God forbid that Dr. Worcester, if such are his sentiments, should ever be promoted to the office of a temporal or spiritual judge. A million of men entertain one opinion in common. Nine hundred and ninety thousand of them hold an opinion perfectly innocent, but ten thousand of them also maintain the most censurable doctrines. The point in which they are agreed is either true or harmless. I would impute, says the humane Dr. Worcester, to the nine hundred and ninety thousand, the detestable doctrines of the ten thousand, which they reprobate equally with the rest of the world.

This is imputation with a vengeance !

Let us, however, test the fairness of this reasoning and the justice of this accusation by an application to them.

So far as it respects this particular point in the nature of God, the christian world are divided into two sects only, Trinitarians and Unitarians.

The former term embraces Catholicks, Lutherans, Calvinists, and these again are subdivided into fifty sects.

The latter are divided into Arians, Socinians, and many who differ from both.

Now is it not as reasonable to say to a Calvinistick Trinitarian, "Your Trinitarian party (meaning the Catholicks) maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation, of absolution, of auricular confession. You are therefore accoun

table for these opinions."

How unfair would Dr. Worcester deem it, if we should impute to every Trinitarian every absurd opinion maintained by those who agree with him in that doctrine.

Yet on this very flimsy ground, and on this alone, does he impute to Mr. Channing and the other clergy, who hold the simple doctrine of the Unity of the supreme Being, opinions, which he considers the most heinous crimes, which in his judgment will condemn them to eternal punishment, and which merit the severest human censure.

I would remark in this place, that although I would here establish the illiberality and misrepresentation of the editors of the Panoplist, it is not because I consider it a reproach to any man, honestly to entertain the opinions of Mr. Belsham. In most of the opinions cited by the Panoplist I agree with that Unitarian divine. In some I differ from him; and however it may please the apostolick Dr. Worcester to denounce such opinions as guilt, I shall ask for his commission from my Maker and my Saviour before I shall allow the validity of his decree.

Yes. Though a layman, I understand and value my religious rights, and in my conscience I have believed ever since I have had understanding to discern the truth, that the greater part of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism are derogatory to God, in direct contradiction to the doctrines taught by our Master; and though I can never call errour guilt, I shall always esteem the Calvinistick errours the most unfortunate and dishonourable to the christian system, of any which the metaphysical subtlety of men has contrived, or which their pride and party spirit have induced them to maintain. But although I consider it no reproach, yet both Dr. Worcester and I well know, that on many of the points in question, a great portion of the Unitarians of this country differ as much from Mr. Belsham as they do from Dr. Worcester, and in this view the charge was not only unfounded but extremely unfair.

I can easily fancy, that I see these metaphysical dictators of our consciences sneering at a layman, who has the hardihood to give his opinion about doctrines which they will say he does not understand. How can you, Sir, they will say, pretend to decide on some of the most abstruse points in theology, which it costs us the whole labour of our lives to endeavour to comprehend, and even that endeavour is with many of us unsuccessful? Such will be the private,

if it be not the publick language of these inspired teachers. Yet they hold very consistently at the same time, that though we laymen cannot understand the merits of these questions without much study, though it cost the metaphysical and able Dr. Edwards the labour of a life to display them, yet that every illiterate man is bound to believe them on pain of eternal damnation.*

Never was a doctrine so well calculated to keep the minds of men in fetters to ecclesiastical authority. You must believe because it is incredible; the more incomprehensible, the more certain its divine origin and its truth. "But I do not understand even the terms of the proposition." So much the better; it is a proof the mystery is deeper and more holy, and so much the greater your obligation to believe.

Hence it is, we suppose, that some of these Calvinistick gentlemen hold human research in such contempt, and abandon the pain and labour of study to their industrious opposers, to the seekers after truth, the humble inquirers after the religion which Jesus taught. Hence it is, we suppose, that we sometimes see them so devoted to worldly interests, to the publication of profane books (I use profane in contradistinction to sacred) as to render it impracticable for them to devote any reasonable portion of time to theological research. To such men, to all who are greedy of

Q. Where are true churchmen to be found?

A. Only in the true church.

Q. How do you call the true church?

A. The holy catholick church.

Q. Is there any other true church?

A. No. As there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, there is but one church.

Q. Are all obliged to be of the true church?

A. Yes, no one can be saved out of it.

The above questions and answers are extracted, not from Dr. Worcester, but from the eighth edition of the general catechism, printed at Dublin, 1811, and revised, enlarged, approved and recommended, not by the editors of the Panoplist,-but by the four Roman Catholick archbishops of the kingdom of Ireland.

sovereign power over the minds of their people, these Calvinistick doctrines are very convenient. They teach their flocks, that human reason is to be discarded in judging of sacred things, that it was given us only for our every day affairs, but that in things which pertain to our immortal souls, and which affect our eternal happiness, it is an instrument to be dreaded, a faculty to be despised.*

Hence they lay down the Westminster Assembly's confession of faith as the gospel, and by the aid of a few texts, they are enabled to compose what they are pleased to style an evangelical discourse; though its resemblance to the New Testament is perhaps its slightest recommendation.

If a sober, pious, inquiring parishioner should ask them to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature and character and offices of each member of this singular Union, and what was its state when our Saviour was in the tomb and before his resurrection; if they should ask, what Christ could mean by praying to his Father, that the bitter cup of suffering might pass from him, whether he prayed when he knew it was in vain, and whether he prayed to himself who was equally God with the Father; to all these questions the only reply would be, it is a mystery. We know no more about it than you. But if you do not believe it you will be damned, and the editors of the Panoplist and Dr. Worcester will sit in judgment upon you.

The poor man, if his mind is feeble and his spirit very obedient, trembles and obeys; we cannot say believes, for belief cannot be affirmed of any thing which is not clearly and fully understood.

Far different and more arduous is the task of those pastors and teachers, who hold their hearers to be reasonable creatures, and that the noblest faculty which God has given

* "When once the doctrine is adopted, that reason is not to be exercised in matters of religion, it becomes almost a point of duty to be as unreasonable as possible."--Christian Observer, May, 1815, p. 276.

to man, is to be employed about the noblest and most sublime subject.

These teachers consider it to be their duty, to give to every man the "reason of the faith" that is in them.

They esteem it a sacred obligation to search the scriptures, to compare all human systems with them, and to adopt these only so far, as after fair and honest and pious research they shall find them supported by the Bible.

Hence these teachers have a much more laborious task, than those who blindly follow Calvin, or any maker of creeds. They would consider it a profanation of the desk to preach doctrines which they themselves could not understand. Their sermons, instead of resembling the treatises of metaphysical divines, are modelled upon that of our Saviour on the mount. They think his example of sufficient authority.

In the beautiful language of Mr. Channing, "we esteem "it a solemn duty to disarm instead of exciting the bad "passions of our people. We wish to promote among them "a spirit of universal charity. We wish to make thèm con"demn their own bad practices rather than the erroneous "speculations of their neighbour. We love them too sin"cerely to imbue them with the spirit of controversy." This is as true as it is christian-like and sublime. We all know that this is their mode of preaching, and these their motives.

I mean now to shew,

1st.

That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are in fact in the Panoplist imputed so generally, and with such purposed vagueness to those whom the orthodox call the liberal party, as to lead all honest laymen, ignorant of the distinction between the various sects, to believe, that all Unitarians agree in all points with Mr. Belsham.

In the first place, I adopt their own course of reasoning, as against themselves. Both the Panoplist and Dr. Wor