prevalent, that truth is not worth contending for, that the great doctrines of the gospel are of very little importance? What then would be the consequence?-Shew me a man who cherishes this opinion, this feeling, and I will shew you one, who, far from going to the cross or to the stake, like the apostles and the host of holy martyrs, will make no sacrifice, no exertion, for the spread or the support of the truth: nay, one, who is already himself bound hand and foot with the silken cords of errour, and whose "deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" And let this opinion and feeling generally prevail, and where shall we find those who will be "valiant for the truth upon the earth?" "Whatsoever maketh manifest is light." Would not the separation in question make manifest? Would it not serve to hold up the distinguishing truths of the gospel, and to shew their importance, to the greatest advantage and with the best effects? Would it not tend to wake up the slumbering multitude, to excite them to earnest and serious inquiry, and to prevent their perishing for lack of knowledge, “fast by the oracle of God?" Is it then certain, that a proposal, that even an earnest call for this, can only proceed from a "malignant, proud, and censorious spirit?" Is it certain, that such a proposal or call might not proceed from the same spirit of holy charity, which ruled the hearts and fired the zeal of the apostles and faithful brethren of the primitive times, and of the distinguished ministers and confessors of the Reformation? the spirit which achieved such wonders for the honour of Christ and the salvation of men; but which in those illustrious periods, as it has been in all succeeding ages, was violently denounced, as the spirit of fanaticism, malignity, and pride. Far be it from me to stand forth the advocate of a violent "system of denunciation and exclusion," or of rash, disorderly, or uncharitable measures. I am fully aware that there is danger, great danger on this hand. And did it belong to me to assume prelatical dignity, and like you to give, ex cathedra, "admonitions" to my brethren, the sum of my advice and exhortations should be, Brethren, "let all things be done de cently and in order;”—“let all your things be done with charity." The spirit of christianity is not to be violated; the rules of the gospel are not to be disregarded; the vastly interesting considerations, belonging to the subject on the one side and on the other, are not to be treated with lightness. But, Sir, the differences which exist between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians are certainly of a nature, to demand the most serious and earnest attention. They concern, most directly and essentially, the glory of God, the honour of the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and the salvation of men. In comparison with these, the differences between Dissenters and Episcopalians, between Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differences out of sight, to conceal their magnitude and momentous consequences; or by a raised cry of bigotry, illiberality, and intolerance, to divert the publick attention from them. They must and will be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered; and ministers and churches, professed christians and all others, must and will be brought to the solemn decision,-whether they will be for Christ or against him,-whether they will receive and hold fast his truth, or despise and reject it,—whether they will bow to his authority and trust in his grace, or refuse to have him to reign over them and contemn his salvation. In the mean time, Charity, heaven-born Charity, must be allowed to weep and lament over the inroads of errour and the desolations of Zion. Yes, Sir, charmed not at all with the so loudly chaunted praises of increased "light,”—abashed not at all by the disdainful sneers at imputed fanaticism,— she will weep-that her adored Lord is denied his divine honours, in the beloved city of our solemnities, where our fathers saw his glory, and delighted to celebrate his wonderful works of love and mercy. Thus, Sir, have I attended, amid various unpropitious circumstances, to some of the principal things in your Letter. There are others which I certainly deem not unexceptionable, but which my design does not require, nor my limits permit me particularly to notice. If in any instance, I have misapprehended you, misrepresented you, or done any injus " tice to you or to others, I can truly, I think, say it has been unintentional; and to correct any errour, or redress any wrong, would afford me real pleasure. I have done what I have felt to be a painful duty. The Lord pardon what is wrong,-and prosper what is right. And may the Spirit of truth guide us into all truth, and cause us to "sce eye to eye,"-keep his people from falling, fill the churches with light and peace, and make his word "mightily to grow and prevail." I am, Rey. and dear Sir, With sentiments of affectionate respect, Salem, July 15, 1815. SAMUEL WORCESTER. POSTSCRIPT. I FIND I have part of a spare page, and have thought fit to occupy it with some smaller matters. You say, p. 6, "Dr. Watts in the latter part of his life was decidedly an Unitariau."—I am amazed that such an assertion could have been hazarded by you: an assertion, which Mr. Belsham, strongly desirous as he was to make out something in favour of his cause, from Dr. Watts's "last thoughts," durst not make. From what Mr. Belsham has presented on this subject, I should certainly conclude, even had I no other means of judging, and I believe every candid person would conclude, that the vague reports, so industriously circulated, of the Unitarianism of Dr. Watts, are most unsolidly founded, and most injurious to the memory of that great and good man. That he had a peculiar manner of explaining the mystery of the Trinity I do not deny; but, after no little attention to the subject, I do deny that there is any proof of his being a Unitarian; and am firm in the belief that he maintained to the last the true divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In your zeal to strengthen your cause, you have numbered with Unitarians Dr. Barnard," I suppose the late Dr. Barnard of this town, whose name I would never mention but with particular affection and respect. I have great satisfaction in being able to assure you, that Dr. Barnard, but a few months before his death, explicitly and emphatically denied his being a Unitarian, and professed his belief in the essential divinity of Jesus Christ. If you wish for more proof to the same effect it can be produced. Of "President Willard," whom you also place on the same list, I am not able to speak with the same positiveness; but from information, on which I place great reliance, I believe you are not warranted in numbering him with Unitarians. The manner in which you have denounced the Panoplist, demands, I think, your most serious reconsideration. To denounce with a spirit so violent, and upon grounds so unsolid, a publication of such well earned reputation, and such extensive usefulness, is to assume a responsibility of no ordinary kind. I have seen your "Additional Remarks;" and you must permit me to say, that I think neither yourself, nor the President of Harvard College, nor any friend to you or him, will long regard them with much complacency. What you say on the subject of "ESPIONAGE," is truly remarkable. I really did not know that there was any law of God or man, forbidding people to remark on publick performances, or to publish what they hear delivered in publick. If I have transgressed, in mentioning what I have, of a Sermon, which I heard at an Ordination, I hope that my utter ignorance of the law will be admitted to due consid S. W. eration. |