With respect to Dr. Barnard, I have satisfactory proof that he believed God to be one person, and was accordingly a Unitarian. From his language respecting the "essential divinity of Jesus Christ," I infer that he accorded in some degree with Dr. Watts or Sabellius. He did not believe the Son to be a divine person, distinct from the Father, and possessing equal divinity. His views on these subjects, like those of many good men, were not very precise. Had he been obliged to select a system, it would have been Dr. Samuel Clarke's. The same remarks may be applied to President Willard.

Dr. Worcester speaks of my "denunciation" of the Panoplist. I did not refer, as the connexion will shew, to the general discussions and statements of that work, of which I know very little; but to its representations of the views and character of liberal christians. On this point I have the same conviction as before, that the Panoplist is entitled to no credit.

Dr. Worcester has quoted for my benefit the following text of scripture, "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them." Dr. Worcester says, that this language may "sound harsh and unfashionable," and he "trusts" that I "will have the goodness not to impute to him the fault." Sarcastick compliments seem to me not to belong to so serious a subject. Trifling here is quite out of place. I ask Dr. Worcester's attention to this passage as rendered according to Dr. Campbell. "There shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in destructive sects, or divisions, denying or renouncing the Lord who bought them." Believing as I do, that the gospel is characterized by a benevolent and pacifick spirit, and that the Lord has bought us for this very end, that we should serve him in love, I cannot conceive of a surer mark of a false teacher of the gospel, than the introduction of destructive divisions into the church, and I am persuaded that one method of denying or renouncing the Lord is, to divide his followers, and to oppose the spirit of charity and peace. I shall not insult Dr. Worcester by asking him to "have the goodness not to impute to me the fault of this unpleasant and unfashionable"

comment, but I recommend it to his serious attention. I mean not, however, to intimate that any teachers of the present day are to be placed on a level with the false teachers condemned in this passage. These, as appears from the whole chapter,* were monsters of iniquity, covetous, lewd, adulterers, seditious, slanderous, given up to the basest lusts. They excited divisions for mercenary purposes, and built up a sect by encouraging lasciviousness and the grossest sensuality. Thank God, this race has passed away, and I could not without great guilt confound with them any class of ministers with whom I am acquainted. I believe that the fomenters of division among us are generally actuated by an injudicious zeal, by passions which they mistake for piety, and by prejudices which are reconcilable with a regard to God and duty, not by the motives which governed the profligate wretches referred to in the text.

M

It is one of my great offences with Dr. Worcester that I "put in my earnest plea" for the christian character of those, who be lieve in the "simple humanity of Jesus Christ." It is some consolation to me, that I have the excellent Dr. Doddridge as a partner in this guilt. The name of Dr. Lardner is I presume familiar to most of my readers. No man in modern times has rendered greater service to the cause of christianity. Dr. Lardner was a decided believer in the simple humanity of Jesus. Having published a volume of Practical Sermons, he sent them to Dr. Doddridge, who acknowledged the favour in a letter, from which the following extracts are made. "I esteem the valua"ble present you were so good as to send me, as a memorial of "the learned, pious and generous author." "Be assured that "though I am not able to express it as I would, I do actually "feel a deep and constant sense of your goodness to me, and, " which is much more, of your continual readiness to serve the "publick with those distinguished abilities which God has been

pleased to give you, and which have rendered your writings "so great a blessing to the christian world. And I heartily pray that they may be yet more abundantly so, for promoting

66

* 2 Pet. ii.

"the cause of piety and virtue, of christian principles, and a "christian temper. In the interpretation of particular texts " and the manner of stating particular doctrines, good men and "good friends may have different apprehensions; but you always propose your sentiments with such good humour, modesty, candour and frankness, as is very amiable and exem"plary; and the grand desire of spreading righteousness, bene"volence, prudence, the fear of God, and a heavenly temper "and conversation, so plainly appears, particularly in this "volume of sermons, that were I a much stricter Calvinist than "I am, I should love and honour the author, though I did not "personally know him." Such was the language of Doddridge, a "disciple whom Jesus loved," to the excellent Lardner. Blessed be God, who in every age raises up witnesses to the true spirit of christianity, and who opposes such examples as that of Doddridge to the narrow, exclusive and uncharitable spirit of the world.

I will conclude this note with earnestly desiring christians to obtain, if possible, some accurate ideas of the most important point in the present controversy. Let them learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use these words without meaning, and are very zealous about sounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives to those that ask, the Holy Spirit. We are all Trinitarians, if this belief is Trinitarianism. But it is not. The Trinitarians believe that the One God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each of these persons is equal to the other two in every perfection, that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction; let it be kept steadily in view.-Some christians have still more vague ideas on this subject. They suppose that Trinitarians think highly of Jesus Christ; whilst Unitarians form low ideas of him, hardly

ranking him above common men, and therefore they choose to be Trinitarians. This is a great errour. Some Unitarians believe that the Father is so intimately united with Jesus Christ, that it is proper, on account of this union, to ascribe divine honour and titles to Jesus Christ. Some Unitarians deny that Jesus is a creature, and affirm that he is properly the Son of God, possessing a divine nature derived from the Father. Some Unitarians, who assert that Jesus is a creature, maintain that he is literally the first-born of the creation, the first production of God, the instrumental cause by whom God created all other beings, and the most exalted being in the universe, with the single exception of the infinite Father. I am persuaded, that under these classes of high Unitarians many christians ought to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and Trinitarians. In fact, as the word Trinity is sometimes used, we all believe it. It is time that this word was better defined. Christians ought not to be separated by a sound. A doctrine which we are called to believe, as we value our souls and our standing in the church, ought to be stated with a precision which cannot be misunderstood. By the Trinity, I have all along understood the doctrine, that God is three persons. If it do not mean this, it means nothing, and those christians who take shelter under this word, without adopting this sentiment, are acting, I fear, a dishonest and ungenerous part. They distinguish themselves by a name from christians with whom they substantially agree, and whom they are bound to honour and love as brethren. To those persons, who wish to understand better the nature of the Trinitarian controversy, I would recommend Dr. Price's five "Sermons on the Christian Doctrine," and Rev. Noah Worcester's three Tracts called the Trinitarian Review. This subject has of late been ably discussed in a "Reply to Wardlaw's Discourses," by Rev. James Yates of Glasgow, Scotland." Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."