misrepresent the opinions of the liberal christians, as they are generally denominated. They attempt to destroy the confidence of people in their teachers, by calling them heretical, socinian, &c. Whether this is not as unchristian as burning, let the intelligent and candid determine.

The apostle Peter speaks of some "who denied the Lord who bought them." Dr. W. insinuates that the Unitarians do this. The editor of the Panoplist had made the same uncandid suggestion. It is wished to ascertain whether either of them have the temerity to make such a charge direct. The apostle says nothing of a Trinity, or of a Triune God, or of three persons in the Deity. All this is mere modern refinement. But in his time, there were those who denied Jesus to be the Christ, or Messiah. Some who taught Christ was merely a spirit, and never in reality suffered on the cross. Some, who supposed Christ was one Being, the Son of God another, and the only begotten, another still. They were visionary, licentious, profligate, impious men, who rejected the gospel, and the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to the Messiahship. These he justly condemns. But here is nothing about the Trinity. This is a fiction of more recent times; and has grown out of the strange theories of subtle and unintelligible metaphysicians.

With as little propriety does Dr. W. pretend that Unitarians, who receive not his notions of a Trinity and of infinite atonement for sin by the sufferings and death of an infinite Being (though it is only the human nature he will admit could suffer) are alluded to by St. Paul, when he speaks of some in his day, who preached another gospel. He had reference to Judaising christians, as is evident from perusing his epistle to the Galatians, who taught the perpetual obligation of the ceremonials of the laws of Moses, and insisted that all the Gentiles must be circumcised and observe every ritual enjoined in the Jewish code. This was a doctrine different from and opposite to the.

preaching of the apostle, who only required repentance towards God, faith in Christ as the Messiah long expected, and a holy conformity to his precepts.

6

In the close of his letter, Dr. W. expresses a wish, that we may decide on this great question, not by prejudice and party spirit, but by reason, conscience and scripture. All Unitarians, all liberal christians, we presume, will say "Amen" to this sentiment and wish. The Dr. however, has taken up much time in condemning those, who exercise reason in interpreting scripture and complains, that any orthodox' opinions are rejected, because they appear irrational or absurd. He says the Unitarians exalt human reason and wisdom above the word of God. I will not pretend to justify every thing said or written by those who call themselves rational christians. The true protestant principle is, to exercise our reason in construing scripture, and to judge of its general, obvious and uniform sense, by comparing different passages, and by an interpretation, according to common sense. the same time, if any thing is clearly and fully asserted, to receive it, by faith, on the authority of the inspired writer.

At

The argument of Dr. W. and other orthodox clergymen proves too much For it would oblige us to receive the doctrine of the infallibility of the Romish church, and of transubstantiation. For it is expressly said by Christ, in reference to the sacramental bread, "this is my body ;" and of the wine, "this is my blood" and "except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you." The difficulty of the doctrine must not prevent our receiving it. Though it is contrary to reason, philosophy, and common sense, yet, according to the argument of Trinitarians we must believe in transubstantion. we must not use our reason in judging, or deciding on the subject. There is no text in the bible, which asserts the doctrine of the Trinity, so plainly, so expressly, as the above does the change of the bread and wine into the real flesh and blood of our Lord.

For

We acknowledge that Christ was the special representative, messenger, or agent of the Most High, to display the divine character and power; to instruct and redeem the world. Highly figurative expressions, therefore, are used in speaking of him, of his dignity, power, wisdom and divinity. But we should always recollect, that it is expressly declared that all his ability and wisdom were imparted to him by God, his Father, the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, for the glorious purpose of reforming and saving mankind.

We have no hesitation in saying, that the bible does not expressly and explicitly teach the doctrine of a Trinity; or of three persons in the Godhead, or Deity. The dogma is adopted by some theologians by way of inference or construction. They reason on the subject, and undertake to shew, that certain passages establish the doctrine. But Unitarians have the same right to examine and compare scripture, and interpret for themselves. And the man who judges and condemns his brother for his opinion, is rash and dogmatical; and so far is influenced by an anti-christian 'spirit.

Dr. W. complains, that Unitarians are too general in their expressions, when writing on the character of Christ, that they are not sufficiently particular, distinct and precise. And he considers it so great a fault, that it renders them unfit to be teachers of christianity. But if they are as particular and distinct as the apostles were, this should satisfy us. In their preaching to Jews and Gentiles, we find nothing said about a Trinity-nothing of the calvinistic notion of an infinite atonement by the sufferings of an infinite Being. They taught, (as Unitarians do now) that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah, long promised in the Jewish scriptures; and, that, though he had been put to death, God raised him up, and exalted him to be a Prince and Saviour, to dispense pardon and immortality. The Unitarians believe with Peter, that "Jesus was the Christ, the Son

of God" and "tanght the words of eternal life”— with Mary, that "he is the Messiah or Saviour, who was to come into the world." They believe he is a sufficient Mediator and Redeemer, having been endowed by God with all proper qualities and attributes for that great work.

We cannot but observe, that Trinitarians appear to us very indistinct, various and confused in their language on the subject of the present controversy. It is well known, that there are various systems and theories among them touching this doctrine. "What, indeed, is Trinitarianism, but Socinianism involved in mystery ?" as the able author of Bible News observed. We think there is great obscurity and indistinctness in their writings on this subject. They talk about an infinite atonement being made by the sufferings of Christ, merely as man, in consequence of the Deity having been united to him-For they will not assert that God suffered. This appears strange and irrational; and we think it unscriptural. The scriptures speak of Christ as being sent by God, and singularly endowed and assisted to be our Saviour, and as dying for our pardon and salvation. But the peculiarities of Calvinism, or Trinitarianism, are mere opinions, or conclusions of certain divines, by them adopted in their reasonings, on different texts of scripture; and by no means necessary to be believed in order to be a christian, any further than they appear to our deliberate judgment to be supported by the word of God. We are willing to leave the subject, in some sense as unexplained and incomprehensible; and to speak of it in the language of scripture. We believe, that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world"--And we trust in him, as the Redeemer appointed and qualified by God, to direct, instruct, guide, and save us.

Unitarians wish not to dictate articles of faith to others; nor do they condemn those called "orthodox" for avowing their opinions. It is the positive and dogmatical conduct, the censorious, exclusive spirit,

44

which Trinitarians often discover on a subject confessedly mysterious and incomprehensible, which we consider reprehensible. We see not that they have authority to be the sole interpreters of scripture; or to insist that others should admit their particular explanations of passages of high and difficult import. And we complain, that they should denounce those as "heretical," as "having another gospel," as "denying the Lord who bought them," who cannot subscribe to the creeds and declarations of fallible men. This spirit is much to be regretted. It ought, we think to be opposed. It is contrary to the spirit of protestantism. And we consider it the duty of all those who wish to maintain the present happy degree of christian liberty in New England, to bear testimony against it.

as

:

The liberal party, as they are denominated, deny not this liberty to their brethren of different sentiments. They consider the bible the standard of faith and rule of conduct and allow every one the right to construe and explain for himself, so that he be not licentious and immoral. We believe the Unitarians have as great respect for, and are as much influenced by the declarations of the bible, as those called “orthodox," who form creeds and articles of faith in the words of "human wisdom," and condemn all who hesitate to subscribe to them. We are willing others should have formulas of faith, and fix upon certain articles of doctrine, as a system or guide for themselves : but must claim the same right and privilege on our part. We fully admit the authority of inspired scripture. What is highly important and essential, we believe to be very intelligible and plain. What is mysterious and difficult to be understood, we leave for every one to consider, and to receive according to his own judgment and understanding. And we think the "orthodox," who undertake to explain the mysteries of religion, and to dictate particular modes of belief, are justly chargeable with a departure from the "simplicity which is in Christ," and with substituting the words of man for the language of inspiration.