in a "metaphysical" point, or a mere "sound?"If the scriptures entire were given by inspiration of God, and ought to be received with all reverence and humility, as having his seal to all the doctrines which they teach, as well as to all the precepts which they inculcate; is it a light thing to deny them this supreme authority, and to subject them to the test of feeble, erring reason, and to the ordeal of arrogant, philosophical criticism?* If the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the word of God; if it rests on the sure foundation of divine testimony; is it a light thing to reject this doctrine, because it transcends the limited faculties of the human mind; and to pronounce it irrational and absurd, because we cannot comprehend it? Though we cannot by searching find out God unto perfection; yet may we not assuredly believe that He knows himself, and the mode of his own existence? and may we not safely rely on what he reveals respecting himself, though there be something relating to it, and beyond it, which we cannot understand? If Jesus Christ is truly and essentially divine, and all men are required to "honour the Son, even as they honour the Father;" is it a light thing to deny his divinity, to refuse to him all divine honours, and to regard and treat him only as a mere creature? If, though he thought it no robbery to be equal with God, yet for the salvation of lapsed and lost mankind, he came down from heaven, took upon him the form of a servant, was made in the likeness of men, and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross, as an offering and sacrifice, for the sins of the world; is it a light thing to deny this doctrine of atonement, to refuse to acknowledge that stupendous display of divine wisdom, condescension and love which it reveals, which the inspired writers celebrate in the most exalted strains of gratitude and praise, and to which all the multitude of saints before the throne of God and the Lamb, ascribe their redemption from eternal perdition to immortal life and glory! If Jesus Christ crucified

* Let me not be understood to speak in any disparagement of fair and legiti mate biblical criticism. I honour the labours of Kennicott, De Rossi, Michaelis, Griesbach, Lowth, and many others who have distinguished themselves in this useful field. It is such criticism only, as has for its object to mutilate, and explain away the scriptures, and to shape their doctrines in accommodation to human feelings and views, that I mean to reprobate.

is the only foundation of good hope to men; if there is no other name by which men must or can be saved; if forgiveness of sin and justification unto life can be obtained, only through the merits of his sacrifice, and by faith in his blood; is it a light thing to reject this doctrine, to refuse this way of pardon and of life, and to trust for acceptance with God and everlasting happiness, on any other ground?

Suppose a church founded on these doctrines, in the act of celebrating the death of the Lord Jesus at his table. 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, their acceptance with God, and all their immortal hopes entirely to his propitiatory sacrifice; and in devoutly acknowledging the Holy Spirit as their Sanctifier and Comforter, and praising Him as the efficient Producer in them of all holy affections and consolations. Can a Unitarian, 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 perversion of the sacred institution?—In regard to the whole, the doctrines and the worship founded upon them, is he not an unbeliever?

Let us change the scene. Suppose a church of Unitarians, (say, if you please, low Unitarians) at the table of the holy supper. They refuse 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 suffered and® died in the best of causes," but in the occasion and manner of whose death there was nothing very different from that of others who suffered and died after him in the same cause;" and they professedly rely for eternal life, not on the Saviour's merits, but on their own "good moral lives," and declare, that all hopes founded on any thing else are merely imaginary." What has an orthodox christian 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!"

We assume, we claim no dictation, no control over other men's consciences. We invade not, we wish not to invade

or to abridge the natural, civil, or religious rights of any man or class of men. We rejoice in the civil, and still more in the religious freedom of our country. We acknowledge the right of every one to think for himself, and to form his own opinions of truth; a right, however, for the unperverted exercise of which every one is solemnly accountable to God.

While we allow this right to others, and claim it for our selves, we hold it to be perfectly consistent, and our bounden duty, openly and faithfully to declare and inculcate what we believe to be divine truth; firmly and earnestly, yet candidly and benevolently, to contend for what we receive as the faith once delivered to the saints: and to employ all scriptural means to counteract and explode such opinions as we deem erroneous,-such, especially, as we believe to be utterly subversive of the gospel; and to convince and warn all people, of their delusive nature and their destructive tendency. And we think it neither charitable nor reasonable, we hold it, indeed, entirely incompatible with our liberty of conscience, and our right of private judgment, that we should be required to think favourably of such opinions, to refrain from bearing our testimony against them, or to regard them as no obstruction to christian fellowship.

We are not so happy as to have the belief, which you so confidently express, that, "the great principles, for which the apostles contended, are now received with little dispute in christian communities." We sincerely believe" on the contrary, that those doctrines were the very same, for which we are now contending. We believe that the Gospel of John and his first and second Epistles, all which were written after controversies arose among professed christians, concerne ing the person and character of Jesus Christ, had particular respect to those controversies; and were particularly designed to establish the faith of the churches, in both his true Divinity and humanity. We believe that the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians, had for their primary and principle object, the vindication and establishment of the cardinal doctrine of justification, "freely by grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood;" in opposi-.

sion to such professed christians as denied this doctrine, and "went about to establish their own righteousness;" and that the divine dignity, the high priesthood and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, and salvation only through his one offering for sin, and by faith in him, constitute the subject of his entire Epistle to the Hebrews. We believe, in a word, that these are the very doctrines of the cross, WHICH WERE “TO THE JEWS A STUMBLING BLOCK, AND TO THE GREEKS

FOOLISHNESS;" and we deeply deplore the affecting fact, of which we see most abundant evidence, that there is, in our own age, and in our own country, the same spirit of hostility to these doctrines, which was so awfully and fatally displayed in the days of the apostles. With deep impressions, and the most painful emotions, we remember the solemn word, "Unto them which be disobedient, the STONE which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient.”

The event of the present controversy, I would submissively leave with Him, whose truth, and whose glory are deeply concerned in it. Most sincerely do I lament the uncommon animosities which have been excited, and the uncommon manner in which they have been displayed. True, it has always been the fact, that when errour has been exposed, the passions which have clung to it have been disturbed; but it most solemnly concerns us all, on the one side and on the other, to look well to our tempers, to our words, and to our actions,―remembering that we are erelong to stand together before the judgment seat of CHRIST. Notwithstanding, however, the present excitement, and the heavy guilt incurred by many, it is devoutly to be hoped that shortly the passions of the day will subside, and give place to serious reflection and candid inquiry; that people will consider the questions in debate, as being of a nature too momentous, to be hastily decided by private attachments or antipathies, by party spirit or prejudice-by any thing indeed other than reason and conscience and scripture; and will attend to these questions, with all the earnestness which their everlasting importance

demands, with humble dependence on the Spirit of grace, and with sincere and unfailing desires to know and obey the truth.

With fervent prayers for a consummation so happy, and for your joy as well as my own in the event, I am,

Rev. 'and dear Sir,

Yours, with sincere affection and respect,

Salem, August 26, 1815.

POSTSCRIPT.

S. WORCESTER.

DR. Watts, in the preface to his Glory of Christ, one of his latest publications, says, "Though we learn from Scripture that TRUE AND PROPER DEITY is ascribed to the FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, and they are represented often in scripture as distinct personal agents; yet after all our inquiries and prayers, we may be still much at a loss to describe exactly, wherein this distinct personality consists, and what is the distinct communion of each of them in the divine nature.”—“I can assure them [his readers] that there is not one sentence in all these discourses, but what is very consistent with a firm belief of the divinity of Christ, and a just and sincere concern for the most eminent and glorious truths of the gospel, as they are professed by Protestants among us against the Socinian and Arian errours."-In these views, so far as appears, Dr. Watts remained to the last.

Respecting Dr. Barnard, I have only to reaffirm what I said before.

A pamphlet by a Layman has come to hand, just in season to receive as much attention as it seems to require. The pamphlet bears this title, "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Or, Do you prefer the authority of Christ to that of the Genevan Reformer?" Whatever in this publication concerns me, and the cause which I have espoused, has been almost entirely anticipated, and, as I believe, sufficiently answered, in the foregoing Letter.

The title, the spirit, the whole tenour, import that Calvinists are not Christians. I am not in the least angered by