defence of our friends whom we have long known and justly value!! Yes! I am ready to acknowledge that any doctrine which would compel me to believe that Dr. Morse was a saint and Mr. Chaming a sinner, that the first was acceptable to God, while the other was the object of his wrath, that the former was the friend of Jesus and the latter his foe, I should for that reason ALONE reject. I should do if on just grounds. For I should say, "my reason may be fallible, arguments may deceive me, but experience cannot. I know Mr. Channing to be practically the admirer and follower of Jesus. I am not so well convinced as to his accusers." I know it is a short way of reasoning, but for a layman it is safer than to enter into all the subtleties of the schools. I say therefore, Dr. Morse may be a better Calvinist. He might perhaps contend more zealously, and be more ready to burn Mr. Thacher as his master did Servefus, but I doubt whether he is a better christian; that is, I doubt whether he has a greater love for Christ, or is more disposed to obey his precepts.

I will own, that I have derived actual and great light from this Review and Dr. Worcester's letter, as to the respective merits of the Calvinistick and Christian parties.

I find the former intolerant, disposed to slander and backbite their brethren. I find, under colour of great zeal for the cause of religion, they indulge the most malignant passions, passions which our Saviour most explicitly condemned.

I find the whole temper and tone of the Review calcu lated to shew their triumph over their opponents, whom they thought they had got in their toils.

If all the orthodox have these feelings, if they support and countenance this work and indulge such a spirit, we shall for the future understand what orthodoxy means. We shall understand it to be a seet, violent in its passions,

intolerant in its principles, and utterly regardless of the means by which its purposes are effected. I look upon it, that the good and candid of that party are bound to come out openly, and separate themselves, lest they be confounded with these men who have undertaken officiously to represent them.

One thing is certain, that if the principles and spirit of the Panoplist are to prevail with all whom it professes to represent, a new and more dreadful schism must take place in the church than has disgraced it for many ages, and the cause of religion must suffer, for we never shall abandon, through fear of insult and reproach, men the most venerable for their piety and virtues.

I shall now proceed to make a few remarks upon the Review in the Panoplist, and the letter of the Rev. Samuel Worcester, D. D. I shall consider the last work in the first instance, partly because the author has evidently the best faculty of varnishing over a bad cause, partly because he affects, and I am sorry to say (as it appears to me) only affects, a superiour degree of moderation; but chiefly because, in considering his defence of the Panoplist, we shall naturally be led to examine the merits of that work. We shall be mistaken if the honest part of society do not say of Dr. Worcester,

•

Nec defensoribus istis-tempus eget.

The professed object of Dr. Worcester is, to defend the editors of the Panoplist from the charge of misrepresentation, preferred and urged against them by Mr. Channing.

In common life, that is among laymen, we are very much disposed to abhor cunning and prevarication. We think that a good cause does not require it, and that a bad one is not aided by it. When we see a man adhering to the letter and violating the spirit of any rule, we usually call him a

Jesuit. We say that such a man may be a good special pleader, an adroit pettifogger, but he is not a fair and honourable combatant. In a clergyman such a spirit is considered as peculiarly unworthy. To be sure one religious order, which the general indignation of mankind suppressed in the last century, was accused of this disposition to subterfuge. We should be very much grieved to see the spirit of St. Omer's revived in our country, and especially among those who style themselves pre-eminently the saints.

That Dr. Worcester has attempted to obtain an unworthy triumph over Mr. Channing, on the ground of mere verbal criticism, that he has either misunderstood or misrepresented the general spirit of the Panoplist review, we think will be obvious to all who shall attend to our remarks.

The Panoplist does mean to convey the idea, that that portion of the clergy and of liberal christians in our country, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are chargeable with all the opinions which Mr. Belsham and the English Unitarians hold. This was the great scope of the work. The whole effort of the Reviewers was directed to fix upon every man in this country, who differed from the Calvinists as to the Unity of the Godhead, all the other peculiar notions and sentiments which Mr. Belsham maintains.

Dr. Worcester resists this charge, by calling upon Mr. Channing to shew any distinct phrase or paragraph, which in itself bears this meaning, and he considers himself as triumphant, because no one sentence taken by itself will bear this construction.

It is well known that the christian world have been from the third century divided on the question of the Trinity. At one time the Arians had the majority throughout all the christian community, and if it had not been for the powerful arguments of fire and fagot, theirs would probably have continued to be the prevailing doctrine of christians. The

Arians denied the doctrine of the Trinity, yet they no more resembled the Socinians in many of their opinions, than the Calvinists do the Hopkinsians, or the Papists either of them. These facts were well known to the editors of the Panoplist and to Dr. Worcester, but they knew also that they were unknown to the greater part of laymen. Hence they have both of them, Dr. Worcester full as much as the others, attempted to fix upon all that portion of the clergy, who are not satisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity, all the opinions maintained by Socimus or, Mr. Belsham, though they knew the greater part were Arians. I say distinctly, they must have known that these facts were unknown to the great mass of readers, and I am afraid that they were not unwilling that they should be led into errour.

The Arians have the most elevated ideas of Jesus Christ. They consider him as a being pre-existent to his appearance on earth; that he came down from heaven. Many of them believe that he had an agency in the formation of this world. In this manner they reconcile some texts of scripture which seem to give to the Messiah this exalted character.

The Socinians on the other hand consider him as an inspired prophet, but purely human in his origin.

There is a third class, whom Dr. Worcester ought to have known, because his liberal and pious brother is at the head of them; (a man, who for his ingenuousness and gene rous sacrifice of himself in the cause of what he believed the truth, is worthy of all praise,) who hold a third opinion ; and that is, that our Saviour, though not a part of the Godhead, is veritably the Son of God.

•

It is not within our scope to discuss the merits of either of these opinions, but we do say, that, knowing these distinctions to exist, it was very little short of eulpable unfairness, both in the editors of the Review and Dr. Worcester, to affect to confound them.

It is then my design to shew,

Firstly. That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are in fact imputed so generally, and with such purposed vagueness, to those the orthodox call the liberal party, as to lead all honest lay men, unacquainted with these distinctions (that is, ninety-nine in an hundred) to believe, that all Unitarians agree in all points with Mr. Belsham.

Secondly. That the Review does charge the ministers, who doubt the doctrine of the Trinity, generally, with base and hypocritical concealment of their opinions.

Thirdly. I shall shew, that Dr. Worcester himself is under a great mistake, or has been guilty of a still greater degree of misrepresentation, in regard to the preaching and course of conduct of what he calls the liberal clergy.

I would observe here, before I cite my proofs, that it is as unfair in these gentlemen, to attempt to fix on all Unitarians every opinion which any one of them professes, as it would be to fix on all Trinitarians the doctrines professed by any of them.

Yet Dr. Worcester, by a course of reasoning, if it can be dignified with that name, affects to do this.

He chooses to consider all the Unitarians as one party. He must have known it to be otherwise. This was not in of our view decorous in a man of his profession.

66

In page 10 he says, "if among the liberal party such "things are done, if some do mutilate the New Testament, "&c. if of the rest some more and others less directly con"sent to these things, if as a party or as individuals of the party they bear no decided testimony against these deeds, "and do nothing to purge themselves from the guilt of "them, then is it not true to say of the party generally "that they do these things? and will they not generally "with all who adhere to them be held to answer for them "at the bar of the righteous Judge ?"