satisfoctorily remove thern, you will, in 
 doing it, confer upon me, and many others, a very high 
 obligation, which will very cheerfully be acknowledged. 
 But until these difficulties shall be removed, I must think 
 it the safer part to consider whatever Jesus Christ says of 
 himself, and whatever is said respecting him, in the volume 
 of revelation, as relating to his whole person^ consisting of 
 one uncompounded intellectual nature^ connected with, or 
 united to a human body; or as made '' //At unto his 
 brethren."' If the scripture teaches a different doctrine, 
 most ardently do I desire to discover it — most gladly 
 would I embrace it. The text in Phil. ii. 4, &c. " Wh^ 
 G 
 
■ 50 
 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robber}- to 'oc 
 equal with God, &:c." does not, I should think., admit of a 
 construction, which will justify the belief, that God and 
 man compose one person, or one Christ. If what is said 
 in this passage relate to Jesus Christ as God, then Jesus 
 Christ, as God, *' became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross." If it relate to Jesus Christ as man, 
 then " every knee is to bow at his name, of things in heaven 
 and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and every 
 tongue is to confess" that the man Christ Jesus " h Lord.'" 
 But if what is said in this passage relate to the complex 
 character or person of Christ, then his div'mity as well as 
 humanitj'^ became obedient, suffered and died ; aiid his 
 humamty as well as divinity is an object of worship. If, 
 however, I am too peremptory in these assertions, I am 
 willing that the}' should be so modified as to express only 
 my own opinion. But notwithstanding the passage does 
 not seem to admit of a construction f^ivourable to Dr. W.'s 
 hj'pothesis, yet I readily grant that its exact import may 
 not easily be ascertained. I ^vill, however, venture to 
 suggest whether the following construction is not fairly 
 admissible, and probably correct — " Christ, althougii he 
 was or had been in the form or likeness of God, xvas not 
 eager in retaining that form or likeness, but on the con- 
 traiy, humbled or emptied himself, Sec." If Jesus Christ 
 had been strictly equal with God, or possessed of all 
 divine attributes, how could he have humbled or emptied 
 himself^ Is not the supposition too extravagant to claim 
 rational belief? Of this some of the most eminent Trini- 
 tarian wTiters have been aware, and have accortlingly given ^ 
 to the passage a construction similar to that which I have^ 
 suggested. 
 
 Letter 2, p. 7, Dr. Worcester observes that " the high- 
 est holy creature v,^ould shudder at the ascription to him 
 of the names, and titles, and honours ascribed to Jesus 
 Christ." This, Sir, is a very strong expression, and cal- 
 culated to make a very strong impression on tiie minds of 
 many of its readers ; and such an impression as ought not 
 to be made. Whatever the Doctor might have intended 
 by it, its most obvious import seems to be, that all holy 
 created beings, however dignified, would reject with hoiTor 
 the names, titles, and honours, generally, xyhich are ascrib- 
 ed to Christ, were they ascribed to themselves ; that these 
 names, titles, and honours are not ascribed to any created 
 being ; and therefore, that Christ must be self-existent. 
 If the Doctor did not mean to be thus understood, he 
 i^xpressed himself, I thini?, very unguardedly. But if he 
 did mean to be thus understood, I know notho\v toaccount 
 tor it, as the names, &c. generally, which are ascribed tq 
 
51 
 
 Christ, are in fact ascribed also to holy created beings. I 
 must suppose, therefore, that Dr. W. must ha^'e intended, 
 exclusi\ ely, tlie highest and most sacred names and titles 
 which are ascribed to Christ. But is it a fact tlrat these 
 are not ascribed to created beings ? Are the names and 
 titles, Holy One, Deliverer, Saviour, High Priest, Judge, 
 Governor, Leader, Ihder, King, King of kings. Lord, 
 Emanuel, God, Jehovah, (Aleim,) ascribed to Christ ? 
 But are they not ascribed also to created beings ? Accord- 
 ing to Dr. Worcester it seems they are not. Yet I must 
 be permitted on the authority of scripture, to believe and 
 say, that they really are ascribed to created and holy beings. 
 Now since the most sacred names and titles which are 
 ascribed to Jesus Christ, are ascribed also to angels and 
 men, what proof does their being ascribed to Jesus Christ 
 afford in support of his supreme divinity ? The argument 
 drawn from this circumstance, must appear, I should 
 think, to every attentive and unbiassed mind extremely 
 inconclusive. And when it is considered that the names 
 and titles, generally, which are ascribed to Jesus Christ, 
 are in fact ascribed also to created beings, what are we to 
 think of the Doctor's assertion, " that the highest holy 
 creature vvould shudder at the ascription to him of those 
 names and titles ?" What he means by this unfounded 
 assertion, I neither know, nor can I form any satisfactory 
 conjecture. The assertion has excited in me, I confess, 
 no common surprise. Nor is this surprise in any degree 
 diminished by the consideration that Dr. W. without 
 " shuddering," and, I presume, without remonstance, 
 suffers, habitually suilers, one of the most sacred and vener- 
 able names or titles of the Supreme Jehovah to be ascribed 
 to himself. " Reverend is his name." But why does 
 he not " shudder" at this ascription ? Is it because he is 
 not a " holy creature ?" But this, my dear Sir, I would 
 by no means insinuate. Nor would I be understood, in any 
 thing I have said, as treating Dr. W. disrepectfuUy. This 
 has been far from my design. I would, however, be 
 understood as strongly insinuating that he has made a very 
 incorrect and exceptionable assertion, and that he has 
 " condemned himself in that thing which he alloweth" to be 
 shudderingly impious. I am willing to be understood as 
 suggesting also, whether the title Reverend is not of too 
 sacred an import to be ascribed, in the manner it is, to the 
 professedly unaspiring and humble ministers of the meek 
 and humble Jesus ? 
 
 If" the highest holy creature" does not shudder at the 
 ascription to him of the names and titles ascribed to Jesus 
 Christ, I can see no reason why he should shudder at 
 the ascription to him of die " honours''^ ascribed to Jesus 
 
52 
 
 Christ ; for the honours ascribed to him, consist, in part, 
 in the ascription of high and sacred names and titles ; and 
 the other honours which are paid to him are " to the 
 glory of God the Father.'''' But would the highest holy- 
 creature shudder at honours ascribed to him, w hich ulti- 
 mately terminate upon the one Supreme ? Such honours 
 have always been giA^n to holy creatures. And although 
 they are not equal to those which are to be given to Jesus 
 Christ, yet are they not similar in land? I pray you. Sir, 
 to review this subject with much attention, and then decide 
 whether Dr. W. is to be justified in his strong, and 
 peremptory, and unqualified assertion. 
 
 Letter 3, p. 16, Dr. Worcester asks, " Is it credible, 
 that in a divine revelation, a principal object of which is to 
 guard mankind against' idolatry ; and to teach them the 
 true worship, the representations are such as to make the 
 great body of christians in every age idolaters — as the fact 
 certainly is, if Christ is not truly God V This question is 
 highly interesting, and its peremptory decision by the 
 Dr. has a strong claim to an awakened and most serious 
 attention. Although it is not to be admitted, that, in the 
 " divine re\ elation, the representations are such as to make 
 the great body of christians" in any age "" idolaters," yet 
 It cannot reasonably be denied, perhaps, that die great body 
 of christians ha\ e been idolaters from about the close of 
 the fifth century, in every successive period, down to the 
 present time. During the lapse of nearly a thousand years, 
 scarcely any but christian idolaters ^vere to be found till 
 the memorable era of the Refokmation, through the 
 instrumentality of Luther, Calvin, and other worthies, who 
 distinguished themseh^es in that great and noble achieve- 
 jnent. The JFaldenses and Albigcjises did not indeed 
 *' bow the knee to the image of Baal." And it is worthy 
 of remark that these true worshippers of CTod were deemed 
 as hereticks^ and as such were most inhumanly persecuted, 
 because tliey dissented from the generally Ytctwtdiorthodooc 
 faith. Nor is evidence wanting that many, if not the most 
 of them, were dissenters from the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 From the period of the reformation to the present time, the 
 great body, or the majority of christians, have been idola- 
 trous in their worship, if the papal or catholic religion is to 
 be considered as idolatr5\ But arc we to infer from this 
 melancholy fact that the *■' representations in the Bible," 
 are such as to make men idolaters ? This inference, accord- 
 ing to Dr. \V.'s insinuation, seems but natural. Yet I 
 cannot but think that the idolatry of the great body of 
 christians is to be otherwise accounted for. Is it not. Sir, 
 to be traced up to human creeds and formularies, and to 
 their indiscreet and ambitious authors, as an important if 
 not a priiicipal occasion ? 
 
53 
 
 Whether the great bodj^ of christians in the protesfant 
 world are idolaters, I pretend not positively to decide. But 
 if their worship, in fact, be idolatrous, it is not to be 
 imputed, I am fully persuaded, to any representations in the 
 Bible ; for these representations verj'' strongly " guard 
 mankind against idolatry. '*' They seem very clearly to 
 exhibit to our view the Supreme God as One, to the 
 exclusion of all others — as one uncompounded person, 
 being, or agent. These representations seem also clci.rly 
 to teach us that this cnie God, the Father of Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of all, isthe alone object of supreme worship. 
 Indeed Jesus Christ himself worshipped him as such, 
 *' leaving us an example that we should follow his steps." 
 And this example he enforced by precept. He taught to 
 pray to the Father, and assured us that the true -worshippers 
 worship Him in spirit and in truth. Nor have we, I con- 
 ceive, any approved example in scripture of supreme 
 worship paid to any other person, being or agent, than to 
 the one God, even the Father. But if the Father alone is 
 the true God, and to be rvorshipped as such, does it cer- 
 tainly follow that the great body of protestant christains are 
 idolaters ? According to Dr. W.'s theory, this conclusion 
 seems inevitable. This, indeed, he says " is certain, if 
 Jesus Christ is not truly God." By the great body of 
 christians I understand him to mean protestant Trinita- 
 rians. These christians do not acknowledge " the Father 
 alone to be the Supreme God." But they worship " The 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.'''* If the Son, therefore, is 
 not truly God, they are, if we may believe Dr. W. " idola- 
 ters.'''' It is distinctly to be noticed that he speaks of Jesus 
 Christ as a being, an agent, as God — as truly God, in dis- 
 tinction from the Father, and as equal to the Father. 
 Now if Dr. W. and other Trinitarians, besides worshipping 
 the Father, do really worship Jesus Christ as a being, as 
 God, equal to the Father, I see not, I confess, but " the 
 fact certainlif is," that they are " idolaters," or that they 
 equally worship two equal Gods. And if tliey, in like 
 manner, worship the Holy Ghost, then the fact, it seems, 
 certainly is, that they equally worship three equal Gods. 
 If these conclusions do not unavoidably result from the 
 Doctor's statements, most ardently do I wish to be con- 
 vinced that they do not. I am not unaware, however, that 
 the Doctor supposes that these three beings, agents, or 
 Gods, are in some mysterious way so united as to consti- 
 tute but one God. But does he suppose that this one God 
 is but one being, and possessed of but one set or class of 
 infinite perfections ? If this be his supposition, and if he 
 and other Trinitarians worship this one God, or being, only 
 as the supreme object of worship, I do not see but they 
 
54 
 
 worship precisely the same God, as Unitarians profess to 
 worship. But as the Doctor can by no means admit this 
 to be the flict, who, or what, I would ask, is the object of 
 Trinitarian worship ? Is this object a supposed essence 
 common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ? If so, I 
 would further ask, whether this essence is to be distin- 
 guished from person, or personality? If so, and if the 
 essence is the object of worship, then tlie persons to A\'hom 
 the essence belongs are to l^e excluded from divine worsliip. 
 But should this be denied, then I have to ask, whetlier 
 there must not be four objects of worship i?i the Godhead ? 
 If the essence which is common to the Three Persons is to 
 be worshipped, and if the Persons themselves are also to 
 be worshipped, can it consistently be denied that christians 
 have four objects of divine worship? I hope, Sir, that 
 you will not consider these queries as trifling, or captious, 
 or as irrelevant to the subject under review. I certainly 
 consider them as pertinent and strongly requiring very 
 serious attention, and plain and unequivocal answers. 
 
 I hope. Sir, that I have said nothing on this subject 
 which you will construe into a charge against Trinitari- 
 ans of idolatry. I viould be understood as saying only, 
 that according to what Dr. Worcester sai/s, they seem 
 to be chargeable with idolatrous worship. Yet notwith- 
 standing I thus speak, it is my belief that they are not 
 designedly idolatrous in their worship, and my devout 
 wish, that they may, in no degree, be chargeable with. 
 the guilt of such worship. Dr. W. has expressed him- 
 self on this subject, as he is apt to do on other subjects, 
 with too much decision. " If Jesus Christ is not truly 
 God," I am not prepared with the Dr. peremptorily 
 to say, " that the great body of christians are idolaters ;" 
 for they appear to me seldom if ever to worship Jesus 
 Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as essentially divine persons. 
 The most zealous Trinitarians with ^vhom I have united 
 in worship, disclaim generally, in their prayers, if their 
 expressions are inlelligible, the worship both of the Son 
 and Spirit. They very devoutly thank God the Father 
 for having sent his Sou into the world to die for sinners, 
 and implore pardon of sin in his name, through him, or 
 for his sake. They also supplicate God, the Father, that 
 he would mercifully i)our out his Spirit to sanctify the 
 heart, and to enliven its languid affections. Thus they 
 rommonly pray, and address their petitions to the God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But in doing this, are 
 we to understand them as implying that the Father is 
 three persons, or that the Son had a joint agency with the 
 Father in sending himself to die for sinners ? or as sup- 
 plicating the Son, as well as the Father, that the Son 
 
S3 
 
 with the Father, would grant pardon through himsel/ 
 (the Son) or /or his own sake ? Or when they pray the 
 Father to pour out his Spirit, &c. would they be under- 
 stood as praying to the Spirit, as a distinct person, that 
 he would, in connexion with the Father, pour out him- 
 self ? If they would be thus understood, their expres- 
 sions are certainly very illy adapted to their design. It 
 is believed, however, that they are not thus understood 
 by their hearers in general, ^vhatever they may intend- 
 Nor can I conceix^e that men of serious thought and 
 reflection will pretend, that M-hen they address the Fath- 
 er, as abo-ve stated, they either design, or wish, to be 
 understood as addressing the Son and tlie Holy Spirit. 
 What then does Dr. W. mean — ^^•hat ean he mean 
 ^^•hen he says, " We worship the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost ?" I cannot tell, nor can I satisfactorily con- 
 jecture what he means. If in these expressions he him- 
 self is able to discover any distinct and intelligible 
 meaning, he would very highly gratify many serious 
 and inquiring christians, as well Trinitarian, as Unita- 
 rian, by an intelligible disclosure of it. 
 
 But notwithstanding Trinitarian christians habitually 
 make Unitarian prayers, they sometimes, it is to be ad- 
 mitted, deviate from their general practice. When tliey 
 pray theoretieally, or doctrinally , or in a controva'sial 
 manner, they address a triune God in a few petitions, and 
 then exclusiveli/ address but one of the persons, either 
 the Father, Son or Spirit ; but almost invariablj'- tte 
 Father. The consistency of this I cannot discover. 
 Indeed such prayers seem to me very inconsistent. Nor 
 is it impossible that they are sometimes made w'lih a 
 spirit not so devotional as the solemn subject requires. 
 I have sometimes, on public occasions, heard prayers of 
 this description, witli heait-felt grief, not so much how- 
 ever on account of the expressions used in them, as on 
 account of the apparent indevout and unhallo^ved spirit 
 with which they were uttered. W'^ere Trinitarian chris- 
 tians more thoroughly to revolve this subject in their 
 minds, I cannot but think they would entirely abandon 
 this manner of praying ; and that instead of using un- 
 scriptural ascriptions or doxologies, they would give a 
 practical preference to those prescribed by the Spirit 
 of inspiration. Is it not \QYy greatly to be lamented 
 that 2i flagrant departure, in prayer, Irom the scriptural 
 ''''foim of sound ivords^'' should be considered as indica- 
 tive of soundness in the faith Once delivered to the saints, 
 and that an adhei'ence to that most perfect form should 
 be condemned as expressive of heresy ? Have we not 
 much reason to suspect Uie correctness of that theory. 
 
56 
 
 which, rejecting tlie pure words of the gospel given by 
 the inspiration of God, calls to its aid words of man's 
 invention, and words too which are neither explained, 
 nor, it is believed, capable of being explained ? Are 
 christian ministers, or private christians, to be praised in 
 this ? I praise them not. And shall 1 say too much if 
 I add, " these things ought not so to be." 
 
 Letter 1, pp. 28, 35, Dr. Worcester, addressing. Mr. 
 Channing, observes *' The God m hom you worship is 
 different from ours." " The differences which exist 
 between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians are 
 certainly of a nature, to demand the most serious and 
 earnest attention." — That this attention ought to be giv- 
 en to the differences which exist between these denom- 
 inations of christians, and pai'ticulariy in relation to the 
 one God, I readily admit. And most ardently do I 
 wish that this subject of difference between them might 
 be attended to by both parties, not only in a " most 
 serious and earnest manner," but with minds free from 
 all unreasonable prepossessions — fully open to convic- 
 tion, and with all the meekness of wisdom. If, as Dr. 
 W. says, the God whom Unitarians worship be different 
 from the God whom Trinitarians worship, the difference 
 ought distinctly to be marked out, that it might be clearly 
 seen and known of all men. Unitarians professedly wor- 
 ship but one Supreme God as an object of supreme \i'or- 
 ship. But do Trinitarians worship more than one Supreme 
 God ? To this one God Unitarians ascribe self-existence, 
 independence and all divine and infinite perfection, both 
 natural and moral. But do Trinitarians ascribe more than 
 this to their God ? In their prayers Unitarians hope 
 *' through Christ to have access by one Spirit unto the 
 Father." They perform their devotions " in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him." 
 And to do this acceptably, they profess to believe that thej^ 
 must be under the guidimce and sanctifying influence of 
 the Spirit of God. But do not Trinitarians hope to have 
 access to the Father through Christ, and by the Spiiit ? 
 Do they not generally pray to the Father in tJie name of 
 the Lord Jesus, and by hhn give thanks to the Father ? 
 And do they not believe that in order to do this acceptably, 
 they must !:>e under the guidance and sanctifying injiuence 
 of God's Spirit ? What then is the difference between the 
 God whom Unitarians worship, and the God whom Trin- 
 itarians worship ? And what is the difference between 
 tliem with respect to the mode or manner in which they 
 perform divine worship ? I am aware indeed that Trini- 
 tarian christians do sometimes in their worship of God use 
 expressions which seem to import the existence of three 
 
57 
 
 co-equal Gods. But as they explicitly disclaim the wor- 
 ship of more Gods than one, may not the one God whom 
 they profess to worship be essentially the same as the one 
 God whom Unitarians profess to worship ? I wish to 
 believe that this is the real fact, nor can I but indulge the 
 hope that the difference between them, as to worship, is 
 ratjier seeming than I'eal. But should a real difference in 
 opinion between them exist as to the mode of the existence 
 of the one God, can this difference be of any serious 
 importance? Are we required to make the mode of the 
 divine existence an article of faith ? Or can we by search- 
 ing find out what this mode is ? Is it not the part then of 
 christian modesty and prudence to leave with God " the 
 secret things," and make it our main object suitably to 
 impro\'e " those which are revealed ?" 
 
 In this view of the subject, I would ask whether such 
 difference really exists " betv^een the Unitarians and the 
 orthodox christians" in relation to the character of God, 
 or of Jesus Christ, as to make it sinful or even improper 
 to either denomination to commune with the other, either 
 at the Lord's table, or in any act of devotion, or worship ? 
 To decide this question as it ought to be decided, may in 
 some cases, be difficult. Dr. Worcester, however, if I 
 understand him, repeatedly gi\Ts it as his opinion in his 
 Letters, particularly, Letter 2, p. 39, that communion 
 between Unitarian and Trinitarian christians is generally 
 inadmissible. Speaking of a Trinitarian church, " in the 
 act of celebrating the death of the Lord Jesus at his table," 
 he observes — " They unite in worshipping the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit ; in adoring Christ as their almighty 
 Saviour, and gratefully ascribing the forgiveness of their 
 sins. Sec. entirely to his propitiatory sacrifice ; and in de- 
 voutly acknowledging the Holy Spirit, as their Sanciifier, 
 and Comforter, and praising him as the efficient Producer 
 in them of all holy affections and consolations." " Can a 
 Unitarian, (the Doctor then asks) who denies all these 
 doctrines, have communion with the church in this solemn 
 and interesting scene ? Must it not be to him a scene of 
 abominable idolatry ; a most delusive and flagitious perver- 
 sion of the sacred institution ? In regard to the whole, 
 the doctrine and the worship founded upon them, is he not 
 an unbeliever V This passage. Sir, is evidendy designed 
 TO exhibit a contrast between the Unitarian and the Trini- 
 tarian theory and worship in a very strong point of light. 
 But whether the contrast is exhibited in a just point of 
 lights I will not venture to decide, as I do not suinciently 
 understand what is the true character of the Trinitarian 
 theory and worship. But if from this contrast it is fairly 
 to be inferred, that the Trinitiirian celebration of tlie sacra. 
 H 
 
58 
 
 aicniai buppcr, must be to the Unitarian " a scene of 
 abominable idolatry ; a most delusive and flagitious perver- 
 sion of the sacred institution," he could not, it is true, be 
 desirous of communing with a Trinitarian church. Ncr 
 could he ^vith propriety do it. But does the Unitarian 
 christian view the " scene" as abominable idolatry ? 
 However the subject may appear to individual christians 
 of that denomination, I am far from believing that the 
 great body of them suppose that Trinitarians, in celebrating 
 the Lord's supper, are either chargeable with abominable 
 idolatry^ or that they are guilty of ix^agifious perversion of 
 the sacred institution. They belie\'e, indeed, that Trinita- 
 rians are incorrect in their views of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, and that they are sometimes still more incor- 
 rect in their expressions. The passage above quoted 
 furnishes, I think, striking evidence of the truth of this re- 
 mark. " In celebrating the death of the Lord Jesus at 
 his table," Dr. W. observes, that a Trinitarian Church 
 " adore Christ as their almighty Saviour." But what 
 does he mean by Christ ? The triune God? This, it is 
 presumed, he will not admit, unless he belie\'es that the 
 Triune God made " a propitiatory sacrifice" by dying on 
 the cross ? Does he mean then that Christ, the second 
 person in the Trinity, is the Abnighty Saviour ? But \\ ill 
 he admit that there are two or more Almighty Sa\'iours '? 
 If not,must not Christ be the almighty Saviour, exclusively 
 of the Father and the Holy Spirit ? In " acknowledging 
 the Holy Spirit as their Sanctifier and Comforter," does 
 the Doctor mean to convey the idea that the Holy Spirit, 
 as a person distinct from the Father, is their Sanctifier and 
 Comforter ? But how is this consistent with saints being 
 " sanctified, and wholly sanctified by God the Father ?" 
 Or how is it consistent with the declarations of the inspired 
 apostle, that " God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, is the God of «// comfort ;" that he " comforteth 
 us in all our tribulations," that he is " the God of consola- 
 tion^'''' and " giveth everlasting consolation." Besides, if 
 the Holy Spirit, as a distinct person, is to be " praised as 
 the efficient Producer of o// holy affections," does it not 
 seem that no praise is due to the Fatiier, who, the scriptures 
 assure us, " xvorketh in us both to will and do o'L his good 
 pleasure^'''' " makes us perfect in every good work to do 
 his will, working that which is well pleasing in his sight 
 through Jesus Christ ?" But is no praise due to God, the 
 Father, as the " Producer of «// holy affections" — and as 
 that Great Efficient," who worketh all in oil ? ' ' 
 Perhi'.ps, however, you \\\\\ say that the Doctor, by Holy 
 Spirit, means the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If this 
 be the fact, why has he not told us so ? But it is hardly to 
 
59 
 
 be supposed, that this is his meaning, and especially as he 
 seems to consider the terms Sancirfier and Comforter as 
 appropriate to the Spirit, and distinguishes the worship of 
 the Spiiit from that of the Father ond of the Son. But 
 notwithstanding he seems to represent " the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit" as three distinct beings, or Gods, to 
 whom Trinitarians gi\e supreme worship ; yet I cannot 
 think that he Mould be imderstood as bclic\'ing in, or 
 pleading for a worship which is " abominable idolatry." 
 Nor can I believe that reflecting christians of any denom- 
 iation think so. But what the Doctor does mean I 
 pretend not to determine. His expressions are calculated 
 to produce much indistinctness and confusion of thought, 
 and such practical results, I fear, as neither scripture 
 nor sober reason will justify. Yet I am not prepared to 
 say that either scripture or sober reason will justify any 
 description of Unitariar? christians in refusing to commune 
 Avith a Trinitarian church, " in the act of celebrating the 
 death of the Lord Jesus at his table." Nor do I tliink that 
 Unitarians, generally, would decline such communion, on 
 any inviting occasion. I have indeed supposed that chris- 
 tians of this description, with very few exceptions, were 
 willing and e\ en desirous to maintain christian communion 
 even in the most solemn acts of religion, with their Trini- 
 tarian brethren. And this, I conceive, they can consistently 
 do so long as these their christian brethren profess to believe 
 in, and to worship but one Supreme God. Their attach- 
 ment to the use of the expression Trinitij in Unity, and oth- 
 er expressions M'hich may be thought equally exceptiona- 
 ble, and which may involve incorrect and misleading ideas, 
 does not, I think, afford suflicient ground to any for with- 
 drawing from communion ^vith them, since they solemnly 
 disclaim the doctrine of polytheism. 
 
 In. the Letter and page last quoted, Dr. Worcester 
 invites his readers to " change the scene^ Here he de- 
 scribes a Unitarian Church " at the table of the holy 
 supper. They refuse, (he observes) to worship the Son 
 and the Holy Ghost ; they deny the divinity and atonement 
 of Jesus Christ, and remember him only as a good man, 
 who ' suflTered and died in the best of causes,' but * in the 
 occasion and manner of Avhose death there \vas nothing 
 very different from that of others, who suffered and died 
 after him in the same catise, &c.' " " What (asks the Dr.) 
 has an orthodox cliristian to do with such a communion ? 
 Can he join in divesting his adored Saviour of his glory — 
 in profaning the sacred memorial of his dying love — in 
 making ''his blood an unholy thing?''" On reading this 
 passage the first question arising in my mind is, whether 
 Ur. W. would be understood as giving a fair and '* an- 
 
60 
 
 varnished" representation of "" a church of Unitarians, (say 
 if you please of low Unitarians") in any of the New-Eng- 
 land States ? If so, I cannot but think him blameable ; 
 as I strongly suspect that a Unitarian church, answering to 
 his description, does not exist either in the New- England 
 States, or in any State in the Union. It is indeed 
 ver}' questionable whether a church in Christendom is to 
 be found, uhose character is justly delineated in the above 
 quotation. Although the Doctor is correct in saying of 
 Unitarians that " they refuse to worship the Son and Holy 
 Spirit," if by this he means that they do not worship Jesus 
 Clirist as God, equal lo the Father, nor the Holy Spirit as 
 God, distinct from the Father ; yet I do not think him 
 justifiable in his unqualified assertion. _No Unitarian, I 
 presume, refuses to worship Jesus Christ as the Son of 
 God — as the Messiah, or as a person whom God exalted 
 to be a Prince and a Saviour. Nor do Unitarians, it is 
 pR sumed, refuse to worship the Holy Spirit as God, al- 
 though they do not\\orship him as another or distinct person 
 from God. " God is a Spirit" — a Holy Spirit — the Holy 
 Spirit. As such, Unitarians worship Him. Indeed the 
 worship of God necessarily invol\es the ^vorship of his 
 Spirit, or Himself as a Spirit, or that Holy Spirit which 
 fills immensity. How then can Dr. W. be justified in his 
 decisive and uriqualified declaration, that a church of Uni- 
 tarians, at the table of the holy supper, refuse to worship 
 the Sen, and the Holy Ghost ? And by what authority 
 dc^s he represent them asp ro/cwfw^^ the sacred memorial 
 of Christ's dying love, and in making " his blood an unholy 
 thing .'" It is much to be lamented that a man of Doctor 
 W^orcester's resi^ectability and influence should say these 
 thi'.igs, They do appear to me highly incorrect, and calcu- 
 lated lo }7focluce effects baleful to the christian temper and 
 to christian practice. Most fervently do I hope that the 
 Doctor will verj' seriously review what he his written, that 
 if his pen has been misguided, he may be convinced of it, 
 and prom]5tly correct its errors. 
 
 Can it be rigiit, my dear Sir, in Trinitarian churches, 
 to deny " children's l)rcad" to their Unitarian brethren, 
 and cast them out of their community, as " unbeliev- 
 ers," when they professedly believe in, and worship 
 Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God ? and 
 when they acknowledge and worship the one God as 
 the Holy and Supreme Spirit? I am strongly apprehen- 
 sive that in doing this they *' walk not charitably ;" 
 and jhat they are far from rendering to God an accept- 
 able service, and securing the approbation of the Lord 
 ^f?sus Christ. Such conduct in the estimation ofDr.'s 
 Ppil^r^ge and Watts, and many others of like charac- 
 
61 
 
 ter, Was, in the highest degree, censurable. Dr. Dod- 
 dridge in particular would " sooner ha^e given up his 
 place and sacrificed his life," than have countenanced 
 an attempt in some of his church, to excommunicate, 
 or suspend from communion, one of the members who 
 was a Sociman. But did these eminently enlightened 
 and holy men possess a smaller portion of the Spirit of 
 Christ, or less christian zeal in the cause of pure and 
 undefiled religion^ than is possessed by those christian 
 ministers of the present daj', who exclude from their 
 communion their brediren, who do not think it right to 
 use their peculiar and unscriptwol expressions, respect- 
 ing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ? Happy were it 
 for our churches, if a greater number of Doddridges 
 and Wattses were to be found, to heal the breaches which 
 unhappily exist among christians of different denom- 
 inations. 
 
 But while it is to be lamented that christian ministers 
 and churches, in so many instances, set at nought each 
 other, is not the manner in which they too often do this, 
 much more to be lamented ? Have not instances occur- 
 red of brorher rejecting brother, in violation of the ex- 
 press precepts of Jesus Christ ? Have not instance* 
 occurred of suspension and excommunication of private 
 niembeis of churches, in a manner, which the disciplin- 
 ary laws of Christ's kingdom do not admit ? And are 
 not these unjustifiable things and proceedings to be 
 traced, in some measure, at least, to the letters of Dr. 
 Worcester and similar publications ? This suggestion 
 certainly demands a very serious and interested consid- 
 eration. — Lord of compassion ! may it please thee to 
 rectify the intellectual and moral en'ors of contending 
 christians, and so to unite them in love, that they may 
 happily realize " how good and how pleasant it is for 
 brethren to dwell together in unity." But if a dividing 
 and denunciatory spirit and system of operation must 
 still exist, O let them be instrumental to the furtherance 
 of the uncorrupted and precious truths of the gospel of 
 thy dear Son. 
 
 Letter 2, pp. 26, 27, Dr. Worcester supposes it to 
 be *' vastly important, that people should ' learn the dis« 
 tinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism ;'" but 
 that it is "laboured assiduously," on the part of Unita- 
 rians, " to conceal the points of difference between the 
 two denominations," and to make the impression that 
 *' these points are few and of very little importance." 
 *' In opposition to this system of concealment," he ob- 
 serves, " I have thought it right and important to en- 
 deavour a developement, and to lay the difference be- 
 
62 
 
 tv/een iis (Trinitarians and Unitarians) open to the 
 public in tlieir true light. On our part we have no 
 dread of this ; no dread of a clear and full develope- 
 ment. It has long been our earnest desire, that your 
 sentiments as well as ours might be known, and that 
 all_ christians and all people might well understand the 
 points on Avhich you differ from us. On this account 
 we devoutly rejoice that the subject has been brought 
 before the public." — These passages require the serious 
 attention of the christian community at large, and par- 
 ticularly the attention of christian ministers. — That there 
 is a '' distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarian- 
 ism,'" is not to be disguised. But whether the distinction 
 is so great as Dr. W. seems to suppose, I am not pre- 
 pared to admit. I really hope that the difference between 
 the two systems is ratlier circiimstautkd, than radical. 
 Notwithstanding Dr. W. has given a description of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity which seems very strongly to 
 imply the existence of three distinct Gods, equal in pow~ 
 er and glory ; yet- he explicitlj'^ declares his belief in 
 the existence of but one Supreme God. But do not 
 Unitarians fully believe in the existence of but one Su- 
 preme God ? and do they not as well as Dr. W. ascribe 
 to him " all divine attributes ?" To Jesus Christ the 
 Dr. does not hesitate to applj^ the name man as well as 
 that of God. Nor do Unitarians hesitate to do the 
 same. The Dr. believes that the Holy Spirit is God 
 possessed of " all divine attributes." But do not Unitari- 
 ans believe this ? Is the difference then, between the 
 Trinitarian and the Unitarian theory essential ? If so, it is 
 indeed " vastly important that people should learn it." 
 But how this is to be effected, is not easy to be deter- 
 mined. It is extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to 
 draw a correct line of distinction between the two theories. 
 This arises partly from the circumstance that the Trinita- 
 rian theory is subject to no inconsiderable mutations ; part- 
 ly from tlie circumstance that Trinitarians differ widely in 
 opinion anuwg themselves ; and partly to the circumstance 
 that they do not clearly explain the words and phrases they 
 use in reference to their diversified theory. These things 
 considered, it is hardly to be expected that a line of distinc- 
 tion will soon be clearly and satisfactorily marked between 
 Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. But if it be practicable, 
 most sincerely do I hope, that the difficult task will be un- 
 dtTtaken by some one who is competent to its accom- 
 plishment. 
 
 If, as Dr. Worcester supposes. Unitarians labour assid- 
 uously " to conceal the points of difference" between 
 themselves and Trinitarians, it is much to be lamented. 
 
63 
 
 Nor shall I appear as their apologist. Concealment in 
 matters of a religious nature, and especially in those w hich 
 are highly important, I consider as verj^ inconsistent with 
 that frank and ingenuous spirit which Christianity as well 
 inspires, as inculcates. The children of light do not seek 
 the^ covert of darkness. Liberated from bondage, and 
 their " feet set in a large room," they will nobly disdain 
 to do things " in a corner." Akhough not with ostenta- 
 tion, yet with unshrinking intrcpidit}^ they v\ ill, without 
 disguise, proclaim their sentiments upon the house top. 
 But whether this be the character of Unitarians generally, 
 my limited acquaintance with them, and vv ith their pub- 
 lications, does not allow me to decide. Such of their 
 publications, however, as I have read, have, with very- 
 few, if any exceptions, exhibited to my \\ew very strong 
 features of artless simpliciti/ and honest frankness. But 
 if these *' tair speeches," are " the slight of men, and cun- 
 ning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive," 
 it is my earnest hope that Dr. W. may have the adi'oit- 
 ness as well as disposition to expose their guile and the 
 hidden things of their dishonesty ; and " to lay the differ- 
 ences between them and Trinitarians in their true light." 
 I have *' no dread of a clear and full developement" of its 
 features. It' is indeed my wish that the developement 
 might be made, in a manner much more clear and full 
 than it has been made by the pen of Dr. W. Nor is it less 
 my wish that the Trinitarian theory might be clearly and 
 fully developed ; and that this developement might be seen, 
 and read, ' and understood by all men. Such an event 
 would probablj" be the means of settling the bewildering 
 controversy which has so long, and so unhappily existed 
 between Trinitarian and Unitarian writers. But so long as 
 tlie Trinitarian theory assumes so many different shapes, and 
 remains veiled in impervious mystery, it is not to be ex- 
 pected that the collision of controversy will strike out 
 many sparks of light, or make much advance towiirds a 
 desirable termination. Yet something may be done to 
 these purposes. Something indeed has already been 
 done. And much more remains to be done to elucidate 
 the subject, that inquirers might be able to understand it, 
 and make up tlieir minds in relation to it.^ In the hope 
 that the time is not far distant when this will happily be 
 the case, I " devoutly rejoice" with Dr. W. " that the 
 subject has been brought before the public." And I will 
 add — it is my hope that it will continue before the public, 
 until " people shall learn the distinction between Trinitari- 
 anism and Unitarianism." This distinction, I am persuad- 
 ed, is yet to be learned by the great body of christians, if 
 not by the great body of clu-istian ministers. — I am very 
 
64 
 
 sorry, my dear Sir, to make this remark, as it seems to 
 imply a charge of criminal inattention and ignorance. But 
 when I find by actual communications from those " who 
 are set for the defence of the Gospel," that one is igno- 
 rant that the " Trinitarian theory admits that Christ's in- 
 ferior nature or human soul began to exist in the reign of 
 Augustus Cesar" — that another supposes that the " three 
 persons in the Godhead are nothing else than three car- 
 dinal perfections or attributes of the one God," and a third, 
 that these persons are only " three modes of the Di\'ine 
 Existence" — When I learn these, and other things of like 
 nature, from " masters in Israel," who are distinguished 
 for reputed orthodoxy, and for their influence on public 
 opinion,! think it right and important, that the abo\e remark 
 should be made. Simply to expose ignorance, and ex- 
 travagant and unfounded speculations in teachers of re- 
 ligion, is far from my design. My object is to arouse 
 their attention, and to excite them to a serious review, in 
 the light of scripture, of their respecti\ e sentiments, and 
 to suggest to christians, generally, the duty and impor- 
 tance of examining the question, " what is truth ?" for 
 themselves. If ministers of the sanctuary have so little 
 knowledge of" the subject before the public," it is hardly 
 to be supposed that their hearers will understand it. The 
 fact, I appreliend, is, that the subject is but very little un- 
 derstood by " christians and people" generally. I can- 
 not, therefore, but view it important that the subject sliould 
 continue under discussion until people, generally, shall 
 obtain distinct ideas of it, and shall be able duly to weigh 
 the argimients of writers on the one side and on the other. 
 But while it is my wish that the subject might still i:)e 
 discussed, it is my hope that no one will enter on the 
 discussion without a competent knowledge of it ; and 
 that no one who is thus prepared will engage in thediflicult 
 task, unless he will pursue it \A'ith a spirit of calmness, 
 candor, and brotherly love ; and with the view to instruct^ 
 without producing immoderate excitement ; and to close 
 rather than to widen breaches. Pathetic appeals to the 
 prejudices, the passions and the fears o^ vacn, instead of 
 having a good tendency, will be likely to produce eflfects, 
 which, by all reflecting minds, must be ardently depreca- 
 ted. May God in mercy to his people raise up men 
 of this description in these " troublous times," and aijund- 
 antly bless and succeed their endeavours to exhibit the truth 
 as it is in Jesus. 
 
 Should the " suijject before the public" continue under 
 proper discussion until people shall learn the distinction 
 between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, they will then 
 be in a siamtioa to judge whether the doctrine of tlie 
 
65 
 
 Trinity, and the divinity of Christ, are to be received as 
 scriptural verities, or to be rejected as human inventions. 
 At present these doctrines seem to be considered by many 
 as the foundation of the gospel system. Thus, if I under- 
 stand him, they are considered by Dr. W. Agreeably, he 
 asks, Letter 2, p. 38, "Is it a light thing to reject this 
 doctrine (the doctrine of the Trinity) because it transcends 
 the limited faculties of the human mind, &:c." — " If Jesus 
 Christ is truly and essentially divine, is it a light thing to 
 deny his divinity — to refuse to him all divine honours ?" 
 In reply to the former of these queries I have to observe in 
 the first place, that I consider it as expressed in a deceptive, 
 and therefore exceptionable manner. The Doctor strongly 
 insinuates that the doctrine of the Trio.ity is rejected by 
 Unit^irians because it transcends the limited faculties of the 
 human mind. But is this insinuation well founded ? That 
 Dr. W. believes it is, I would not question. But why he 
 should believe so, I know not. For myself I can say, that 
 I have never suspected, either from their conversation or 
 written expressions on the subject, that Unitarians reject 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, because it transcends the facul- 
 ties of their minds ; nor have I now any suspicion that 
 this is the fact. They reject it, so far as I am able to judge, 
 beer. use they believe it to be repugnant both to reason and 
 revelation. I am truly sorry, therefore, thai Dr. W. has made 
 the al)Ove representation, as it appears to me very unjust, 
 and calculated to make verj^ wrong and hurtful impressions 
 on the minds of many of his readers. Lideed I doubt not 
 that the representation has made, and deeply made such 
 impressions, as ought to be effaced. And it is my hope 
 that Dr. W. will be convinced that he ought to do every 
 thing in his power to efface them, and that his conviction 
 will produce the desired effect. 
 
 The question whether "it is a light thing to reject the 
 doctrine of the Trinit II ■,^'' cannot well be answered until 
 that doctrine shall be settled. Many Trinitarians (so 
 called) if not the great body of tiiem have, in all ages of the 
 christian church, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity as 
 held by Dr. W. ; he^ of course, rejects the doctrine as they 
 have held it. Whether this is a light thing, the Doctor has 
 not expressed his opinion. Nor has he intelligibly told 
 us, either what the doctrine of the Trinity is, or ti hat is 
 implied in rejecting it. To my mind, at least, he has 
 conveyed no sentiments on these subjects, which when 
 viewed connectedly are intelligible. His statements appear 
 to me so indistinct and ambiguous, that I find myself 
 utterly incompetent to decide upon their meaning. If, by 
 rejecting the Trinity, he means a denial of the scripture 
 doctrine of the Father, Son, and IIoli/ Spirit, then to reject 
 
66 
 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, must be so far from a light 
 t/mig^ that it involves a denial of the gospel. But if by 
 rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he means a refusal to 
 iise imscriptural words and phrases respectmg the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit^ I do think it a light thing to reject 
 the doctrine, and a small thing to be judged of man's 
 judgment on account of such rejection. Once more — If, 
 by rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, the Doctor means 
 a denial of the existence of three distinct " beings''"' or 
 *''' Gods'''' possessed o/' all divine attributes, so united as to 
 constitute one being or God, dien a rejection of the doctrine 
 must be, 1 think, an indispensable obligation. 
 
 " If Jesus Christ is truly and essentially divine," as Dr. 
 Worcester believes, it surely cannot be a " light thing to 
 deny his divinity and refuse to him all divine honours." 
 Indeed to refuse him ajii/ divine honours must be consid- 
 ered, even in tlie most exalted creature, inexcuseable de- 
 linquency. But if Jesus Christ is ?JOt " essentially divine" 
 — if he is }!ot a " being possessed of all divine attributes," 
 then to give him " all divine honours," must be an inva- 
 sion of the rights of that being who is possessed of all divine 
 attributes. Or rather must it not be a denial of the ex- 
 istence of such a being? Is there more than One 
 Being who is supreniely divine? If not, arid if Jesus 
 Christ is this being, no divine honours can be due to that 
 being who is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, for he 
 nuist be, it should seem, an imaginary being. But is this 
 really the case ? Does that being whom Jesus Christ 
 acknowledged to be his God and Father, to \\hom he 
 prayed, and ascribed all divine honours, and to whom he 
 directed us to do the same, exist only in imagination ? 
 And instead of ascribing to hisn ail divine honours, are we 
 to ascribe them to his son, his messenger — his anointed ? 
 Is it a light thir.g, my dear Sir, thus to transfer all divine 
 honours from " the one God, even the Father .^" But Dr. 
 W. will perhaps say that in giving all divine honours to 
 the Son, no divine honours are withholden from the Father. 
 And this may be satisfectory to his own mind, and to the 
 minds of others. But it is far from being so to mine. If 
 all divine attributes belong to Jesus Christ, and if all divine- 
 honours are to be given to him, how can any diA'ine attri- 
 butes belong to the Father, or how can any divine honours 
 be due to him, or to any other person or being? But the 
 Doctor will be prepared to say that " the Father possesses 
 divine attriljutes, and is therefore God ; and that the Son pos- 
 sesses divine attributes, and is therefore God ;" •^a\6.there- 
 fore divine honours are to be given as well to the Father, 
 as to the Son. Are two Gods, then, to be \\orshipped ? 
 This, I am well aware, will be denied. But if the Father 
 
\ 67 
 
 is God, and the Son is also God ; and if each is entitled to 
 divine worship or honours, I cannot see why two Gods are 
 not entitled to divine worship or honours. Sensible, how- 
 ever, that the Dr. will not admit this, his theory becomes 
 involved in impenetrable darkness. And vain is my 
 attempt to ascertain what he means by " denying the 
 divinity of Christ, and refusing him all divine honours." 
 Yet one thing is clear. If " to us there is but one GocU tJie 
 Father^ of \v'hom are all things," then it cannot be a light 
 thing to give all divine honours to his Son, Jesus Christ. 
 Is it not the God and Father of Jesus Christ who solemnly 
 declares, " I am the Lord, that is my name ; and my glory 
 will I jiot give to another ?" Is he not " the only wise God, 
 imto whom" alone is to be ascribed supreme " honour and 
 glory ?" Will he then hold us guiltless, if instead of 
 *' giving unto him the honour due to his name," we have 
 the temerity to give it to another ? 
 
 If, in attending to this subject, we shall find that Jesus 
 Christ is not essentially divine, or equal in power and 
 glory to his Father, we not only may with propriety deny 
 to him supreme divinity ; but it must be our indispensable 
 duty to do so. Nor less indispensable must be our obli- 
 gation to refuse to him the highest di\'ine honours. This, 
 it is presumed, you will readilj'^ admit. I think you will 
 admit also that in order to speak of Jesus Christ in a just 
 and correct manner, ^ we must speak of him as he spake of 
 himself, and as he is spoken of by inspired w riters. And 
 will you not admit again, that we ought to understand the 
 expressions which he, and inspired writers used in reference 
 to himself, accordmg to their most natural and obvious 
 meaning? These things admitted, let us come to the 
 subject of Christ's character, if possible, with our minds 
 fi-ee from prejudice, and fully open to conviction. If I 
 should refer you to several passages of scripture which 
 have already come under review, I shall not think an 
 apology necessary, as it is my object in this place to exhibit 
 in a connected view such things as seem inconsistent with 
 the suppositions that Jesus Christ is God, equal to the 
 Father, and equally entitled to divine worship or honours. 
 
 " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus.^'' Here the o/ze God, and the 
 072^ Mediator seem to be so contrasted as not to admit the 
 supposition that they are one God, or that a strict equalitj' 
 exists between them. As the one God is represented as 
 entirely distinct from the one Mediator, does it not seem 
 necessary to infer that this Mediator neither is, nor can be 
 the one God, nor a constituent part of the one God, with 
 whom he mediates in behalf of men ? 
 
68 
 
 Jesus Christ is the " Son of God.y But does Son imply 
 strict equality, and co-existence from eternity with the 
 Father, n hose Son he is ? Is he not called the Son of 
 God, on account of the peculiar complacency or love of 
 the Father towards him ? — on account of his miraculous 
 conception ? — on recount of his having been sanctified and 
 set apart by the Father to the distinguished office, for the 
 execution of \Ahich he was sent into the world ? — on ac- 
 count o{ his having been anointed with the oil of gladness 
 above his tcllovvs ? — on account of his resurrection from 
 the dead by the power of God ? — on account of his having 
 been highly exalted, even at the right hand of God ? — and 
 on account oUiis having been appointed heir of all things^ 
 — If on these accounts Christ is to be considered eminently 
 the Son oj God, does that appellation prove, or even sug- 
 gest the supposition, that he is either the Supreme God^ or 
 equal to the supreme God ? 
 
 Jesus Christ speaks of himself as a?i ambassador whom 
 his Father sent into the world. But is an ambassador the 
 same as his sovereign, or equal to him in dignity ? Does 
 not sending imply a sender and a sent ? But does not the 
 act or power of sending imply superiority in him who sends, 
 over him who is sent by him ? 
 
 Jesus Christ, has expressly assured us that he came 
 down from heaven Jiot to do his own will, but the will of 
 him that sent him. Does not this declaration teach us that 
 Christ possessed a will distinct from that of his Father ? 
 How then could he be one God \^dth his Father ? Can 
 one God be supposed to possess two distinct numerical 
 wills ? Besides, if Jesus Christ did not do his own will, 
 nor " please himself," but always did the will of his Father, 
 and the things which were pleasing to him, does it not 
 seem that he must be inferior to, as well as distinct from 
 the Father ? 
 
 Jesus Christ, instead of ascribing the miracles which he 
 performed to his own independent power, ascribes them to 
 the operation of his Father, the Spirit of his Father, or 
 the Holy Spirit. It was the Father in him that did the 
 works. It was by the Spirit or finger of God that he cast 
 out demons. Now if Jesus Christ did not work mh'acles 
 by his own pozver, but by power derived from the Father, 
 or if it were the Father in him vyho wrought them, can it 
 reasonably be supposed that he is either one God with the 
 Father, or equal to the Father ? 
 
 The doctrines which Christ taught he has told us xvere 
 not his own, but his Father^ who sent him. Here I would 
 ask — If Jesus Christ is one God with his Father, or equal 
 to his Father, could he with any propriety have said that tlie 
 doctrines which he taught were not his, or that he was not 
 
69 
 
 the original author of them ? Were he the same with, or 
 equal to his Father, must not the doctrines which he taught 
 have been as truly his, as his Father's ? 
 
 Jesus Christ has taught us to believe that he received 
 commands from his Father^ and that he unreservedly 
 obeyed them. But if he were one God with his Father, 
 must he not have received commands as well from himself 
 as from his Father ? And must he not have obeyed himself 
 as well as his Father ? Are these incongruities to be re- 
 ceived as sober, and scriptural, and fundamental truths ? 
 
 Does not prayer imply inferiority and dependence in the 
 person praying^ wHh respect to the person to whom the 
 prayer is addressed^ ^wi Jesus Christ habitually prayed 
 to his Father^ expressing dependence on him and obligation 
 to him, and supplicating his aid and support. How is 
 this consistent with the supposition that he is an independ- 
 ent being, or equal to his Father ? 
 
 Jesus Christ is styled in scripture the image of God, of 
 the invisible God. Can he then be the Supreme and invis- 
 ible God c* As an image cannot be the image of itself, so 
 it seems impossible that Jesus Chi'ist should be the image of 
 God, and yet that very God of whom he is the image, or a 
 component part of him. The supposition that the image 
 of God is God Imnself or the essence of God, seems to me 
 too extravagant to admit of sober belief. And the supposi- 
 tion that if Jesus Christ were not " very God," he would 
 be represented as the image of the ijnage of God, is too 
 preposterous to require a serious refutation. " It is pitiful 
 — wondrous pitiful" that an enlightened christian assembly 
 should hear from the pulpit, and with approbation, a re- 
 mark which so strikingly resembles " the umbrageous 
 shadow of a shade. ' ' 
 
 Jesus Christ is the apostle and high priest of our profes- 
 sion, who was faithful to him that afjpointed him. Here it 
 is pertinent to observe that it is the office of a priest to min- 
 ister in holy things, and to transact for men with God — to 
 intercede for them, &c. Christ as priest, as high priest, 
 came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. To this 
 office he was appointed by his Father, to whom he was 
 faithful in the discharge of it. But are any of these things 
 incident to the Supreme God? Is the Supreme God a 
 priest to any being ? Does he perform a ministry, or make 
 intercession to any being in behalf of others ? Could 
 he have been appointed to the office of high priest by any 
 other being, or have been obedient to any other being, 
 in the discharge of that office? How then can Jesus 
 Christ be the Supreme God, or equal to, or one \y\X\\ the 
 Supreme God ? 
 
70 
 
 Jesus Christ, while on earth, suff'ered, bei?ig te?npted. He 
 ivas in all points tempted like as xve are. He was griev- 
 ousbj tempted of the devH, But did these things ever 
 h.ippen to the blessf^d God *? Is it not indeed impossible 
 that he should be subject to temptation, from any influence, 
 Tigency, or circumstaiice whatever, either within or without 
 himself? That this is impossible we have the unequivocal 
 testimony of an inspired apostle. " God cannot be tempted 
 xmth evil.'''' Can Christ then in the highest sense be God ? 
 
 The oiie God is self existent, or necessai*ily existent. 
 He neidicr produced himself; nor was he produced by any 
 being or cause extraneous to himself. Indeed no being or 
 cause existed previously to his existence. But Jesus Christ 
 is the first horn of every creature^ and the beginnbig of the 
 c?'eation of God. Was there not a time then v. hen he did, 
 ■not exist ? And must he not have derived his existence 
 froni another — from God, his Father ? Is it then to be 
 admitted that he is self-existent and independent ? 
 
 The One God can never desert or forsake himself, nor, 
 if the expression be allowable, any part of himself. This, 
 in no sense, can be the case. But he can, in a variety of 
 senses, desert or forsake other beings. And this he some- 
 times docs. He even deserted or forsook Jesus Christ, his 
 beloved Son, when he was sufliering on the cross. This 
 occasioned him to exclaim, "71/^ God/ nuj God / rvhy 
 hast thou forsaken me ?" Whom, Sir, did Christ address 
 when he ut*^^ered this pathetic exclamation or prayer ? Did 
 he address himself , or pray to himself? As there is but 
 one God possessed of all divine attributes, must not Christ 
 have directed this address to himself, if these attributes 
 were his ? But in this there is too great an incongruity 
 for your belief. Did he then address his Father — and his 
 Father exclusively ? If so, he did not address a Triune 
 God. But should it be said that the term Father implies 
 a Trinity in Unity ^ I would ask, by what authority is this 
 said ? Should it however be admitted, must it not also be 
 admitted that Christ prayed to himself as well as to his 
 Father, for Christ is included in the Trinitarian God-head. 
 I have further to ask — whether Christ, as to his supposed 
 divine nature, had forsaken his human nature when the 
 praj^er under consideration was made ? This, I should 
 think, must have been the case, if the " Father alone is not 
 the Supreme God," or if the supposed divine nature of 
 Christ is essential to the being or existence of the Supreme 
 God. But how could the supposed divine nature of 
 Christ have forsaken his human nature, if it were " insep- 
 arably united to it," or so united to it, that both constituted 
 but one person ? On the supposition, however, that his 
 divine nature could forsake or separate itself from his hu- 
 
71 
 
 man nature, and actually did so, what became of the Trin- 
 itarian person of Christ, whose essential and peculiar 
 character it was to consist of two natures, divine and 
 human ? If his divine nature forsook or left his human 
 nature, his person must have been destroyed, or, if not 
 destroyed, a mere mjimtmmal part of it only could have 
 remained. But whither will these inquiries lead us ? or 
 where will they end ? I stop — and only observe, that in 
 whatever point of light the subject is viewed, it seems 
 inculpable of aifording any satisfactory evidence that Jesus 
 Christ is God in the highest sense of the word. 
 
 If Jesus Christ were in the highest sense God, must not 
 all the things and events relating to his kingdom be under 
 his own control, and at his own disposal ? But is this in- 
 deed the case ? Ought we not to be satisfied with his own 
 decision upon the subject ? " To sH on my ri'^ht handy 
 and on imj left^ is not mine to give ; but it shall be given 
 to them^ for whom it is prepared of my Father.^'* As 
 Christ had not the disposal of the highest places in his 
 kingdom, must not his authority in his kingdom have 
 been subordinate to or dependent on that of his Father ? 
 Besides, how could the kingdom have been independ- 
 ently his own ? Is he then to be considered as God su- 
 preme ? 
 
 It is repeatedly and unequivocally asserted in scripture, 
 that God 7'alsed Jesus Christ from the dead. The Scrip- 
 ture also assures us that he xvas quickened by the Spirit. 
 But is this consistent with tlie supposition that he is the 
 Lord God omnipotent ? Can it with any propriety be said 
 of the Omnipotent Jehovah^ with whom there is no varia- 
 bleness, nor shadow of change, that he has been dead and 
 buried, and that he was raised from the dead by the power 
 of God, and quickened by the Spirit ? Jesus Christ has in- 
 deed said, "■ No man takedi my life from me, but I lay it 
 doMU of myself I have power to lay it down, and I have 
 power to take it agaiii." 13ut we are not to be unmindful 
 that he immediately adds, " This commandment have 1 
 received of jny Father.^'' I have received asswance from 
 my Father of my resurrection from the dead — tliat he will 
 raise me before my flesh shall see corruption. This seems 
 to me the most obvious and natural meaning of Christ's 
 declaration. But however this may be, his declaration 
 seems incp.pable of anj^ construction which does not im- 
 ply his dependence on his Father. Ho\v then can it rea- 
 sonably be supposed that he is the same God with his 
 Father, or equal to his Father ? and especially when it is 
 considered that the Scripture assures us that Jesus Christ 
 has a God, and a Head, and that he is the possession or 
 property of his God, and head ? 
 
12 
 
 Jesus Christ has assured us that 7ione, in the highest 
 sense, is good but God his Father — that his Father knows 
 what neither hhnself], nor any other hehig knows — that hs 
 Father is greater than himself; and at the consummation 
 of all things, im inspired apostle assures us, that Christ will 
 deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father^ and that he 
 himself wdl be subject unto him. 
 
 What, Sir, shall we say to these tilings ? Do they not 
 seem clearly to teach us that Jesus Christ is neither the 
 Supreme God, nor eqtial to the Supreme God ? Does it 
 not seem palpably incongruous to say that Jesus Christ 
 is the Mediator between the One God and man, and yet 
 that he himself is that one God ? that he is the Son of 
 God, and yet God himself ? that he is an ambassador 
 from God, and yet an ambassador from himself ? that he 
 came into the Avorld not to do his oxvn will, but the W'ill of 
 him that sent him, and yet that he did come into the 
 \vorld to do his own will ? that of his oxvn self he could 
 do nothmg, and yet that whatever he did, was done by his 
 own independent poxver ? that the doctrines which he 
 taught w ere }7ot his own, and yet that they were his ow7i — 
 originated by himself ? that he received commands from 
 his Father, and yet that he received them from himself ? 
 that he obeyed his Father's commands, and yet in doing 
 this, that he obeyed his own commands ? that he habitually 
 prayed to his Father, and yet, that in doing so, he habitu- 
 ally prayed to himself ? that he is the image of God, and 
 yet that very God whose image he bears ? that as an apostle 
 and high priest he was faithful to God who appointed him, 
 and yet that he xvas appointed hy, 2i\\^ faithful to himself^ 
 that God cannot be tempted wdth evil, yet that Christ is 
 God, notwithstanding he was tempted of the devil, and 
 was in all points tempted like as we are ? that Christ was 
 the first born of every creature, and yet that he is self- 
 existent ? that his beijig forsaken by his God, implies that 
 he forsook himself ? that he had 7iot the disposal of the 
 highest places in his kingdom, and yet that he had the 
 disposal of them ? that God raised him from the dead, and 
 that he was quickened by the Spirit, and yet that he rais- 
 ed and quickened himself^ that no one in the highest 
 sense is good but God only, and yet that Christ, who made 
 this declaration of his Father, is good in the highest sense ? 
 that he did 7iot know what his Father knew, and yet that 
 he did know all that was known by his Father ? that his 
 Father is greater than himself, and yet that he is as great 
 as his Father ? that he will hereafter give up hs kingdojn 
 to his Father, and be subject to his Father, and yet that 
 he is Supreme King and will always remain so, and be in 
 subjection to none / 
 
73 
 
 Whether these contradictions are real or only seeming^ 
 you, Sir, must judge for yourself. But I am constrained 
 to say they have so much the appearance of real contradic- 
 tions, that, until I shall see them satis tlictorily reconciled, 
 I shall be afraid to acknowledge the supreme divinity of 
 Christ, and to " give him all divine honours." Nor can 
 I think it " a light thing/' to give all divine honours to 
 Christ as a " being" possessed of all divine ati:ributes, 
 when I find from the highest authority that the God and 
 Father of Christ is the one god, who seem i evident- 
 ly to claim, as his exclusive due, all suprcm'- honour or 
 worship, from all intelligent beings. If you. Sir, are in the 
 habit of giving supreme honour or worship to two or 
 more distinct persons or beings, permit me with much 
 solemnity and deep concern to ask, whether you are un- 
 der no apprehension that you worship two or more dis- 
 tinct Gods ? Will you say that you worship but one God 
 *' consisting of three distinct persons equal in po^ver and 
 glory ?" But what, Sir, is the distinction, except only in 
 name, between three such persons, and three Gods ? For 
 my own part I can see none other than a nominal distinc- 
 tion ; and you will excuse my freedom, if I say, that I am 
 strongly apprehensive that you neither can, nor pretend 
 clearly to mark the distinction. Ought you not then to 
 fear that you worship you know not what, and especially 
 when you consider that you have neither precept nor 
 example for the worship of a Triune God in any part of 
 the Bible ? I pray you very seriously to consider, and 
 re- consider this great and interesting subject. May the 
 Fountain of all light be pleased more fully to enlighten our 
 understandings, that we may more clearly see what is truth 
 in relation to it. 
 
 I am not unaware, Sir, it will be said, that the passages 
 of scripture above stated, which seem to prove that Jesus 
 Christ is inferior to, and dependent on his Father, refer to 
 his supposed lowest character, or human nature, in distinc- 
 tion irom his supposed highest character, or divine nature. 
 But if this complex character of Christ be merely imagin- 
 ary , must not his real character be either wholly divine, or 
 wholly human ? This, I presume, you will readily admit. 
 
 Is it, then, a fact that Jesus Christ is a person consisti'^.g 
 of divinity and humanity, or that he is Go(/and man in one 
 numerical person ? I do think. Sir, that this very strange 
 and mysterious doctrine ought not to be received as ti^ue, 
 without clear and irresistible evidence. But where is 
 this evidence to be found ? If any where, you will agree 
 with me in ""he belief, that it is to be found m the Bible. 
 But does the Bible teach us that Jesus Christ possessed a 
 soul and bodv like your's and mine, and that to this man 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 a second person of a Trinity was united, and so united 
 that both became one person ? Or that two souls, or dis- 
 tinct spiritual existences, infinitelj' disproportioned to, and 
 different from each other, became so united to each other, 
 and to a human body, as to constitute but one individual 
 person or being ! If the Bible really does teach this doc- 
 trine, most devoutly do I wish that I might find it in that 
 blessed book. In examining the scripture, I find that a man, 
 consisting of a body and a soul, or intelligent thinking prin- 
 ciple, is a real and complete person, but I do not find that 
 the scripture teaches that two souls or intelligent principles, 
 the one divine, the other human, and one body, are so united 
 together as to make one person. I am, therefore, afraid to 
 admit such a heterogeneous mixture or union as a doctrine 
 of revelation. Should I admit that the person of Christ is 
 both God and man, must I not admit also that this same 
 person is self-existent, independent, omnipotent, omnis- 
 cient, omnipresent, &c. ? But if I admit this of the person 
 of Christ, must I not admit, also, that his humanity which 
 is essential to his person, is also self-existent, independent, 
 &c. ? On the other hand, if I admit that the person of 
 Christ was derived, or produced and dependent, and that it 
 sufered, died, &c. must I not admit that his divinity was 
 derived or produced, and that it suffered, died, ^c. ? Is 
 not ins divinity a part, and infinitely the greatest part cAhis 
 person ? How then can these things, or any thing, be said 
 of his person,^ and not of his divinity ? But if none of these 
 things can with propriety be said of Christ's person, how 
 can he with propriety be considered as possessing personal 
 existence ? Surely if Jesus Christ is but one person, or 
 being, consisting both of divinity and humanity, and if 
 both tliese natures are essential to his person, then this one 
 a?id ihe same person, must be, I should think, both self 
 existent and derived; independent and dependent; un- 
 changeable, and yet changeable, unless it be merely a nomi- 
 nal or figurative person. Further, if I admit that Jesus 
 Christ possesses the complex character which Trinitarians 
 ascribe to him, must I not admit, also, that his person 
 includes the Father and the Spirit ? According to the 
 Trinitarian theory, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit con- 
 stitute one God, and have the same numerical essence, 
 from which neither of the persons can be separated ; how 
 then could either of them be united to, and become one 
 person with a man, without involving the others in the 
 same union ? But shall we say, or believe that three divine 
 persons became so united to a man as to constitute but 
 ox\t person ? In pursuing this theory I find myself in 
 '' intricate mazes lost." Nor can I descry a plain path till 
 I return to " the high way" of revelation, where I find, or 
 
75 
 
 seem to find Christ described, as one single person, agent, 
 or being, possessed of one single mind, intelligence, and 
 will, always acting by the authoritj^, and in perfect obedi- 
 ence to the will of his Father. He is indeed described as 
 possessed of his Father's fulness, or the communication of 
 the Spirit without measure, by which hew'as enabled to 
 discharge his high commission. But this circumstance, 
 so far from proving his essential divinity and independence, 
 seems very strongly to support the supposition that he is a 
 derived and dependent being ; for a self-existent and inde- 
 pendent being can neither need nor be susceptible of the 
 fulness of any other being. 
 
 Now, Sir, in the view of these things permit me to 
 ask — What think you of Christ ? That he is truly 
 God, and truly man in one person ? Do j^ou find satis- 
 factory evidence that this is the fact? Is the supposed 
 fact capable of proof? Is it intelligible ? Or does it ap- 
 pear to be a doctrine of revelation ? If not, what is the 
 basis — what the support of the Trinitarian theory ? Let 
 me eai'nestly entreat you very seriously to consider these 
 things again and again — to weigh them in the balance 
 of reason, and especially in the "even balance" of rev- 
 elation, lest without a warrant you should " give all divine 
 honours to Christ," and rob the one God " in the offerings" 
 to which he alone has a just and sovereign claim. This 
 surely cannot be " a light thing." Let not this sin be laid 
 to our charge. 
 
 I now proceed to a brief examination of Dr. Worcester's 
 view of 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 Letter 1, p. 19, The Doctor speaks of the Holy Spirit 
 as possessing " personal divinity."^ And in Letter 3, p. 
 25, He says, " The Holy Spirit, in essential, inseparable 
 union with the Father, and the Son, he in them and they 
 in him, is the living, true, and supreme God." In Letter 
 2, p. 2>6^ he says, " Orthodox christians believe that He 
 (the Holy Spirit) like die Father and the Son, is truly and 
 essentially divine, and that all which is truly holy and vir- 
 tuous in any of mankind is to be ascribed to his sovereign 
 and gracious agency." Page 22, " He knows the things of 
 God, as the spirit of a man^ knows what is in the rnan, that 
 is, by intuition, by consciousness. As the " spirit of a 
 man is conscious to all that is in him-— knows intuitively 
 his understanding, and will, and affections, his thoughts, 
 volitions, and feelings ; so the Holy Spirit is conscious to 
 all that is in God." " They are essentially equal, each to 
 the other ; for all that is in the Father, is in the Holy 
 Spirit." Several other similar observations concerning 
 the Holy Spirit occur in the Doctgr's Letters. But as 
 
76 
 
 they would probably afford no additional light to the sub- 
 ject, it were needless purticuLirly to notice them. On the 
 passages quoted, my remarks will be brief; the principal 
 object of which ^^ ill be to ascertain whether the Holy 
 Spirit possesses p€7'sonal existence hi distinction from the 
 one God., the Father. This Dr. W. supposes, and not 
 only this, but that the person of ihe Spirit is like that of the 
 Father essentially divine, and essentmlly equal to the Fath- 
 er. And by person we have seen that the Doctor means "in- 
 telligent agent," " being," " God," who " possesses all 
 divine attributes." But is all this to be admitted with 
 respect to the Holy Spirit ? If so, I see not but he must 
 be separately and independently " the living, true and 
 Supreme God." If the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, 
 agent, being, or God, possessed of all divine attributes, can 
 any additional attribute or circiimslance be necessary to 
 constitute him alojie the Supreme and independent Jeho- 
 vah ? Is not the one Supreme and independent Jehovah a 
 person, an intelligent agent, a being a.id God possessed of 
 all divine attributes ? But is he possessed of more than 
 these ? As nothing is to be ascribed to the one Supreme 
 God, which Dr. W, does not ascribe to the Holy Spirit, 
 the Holy Spirit alone, on the Doctor's principles, must, so 
 far as I can see, be the one Supreme God. Nor shall I 
 undertake to prove that this is not the case. So far from it, 
 that I am not disposed to controvert the truth of the hy- 
 pothesiso I have indeed already admitted that the Holy 
 Spirit is the Supreme God. But I am not prepared to 
 admit that he is a person, agent, being or God, distinct 
 from the one God even the Father ; or that " all which is 
 truly holy and virtuous in any of mankind is to be ascribed 
 to him" as a distinct agent from God the Father ; for it has 
 already been shewn that God the Father is the great efficient 
 of all that is truly holy and virtuous in man. Nor am I 
 prepared to admit that Holy Spirit is always expressive of 
 personal existence. The terms, it appears to me, are 
 sometimes used to express the poiver, and other particular 
 attributes and operations or injluences of God ; and that 
 they are sometimes to be considered as strictly equivalent 
 to God himself. Reasons for this my belief will presently 
 be stated. If it should be admitted that the Spirit, the 
 Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, possesses a distinct per- 
 sonal existence, must it not also be admitted that he is 
 infe't ior both to the Father and the Son ? The Holj^ Spirit 
 is described as the Comforter whom the Father is to send, 
 in consequence of the prayers of Jesus Christ. He is also 
 clescribed as sent by the Father ; as not speaking of himself ^ 
 and as spe;iking whatsoever he sfwuld hear. He (the Holy 
 3pirit) said our Saviour, shall receive of mine — take of 
 
mine^ and shall shew it unto you, my disciples. But arc 
 these representations, my dear Sir, consistent with the 
 supposition that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person equal to 
 God the Father ? If this were indeed the case, can any 
 good reason be assigned why Christ should not have 
 directly prayed to him to come and assist his disciples, 
 instead of praying to the Father to send him ? Besides, if 
 he w ere a person equal to the Father, would it be proper to 
 represent him as being se?it by the Father ? Further, if 
 the Holy Spirit ^vere a person equal to God, how is it to be 
 accounted for that instead of speaking of himself^ from his 
 own independent knowledge, he should be instructed what 
 to speak ? Or how is it to be conceived that he should 
 receive or take from another^ if he were a person equal to 
 God, possessed of infinite and independent fulness ? Can 
 any ot these things be said, with propriety, of the Supreme 
 and independent God ? But notwithstanding in these, and 
 in some other passages, the Holy Spirit seems to be repre- 
 sented as a person distinct from, yet unequal to God, I am 
 far from being satisfied that distinct personal existence is 
 to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The fi^urQ prosopopoeia y 
 by which a change of things to persons is expressed, often 
 occurs in scripture. JFisdom, charity ^ sin and death j^x^ 
 here represented under personal characters, and a variety 
 of actions are ascribed to them. Indeed almost everj'^ thing 
 in scripture is personified, or represented as possessing 
 personal character. Why then should it be thought 
 incredible thai a divine attribute or any influence or opera- 
 tion of God, should in like manner be personified ? Who 
 indeed can reasonably deny that this is really the case ? 
 Are we not in the habit, in speaking of the providence of 
 God, to represent it as a person? We say that it is the 
 will of providence that particular events take place, or do 
 not take place ; that \ve hear the voice of providence, and 
 that providence rules the affairs of men, &c. But we 
 mean nothing more by these expressions than the Divine 
 Government and Superintendency of human aflfaii^s. Now 
 the Spirit or breath of God, in the original acceptation of 
 the word, no more expresses personal existence distinct 
 from that of the existence of God himself, than the word 
 providence expresses it. 
 
 That Spirit of God imports divine power, influence or 
 operation, instead of a person distinct from God, appears 
 to me extremely probable from the considerations, that in 
 many places of scripture this same Spirit is represented 
 as having been poured out^ shed forth^ distributed^ and 
 as given by measure and not by measure — or in various 
 degrees — that persons were baptized^ anointed and filled 
 with the Holy Spirit, and tliat although God pours out 
 
78 
 
 the Spirit, the residue remains with him. 1 know not how 
 to reconcile these representations with the supposition 
 tliut the Spirit of God is a person distinct from God 
 himsell". And when in addition to these things, I 
 consider that no expressions of mutual love be- 
 tween God and his Spirit occur in the scriptures — that 
 the Spirit is never represented as an object of prayer or 
 doxology, and that Spirit of God^ 2X\^ power of God sue 
 eqiii-valent expressions, I am afraid to admit that the Spir- 
 it of God is a person distinct from God. I think it how- 
 ever highly probable that Spirit of God sometimes denotes 
 the very person of God himself, particularly in the follow- 
 ing passages ; " Whither shall I go from t/ii/ Spirit ? or 
 whither shall I flee from thi/ presence ? If I ascend up 
 into heaven, thou art there," &c. Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8. " For 
 what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
 a man which is in him ? even so the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
 The terms thy Spirit^ thy presence^ and thou^ seem evi- 
 dently to designate the person of the one and omnipresent 
 God. And 1 cannot but think that the last quoted passage 
 affords very strong, if not decisive proof that Spirit of God 
 I?, (i synonymy iox God himself. It is particularly to be 
 observed that the apostle compares the Spirit of God to the 
 spirit of man, and reasons from the one to the other. Now 
 if we allow that the apostle is a consistent and correct rea- 
 soner, must we not infer, that, as the spirit of a man is not 
 a distinct person or agent from the man himself, the Spirit 
 of God is not a distinct person, or agent, from God ? This 
 inference, although without design, is well supported, I 
 think, by Dr. Worcester. Speaking of the Spirit, he 
 obser\cs, " He knows the tilings of God, as the spirit of a 
 man knows what is in the jnan, that is, by intuition, by 
 consciousness. As the spirit of a man is conscious to all 
 that is in him, so the Holy Spirit is conscious to all that is 
 in God." The Doctor very justly observes that the spirit 
 of a man knows what is in the man "by intuition — by 
 consciousness^'''* that is, by immediate knowledge, by 
 k^o^^ ledge which is not obtained by deduction of reason, 
 but by perception of what passes in his own mind. This 
 is the only way in which a man knows what is in himself 
 or in which he knows himself Nor can he in this Avay 
 knoAv any other man or person. Since then the Spirit 
 knows in ^/?w Tf«y, by consciousness, the things of God, 
 the Spirit must, it should seem, be God himself, for con- 
 sciousness implies, exclusively., personal kriowledge, or the 
 kncrwledge of one'' s self But if these things do not afford 
 convincing evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the 
 one God, and not a distinct person from him, the following 
 pas,sages compared, if duly considered, can hardly fail to 
 
79 
 
 produce complete conviction. " For it is not ye, tliat 
 speak, but the Spirit of your Father v\ hich s])caketh in 
 you." Matt. x. 20. " For it is not ye that speak, but the 
 Holy Spirit." Mark xiii. 11. As the Holy Spirit is the 
 Spirit of God the Father, and as God the rather is a 
 " Spirit, and a Holy Spirit,'''* and but One Spirit, must 
 not Spirit of God be synonymous imth God h'unself? 
 How can it be otherwise ? But if, when not personified 
 or used figuratively, " Holy Spirit" and " Spirit of God," 
 signifies THE one true God, the Father, must it 
 not be highly improper to ascribe to the Spirit, divine 
 honours, as a distinct person or being from the one God ? 
 Shall we worship an attribute, an influence or operation of 
 God, as if it were God himself, or a distinct person from, 
 and co-equal with God ? This, Sir, I dare not do witliout 
 scriptural warrant either by precept or example. But this 
 warrant I find not. Nor do I find any mention made of 
 the Holy Spirit as a distinct object of worship to the heav- 
 enly inhabitants, nor any thing which favors the supposition 
 that the Spirit is such an object. Where all the inhabit- 
 ants of mount Zion, the city of the living God, are enumer- 
 ated, I find God, Jesus, the Mediator of the New Cov- 
 enant, angels and the spirits of just men rnade perfect ; but 
 I find no mention made of the Holy Spirit. But is not 
 this omission perfectly unaccountable, if the Holy Spirit is 
 a person or being, distinct from God, and equal to God ? 
 In this same city of the living God, I find, " every creature 
 saying, blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be 
 imto him that sitteth upon the throne, and imto the Lamb 
 forever and ever." He who sitteth upon the throne, is 
 God the Father, and the Lamb is Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 the Father, to each of whom appropriate honour or worship 
 is given by all the holy inhabitants of heaven. But we find 
 no honour ascribed to the Holy Spirit, nor indeed any 
 mention made of the Holy Spirit ? But how are we to 
 account for this strange omission, if the Holy Spirit is a 
 person equal to God ? To me, Sir, it appears altogether 
 unaccountable, and especially when I find no intimation'm. 
 scripture that a Triune mode of worship was ever known 
 to the heavenly inhabitants. Among them we find no 
 ascription of praise or glory to the Holy Spirit. Nor do 
 we find any such ascription made by any devout worship- 
 pers of God on earth, until the christian church had become 
 greatly " corrupted from the simplicity" of the gospel of 
 Christ. At that period, when moral " darkness covered 
 the earth and gross darkness the people," it was decreed^ 
 that the Holy Spirit was a person distinct from, and equal 
 to the Supreme God. And then it was that the Triune 
 form of worship was established bylaw, became popular 
 
80 
 
 and reputedly orthodox. There were not wanting, how- 
 ever, at that time, those who adhered to, and adv^ocated 
 the Unitarian doctrine. Nor were such characters wholly 
 extinct during the long and dreary reign of darkness in the 
 church of Christ. The Waldenses and Albigcnses nobly 
 dared to dissent from the orthodox church, nor could the 
 most infamous and sanguinary persecution inflicted upon 
 them l3y that church, reclaim them from their reputed 
 heresy. Embracing the Bible, and not the orthodox creed 
 as the rule of their faith and practice, they remained stead- 
 fast in the faith, not loving their lives even unto death. 
 Nor can it reasonably be questioned that from the period, 
 now in view, through successive generations, Unitarians 
 have arisen who have shone as burning lights both in the 
 exemplariness of their lives, and in their zealous, able and 
 successful defence ot the gospel. To the zealous, inti'epid, 
 and persevering exertions of such men, it is in a great 
 measure owing, under divine Providence, that the lamp of 
 the gospel has not beeji completely extinguished — that its 
 light has been increased in the world, and that the rights of 
 conscience and christian liberty are now so well under- 
 stood, and in so high a degree enjoyed. These are facts 
 which ought to be known by christians generally, and 
 particularly by those who identiiy Umtanamsm with 
 infidelity — rank Unitarians with infidels^ and who are not 
 sparing in their exertions to destroy tlie influence of Uni- 
 tarian ministers^ and to annihilate Unitarian churches. 
 Were these facts generally known and duly considered, 
 Trinitarians, it is presumed, would soon estimate and treat 
 their Unitarian brethren, whose lives adorn the doctrine of 
 God our Saviour, as sincere christians ; and Unitarians 
 would be incited so to emulate the great and noble virtues 
 of those who have sealed their faith with their blood, as to 
 have a more just and indubitable claim to the respect and 
 cordial affection of Trinitarian christians. 
 
 Here, Sir, my remarks on the Holy Spirit would termi- 
 nate, were it not that you probably consider the circum- 
 stance that this same Spirit is the " Spirit of Christ,'] as 
 affording evidence in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 and of the distinct personality of the Spirit. I am not un- 
 aware that considerable stress is laid on this circumstance 
 by Trinitarians as favouring their theory. But that it really 
 does so, I am for from being satisfied. May not the Holy 
 Spirit be called the Spirit of Christ because the Father 
 imparled it to him in an extraordinary manner, and because 
 by the instrumentality of Christ, it was communicated to 
 the apostles and primitive christians? But as Christ 
 received it from tlie Father, must it not have been the 
 Father's originallv and independently, and Christ's by 
 
81 
 
 communication, or in a sccondarj^ sense ? But what are 
 we to understand by the Spirit as imparted by the F.ither 
 to Christ, but the power, the injiuence, the fulness of thd 
 Father, \\\ an iiumeasurable degn-e ? As God anointed or 
 endued Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit on 
 this account may \vith propriety be called his Spirit. But 
 is it from this circumstance to be inferred, that the Holy 
 Spirit is a divine person in the Godhead '? The circum- 
 stance will not, I should think, justify such an inference* 
 Nor can I be satisfied that any circumstance found in scrip- 
 ture respecting the Holy Spirit, affords evidence either de- 
 cisive or probable of its distinct personal existence. 
 
 Whether the above remarks will afford you any satisfac- 
 tion, or whether they will assist you in discovering what, or 
 how great is the difference in sentiment between us, or 
 others, in relation to the Holy Spirit, I know not. For my 
 own part, I confess that I do not know the real and precise 
 difference between Trinitarians and Unitarians in respect 
 to this subject. Dr. Worcester indeed, and other Trini- 
 tarian writers, speak of the Holy Spirit as " possessing per*- 
 sonal divinity" — -as " knowing the things of God, as the 
 spirit of a man knows what is in man," and as " God." 
 But do not Unitarians admit the correctness of these repre- 
 sentations ? This, I presume, is generally, if not univer- 
 sally the case. As to myself I do not hesitate to say, that 
 I consider the Holy Spirit as personally divine, as God, and 
 as knowing the things of God, as the spirit of a man knows 
 what is in man, or in himself. But I cannot be satisfied 
 that the Holy Spirit is another, or a distinct God from the 
 Father, and equal to the Father, or that the terms alway 
 denote a person. Nor can I suppose that Dr. Worcester 
 and other Trinitarians believe this of the Holy Spirit, for 
 however incorrect some of their expressions, they solemnly 
 profess to believe in the existence of but one Supreme 
 God. Believing then, as I sincerely do, that the Holy 
 Spirit is God, " possessed of all divine attributes," and 
 that there is but one God possessed of these attributes, 
 what is the difference between the Dr.'s belief and mine ? 
 That there is a verbal diflerence betwe n us, is very ob- 
 vious — that there is otherwise a circumstantial difference 
 between us, is probable ; nor will I deny that the difference 
 between us is radical — essential. But it is my hope that 
 such a difference does not exist, I do not indeed under- 
 stand some of the Dr.'s expressions respecting the Holy 
 Spirit, which seem to represent him as a distinct person, agent, 
 being, God, from the one God the Father, as equal to the 
 Father, and as the Supreme God by virtue of an insepara- 
 ble union with the Father and the Son. Were I allowed 
 to understand such representations according to their jnost 
 L 
 
82 
 
 natural and obvious meaning, my conclusion would be 
 that Dr. Worcester and otiier Trinitiirians believe in more 
 Gods than one. But as he disclaims for himself and 
 others such a belief, I must conclude that his representa- 
 tions mean something widely dilferent from what thty seem 
 to mean. But fruitless are my cndea\'ours t<j ascertain 
 what this something is. I do think that the Doctor has 
 no where told us ; and strongly do I suspect that his neglect 
 to do this, n\ust have been owing to his inability to do it, 
 or rather to the inexplicable nature of the doctrine which he 
 advocates. Satisfied as I am that Dr. W. is abundantly 
 competent to write in a luminous manner on any subject 
 which he understands, and to explain, in an intelligible 
 manner, the terms and expressions which he uses in w riting 
 on any such subject, I cannot account for it that he should 
 use terms and expressions respecting the Holy Spirit, 
 which convey no distinct and inteliigibie meaning, but on 
 the stipposition that he hns no clej.r ideas of the Spirit, as a 
 person distinct from, and eqUc;l to God. Bat if a man of 
 his talents and acuteness of discernment does not convey 
 any distinct and intelligible ideas on this subject, because 
 on his principles it is not in his po'ver to do it, is there not 
 great reason to believe that his theory is involved in much 
 confusion, and that it is not susceptible of explanation, or 
 of being rationally believed ? Instead of illustrating, it 
 seems to me that he has greatly darkened the subject, by 
 " words without knowledge." And I must be permitted 
 to add, that his manner of discussing the subject, instead 
 of removing my doubts respecting the distinct personality 
 of the Holy Spirit, and the truth of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, has contributed not a little to strengthen them. 
 To what cause this effect will be ascribed 1 know not, nor 
 am I solicitous to know. But the question, what is truth, 
 respecting the Holy Spirit and the other subjects on which 
 I have remarked, excites my deepest solicitude. My 
 heart's desire, and prayer to God is, that this truth, what- 
 ever it is, may soon be clearly seen, and cordially embraced, 
 and practically regarded by christians of all denominations, 
 and by tlie whole himian family. Should Dr. Worcester, 
 or myself, or each of us, be instrumeiital, in any degree, by 
 what we have written, of contributipg to this great and 
 much desired event, our labour w ill not have been in vain. 
 Let the Lord be praised. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 I have now, my dear Sir, agreeably to your request, 
 communic.'.ted to you " some of my thouglits" respecting 
 the late correspondence of the l\c\. Dr. Worcester w ith 
 
83 
 
 the Rev. Mr. Channing- *' on the subject of Unitarianism." 
 In doing- tliis I have designedly passed over unnoiiced, no 
 text of scriptnreon u hich the Dr. seemed to rely as evidence 
 in supp(3rt of tlie doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the 
 Godiicad, or of the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, or of 
 the_ personal divinitj' of the Holy Spirit. Nor have I 
 designedly made any misrepresentation of his statements 
 or views ; nor declined to notice any of his arguments in 
 support of the Trinitarian theory, wliich I considered as 
 having a claim to serious consideration. I dare not, how- 
 ever, peremj^torily say that I have done him strict justice. 
 It is indeed not unlikeh- that I have ^\ ith respect to some 
 things inisapprehended his meaning ; and that with respect 
 to others 1 liaxe said things ^^'hich may not have a just 
 bearing. Should this hiive been the case, I have to express 
 my regret, wiili th.is apoU^gy, that in writing my review of 
 Dr. W.'s Letters, I ha\e been able to avail myself of only 
 detaclied portions of time — a circumstance which I have 
 foimd not a liuie unfa\'ourable to my (jbject of pursuit. 
 You will allow to this apology, I will presume, its just due. 
 
 The principal object of n)y review, you must perceive 
 to have been to ascertain \\ liether the Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the 1* aiher of all, be alone the Supreme God. 
 Whether it has been made to appear that this is really the 
 fact, you will decide for yourself. For my own part, I 
 have to say, that if the evidence produced to substantiate 
 the fact is not completely demonstrative, it appears too 
 forcible to he easily resisted. 
 
 If then there is but one Supreme God, t/ie Father^ is it 
 not a truth too ob\ious to admit of reasonable controversy, 
 that all other beings denominated Gods, whether in heaven 
 or in earth, are subordinate to, and dependent on God the 
 Father for their dignity and perfections ? 
 
 If the Father alone is the one Supreme God, as the scrip- 
 ture seems unequivocally to teach us, does it not necessarily 
 follow that the Supreme (irod is one Person ? Have we 
 not indeed the express testnuony of scripture that this is 
 the case, and that " Jesus Christ is the express image of his 
 Person '?" But have we any such assurance that the one 
 God is more than one Person ? "W'hat is the foundation 
 then, on which the Trinitarian theory is built ? 
 
 If unto us there is but one God, even the Father, by 
 what authority is it asserted that Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God, is God in the highest sense, or that he is equal to his 
 Supreme Father? Did not Jesus Christ disclaim this 
 character in all that he said of hmiself, and of his Father ; 
 and particularly in that decisive and unequivocal declara- 
 tion, " My Father is greater than I ?" Are you not then 
 afraid, Sir,that in saying that Jesus Christ is God,in the su- 
 
preme sense, or that he is as great as his Father, you ^vill 
 be found to contradict his testimony, gi-eatly to dishonour 
 his character, and to fight against the Supremacy of his 
 God and our God ? 
 
 If God the Father is alone the Supreme God, must not 
 
 he alone be the object of supreme worship ? Does not this 
 
 inference seem both just and necessar\' ? And is it not 
 
 supported by an authority from m hich there should be no 
 
 appeal F " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
 
 him o?i/i/ shalt thou serve."- — " Worship him, l,11 ye gods." 
 
 Agreei.bly with these injunctions, did not Jesus Christ, 
 
 who sustained the title of God, alwiiys worship his Father 
 
 as a Being of unrivalled glory, an.d " far exalted above all 
 
 gods?'' Are you under no apprehension, then, that in 
 
 worshipping three persons, intelligent agents, or beings, each 
 
 possessed of all divine attributes, you become chargeable 
 
 with practical disregcird of " the first of all th.e connnand- 
 
 inents," and of a departure from the pr^xtiee of him VAho 
 
 hi'.th *' set us an exiimple that \\e should follow his steps ?" 
 
 The hour, my dear Sir, " is comii.g, i\r,d now is, when the 
 
 tr7ie zvorsh?ppe?'s shall worship the Father m spirit and in 
 
 truth." As the scriptures teach us that " there is but one 
 
 God, the Father," who is " above all" — even " above all 
 
 Gods," is it not much to be lamented that many christian 
 
 churches should reciuire of those, who are desirous of 
 
 rnjoying with them christian communion, at the Lord's 
 
 table, ar/<?;7Zfl:/ofthe Supremacy of the Father, or that he 
 
 ialone is the Supreme God ? Is the acknowledgment that 
 
 Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are persons, agents, or 
 
 beings distinct from the Father, and that each of them is 
 
 God, possessed of all divine attributes, consistent with the 
 
 Supremacy of the one God, the Father ? And yet it is 
 
 Insisted on as a test of orthodoxy— as a touchstone of an 
 
 anti-idolatrous heart, and as a passport to the enjoyment of 
 
 a precious gospel institution, to which all were originally 
 
 admitted, who professed to believe in Jesus Christ as the 
 
 Son of the Suj^reme Father ! How sad — ho\^- melancholy 
 
 JS the consideration that a profession of this same fiiith, and 
 
 the most exemplary life, in a moral and religious vie\v, 
 
 ■should be considered by so many christian ministers and 
 
 churches as utterly insufficient to entitle a person to their 
 
 fellowship ! I cannot but strongly apprehend, Sir, that 
 
 this is utterly a fluilt among them. 
 
 Do the scriptures teach us that the God and Father of 
 pur Lord Jesus Christ is alone the Supreme God ? Is it 
 not then much to be regretted that general associations, and 
 many minor associations of christian ministers, should 
 create and emploj- a combined influence to discourage and 
 preyent the reception and progress of this great and import 
 
85 
 
 aiit truth ? Will not many individual christians, and 
 christian churches, be likely, through this powerful influ- 
 ence, to admit, adhere to, and intemperately defend the 
 doctrine of the Trinity as a criTcrion of cliristian piety, and 
 an indispensable term of christian communion, wiihout 
 due examination, and without suspecting that the doctrine 
 is incompatible with the Supremacy of the Father, or the 
 Divine Unity ? Will n.ot pious young men, preparing for 
 the sacred ministry, or entered upon its functions, be 
 improperly biassed and directed by this same influence in 
 their religious opinions and theological pursuits? And 
 will not public opinion also be formed, established and 
 directed by its instrumentality, \^'ithout the salutary aid of 
 free inquiry, diligent research, and impartiality of judg- 
 ment ? These and other evils have already resulted, I 
 apprehend, from this formidable influence. Nor, so long as 
 it shall exist unim.paired, is it to be expected, that such evil 
 results will be less either in num.ber, in magnitude, or in 
 extent. But is this influence always to exist with unabated 
 strength ? Future time must decide. 
 
 If the Father alone is the Supreme God, it becomes a 
 very serious and interesting question whether christians, 
 who believe this doctrine, can consistently with a good 
 conscience and the christian character disguise their belief, 
 or, in any way, give countenance and support to a doctrine, 
 which appears to them repugnant to it ? That christians, 
 in whose character there should be no guile, should in any 
 instances be suspected of duplicity in their religious laith 
 and practice, is to be regretted ; — that they should occasion 
 just suspicion of this, is a subject for much deeper regret ; 
 and that they should persist in giving such occasion, seems 
 to imply that tear of man which brings an entangling and 
 pernicious snare to the soul. Such conduct admits neither 
 of justification nor satisfactory apology. But are there any 
 members of Trinitarian churches ^^'ho are justly chargeable 
 with this highly improper and exceptionable conduct ? 
 WHiat, my dear Sir, shall \ve say of those, who, firmly 
 believing that the Father alone is the Supreme God, appar- 
 ently assent to, and virtually patronize a creed which avows 
 the existence, and demands a belief in the existence of 
 two more co-equal persons or agents ? Are not such 
 members of churches guilty of this duplicity, by rising 
 with the other members, when the Trinitarian creed is 
 publickly read ? Do they not rise in token of assent to jjyj 
 
 the articles of that creed, some of which, to say the least, 
 are repugnant to the dictates of their understandings, and 
 to the feelings of their hearts ? Should these our brethren 
 plead, in vindication of their conduct, that, should they 
 decline to give an implied assent to the creed, and especially 
 
86 
 
 should they protest against it, the peace of the church M'oiild 
 be interriip'cd, its prusperity endangered, and tluit tliey 
 would subject themsehes to the charge of heresy, and to 
 excision from christian ftllo^\•ship with their brethren — the 
 plea will excite in our breast emotions of symjiathy and 
 commiseration ; but it w ill be very f t from convincihg us 
 that they arc ir.fluenced, as they ought to be, by those 
 motives and principles w hich are the glory of the cliiistian 
 profession and character. 
 
 Must not the christian, Mho has a just, and clear, and 
 impressive view and sense of the true sj^irit and genius of 
 our pure and holy religion, be disposed manfully to assert 
 that liberty by which Christ has made him Iree ? Pos- 
 sessed of a nolDle ingenuousness of heart, will he not 
 exphcitly^ renounce " the hidden thii/gs of dishonesty ? 
 Not walking jn croftiness, nor handling the word of G(xl 
 deceitfully ;^ but by manifestation of the truth," will he 
 not make it his steady object, by shunning the very 
 appearance of evil, to " keep a conscience void of offence," 
 and to commend himself, by ir.flexlble integrity of princi- 
 ple and conduct, to the approbatioii of all good men, " in 
 the sight of God?" While he will " snidy the things 
 which iTiake for peace," in every practicable way consist- 
 ently with the uprightness of his heart, and the purity of 
 his religious principles ; yet to please man, or to secure 
 popular applause, he will ncA'cr consent to make shipu reck 
 of his conscience, or to treat with cold neglect, much less 
 apparently to renounce a doctrine of revelation ^hich he 
 believes to be of all others the most important, t/ie unity of 
 God. Must he not feel an irresistible obligation to w iih- 
 hold assent, CAcn in remote appearance, from an article of 
 faith A\ hich requires him professedly to deny his o\\ n faith 
 in a doctrine which he esteems as pre-eminently import- 
 ant ? Will he not — must he not, fearless of consequences, 
 nobly dare to act accordin.g to his conviction ? 
 
 These suggestions ha\'e a solemn and imperious claim 
 to the aw akened and serious consideration of all whom 
 they immediLitely concern, jVnd most devoutly is it to be 
 hoped that they will not fail to produce effects coiTCspond- 
 ent to their importance. 
 
 If the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone the Su- 
 preme God, is there not much reason to apprehend that no 
 exertions w hich eidxr are, or may be made to convert the 
 Jevv s and Mahometans, or even the Pagans to the christian 
 faith will be cro\\ned with much success, so long as tlie 
 doctrine ofthe Trinity shall be exhibited to tliem, by chris- 
 tian instructors, as essential to the christian system ? Both 
 Jews and Mahometans, it is a well known fact, are finn 
 believers in the doctrine ofthe Divine Unity, or that God 
 
87 
 
 is but one person ? Is it then to be expected, and espec- 
 ially if this doctrine is true, that many of them will ever be 
 persuaded to embrace a doctrine wliich avows the existence 
 oi' t^vo other persons, agents, beings, or Gods, equal to 
 God the Father ? To this doctrine they object as exhib- 
 iting the strongest features of polytheism ; as connected 
 with idolatry, and as highly impious. Is it to be expected 
 then, that they will cease to urge this objection so long as 
 the occasion of it shall co:itinue ? But is the doctrine 
 friendly to the conversion of the Heathens? Will tiiey 
 not be likely to object to it as tavom'iiig idolatrj^, and as 
 truly so as their beliei' in a plurulity of Gods *? Can it then 
 reasonably be expected that they will abandon a system of 
 idolatry, to which ihey h ive so long been attached, and 
 accustomed to hold in the highest reverence, for another 
 system which seems to favour an idolatrous worship /* 
 
 As these suggestions demand the serious attention of 
 missionary societies, and christian missionaries, it is to be 
 hoped tliat they will not be treated with indifference and 
 neglect. Bnt in whatever light they may be viewed, or 
 whatever may be their effect, it is not to be. doubted that 
 the christian religion, notwithstanding all the obstacles now 
 in the way, will ere long be universally embraced in its 
 native purity. The translation of the Bible, -without note 
 or comment, into every language under heaven, and its dis- 
 persion among all the tribes, of men, will, it is presumed, 
 beyond all other means contribute to the accomplishment 
 of this great and glorious event. To the translation of the 
 Bible, then, and to its circulation in all tlie destitute parts 
 of the world, christians of all denominations should turn 
 their eager attention, and combine, for the accomplishment 
 of this most desirable object, their zealous and persevering 
 efforts. 
 
 Thus may the Holy Scriptures soon have free course, 
 run and be glorified. May their pure and divine doctrines 
 be well understood and cordially embraced by every 
 nation, kingdom and tongue. Ma\' all the corruptions of 
 Christianity be soon detected, exposed and abandoned, its 
 peaceable and benign spirit be more copiously imbibed, 
 and its beneficent fruits more abundantly produced ! 
 
 These auspicious events we joyfully anticipate as sure 
 and steadfast. And the signs of the times encourage the 
 hope that they cannot be far distant. Among these, the 
 late controversy " on the subject of Unitarianism" is not 
 to be overlooked. With Dr. ^Vorcester, I believe that 
 " the points in discussion ai'c among the most important, 
 that could be offered to the attention of the christian com- 
 munity." And " that though some ill effects may ensue, 
 as, in a world like tliis, is always to be expected, when 
 
88 
 
 any thing is attempted for the cause of truth ; yet the per- 
 suasion is continually extending and gaiiiing sti'ength, that 
 the good effects will greatly preponderate." That this may 
 soon, and more visibly be the h ippy case — thctt the truth 
 respecting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, may be 
 clearly set-n and cordially embraced — that the inspired 
 scriptures may be unix-ersally received as the standard of 
 faith and practice, to the exclusion of all unscriptural and 
 anti-scriptural words and phrases from every religious 
 creed in Christendom — that the " faith of christians should 
 not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God 
 — that " all bitterness, and \\ rath, and anger, and clamour, 
 and evil speaking," on all sides, may utterly cease — that 
 all may speak the same thing, and be perfectly joined 
 together in the same judgment — that a spirit of unhallowed 
 war and contention, of whatever kind, may give place to a 
 spirit of peace and fraternal affection, and that the world 
 maj^ be filled widi the divine glory, is the ardent prayer 
 and confident expectation of, dear Sir, your sincere friend, 
 and servant, as well in the consolations, as afflictions, of the 
 gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
u 
 
 \ 
 
 t ■••.) 
 
 •*.-*> ; >:,Ji«>> 
 
 \y\\s 
 

 «:; 
 
 f-' 
 
 
 h,4)y^^i