^^ ►*•- /O^^ Tlie rropci'ty BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. DEPOSITED — IN TlIK — LIBR ARY^^ — Ill- Till-: — _v '— ■_. ESSEX INSTITUTE. ,-4 -. > * THIRD LETTER REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 0S THE S17B7SCT.-OF UNITARIANISM. BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D, D, PASTOR OF TBE TABERNACLE CHURCH, SALEM, BOSTO^': yBIRTEI) nr SA?iC£L X. AHMSTROSn, VO. 50, COIiSRII.t 1815, LETTER. SEV. AND DEAR SIR, I FIND that you have seen fit to make to the publick another set of remarks about me, and about other persons and things in connexion with me. I did hope, if you shoidd condescend to write again, it would not be in the style of a murmurer and complainer, or of a popular suiter and declaim- er. If the "self-respect" and "virtuous indignation," of which you have so emphatically spoken, required you to turn your back upon your opponent, and to refuse to him the offices, not only of brotherly kindness, but of common civility; yet it might have been well, had they not withheld you also from at- tending to the points which essentially belong to the debate, w'nch have been distinctly stated and urged, and which cer- tainly merit very serious and candid consideration and dis- cussion. Those, however, are virtues it should seem of no d'dinary loftiness and inflexibility, and of no ordinary claims and prerogatives. On the question of writing again, several considerations haA'c presented themselves to my mind. My Second Letter seems to need no vindication or support; as your Remarks have not I suppose, to any one, even t!ic appearance of an an- swer. My labours and duties are many, and my health is frail. A considei'able portion of tlie publick are piobably desirous that the controversy should cease: as a lurge chiss have not patience to attend long to any subject wliich re- quires serious thought; not a few have an imposing prejudice against all rc'ii;1c from reading — more than one side. — Still iiowcvci- tlierc 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 community. Though some ill effects may ensue, as, in a world like this, is al- ways to be expected, when any thing is attempted for th& cause of truthj yet the persuasion, I believe, is continually ex- tending and gaining strength, that the good effects will great- ly preponderate. And though I have been accused of being a volunteer in this service, as I would certainly wish to be, in a cause so deeply interesting to the honour and kingdom of the Lord Jesus; yet as I have girded on the harness, whether prudently or imprudently, the time does not seem to have ar- rived for me to put it off. — What I have now to offer will be disposed under several distinct heads. I. In the outset of your Remarks, you re-m-ge the charge of "bad spirit and intention." To this J am compelled briefly to reply. — My conscience bears me witness, tliat my design has been not to excite popular or party passions and animosi- ties, already in a flame when I first took my pen, but to as- saugc thcm;not to promote a violent disruption, or an ir- regular denunciation in the christian community, but to give such a direction to the controversy, as m ould lead to sober and conscientious inquiry, and to a right understanding of truth and of duty. It has lon^^ been well known, that I have not been the advocate of rash measures, of liasty separations, or of a rigorously i-estricted system of fellowship. You have yourself been pleased to say, that you had ^'regarded me as a man of candour, moderation, and liberal feelings." Though you liavc seen ftt to alter your opinion, and to represent mo as a man destitute of candoju', and possessed of a bitter, ma- lip;nant, and persecuting spirit; yet 1 suppose it will be obvi- ous to otiiers, if not to yourself, that this latter opinion has been formed under circumstances not the most favourable to :;n impartial itnd correct judguient; and lam sustained in the conlidencc, that candid men will pronounce, that for your sud- den clian^c of o])inion, and your consequent n iraiaatiims, so liiistily expressed, and so peitinaciously reiterated, you had no sulliwieiit reason. To a candour, indeed, which confounds the distinction be- tween truth and errour, — to a moderation which regards both the one and the other, as of little consequence, — to a liberali- ty which places them on equal terms, in regard to christian character and christian communion, I make no pretensions. I do hold, that belief in tiie truth is essential to Christianity; and that "the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth,'* and the ministers of Jesus Christ, who are "set for the defence of the gospel,'* have not only a right to inquire, but are under obligations of infinite responsi- bility to inquire, concerning the faith as well as the practice of individuals and communities, claiming christian fellowship; —to inquire, however, with candour, and meekness, and char- ity, making a difference between ignorance and disbelief, and between circumstantial errours, and fundamental. This is my heinous offence, — my unpardonable crime. It is on ac- count of this persuasion, that you have "considered my letter unworthy of me as a cliristian and a christian minister," and "thought that I have discovered a strange insensibility towards ray brethren,'* and written with a bad spirit and intention. I say, this is the reason of your abundant criminations of me; for you have pointed to no other, but to this you have distinct- ly and repeatedly pointed. Wlmt you think of me, or what I think of you, is in itself of little importance to the publick, and can have nothing to do with the merits of the cause in debate. It may be, howev- er, of considerable consequence, to remark the grounds on which you are so ready to pronounce a man to be destitute of candour, and charity, and all good motives and feelings, and to impute to him a bitter, malignant, and persecuting spirit; as it may serve to explain the nature of that charity on which you lay so great a stress, and to wliich you m;\ke such lofty pretensions. Let it here then be distinctly noted, that, according to your representations, if a man demur as to chris- tian fellowship, on accountcf any crror.r in sentime?it, he is destitute of cliarity, and a persecutor; if ho regard no errouv as any bar to fellov.ship, he is a charitable man, and a liberal diristian. This topick I shall ha\^e orrasion t** ctnr>idoT Uiv~ t-fcicr in anathcr place. 11. You g\\ e it to be understootl, that the reason of your appearins? again before the publick, was my call upon you to retract a misstatcnient. You Jiad stated that «thc obvious import of the cont hiding part of" my lirst ^'Letter might be tlius expressed: *Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox christians embrace, believes an opposite gosjiel, rejects the true gospel, despises the autliori- ty of Jesus Christ, is of course a man wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue; and may in perfect consist- ency with christian love be rejected as unworthy the name of a christian.' " I did pronounce tliis «a flagrant misstate- ment," and solemnly call upon you to retract it. In reply you say. <«I intend to shew, that in giving this inter])reta- tion, I followed tlie natural meaning of Dr. Wore ester's words, that I put no violence on his language, and that no other sense would have offered itself to an unprejudiced mind." Y'ou then j)roceed to "slate the passages" of my letter "which led to the representation which you had formed." I did propose to req note all those passages in their order, for the sake of shewing in a strong light the strange slate of that mind which could assert, and in the face of the clear ex- position of my Si'iitiments and views, given in my Second Letter, reassert, that "the natural meaning-" of them is given ill your contested statement. But I feel a strong repugnance to filling the pages of my present letter witli quotations from my former ones; and a repugnance, not less strong, to be- stowing S3 much attention upon a jioint so personal. One principal passage, therefore, may suffice. "Is it," I ask in my first Letter, p. 32, "Is it then a violation of the great law of lovef[)r the friends of truth to decline communion with its rejecters? — Wc have not!iing to do here with slight divcrsi- lics of opinion; with difierenccs about modes or forms, or in- considerable points of faith or practice. Our concern is with (liffirences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to tlie creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this }Joint you liave yourself fairly reduced the present question. — Yes, Sir, the simple point here at issue is, ^Vhet^^erit be a violation »f the law of love for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ to separate from believers in another and an opposite gospel? If yours is the true gospel, tlien ours is another; if ours is the true gospel, then yours is another. In either case, the great qu' stion respecting fellowship remains the same." This is the passage on which you seem mainly to rely; and it is un- doubtedly the strongest passage of the whole, and includes in it the principal ideas, of any aspect to your purpose, contain- ed in the rest. — But, Sir, do I here say, that ^'Enerij man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, tlie great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox chris- tians embrace, believes an opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, and is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true 'piety and without christian vir^ tue."" Is this "the natural meaning of the words?" and does no other sense offer itself to an unpi*ejudiced mind!" I put the question. Sir, to your conscience. Please to observe. In the first place, in this passage, I state the question at issue: "Is it a violation of the great law of love for the friends of truth to decline communion with its reject- ers?" — I then, that the question may be disembarrassed, state by way of explication, that "We have nothing to do here with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about modes or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or practice:" suck as those might be thought to be, which exist between ortho- dox christians and some whom you would call the higher Unitarians. "Our concern," I further observe, "is with dif- ferences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham-.for to this point tjou have yourself Jairly reduced the present question.** You certainly had reduced it to this point. You had contended, that Uni- tarians, not of the higher degrees only, but even of the lowest degrees, ought to be lield in christian fellowsliip. I therefore, fixed upon Mr. Belsham's creed, as something tangible and definite, by means of which the merits of the pending question might be tried; and, reduced to this point, the question, which otherwise might have been attcmlcd with cmbarra^jsment and perplexity, became to my mind a very plain one. Accordingly I had a little before said, "The question then is a short one. Is not Mr. Belsham's gospel, as set forth in his creed, another j^ospd thantliat wljich Paul preached? If you are not ^villing to admit this^ yet surely vou cannot Ijcsitate a moment to admit, that it is another than that which is held by ortiiodox cliristians, — which is preached by orthodox ministers: — essentially different in every particular from the foundation to the topstonc. One or the other of these schemes then must be what St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against which and its abettors he solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema." To this statement I distinctly refer in the passage under consid- eration. Having thus simplified the question respecting fellow- vship, by restricting it to Mr. Belsham's scheme, I then proceed to restate it in these words: *'Yes, Sir, tlie simple point here at issue is, w hether it be a violation of the law of love for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ to separate froni believers in another and an opposite gospel. If yours is the true gospel, then ours is another^ if our« is the true gospel, then yours is another. In eitiier case the great question res- pecting fellowship remains the same." — Was it possible for the question to have been more clearly or definitely stated? Was it possible for it to have been more plainly expressed, that the issue to be tried was precisely between ths believers m Mr, Behhaw/s gospel^ and the believers in that called or- thodox? Mr. Belsham's is here called "your gospel, for the very obvious reason, that it is the one which, in the statement of the question, is opposed on yotir part to the one on ojtr pai't." Now, Sir, I ask again, do I in this passage say, that «£r- 6ry man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, tlie great iloctrine of three persons in one, whicli 1 and other or- thodox christians embrace, believes in an opi>osite gospel, i*ejects the true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, and is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety and witliout christian virtue." No, Sir: it is not here, or any where else by me, said, that '.'everif vian'^ who does not em- brace the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity eit iior "believes, in," or "abets, an opposite gospel," or "rrjects the true gospel, 01" despises the authority of Jesus Cl)rist," or *'is -9 wholly wanting in christian pi^ty," or in "witliout christian virtue." Neither of these things is either affirmed or impli- ed in any passage of mine; hut the terms used by me, and the entire connexion, are pai*ticularly and pointedly guarded against such a construction. Had not ijou said it, I should certainly have thought that the person who could say, thait th« interpretation which you have given is "the natural mean- ing of my words," "that in giving such an interpretation no violence is put upon my language," and "that no other sense offers itself to an unprejudiced mind," really had not "ability to decide on the obvious import of a letter written in our na- tive tongue," and ought to he sent to school, to learn the very rudiments of grammar and logick. This remark I apply to all the passages which you have cited. Taken severally or col- lectively, in a detached state or in their respective conexions, they neither naturally express, nor by all the torture to which you have put, or can put them, can they be made to yield the sense which you have so resolutely attempted to fasten upon them. Had it, however, been otherwise; had my expressions been such as easily to admit, or even naturally to convey the sense of your statement; yet, if tliey would bear another construc- tion, and I had explicitly said that such was not my meaning, it might have been compatible with the laws of common cour- tesy for my disavowal to have been candidly accepted. It has been thought allowable in debate, for a person, when mis- understood, to explain; and right that his explanation should be admitted. But this privilege has not been allowed to me. I was misunderstood, — certainly misrepresented: and though 1 thought my language sufficiently plain, yet I went, in my Second Letter, into a full and candid exposition of my senti- ments and views; and not only said, but shewed, that my meaning was not, and could not have been, such as you had stated. Yet after all this, you take it upon you to say, that you "cannot avoid the belief that my recollections on this point are imperfect;" you resolutely insist on your former in- terpretation, wliich I have explicitly disavowed, and refuse to admit my frank exposition of my own meaning. This, Sir, is cairying tlie claims of yanr "self respect veryfar;to an extent^ 10 i believe, beyond what any courteous, and candid, and mod- est, and honourable man, to say nothing of a christian minis- ter, e\ er before attempted. I must here quote from your Remarks an extraordinary passage. <»Dr. Worcester, however," you say, p. 12, "as- sures nie that I have misrepresented him; and I have no dis- position to question the sincerity with which he now declares that he did not intend to communicate the sentiments which I ascribed to him. I cannot indeed avoid the belief, that his recollections on this point are imperfect, and that in the hur- ry of his thoughts and feelings, he w as not so watchful over his motives as he now imagines." In the same style you say,p. 4, "Dr. Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings and inten- tions which I have ascribed to him. — That he is sincere in re- porting what now appears to him to have been the state of his mind during the composition of his first letter, I am fai- from denying. But on a subject like this, memory is some- times treacherous; and I confess I cannot shake off the con- viction, that some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by Dr. Worcester, occasionally guided his pen." Here, Sir, is an expedient to save one*s "self respect" from the pain of a concession, and to fix upon an opponent an injurious charge, the whole credit of which, I do believe, belongs to you, and ought forever to remain in your uncontested possession: an cxpe^lient of which, I presume, the annals of controversy might be searched throughout in vain, for an example, a pro- totype, or a parallel. Will any reader in the world suppose that, in both or either of those instances, I really misremem- bered? — or that you seriously meant to be understood that I did misremember? Why then this spurious irony, — tbis way- ward circundocution? Why not charge me directly with falsehood, as you had before done the Reviewers? You have had. Sir, a fair opportunity for a display of can- dour. You had misstated the import of an important part of my Letter. This was a different affair from that which was before between us, relating to the Reviewers. Tliat was a question concerning tbe meaning of a third party, and, tliere- fore, concerning which I as well as you might misjudge; this was a question respecting my own meaning, and iTspcctuig 11 which I could not mistake. I supposed you had wronged the Reviewers; I knew you liad wronged me. Without, however, imputing to you any ill intention or motive,! remonstrated,ex- plained, and called upon you to retract. It was only, in christian spirit and manner, to acknowledge that you had misapprehended my meaning,— and the credit for ingenu- ous feeling, especially the consciousness of having done an act of magnanimous equity to an opponent, would have abun- dantly compensated for any self denial which there might havebsen in the case. But you haVe chosen a different course, and must look for a different reward. I can, however, assure you. Sir, that it would have afforded me much greater pleasure to have had occasion to acknowledge your generous candour, than I have found in making the kind of stricture which you have compelled me to make. III. Page 13, you make this statement. "Dr. Clark be- lieved, that the Father alone is the Supreme God, and that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, but derived his being, and all his power and honours from the Father, even by an act of the Father's power and will. He maintains, that as the scriptures have not taught us the manner in which the Son derived his existe»ce from his Father, it is presumptuous to affirm, that the Son was created, or, that there was a time when he did not exist. On these subjects the word of God has not given us light, and therefore we ought to be silent. The author of Bible News in like manner affirms, that the. Father only is the Supreme God, that Jesus is a distinct be- ing from God, and that he derives every thing from his Fath- er. He has some views relating to the "proper Sonship," of God, which neither liberal nor orthodox christians generally embrace, But the prevalent sentiments of liberal christians seem to me to accord substantially with tlie systems I have above described. Like Dr. Clark, the majority of this class feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a creature, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which they find it, carry- ing with them, however, an impression, that the scriptures as- cribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other being " upon this statement I submit the following pemarks*. 1. The appellation ^'liberal christians," is ambiguous and indetei'minate. In your fii"st pamphlet you tell us, that "liberal christians are scattered through all classes of chris- tians;" and that although "in this part of tl»e country they are generally," yet "by no means universally Unitarians." And you somewhere, I think, estimate that about one third pai-t of the ministers and christian professors in this common- wealth are of the liberal class. I have myself computed, that about this proportion are non-calvinistickj and it should seem that all these arc included by you in the denomination of "liberal christians." Of these, however, I have supposed there are many, who arc not Unitarians. They may have, some difficulties and doubts res|)ecting the terms in which the doctiine of the Trinity is often stated, and some diversities in the manner of conceiving and speaking of the doctrine, and yet believe in the true divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If so, they ought not to be classed with Unita- lians. "Those," as justly observed by Bisliop Huntingford, "wlio hold tlie doctrine of a Trinity, however individually they may give different explications of it, ai'e nevertheless Trinitarians; as those, who pi-otest against a particular church, although unhappily among themselves they have separated from each other, by multifarious divisions, and dis- criminate each other by subtle distinctions, implying even dimidiatiou, are nevertheless all protestants." • Dri Samuel Clark was not a Unitarian, and ought not to he so called or classed. He held to an "ever-blessed Trinity," — to a Trinity of "Divine Persons," — Father, Son, and Holy Spiiit, who existed together "from the BEGINNING." This is the substance of his scheme; and in tliis he agreed with orthodox Trinitarians, though in other respects he differed from them. And if, as it "seems" to you "the prevalent sentiments among liberal christians in this quarter of our country accord snhstantiaUy with Dr, Clark's,'* then these "prevalent sentiments" ai'e not Unitarian. How large a proportion of those whom you would assign to the liberal class, are Trinitarians, or believers in the essential djvinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I do not know;; 15 nor do I know in what manner they would severally explain themselves upon this subject, or where they would choose to be considered as standing. 1 have, however, entertained the hope, that by the process of developement it would be found, that not a few of them are more orthodox than Dr. Clark; and that the Unitarian brotherhood is much less numerous, than you seem desirous of having it understood to be. 2. It appears from your statement, that the "prevalent sentiments of liberal christians" are exceedingly unsettled, indistinct, and indeterminate. "Tlie majority of this class, you say,/eeZ that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a^ creature, but leave the subject in tlie obscurity in which they find it, carrying with them, however, an impression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascrib- ed to no other being." With these "liberal christians," then, it is a matter of utter uncertainty, of endless doubt, and, it would seem, of cold and lofty indifference, who the Saviour of the world is! — whether be is a created, or an uncreated being; wliethcr he existed from eternity, or begim to exist in time; whether he is a God, who, though inferiour to the "su- preme God," has yet a rightful claim to religious worship, or only their fellow servant, to whom no divine honours belong! From other passages, on which I shall have occasion iu another place to remark, it appears that the same uncertainty, and doubt, and indifference exist with these same *«liberal christians," in regard to what Jesus Christ has done for them: — whetlier he died to expiate tlieir sins with blood of inestimable merit, or whether "in consequence*' merely "of what he has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is avert- ed from the penitent;*' as it may have been, in consequence of the sufferings and labours, the instructions and interces- sions of Paul and other good men, by whose means sinners have been brought to repejitance! — Of course, there must be similai' uncertainty, doubt, and indifference, as to the obliga- tions which they owe to him; as to the love and trust, the thanks and honours to which he is entitled. — Do tbey tlien honour the Son, even as they honour, or should honour the 14 Father? They do not know who or what tfie So« is. Are they blessed in putting tlicir trust in him? They do not know to what extent, or for wliat purposes he is to be trusted. Do they deli^iit to join in the heavenly anthem, "Worthy is th« Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wis- dom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing? They do not know that he is wortliy thus to be adored and praised! — Ah! where are we? Into what a region of frost, of darkness, of the shadow of deatJi arc we advancing! — Is this, Sir, the light which is so ardently hailed, and so loudly proclaimed by tlic "rational christians," of this favoured age? Is it here that we are to find the grand consummation of di- vine knowledge, that "purer system of Christianity," to which you and yoiii- "liberal" brethren would guide mankind? Is it in this chilling, dismal clime, that professed christians of every name are to meet together in one blessed fellowship? No wonder then that Jews and Iniidels, Mohammedans and Pagans are invited to participate in the blessedness.* And no \\'onder, that they who adore the Lord Jesus, as "f/te true God and eternal lifcy" and delight in the ascription, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, — to him be glory and dominion forever and ever," sliould decline the invitation. "This," says our great Intercessor, "This is the life eter- nal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus the Christ whom thou hast sent."| But in tlie knowledge of Jesus the * With intimations to this cfTcct, the wiittogs of Unitarians ahound. ■j- "What is said hci-c of the ottly true God, seems said in opposition to the gods wlom the heathens worsliipped; not in opposition to Jesus Christ himself, who is called the/n»e Godhy John in 1 Epist. v, '20." Bishop Pearce. "That our blessed Lord here speaks of the only tnie Gorf, in distinction from Idoib, and not to the exclusion of himself, appears from liis s|ieakingof himself as tiic object of the same fiducial knowledge, with the Father, and by his distin- guishing liiiuself from the Father, not by any essential title, but merely by his official character, viz. Jenus Christ, whom thou hast sent. And the same apostle wlw recorded this prayer, expressly says of Ciirist; This is the true God, and eternal life, in opposition to idols." Dr. Guise. "Those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, think they have a.niighty argu- ment from this text, where Christ (as they say si)eaking to liis Father) calleth fiim the only true (isd. But divines answer, that the term onlif, or alone, is not 15 Christ, must not liberal christians, if your account of them is correct be lamentably wanting? ««The majority of this class," you say, "feel that the scrip- tures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. And well they may feel this: since the scriptures declare, that "his goings forth have been of old, even from everlast- ing;"— that "in the beginning he was with God, and was God;"— that he is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for- ever,"— "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last."— Your oracle indeed. Dr. Clark, has a long sectien, entitled, "The passages in which he [Christ] is declared to be subordinate to the Father; deriving his being (in an incomprehensible manner) from Him, receiv- ing from him his divine jmver, (mtlwnUj and other altnbiiUs,'' k.c. And under this head, in his own imposing manner, he has arranged about two hundred and forty texts; in not one of which, I feel perfectly safe in saying, is it "declared that Christ derived his being and divine attributes from the Father." It is not then strange, that "the scriptures have not taught the mode of his derivation." And since yoi\feel this, it might be well if you would acknowledge what the scriptures do teach,— that as God he existed with the Father from eternity. Christ and the great work of redemption by him, is the grand subject of the scriptures, from the beginning to tlie end. Is it then credible, that, after all, the scriptures have not informed us, who or what Christ is,— whether God or a mere creature,— nor ^^hat he has done for us, nor how wc are to be saved by him, nor wiiut rcgarils and honours arc due from us to him? Is it credible, that the inspired writings have left these primary subjects in such "obscurity," that te be applied to tl^ee, but tolbe term God; and tl.e sense this: to know tliee to be that God ivhichis the only true God,- and this ym'tarelh from 1 John r, 20, where Christ is said to be the true God, Nvl.ich could not be if the Fath«r were U.e only true God, considered as another (God] from ihe Son. The te.™ only 01- alp^ie is not exclusive of the other two persons in the Trinity, but only ot .dols, the gods of the heathen which are no goJs.-Our Saviour saith it is life eternal to kno,o him .oho is the oid,j true Go./,-he adds, and Jesus Christ .ohom thou hast sent: by which he lets us know, that the Father canaatbe suv.ngly knowt,, aut ia and br tht- Soil." Poole's Conliuuutors. 16 «»c man may acknowledge him as God, one aftd co-equal with the Father, another, only as a mere man, "fallible and pec- cable like other men," and a third as a demigod, or some unknown intermediate being, between the Creator and crea- tures, — that sonie may believe his ileath to hare been an ex- piatory sacrifice for the sins of the world, and others that be died only as a witness to the truth, — tliat some may trust for justification and salvation only in his \icai'ious merits, and others in their own virtues, — and yet all of them have an equal claim to the name and privileges of christian be- lievers? Is it credible, that in a divine revelation, a principal jobject of which is to guard mankind against idolati'tj, 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! Surely the man who can believe all this, ought to charge no other man in the world w ith strange or enormous credulity. 3. "The majority of liberal christians," you say, "carry with them an impression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in whicli it is ascribed to no other being." Great stress is laid by the s the Bisliop of Umliaiu,* whom you very justly style the "prolbuiul Butler," "Christianity is not only ah external institution of natural religion, and a new promulgation of God's geneial providence, as rigliteous gov- ernor and judge of the world; but it contains also a revelation of a particular dispensation of providence, carrying on by his Son and Spirit^ for the recovery and salvation of man- kind, who are represented in Scripture to be in a state ofRvis. And in consequence of this revelation being made, we are commanded to be baptized, not only in the name of the Father, but also of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and other obliga- tions of duty, unknown before, to the Son and the Holy Ghost, are revealed. — The essence of natural irligion may be said to consist in I'eligious regards to God the Father Almighty; and the essence of revealed religion, as distinguished from nat- ural, to consist in religious regards to the Son and the Holy Glwst. Jlnd the obligation we are under, of paying these relig- ious regards to each of these Divine Fersons respectively, arises from the respective relations which they each stand in to us. How these relations are made known, whether by reason oi- revelation, makes no alteration in the case; bemuse the duties arise out of the relations themselves, not out of the manner in which we are informed of them. The Son and Spirit have each his proper office, in that great dispensation of Pro^ idence, the redemption of the world; the one our Mediator, the other our Sanctifier. Does not then the duty of religious regards to both these Divine Persons as immediately arise, to the view of reason, otitofthe vei'y nature of these offices and relations, as the inward good will and kind intention, which we owe to our fellow creatures arises out of the common relation between us and them. If therefore Christ be indeed tile Mediator between God and man, i. e. if Christianity be true; if he be indeed our Lord, our Saviour, and our God, — no one can say what may follow, not only the obstinate, but the careless disregard to him in those high rclations.\ • Analogy, Part II. Chapter I. Sec. 2. t ''It is the ever blessed Trinitj' we iavoke," says Dr. Sherlock, "when t\s pray, Oitt' Father, w/)/cA art in /teavcn. Tov as they are inseparably One Goi, 27 This, Sir, I deem a very sufficient answer to what you Lave so boldly and unwarrantably objected to the worship of the Son and the Holy Spiiit, both in the body of your Remarks, page 20, and in your Note, page 44, where you take it upon you to speak to us, as you are not a little accustomed to do, iii the style and the tone of "a master of Israel" as fiillows: '"We find not one passage in the scriptures commanding us to worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; not one prece- dent which authorizes such worship, and while we feel our- selves bound to exercise christian candour towards those who have adopted this form of w orship," (i. e. the great body of oi-thodox christians in all ages!) "we are not without solemn apprehension, that, in this respect, they are guilty of irrcA^- erence towards the word of God, and of preferring to it the commandments and inventions of men." — We ought doubtless to listen attentively to the voice of serious admonition, from whatever quarter it may come; but I can assure you, Sir, I am by no means convinced that the many thousands of holy men in the orthodox church of Christ, who, from the days of the apostles to the present, have w orshipped the Father, so they are the inseparable Object of our worship; since this great mystery of a Trinity in Unity is so plainly revealed to us, we cannot worship this one Supreme (Jod, but we must direct our worship to all tlie three Divine Persons in the unity of the same Godhead; for we do not worship this one Supreme God, un- less we worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and therefore whether we invoke each Person distinctly, or pray only to God, by the name of the most High God, or by the name of Father, or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it is all one; for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the One Supreme God, and the entire Object of our worship: and whoever worships one God, but not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does not worship the true God, not the God of the Christians. Before this was so plainly revealed, it was sufficient to worship One Supreme God, with- out any conception of the distinct Persons in the Godhead; but when it is plainly revealed to us, that this One Supreme God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whoever does not worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does not worship the true God; for the true God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and there is no God besides him; which I would desire our Unitarians (as they falsely call themselves) and our Dcisis carefully to consider. Tf any thing be fundamental in religion, ii is the worship of the One true God, and if Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be this One true God, those who worship a God, who is not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do not worship the true God, and that I think is the true notion of idola- try. So that these men are so far from being christians, that I cannot see how (hey are worshippers of the true God: which should at least make them con- cerned to examine this matter with more care and less prejudice than they have yet done." — Vindieattou of ihe Doctrine of the Trinity. Sec. VI. 28 Son, and Holy Spirit, have been "valiant for the truth upon the earth," and <'siione as lights in the world*' have had loss reA'erence for the word of God, than those, who, from age to age, have either "gone ont from them because thej- were not of them," ov else have laboured more "privily," to intro- duce new doctrines, subversive of their lioly faith and wor- ship. You say, p. 18, "We do indeed object to the Trinity that as it is often stated, it is an unintelligible proposition; and we say, that it is out of our power to believe a projwsition of which we do not kmxv the meaning.'" In p. 23, you rep- resent the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ, as mere "phrases which cannot be defined, Mhich convey to common minds no more meaning than words of an unknowii tongue, and present to the learned only flitting shadows of thought, instead of cleai* and steady conceptions." And ex- pressions to the same effect are scattered imsparingly in all your pamphlets, and in most Unitarian writings. I'iie de- sign is obvious. But, Sir, do you believe no proposition of which you do not know the meaning? Take the proposition whicli you and other Unitarians would make the single essential article of the christian creed: Jesns is the Chnst, the Son of the living God. Do you understand the meaning of this proposition? It is plain from what has before been exhibited, that you do not. You do not know who or what Chnst is: whether a created, or an uncreated being; whethei- a ci'eature m hose ex- istence had a beginning, or a demigod, or a "somewAo/," who existed from eternity. As little do you know the meaning of the appellation, the Son of God. You "carry with you in- deed an impression, that Jesus is the Son of God in a ])ecul- iarly high sense," but in what sense you do not understand. According to your own statement then, you do not believe the proposition, that "Jesus is tlie Christ, the Son of the liv- ing God!" Do not believe what you hold to be the single es- sential article of the christian faith! — Take another very simple proposition, w hich, though you v\ill not iillow it to be essential, holds nevertheless a distinguished place in the 29 christian scriptures: Christ died for our sins. Of this propo- sition you understand neither the subject nor the predicate. Concerning Christy the suhject, as already shewn, you ai'e in infinite doubt; nor do you any better undeistand the glean- ing of the predicate, died for our sins. That some sort of being called Christ, in some sense died foi* our sins, you seem to suppose; but what sort of being he is, or in what sense he died for our sins, you do not know. This pi'oposi- tion, then, according to your declaration, you do not believe. Both these scriptural propositions, Jesus is the Christy and Christ died for our sins, are "phrases which'* to your mind "convey no more meaning than woi'ds of an unknown tongue,, and present only flitting shadows of thought instead of clear and steady conceptions." It is so also, it should seem, in re- gard to many, if not most other, important scriptural propo- sitions. I shall not however concede, that the case is the same with ns in regard to the Trinity. I do believe that we under- stand the meaning of the proposition, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are tiivee Divine Persons in one God. To remove a stumbling-block out of the way of Unitaiians, we have in- deed said, that we use tiie term, person, because we have no better word; and that we are not tenacious of the name, pro- vided we have the thing. But this accommodating conces- sion you attempt to ridicule. The term, person, ijideed, when applied to created beings, denotes an intelligent agent, who has a separate existence. In this particular respect, \\ e do not consider the term as applicable to the Father, Son, oi* Holy Spii'it. For myself, however, I have not the least diflBculty in applying the term to each of the Divine Three. I do believe tiiat though they have not each a separate existence, but are all essentially usiited in one God; yet they are really and truly intelligent agents, each possess- ing all divine attributes, and performing in union with the other two, all divine works. And so far as I can perceive, J have as clear an understanding of tJie meaning of persoji, when applied to the three Djvine agents united in one God^ as when applied to angels or men, who liaA^e each a separate existence. I do net see, nor do I believe that you or any other man can shew, why three Divine Persons may not so exist as to be one God, as well as three human persons so as to be tijree men; nor why the one God may not exist in three PersoiLS as well as in one. By no means do I admit, that we do not know the mean- ing of the proposition, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons in one God. It is a proposition af- firming a plain matter of fact; and the matter of fact we un- derstand and believe. The scriptuics reveal to us tiie adora- ble Three, distinctly, and by name; to each of the Three they ascnbe divi)ie names, attributes, works, and honours; and yet they assure us that Jeliovah our God [Alcim, Gods] is one Jehovah. From the scriptures then we leani, and under- stand, that there is a Father, a Son, and a Uoly Spirit: that the Father possesses divine attributes, and is tlierefore God; that the Son possesses divine attributes, and is therefore God; that the Holy Spirit also possesses divine attributes, and is therefore God; and that tlie divine Three so exist to- gether as to he one God. Now what is there in all this which, as matter of fact, we do not understand? — If you say we cannot understand now tlu'ee divine Persons can so exist as to be one God, that is quite another thing; a thing not contained in the proposition; and therefore not necessary to he understood, in order to the doctrine being understood, and believed. The proposition does not pretend to declare the nature or manner of the union; but merely affirms the fact. And this we understand, as well as you understand the sim- ple proposition, tJiere is a God, Hoiv there can be a Godj. or how he exists, you do not understand. You may have mucJi to say about self-existence, necessary being, infinity, and eternity, but you comprehend none of these things. — So of other facts. — God is omnijiresent; but how he is in every place, you do not understand. God is omniscient; but how he knows all things, you do not understand. God made tite worlds out of nothing; but how he made them you do not un- derstand. Your soul and body are united in one man; but how they are united you do not kiiow. You think; but liow yon camiot tcli. You walk; but how yina* will moves your body, you caniiot rxplain. The sun warms the earth; bqt hoxv? Vegetables grow out of the ground; how? Animals are nourished by food; how? — There is no end to this sort of statement an(i inquiry; for you do not know how any thing exists, or moves, or acts. You understand and you believe the plain matters of fact; but how things can be so, is utterly be- yond yom- power to comprehend. I do not deny, but have freely admitted that there is mys- tery in the Trinity. The mystery, however, does not lie in the matter of fact, as stated in the proposition, that three Di- ^ine Persons are one God, or that the one God exists in three Divine Persons; for this is revealed with sufficient clearness. The mystery lies in something beyond; something not con- tained in tlie proposition; something not i-evealed, but about V, liich there may be endless speculation without any satisfac- toi-y results. It is so with respect to e^ ery thing else. The being of God, in the simplest statement of the truth, involves mystery upon mystery in unlimited accumulation. Yet a plain unsophisticated man finds no difficulty in understanding, or in believing the proposition, there is a God. No more does he find any difficulty, in understanding, or in believing the proposition, that God exists in three persons. You may very well, therefore, spare yourself the concern which you would seem to feel for common chi'istians. The plain humble christian, who reads his Bible much more, and to much better purpose, than the wise men of the world by whom he is despised, finds that in that sacred book all divine attributes, works, and honours are ascribed to the i'^ather, who gave the Son to die for him; that the same divine attributes, works, and honours are ascribed to the Son, his adored Re- deemer and Saviour; and the same to the Holy Spiiit, his gracious Sanctifier and Comforter. He therefore under- stands that tlie Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons in one God: and accordingly he believes, loves, and adores; undisturbed by the metaphysical and dia- lectical speculations, and the critical and sophistical subtili- ties of men, who, not content with the truth as divinely re- vealed, bewilder themselves, and labour to involve others, in endless perplexities and mazes: — Just as plain men under- stand, believe, and act upon, other traths and facts, clearly presented to their minds; while speculatists and philosophers, unable to account how tilings can be so, employ themselves in raising endless difficulties and objections; until one denies the existence of matter, another, the existence of created spir- its, a third, the existence of a God, and thus between them all contrive to annihilate the universe. It is as true now as ever it was, and as much a reason of holy tiiankfulness, that the ♦