A 

LETTER

TO THE

REV. SAMUEL C{OOPER} THACHER

ON THE

ASPERSIONS CONTAINED IN A LATE NUMBER OF THE PANOPLIST,

ON THE MINISTERS OF BOSTON AND THE VICINITY

BY

WILLIAM E. CHANNING,
Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Street, Boston.

SECOND EDITION.

BOSTON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY WELLS AND LILLY.
1815.

[2]
[3]

A LETTER, &c.

My Friend And Brother,

     I have recollected with much satisfaction the conversation,
which we held the other morning, on the subject of the late
REVIEW in the PANOPLIST for JUNE, of a pamphlet, called "American
Unitarianism."  I was not surprised, but I was highly gratified,
by the spirit with which your spoke of that injurious
publication.  Grief rather than indignation marked your
countenance, and you mourned, that men, who bear the sacred and
pacifick name of Christian, could prove so insensible to the
obligations of their profession.  Our conversation turned, as you
recollect, on the FALSEHOOD of that Review; on its MOTIVES; and
on the DUTIES which are imposed on those ministers, whose good
name and whose influence it was designed to destroy.

     After leaving you, my thoughts still dwelt on the subject;
and, painful as is the task, I have thought it my duty to exhibit
to the publick the topicks which we discussed, as well as to add
some reflections suggested by private meditation.  

     I bring to the subject a feeling, which I cannot well
express in words, but which you can easily understand.  It is a
feeling, as if I were degrading myself by noticing the false and
injurious charges contained in this review.  I feel as if I were
admitting, that we need vindication, that our [4] reputations
want support, that our characters and lives do not speak for
themselves.  My selfrespect too is wounded, by coming into
contact with assailants, who not only deny us the name of
Christians, but withhold from us the treatment of gentlemen. 
These feelings, united with my love of peace, would induce me to
pass over the Review in silence, if it were limited to the sphere
within which we are personally known.  In this sphere, I trust,
its bitterness, coarseness, and misrepresentations will work
their own cure; and that no other defence is required, but the
tenor our ministry and lives.  But the work, in which this
article is published, is industriously spread through the
country, and through all classes of society.  The aspersions
which it contains are also diffused, as widely as possible, by
conversation and even by newspapers.  We owe then to ourselves,
and what is more important to the cause of christian truth and
charity, some remarks on the representations and spirit of the
Review.  You can easily conceive, how difficult it is to read
again and again such a publication without catching some portion
of an unchristian spirit.  I do indeed feel myself breathing an
atmosphere to which I am not accustomed.  But my earnest desire
is to remember whose disciple I am, and to temper displeasure
with meekness and forgiveness.

     The Panoplist Review, though extended over so many pages,
amy be compressed into a very narrow space.  It asserts, 1. That
the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the great body
of liberal christians are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of
the word:  that is, they believe that Jesus Christ is a mere man,
who when on earth was liable to errour and sin; to whom we owe no
gratitude for benefits which we are now receiving; and for whose
future interpositions we have no reason to hope. [5]

     2. The Review asserts, that these ministers and liberal
christians are guilty of hypocritical concealment of their
sentiments, and behave in a base, cowardly and hypocritical
manner.

     3. Christians are called to come out and separate themselves
from these ministers and the liberal body of christians, and to
withhold from them christian communion.

     I will consider these three heads in their order, and may
then notice some other topicks introduced by the Review.

     The FIRST assertion to be considered is, that the ministers
of this town and vicinity, and the great body of liberal
christians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of that word; 
and I wish every read to look back and distinctly impress this
sense on his memory.  I am sensible that almost every liberal
christian, (See Note A.) who reads these pages, will regard this
charge with a mixture of surprise and indignation, and will
almost doubt the correctness of my statement of the Review.  I
therefore add the following extracts from the last number of the
Panoplist, in which the Review is contained. P.267, "We feel
entirely warranted to say that the PREDOMINANT RELIGION of the
liberal part is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's sense of
the word."  P.254, "We shall feel ourselves warranted hereafter,
to speak of that fact as certain, that Unitarianism," meaning Mr.
Belsham's "is the predominant religion among the ministers and
churches of Boston." P.271, "The liberal party mutilate the New
Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the
gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible,
peccable, and ignorant man."  It is unnecessary to multiply
extracts to show, that not only Boston, but its vicinity, is
involved in the charge.  In fact, the liberal party, in general,
as you see, is ranged under the standard of Mr. Belsham.  Now we
both of us know this statement [6] to be false.  This
misrepresentation is founded chiefly on some letters written by
the Rev. Dr. Freeman, and Mr. William Wells, of Boston, to the
Rev. Mr. Lindsey and the Rev. Mr. Belsham, of London; which
letters state, that many of the ministers and laymen of this
quarter are Unitarian.  You informed me in our late conversation,
that Mr. Wells has assured you, that in his letter to Mr.
Belsham, he used the word UNITARIAN in its proper and usual
sense, as OPPOSED to TRINITARIAN, as denoting a man who believes
that God is ONE person, and not THREE persons.  that Dr. Freeman
attached the same meaning to the word, I cannot doubt, because I
have once and again heard him give this definition.  If you will
consult Miss Adams' View of Religion, the only authority which I
have at hand, you will see, that this term belongs to persons,
who differ widely in their views of Jesus Christ.  She
particularly quotes Mosheim, as saying, that Unitarians are Anti-
Trinitarians.  "The Socinians," Mosheim adds, "are also so
called.  The term is comprehensive, and is applicable to a great
variety of persons, who, notwithstanding, agree in this common
principle, that there is no DISTINCTION IN THE DIVINE NATURE." 
The word Unitarian, taken in this tis true sense, as including
all who believe that there is no distinction of persons in God,
is indeed, as Mosheim observes, of great extent.  Dr. Watts, in
the latter part of his life, was decidedly an Unitarian.  So was
Dr. Samuel Clarke; so was the late Dr. Eckley, (See Note B.) of
this town; so, I am told by respectable authorities, are several
Hopkinsian clergyman in New-England.  The word UNITARIANISM, as
denoting this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses
the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this
town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth.  But we both of us
know, that their Unitarianism is of a very different [7] kind
from that of Mr. Belsham.  We both agreed in our late conference,
that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is
more than man, that he existed before the world, that he
literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains
other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth,
and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor
with the Father.  This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of
our brethren.  there is another class of liberal christians, who,
whilst they reject the distinction of three persons in God, are
yet unable to pass a definitive judgment on the various systems,
which prevail, as to the nature and rank of Jesus Christ.  They
are met by difficulties on every side, and generally rest in the
conclusion, that HE, whom God has appointed to be our Saviour,
must be precisely adapted to his work, and that acceptable faith
consists in regarding and following him as our Lord, Teacher, and
Saviour; without deciding on his nature or rank in the universe. 
There is another class, who believe the simple humanity of Jesus
Christ; but these form a small proportion of the great body of
Unitarians in this part of our country;  and I very much doubt,
whether of these, one individual can be found, who could
conscientiously subscribe to Mr. Belsham's creed as given in the
Review.  The conduct of the Reviewer, in collecting all the
opinions of that gentleman, not only on the Trinity, but on every
other theological subject, in giving to the WHOLE collection the
name UNITARIANISM, and in exhibiting this to the world as the
creed of liberal christians in this region, is perhaps as
criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the
records of theological controversy.  The fact is, that the great
body of liberal christians would shrink from some of these
opinions with as much aversion as from some of the gloomy
doctrines of Calvin.  You, my friend, well know, that Mr. Belsham
is not acknowledged as a leader by any Unitarians in our country. 
I have heard from those, who [8] are thought to approach him most
nearly in opinion, complaints of the extravagance of some of his
positions, as unjust and prejudicial to the cause which he has
undertaken to defend.

     I trust, that the statement which has now been made, will
not be considered as casting the least reproach on those amongst
us, who believe in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ.  Whilst I
differ from them in opinion, I have certainly no disposition to
deny them the name and privileges of christians.  There are
gentlemen of this class, whom I have the happiness to know, in
whom I discover the evidences of a scrupulous uprightness, and a
genuine piety; and there are others, whose characters, as
portrayed by their biographers, appear to me striking examples of
the best influences of christianity.

     After considering the letters of Mr. Wells and Dr. Freeman,
it is not necessary to enlarge on the other evidences of our
adopting Mr. Belsham's creed, which have been adduced by the
Reviewer.  The Monthly Anthology is summoned as a proof.  I have
read as little of that work as of most periodical publications;
but you, who know more of it, have expressed to me your confident
persuasion, that, from beginning to end, the doctrine of the
simple humanity of Christ is not once asserted.  As to the
General Repository, which is brought forward as another proof, I
never for a moment imagined, that its editor was constituted or
acknowledged as the organ of his brethren; and while its high
literary merit has been allowed, I have heard some of its
sentiment disapproved by the majority of those with whom I have
conversed.  With respect to the "Improved version of the New
Testament," I can speak with great confidence.  It is false, that
this work was patronized and circulated by the ministers of
Boston and the vicinity.  It is impossible that such a fact could
have escaped my notice, and I can [9] scarcely remember an
individual, who, in speaking of this version, has not expressed
an unfavourable opinion at least of some of its notes.

     I repeat it, these remarks are not offered for the purpose
of throwing any reproach on any class of Christians, but simply
to repel a statement which is untrue, and which is intended to
rank us under a denomination, which the people of this country
have industriously taught to abhor.  It is this intention of
rendering us odious, which constitutes the criminality of the
charge, and which exposes its author to severe indignation.  A
man, who is governed by christian principles, will slowly and
reluctantly become "the accuser of his brethren."  He will
inquire long and impartially before he attempts to fasten a bad
name, (the most injurious method of assailing reputation) on an
individual, and especially on a large class of the community. 
What severity of reproof then is merited by the author of this
Review, who has laboured to attach, not only to professors, but
to ministers of religion, a name and character which he hoped
would awaken popular alarm, and endanger their influence,
although a large majority of the accused have no participation in
the pretended crime.  That he intended to deceive, I am unwilling
to assert; but the most charitable construction which his conduct
will admit is, that his passions and party spirit have criminally
blinded him, and hurried him into an act, which could have been
authorized only by strongest evidence, and the most impartial
inquiry.  The time may come, when he will view this transaction
with other eyes; when the rage of party will have subsided; when
the obligation of a fair and equitable temper will appear at
least as solemn as the obligation of building up a sect; when
misrepresentation, intended to injure, and originating, if not in
malignity, yet in precipitancy and passion, will be felt to be a
crime of no common aggravation.  That [10] this time may soon
come, and may bring with it not only remorse, but sincere
repentance, I know to be your wish, and I trust it is my own.

     II. I now come to the SECOND charge of the Review: That the
ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the most considerable
members of the liberal party "operate in secret; entrust only the
initiated with their measures; are guilty of hypocritical
concealment of their sentiments; behave in a base and
hypocritical manner, compared which Mr. Belsham's conduct, rotten
as he is in doctrine to the very core, is purity itself."*  Such
is the DECENT language scattered through this review.  This
charge is infinitely more serious than the first.  To believe
with Mr. Belsham is no crime.  But artifice, plotting, hypocrisy
ARE crimes; and if we practise them, we deserve to be driven not
only from the ministry, not only from the church, but from the
society of the decent and respectable.  Our own hearts, I trust,
tell us at once how gross are these aspersions; and our
acquaintance with our brethren authorizes us to speak in their
vindication with the same confidence as in our own. 

_______________ * FOOTNOTE*_______________________________
We are accused of "the systematick practice of artifice," p. 242;
of "hypocritical concealment," 251; of "cowardice in the
concealment of our opinions," 260; of "cunning and dishonesty,"
260; of "acting in a base, hypocritical manner," a manner "at
which common honesty revolts," 260; a manner "incompatible with
fidelity or integrity," 261. "The conduct of Mr Belsham," we are
told, "rotten as he is to very core in point of doctrine, is
purity itself, compared with the conduct of these men." 262  "In
pretence all is politeness and liberality; in practice we find a
rancour bitter as death, and cruel as the grave," 264.  Let it be
remembered that this is not to be considered as the invective and
exaggeration, which we are unhappily accustomed to permit in a
political pamphlet.  It is found in a grave theological
publication, and uttered by a man who declares that he "never
took his pen in hand with great caution, nor with a more
imperious sense of duty." 259.

__________________________________________________________ [11]

     It is not to be wondered at, that those, who have charged us
with holding sentiments which we reject, should proceed to charge
us with hypocritically concealing our sentiments.  Most of us
have often contradicted Mr. Belsham's opinions; and they who
insist that these opinions are ours, will be forced to maintain
that we practise deceit.  They start with a falsehood, and their
conclusion cannot therefore be true.

     I am not, however, disposed to dismiss this charge of
artifice and hypocrisy so lightly.  The proofs on which it rests
are perhaps the most extraordinary which were ever adduced on so
serious an occasion.  The first evidence of our baseness is a
letter from Dr. Freeman.  It is unnecessary to enter into any
examination of this letter.  It is sufficient to observe, that it
was written, according to the Review, in the year 1796 or 1797,
that is, it was written when all the present congregational
ministers in Boston, with the single exception of the venerated
Dr. Lathrop, were receiving their education either at school or
in college, and had not probably directed their thoughts towards
the sacred office; and before a considerable part of our
brethren, now in the vicinity, were settled in the ministry.  It
is a melancholy thought, that accusations which would place us
among the profligate part of society, are bitterly and furiously
urged on such foundation as this!

     But the next proof is till more remarkable.  It is the
letter of Mr. Wells to Mr. Belsham.  In this letter Mr. Wells
says, "Most of our Boston clergy and respectable laymen, among
whom we have many enlightened theologians, are Unitarian.  Nor do
they think it all necessary to conceal their sentiments, but
express them without reserve when they judge it proper.  I may
safely say, the general habit of thinking and speaking upon this
question is Unitarian."  Can a more explicit passage be [12]
conceived?  The method in which it is distorted by the reviewer
can hardly be recollected without expressions of indignation. 
Towards the close of his Review, p. 269, in speaking of the
persons on whom Mr. Wells "lavishes commendation," he represents
him as mentioning "most of the Boston clergy and respectable
laymen, many of whom are enlightened theologians, who do not
conceal their sentiments, but express them WHEN THEY JUDGE IT
PROPER."  This passage, as it stands in the review, has the marks
of quotation, as if taken from Mr. Wells letter.  Your perceive,
that by mutilating that sentence, and by printing the last words
in Italicks, the reviewer has entirely done away the meaning of
Mr. Wells, and contrived to give to the common reader a directly
opposite impression to what that gentleman intended to convey. 
An unperverted mind turns with sorrow and disgust from such
uncharitable and disingenuous dealing; and why all this labour to
distort what is so plain?  the object is, to fix the character of
knaves and hypocrites on a large class of christians and
christian ministers.  I might here be permitted to dip my pen in
gall; but I do not write for those, whose moral feeling is so
dull, as to need indignant comment on practices like these.

     With respect to yourself, my friend, I presume no on will
charge you with hypocritical concealment.  Your situation offers
you not temptation; and no one who has heard you preach, can ever
have suspected you of leaning towards Trinitarianism.  As to
myself, I have ever been inclined to cherish the most exalted
views of Jesus Christ, which are consistent with the supremacy of
the Father; and I have felt it my duty to depart from Mr.
Belsham, in perhaps every sentiment which is peculiar to him on
this subject.  I have always been pleased with some of the
sentiments of Dr. Watts on the intimate and peculiar union [13]
between the Father and the son.  But I have always abstained most
scrupulously from every expression which could be construed into
an acknowledgement of the Trinity.  My worship and sentiments
have been Unitarian in the proper sense of that word.  In
conversation with my people, who have requested my opinion upon
the subject, especially with those who consider themselves
Trinitarians, I have spoken with directness and simplicity.  Some
of those who differ from me most widely, have received from me
the most explicit assurances of my disbelief of the doctrine of
the Trinity, and of my views in relation to the Saviour. As to my
brethren in general, never have I imagined for a moment, from
their preaching or conversation, that they had the least desire
to be considered as Trinitarians; nor have I ever heard from them
any views of God or of Jesus Christ, but Unitarian in the proper
meaning of that word.

     It is indeed true, as Mr. Wells says, that we seldom or
never introduce the Trinitarian controversy into our pulpits.  We
are accustomed to speak of the Father as God, and of Jesus Christ
as his son, as a distinct being from him, as dependent on him,
subordinate to him, and deriving all from him.  This phraseology
pervades all our prayers, and all our preaching.  We seldom or
never, however, refer to any different sentiments, embraced by
other christians, on the nature of God or of Jesus Christ.  We
preach precisely as if no such doctrine as the Trinity had ever
been known.  We do not attempt to refute it, any more than to
refute the systems of the Sabellians, the Eutychians, or the
Nestorians, or of the other sects who have debated these
questions with such hot and unprofitable zeal.  but, in following
this course, we are not conscious of having contracted, in the
least degree, the guilt of insincerity.  We have aimed at making
no false impression.  We have only followed a general system,
which we are persuaded to be [13] best for our people and for the
cause of christianity; the system of excluding controversy as
much as possible from our pulpits.  In compliance with this
system, I have never assailed Trinitarianism; nor have I ever
said one word against Methodism, Quakerism, Episcopalianism, or
the denomination of Baptists; and I may add Popery, if I except a
few occasional remarks on the intolerance of that system.  The
name of sects, with that single exception, has never passed my
lips in preaching, through my whole ministry, which has continued
above twelve years.  We all of us think it best to preach the
truth, or what we esteem to be the truth, and to say very little
about errour, unless it be errour of a strictly practical nature. 
A striking proof of our sentiments and habits on this subject may
be derived from the manner in which you and myself have treated
Calvinism.  We consider the errours which related to Christ's
person as of little or no importance compared with the errour of
those who teach, that God brings us into life wholly depraved and
wholly helpless, that he leaves multitudes without that aid which
is indispensably necessary to their repentance, and then plunges
them into everlasting burnings and unspeakable torture, for not
repenting.  This we consider as one of the most injurious errours
which ever darkened the christian world; and none will pretend
that we have anything to fear from exposing this errour to our
people.  On the contrary, we could hardly select a more popular
topick; --and yet our hearers will bear witness how seldom we
introduce this topick into our preaching.  The name of Calvinist
has never, I presume, been uttered by us in the pulpit.  Our
method is, to state what we conceive to be more honourable, and
ennobling, and encouraging views of God's character and
government, and to leave these to have their effect, without
holding up other christians to censure or contempt.  We could, if
we were to make strenuous efforts, render the [15] name of
Calvinist as much a word of reproach in our societies, as that of
Unitarian is in some parts of our country.  But 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 them condemn their own bad practices,
rather than the erroneous speculations of their neighbor.  We
love them too sincerely to imbue them with the spirit of
controversy.

     In thus avoiding controversy, we have thought that we
deserved, not reproach, but some degree of praise for our self
denial.  Every preacher knows how much easier it is to write a
controversial than a practical discourse; how much easier it is
to interest an audience by attacking an opposite party, than by
stating to them the duties and motives of the gospel.  We often
feel, that our mode of preaching exposes us to the danger of
being trite and dull; and I presume we have often been tempted to
gratify the love of disputation which lurks in every society. 
But so deeply are we convinced, that the great end of preaching
is to promote a spirit of love, a sober, righteous and goodly
life, and that every doctrine is to be urged simply and
exclusively for this end, that we have sacrificed our ease, and
have chosen to be less striking preachers, rather than to enter
the lists of controversy.

     We have seldom or never assailed the scheme of the Trinity,
not only from our dislike to controversy in general, but from a
persuasion that this discussion would, above all others, perplex
and needlessly perplex a common congregation, consisting of
persons of all ages, capacities, degrees of improvement, and
conditions in society.  This doctrine we all regard as the most
unintelligible about which christians have ever disputed.  If it
do not mean that there are Three Gods, (a construction which its
advocates [16] indignantly repel,) we know not what it means; and
we have not thought that we should edify common hearers by
attacking a doctrine, altogether inconceivable and wholly beyond
the grasp of our faculties. -- We have recollected too the
mischiefs of the Trinitarian controversy in pst ages, that it has
been a firebrand lighting the flames  of persecution, and
kindling infernal passions in the breasts of christians; and we
have felt no disposition to interest the feelings of our
congregation in a dispute, which has so disgraced the professed
disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus. -- Many of us have been
disinclined, not only to assail systems which we do not believe,
but even to enforce the views which we have given of the rank and
character of Jesus Christ; because we have known, how divided the
best men have been on these topicks, and how largely we ourselves
partake of the fallibility of our nature; because we have wished,
that our hearers should derive their impressions on these points
as much as possible from the scriptures; and because we have all
been persuaded, that precision of views upon these subjects is in
no degree essential to the faith of practice of a christian. --we
have considered the introduction of the Trinitarian controversy
into the pulpit, as the less necessary, because we have generally
found that common christians admit that distinction between God
and his Son, and that subordination of the Son, which we believe
to be the truth; and as to that very small part of our hearers,
who are strongly attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, while
we have not wished to conceal from them our difference of
opinion, we have been fully satisfied, that the most effectual
method of promoting their holiness and salvation was to urge on
them perpetually those great truths and precepts, about which
there is little contention, and which have an immediate bearing
on the temper and the life. -- To conclude, we have never entered
into discussions of the doctrine of the [17] Trinity, because we
are not governed by a proselyting temper.  I will venture to
assert, that there is not on earth a body of men who possess less
of the spirit of proselytism, than the ministers of this town and
vicinity.  Accustomed as we are to see genuine piety in all
classes of christians, in Trinitarians and Unitarians, in
Calvinists and Arminians, in Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists,
and Congregationalists, and delighting in this character wherever
it appears, we are little anxious to bring men over to our
peculiar opinions.  I could smile at the idea of a UNITARIAN
PLOT, were not this fiction intended to answer so unworthy an
end.  There cannot be a doubt, that had we seriously united for
the purpose of spreading Unitarianism by any and every means, by
secret insinuations against those who differ from us, by
UNCHARITABLE DENUNCIATIONS, and by the other usual arts of sects,
we might have produced in this part of the country an Unitarian
heat and bitterness not inferiour to that with which
Trinitarianism is too often advocated.  But not the slightest
whisper of any concert for this end has ever reached me;  and as
to these arts, our people can best say how far we have practised
them.  Our people will testify, how little we have sought to
influence them on the topicks of dispute among christians, how
little we have laboured to make them partisans, how constantly we
have besought them to look with candour on other denominations,
and to delight in all the marks which others exhibit of piety,
and goodness.  Our great and constant object has been to promote
the spirit of Christ, and we have been persuaded, that in this
way we should most effectually promote the interests of christian
truth.

     These remarks will shew, how entirely unfounded are the
charges, which are adduced against us, of insincerity and base
hypocrisy.  And are we not authorized, my brother, to repel these
charges with some degree of warmth?  Are [18] we not called to
speak in the language of indignant and insulted virtue, as well
as of pity and sorrow, in relation to the man, who is propagating
these unmerited reproaches?  We are christians by profession, and
ministers of the Gospel, governed, as we humbly hope, by the
principles of Jesus Christ.  We honour his name; we remember his
dying love with gratitude; and I hope we are ready to meet the
loss of all things in his service; and yet we are represented to
our people as unprincipled men, wearing a mask, and practising
the basest arts.  And we are thus loaded with invective and
abuse, that we may be robbed of that influence, which, if we know
ourselves, we wish to exert for the honour of God, and the
salvation of mankind; that we may be robbed of the confidence and
affection of our societies, and may be forsaken by them as
unworthy the christian name.  Need I ask, whether this be a light
injury or an ordinary crime?

     On the present occasion, when our moral character is
impeached, we are justified, I think, in an appeal to our
respective societies; and I trust, my friend, that we are our
accused brethren can say with confidence to those to whom we
minister, "Brethren, you know us, for we live among you; we visit
you in your families, we speak to you from the pulpit; we repair
to you in your sorrows, and we sit too at the table of your
festivity.  You know something of our conduct in our families,
and in the common relations of life.  We are, indeed sensible,
that in all these situations, we have exhibited to you much of
human imperfection, and our frequent prayer to God is, that he
will forgive our deficiencies.  But, brethren, we ask you to
recollect our general deportment and ministrations.  Have we
seemed to you men of artifice and deceit, men without reverence
for truth, and without the fear of God, men of sordid and selfish
views, seeking your wealth or applause, and careless of your
souls?  Have we ever seemed to you to be [19] labouring to build
to cause, or to establish a party, which we were ashamed to
acknowledge?  Have we ever directed you to any foundation of hope
or guide of life, but the Gospel of Christ?  Have we not
continually exhorted you, as a father doth his children, that you
would walk worthy of this religion from heaven?  In your
affliction have we not supplied you with the consolations which
it offers? and in the more dangerous seasons of enjoyment, have
we not discovered the purity and moderation which it inculcates? 
To what work of christian usefulness have you found us reluctant? 
In what relation of life have you found us unfaithful?  On what
occasion have we discovered, that our profession is a cloak of
hypocrisy?  It is not our design, by these questions, to advance
our own glory; God forbid it: But we wish to impress you deeply
with the criminality of those aspersions, which are cast
habitually on your teachers; and with the urgent necessity of
discouraging that unrelenting party spirit, which has no respect
for innocence or virtue, and which threatens to overwhelm our
churches with discord and contention."

     III.  I now come to the third head of the review, which I
propose to consider.  The reviewer, having charged us with
holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritically
concealing them, solemnly calls on christians who differ from us
in sentiment, "to come out and be separate from us, and to
withhold communion with us;"  and a paragraph of the bitterest
contempt and insult is directed against those ministers who,
whilst they disagree on the controverted points of theology, are
yet disposed to love and treat us as brethren.  This language
does not astonish me, when I recollect the cry of heresy which
has been so loudly raised against this part of the country.  But
I believe that this is the first instance, in which christians
have been deliberately called to deny us the christian name and
privileges.  As such let it [20] be remembered; and let the
consequences of it lie on its authors.

     Why is it that our brethren are thus instigated to cut us
off, as far as they have power, from the body and church of
Christ?  Let every christian weigh well the answer.  It is not
because we refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and
Master; it is not because we neglect to study his word; it is
not, because our lives are wanting in the spirit and virtues of
his gospel.  It is, because after serious investigation, we
cannot find in the Scriptures, and cannot adopt as instructions
of our Master, certain doctrines, which have divided the church
for ages, which have perplexed the best and wisest men, and which
are very differently conceived even by those who profess to
receive the.  It is, in particular, because we cannot adopt the
language of our brethren, in relation to a doctrine, which we
cannot understand, and which is expressed in words not only
unauthorized by the Scripture, but as we believe, in words
employed without meaning, (unless they mean that there are three
Gods,) by those who insist upon them.  This is our crime, that we
cannot think and speak with our brethren on subjects the most
difficult and perplexing, on which the human mind was ever
engaged.  For this we are pursued with the cry of heresy, and are
to have no rest until virtually excommunicated by our brethren.

     Were the christian world more enlightened on the nature of
heresy, they would not be so much alarmed when they hear it
attached to their brethren.  Most earnestly do I wish that the
Dissertation of Dr. Campbell on Heresy, in his "Translation of
the Four Gospels," were more generally read and considered.  He
has proved, I think, very satisfactorily, that _heresy_, as the
word is used in Scripture, does not consist in the adoption or
profession of wrong opinion, but in a _spirit of divisions, of
dissension, of party_, in a -factious and turbulent [21] temper_;
and that the heretick is not a man who entertains erroneous or
even injurious sentiments, but _one who loves to be called Rabbi
and master_; and who has a _disposition to separate christians,
to create or to extend sects and parties_. The conclusion of the
Dissertation of this most judicious writer on Heresy, deserves to
be imprinted on every mind in these days of dissension. "No
person, who, in the spirit of candour and charity, adheres to
that which to the best of his judgment is right, though in this
opinion he should be mistaken, is in the _scriptural_ sense
either _schismatick_ or _heretick_; and _he_, on the contrary,
whatever sect he belongs to, is more entitled to these odious
appellations, _who is most apt to throw the imputation upon
others_.  Both terms, (for they denote only different degrees of
the same bad quality,) _always indicate a disposition and
practice unfriendly to peace and harmony and love."{Campbell's
Gospels, Vol. II. p.141, Boston edition.} If these views be
correct, there is no difficulty in deciding, to what person among
us the name of heretick most justly belongs; and we shall be
forced to conclude, that of all publications which have issued
from our press, no one is more tinctured with the spirit of
heresy, than the Review, which is my painful office to examine.

     Most earnestly do I hope that christians will weigh well the
nature and guilt of schism, the consequences of separation, and
the spirit of their religion, before they adopt the measure
recommended in this Review. For myself, the universe would not
tempt me to bear a part in this work of dividing Christ's church,
and of denouncing his followers.  If there be an act which, above
all others, is a transgression of the christian law, it is this. 
What is the language of our Master?  "A _new_ commandment I give
unto you, that ye _love one another.  By this shall all men know,
that ye are my disciples_, if ye have _love to one another." 
"Bear ye one another's burdens," says St. Paul, "and so fulfil
_the law of Christ_."  But what says this Review?  "Cast out your
brethren, and treat them as heathens."  I know it will be said,
that christians are not called upon to reject real christians,
but hereticks and false pretenders to the name.  But heresy, we
have seen, is not a false opinion, but a sectarian spirit; and as
to false pretences, we desire those who know us, to put their
hands on their hearts, and to say, whether they can for a moment
believe that we hypocritically profess to follow the instructions
of Jesus Christ?  Does charity discover nothing in our language
and lives to justify the hope that we are united to Jesus Christ
by love for his character, and by participation of his spirit? 
Most earnestly would I advise those persons who are inclined to
follow the instigations of this Review, to think seriously before
they act; to remember, that Jesus Christ has solemnly forbidden
uncharitable judgment, that he regards the injuries which are
done to his followers, through a censorious spirit, as done to
himself, and that christians cannot more surely forsake their
Lord, the Prince of peace, than be following an inciter to
denunciation and division.

     I wish that my motives for these earnest remonstrances
against division may be understood.  I feel as little personal
interest in the subject as any individual in the community.  Were
the proposed separation to take place, I should still enjoy the
ordinances of the gospel in the society of those whom I best
love.  The excommunication which is threatened gives me no alarm. 
I hear this angry thunder murmur at a distance, with as little
concern as if it were the thunder of the pope, from whom it seems
indeed to be borrowed.  But whilst I fear nothing for myself, I
do fear and feel for that body of which Christ is the head, which
has been bleeding for ages under the contests of christians, and
which is now threatened with a new wound.  I feel for the cause
[23] of our common christianity, which I am set to defend, and
which has suffered inconceivably more from the bad passions and
divisions of its friends, than from all the arts and violence of
its foes. I cannot but look forward with pain to the irritations,
hatred, bitter recriminations, censoriousness, spiritual pride,
and schismatical spirit which will grow up under this system of
denunciation and exclusion, and which may not only convulse many
churches at the present moment, but will probably end in  most
unhappy divisions among the very christians who denounce us; who
seem indeed to be united, now that a common enemy is to be
trodden under foot, but who have sufficient diversities of
opinion, to awaken against each other all the fury of
intolerance, when this shall have become the tempter and habit of
their minds.  I repeat it, I have no interest in this point, but
as a christian; and as such, I look with a degree of horrour on
this attempt to inflame and distract our churches.  Errour  of
opinion is an evil too trifling to be named in comparison with
this practical departure from the Gospel, with this proud,
censorious, overbearing temper, which says to a large body of
christians, "stand off, we are holier than you."

     Before I leave this question of separation, let me just
observe, that by this Review, not only we and our brethren are
cut off from the body of Christ; but the most venerable men who
have left us, and who, when living, were esteemed ornaments of
the church, such men as the late President Willard, Dr. Howard,
Dr. Eckley, Dr. Eliot, and Dr. Barnard, are declared unworthy of
the communion of the church on earth, and of course unfit for the
fellowship of saints in heaven.  It would be easy to show, that
the same dreadful sentence is past on some of the most exemplary
men in civil live, to whom this commonwealth is indebted for the
stability of its civil and religious institu-[24]tions. *{Were it
an object to enumerate all who are involved in this sweeping
sentence of condemnation, I might mention Locke, Newton, Grotius,
Dr. Samuel Clarke, Lardner, Price, Paley, and other names most
decided Unitarians; and can any imagine that christianity is to
be promoted by driving these men from the christian church?} 
These all having lived, as they thought, in the faith of Christ,
and having died with a hope in his precious promises, are now cut
off from his church, and denied his name. What christian does not
shudder at this awful temerity in a frail and erring fellow-
being, who thus presumes to sit in judgment on men, who in purity
and sincerity and devotion to God, were certainly not inferiour
to himself?  I stop here, for I wish not to indulge in language
of severity; and this subject, if any, may be left to speak for
itself to the heart of the christian.

     Having thus considered the three principle heads in the
Review, I now proceed, as I proposed, to offer a few words of
friendly admonition, as to the temper and conduct which become
our brethren and ourselves, under the injuries which we receive. 
The first suggestion you have undoubtedly anticipated.  It is,
that we remember the great duty which belongs to us as
christians, of regarding our enemies with good will, if possible
with a degree of approbation, at least with displeasure tempered
with compassion.  We profess to accord with that apostle, who has
taught us that charity is greater than faith and hope, more
excellent than the tongue of angels and the understanding of all
mysteries.  Let us prove our sincerity by our deeds.  Let us
cheerfully avail ourselves of every circumstanced, which will
justify the belief, that the cruel and bitter remarks of our
adversaries proceed not from a wanton and unblushing contempt of
truth, but from deep rooted prejudices, false views of religion,
unsuspected biasses to censoriousness, and a disor-[25]dered
imagination; and whilst we lament that they do not partake more
largely of the best influences of the gospel, let us be inclined
to hope that their profession of the gospel is sincere, and that
their departure from its spirit is unknown to themselves. AS to
the great mass of those christians, who view us with so much
jealousy, we must remember, that they know us only by report,
that they believe as they are taught by men to whom they ascribe
an eminent sanctity, and that they are liable to be carried way
on this, as on every other subject, by loud assertion, and by
addresses to their fears.  Accustomed as they are to hear us
branded with names and epithets, to which they have attached no
definite ideas, but which seem to them to express every thing
depraved, can we wonder that they shrink from us with a kind of
terrour?  towards this great class of our opposers, we certainly
owe nothing but kindness; and we should esteem it an unspeakable
happiness, that we can look with so much pleasure and hope on
those by whom we are dreaded and shunned; that we are not obliged
by or system to regard our adversaries as the enemies of God, and
the objects of his wrath.  On this point, above all others, I
would be urgent.  Our danger is, that reproach will hurry us into
language or conduct unbecoming the spirit of our master.  Let us
remember that our opposers cannot ultimately injure us, unless we
permit them to awaken bad passions, and to impair our virtues. 
Let us remember what is due from us to our religion.  The more
that our ages is uncharitable, the more that the glory of the
gospel is obscured by it being exhibited as  a source of
censoriousness and contention, he more we owe it to our Lord to
wipe off this reproach from his truth, to shew the loveliness of
his religion, to show its power in changing the heart into the
image of divine forbearance and forgiveness.  Is the gospel at
this moment receiving deep wounds in the house of its [26]
friends?  Let us guard with new jealousy its interests and
honour.

     The second suggestion I would offer, is this.  Whilst we
disapprove and lament the unchristian spirit of some of our
opposers, and the efforts which are used to make us odious, let
us yet acknowledge that there is kindness in that Providence,
which permits this trial to befall us.  We esteem it indeed a
hardship to be numbered by our brethren among the enemies of that
Saviour whom we love.  But let us remember, that we as well as
others need affliction: and it is my persuasion and hope that God
intends by this dispensation to purify our characters and extend
our usefulness.  The singular prosperity which we have enjoyed,
has undoubtedly exposed us to peculiar temptations.  Perhaps in
no part of the world is the condition of ministers more favoured
than ours.  Whilst we receive nothing of a superstitious homage
or a blind submission, we find ourselves respected by all classes
of society, and, may I not say, distinguished by the eminent, the
enlightened and the good?   We are received with a kind of
domestick affection into the families of our parishioners.  Our
sufferings call forth their sympathy, and in sickness we enjoy
every aid which tenderness and liberality can bestow.  Our
ministrations are attended with a seriousness, which, however due
to the truth which we deliver, we often feel to be poorly
deserved, by the imperfect manner in which it is dispensed.  In
our societies there are no divisions, no jealousies, no parties
to disturb us.  Whilst for these singular blessings, we should
give thanks to the Author of all good, we should remember, that
human virtue is often unable to sustain uninterrupted prosperity;
that a condition so favoured tends to awaken pride and self-
indulgence; and that God, who knows us better than we know
ourselves, may see that we need reproach and opposition to make
us better [27] men and better ministers.  I can certainly say for
myself, that the spirit of denunciation in our country, has led
me to a more serious and habitual study of the scriptures, and to
a deeper feeling of my responsibility, than I should have
attained in a more peaceful condition.  Let us then resign
ourselves to God, who in infinite wisdom sees fit to expose us to
the scourge of evil tongues.  Let this trial awaken us to new
watchfulness, devotion, and fidelity; and we may trust that it
will be overruled to the extension of our usefulness, and to the
promotion of pure and undefiled religion.

     A third, and a very important suggestion is this: Let us
hold fast our uprightness.  I have said, that the opposition to
which we are exposed has its advantages; but whilst it preserves
us from temptation of prosperity, it brings some temptation of
its own, which we cannot too steadfastly resist.  It will try our
integrity.  That our churches are to be generally shaken by the
assault which is made upon them, I am far from believing.  But
some may suffer.  It is not impossible, that the efforts which
are now employed to direct against us the uncharitableness and
mistaken zeal of the country, and to spread disaffection through
the most uninstructed and the most easily excited classes of
society, may produce some effect.  We know that fluctuations of
the human mind.  We know that the sincerest christians are often
unduly influenced by timidity, and may be brought to suspect a
minister, when he is decried as a heretick, who is leading souls
to hell.  It requires more strength of nerves and more
independence of mind than all good people possess, to withstand
this incessant clamour.  A storm then may be gathering over some
of us, and the sufferers may be tempted to bend to it.  But God
forbid, my friend, that any of us should give support to the
aspersions cast on our uprightness, by ever suppressing our
convictions, or speaking a language foreign to our hearts.
Through good report [28] and through evil report, let us with
simplicity and sincerity declare what we believe to be the will
of God and the way to Heaven, and thus secure to ourselves that
peace of conscience which is infinitely better that the smiles of
the world.  Let us never forget, that the most honoured condition
on earth is that of being sufferers for the sake of
righteousness, for adherence to what we deem the cause of God and
holiness, and let us welcome suffering, if it shall be appointed
to us, as bringing us nearer to our persecuted Lord, and his
injured apostles.  My brother, we profess to count man's judgment
as a light thing, to esteem this world and all which it offers to
be vanity.  We profess to look up to a heavenly inheritance, and
to hope that we shall one day mingle with angels and just men
made perfect.  And with these sublime hopes, shall we tremble
before frail and fallible fellow creatures, be depressed by
difficulties, or shrink form the expression of what we deem
important and useful truth?  God forbid.

     I have time to add but one more suggestion.  Let us beware
lest opposition and reproach lead any of us into a sectarian
attachment to our peculiar opinions.  This is a danger to which
persons of ardent and irritable temper are peculiarly exposed. 
Too many of us are apt to cling to a system in proportion as it
is assailed, to consider ourselves pledged to doctrines which we
have openly espoused, to rally round them as if our own honour
and interest were at stake, and to assert them with more and more
positiveness, as if we were incapable of errour.  This is the
infirmity of our frail nature; and whilst we condemn it in
others, let us not allow it in ourselves.  Let us be what we
profess to be, patient inquirers after truth, open to conviction,
willing to listen to objections, willing to renounce errour,
willing to believe that we as well as others may have been warped
in our opinions, by education and situation, and that others [29]
may have acquired important truths which, through weakness or
prejudice, we may have overlooked.  Were we a party, anxious to
make proselytes, we should do well to be positive and
overbearing.  But we profess to be anxious that our fellow
christians should inquire for themselves into the difficulties of
religion, instead of implicitly receiving what we have embraced. 
We profess to believe, that candid and impartial research will
guide mankind to purer system of christianity, than is now to be
found in any church or country under Heaven.  Most earnestly do I
hope that we shall not be betrayed by any violence of assault
into a sectarian heat and obstinacy, which will discredit our
profession, and obstruct this glorious reformation of the church
of God.

     I have thus, my brother, considered the charges, by which we
and our brethren have been assailed, and have endeavoured to
recommend the temper with which we should meet reproach and
insult.  I intended to offer a few remarks on some other topicks
introduced into the Review: but this letter is already extended
far beyond the limits which I originally prescribed.  I cannot,
however, pass over in silence the charges against Harvard
University, that venerable institution, which so many excellent
men in this commonwealth are accustomed to regard with filial
affection and honour, and to which we are all so much indebted
for the light of knowledge, and for whatever capacities of
usefulness to society we may possess.  The statement of the
Reviewer, that the propagation of Unitarianism in that University
is the object of regular and well concerted exertion, is
altogether false.  I am persuaded that such a plan never entered
the thoughts of those to whom the department of theological
instruction is entrusted.  The books in which the classes are
taught, were selected for the very purpose of avoiding, as far as
possible, the controversies of theolo-[30]gians, and the
communication of any peculiarities of opinion to the students. 
They are, "Grotius on the Truth of the Christian Religion,"
"Paley's Evidences," "Butler's Analogy," and "Griesbach's New
Testament."  The charge of the Reviewer, that the students,
instructed as they are in these works, by a professor of
exemplary purity and uprightness, are yet _taught to deny Jesus
Christ_, will, I trust, excite the indignation and abhorrence of
every unperverted mind. [See Note C.]

     Had I time, I should feel it my duty to offer some remarks
on the general _style_ of the publication which I am called to
examine.  It not only abounds in misrepresentation, and breathes
an unchristian spirit, but it is written in a style which tends
to deprave the taste and manners of the community.  It is suited
to give a coarse and vulgar character to the conversation and
deportment of those christians whom it may influence.  It abounds
in sneer and insult, and bears the marks of a writer better
suited to fill the pages of an inflammatory newspaper, than to be
the guide of the mild and benevolent disciples of Jesus Christ. 
I trust, however, that its style and spirit will do much to
counteract its pernicious tendency.  I have too much respect for
this people to believe that wanton assaults on the moral
character of ministers and private christians will be encouraged
and approved.  I even hope that good will in many cases result
from this publication.  I trust, that those christians who have
been partially misled by the denouncing spirit of the times, will
now pause and consider; that all christians, of whatever name,
who have any delicacy and tenderness of feeling, will learn the
true character of that unhallowed zeal which is seeking to divide
our churches; and that in this way, some important aid will be
given to the cause of peace and charity.  May god, whose glory it
is to bring good from evil, thus cause "the wrath of man to
praise him." 

[31]

     I think it proper, in conclusion, to observe that I shall
not feel myself bound to notice any replies which may be made to
this letter, especially if they appear in the Panoplist.  I
consider that work as having forfeited all claim on the
confidence of candid, upright, and honourable men. If any remarks
on this letter shall appear, written with the spirit of a
christian, or in the style of a gentleman, I shall read them with
care, and I hope with impartiality; and I shall readily retract
any of my opinions or statements which I shall see to be
erroneous, if they shall be thought sufficiently important to
demand publick acknowledgment.

    I now commit this humble effort to promote the peace and
union of the church, and the cause of truth and free inquiry, to
the blessing of Almighty God.  That in writing it, I have escaped
every unchristian feeling, I dare not hope; and for every
departure from the spirit of his gospel, I implore forgiveness. 
If I have fallen into errour, I beseech him to discover it to my
own mind, and to prevent its influence on the minds of others. 
It is an unspeakable consolation that we and our labours are in
his hand, and ha the cause of the gospel is his peculiar care. 
That he may honour us as the instruments of extending the
knowledge and the spirit of the gospel, is the earnest prayer of
your friend and brother in Christ,

                                          W. E. CHANNING.

Boston, June 20, 1815.

[32]
                             NOTES.

                         NOTE A, page 5.

     I have used the phrase or denomination _Liberal Christians_
because it is employed by the Reviewer to distinguish those whom
he assails.  I have never been inclined to claim this appellation
for myself or my friends, because as the word _liberality_
expresses the noblest qualities of the human mind, freedom from
local prejudices and narrow feelings, the enlargement of the
views and affections, -- I have thought that the assumption of it
would savour of that spirit, which has attempted to limit the
words _orthodox_ and _evangelical_ to a particular body of
christians.  As the appellation, however, cannot well be avoided,
I will state, the meaning which I attach to it.

     By a liberal christian I understand one, who is disposed to
receive as his brethren in Christ, all who in the judgment of
charity, sincerely profess to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Master.  He rejects all test or standards of christian faith
and of christian character, but the word of Jesus Christ and of
his inspired apostles.  He thinks it an act of disloyalty to his
Master to introduce into the church creeds of fallible men as
bonds of union, or terms of christian fellowship. He calls
himself by no name derived from human leaders, disclaims all
exclusive connexion with any sect or party, professes himself a
member of the church universal on earth and in heaven, and
cheerfully extends the hand of brotherhood to every man of every
name who discovers the spirit of Jesus Christ.

     According to this view of liberal christians, they cannot be
called a party.  They are distinguished only by refusing to
separate themselves in any form or degree from the great body of
Christ.  They are scattered too through all classes of
Christians.  I have known Trinitarians and Calvinists, who justly
deserve the name of liberal, who regard with affection all who
appear [33] to follow Jesus Christ in temper and life, however
they may differ on the common points of theology.  To this class
of christians, which is scattered over the earth, and which I
trust has never been extinct in any age, I profess and desire to
belong.  God send them prosperity. --In this part of the country,
liberal christians, as they have been above described, are
generally, though by no means universally, Unitarians in the
proper sense of that word.  It is of this part of them that I
chiefly speak is this letter.

     I cannot forbear enforcing the sentiments of this note and
of the letter by a passage from the venerable Baxter, as I find
it quoted by Grove from the preface to the second part of
"Saints' Everlasting Rest."

     "Two things have set the church on fire, and been the
plagues of it above one thousand years; -1st. Enlarging our
creed, and making more fundamentals than ever God made. 2d.
Composing, and so _imposing_, our creeds and confessions in our
own words and phrases.  When men have learned more manners and
humility than to accuse God's language as too general and
obscure, as if they could mend it -- hand have more dread of God
and compassion on themselves, than to make those to be
fundamentals or certainties which God never made so; and when
they reduce their confessions, 1st. to their due extent, and 2d.
to _scripture phrases_, that dissenters may not scruple
subscribing - then, and I think never till then, shall the church
have peace about doctrinals.  It seems to me no heinous
_Socinian_ notion which Chillingworth is blamed for, viz. _Let
all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour to
believe it in the true sense, and promise this, and require no
more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but
the only means to suppress heresy and restore unity._"

                            NOTE B, page 6.

     I have mentioned the name of Dr. Eckley, because his
opinions on this subject were again and again expressed before me
[34] with perfect frankness, and are stated with great
distinctness in his letter to the Rev. Thomas Worcester of
Salisbury, from which I subjoin an extract.

     "My plan, when I saw you, as I think I intimated, respecting
the Son God, was very similar to what your brother [Rev. Noah
Worcester] has now adopted.  The common plan of three self-
existent persons forming one _Essence_ or infinite _Being_, and
one of these persons being _united to a man_, but not in the
least humbling himself or suffering, completely leads to and ends
in Socinianism; and though it claims the form of _orthodoxy_, it
is a _shadow_ without the _substance_; it eludes inspection; and
I sometimes say to those who are strenuous for this doctrine,
that they take away my Lord, and I know not where they place
him." -- "The _orthodoxy_, so called, of _Waterland_, is as
repugnant to my reason and views of religion as the _heterodoxy
of Lardner_; and I am at a loss to see that any solid
satisfaction, for a person who wishes to find salvation through
the death of the SON OF GOD, can be found in either." -- "I seek
for a plan which exalts the personal character and attributes of
the SON OF GOD in the _highest possible degree_.  The plan which
your brother hath chosen does this -- The scheme he has adopted
affords light and comfort to the christian.  I have long thought
so; and I continue to think I have not been mistaken."

                      ADDITIONAL REMARKS.
                        NOTE C, page 30.

     I have been surprised and grieved at hearing since the
publication of this letter that some readers have thought, that
the charges in the Review against the President of Harvard
University out to have received from me a degree of attention. 
The important station, which that gentleman fills with so much
usefulness and honour, seemed to me to render the introduction of
his name into a controversy like the present improper and perhaps
indecorous.  I thought too, that it would be an imputation [35]
on the understanding of the plainest reader, to attempt the
refutation of that singular argument in support of a Unitarian
plot at the University, which the Reviewer has derived from the
_omissions_of certain topicks in the President's _prayers_ on the
Commencement in the year 1813.  I did suppose, that this argument
might be sagely left without a word of comment, and that the
importance given to it in the Review would be regarded as one of
the strongest possible proofs of a desperate cause. An assailant,
when he is driven to the use of such a weapon, ceases to be
formidable.  What christian on earth will escape denunciation, if
his character is to be decided by _omissions_ in a _prayer?_  I
very much fear, that the holy men, whose prayers are recorded in
scripture, will, if tried by this standard of _omission_, be
often found wanting in some essential articles of faith; and what
is more, I fear, that the Author of the Lord's prayer will,
according to this rule, be driven as a heretick from the very
church which he has purchased with his own blood.  In that well
known prayer I can discover no reference to the "inspiration of
the holy scriptures, to the supreme divinity of the Son and Holy
Ghost, to the atonement and intercession of Jesus Christ, to the
native and total depravity of the unregenerate, and to the
reality and necessity of special divine grace to renew and
sanctify the souls of men;" and these, let it be remembered, are
_five_ out of the _six_ articles which are given by the Reviewer
as fundamental articles of a christian's faith. p. 249.  These
omissions, it is to be observed, are not found in a prayer used
on a special occasion by our Lord; but in a prayer given by him
to his disciples as a _form_ or _model_, and which he designed
should be _published through the whole earth_ and transmitted for
the _use and imitation of all future ages_.  I cannot adopt he
style of the Reviewer, and exhort christian parents to beware of
placing their children under the guidance of our Lord as a
teacher, because such a prayer, which omits so many essentials,
proceeded from his lips.

     I neglected to notice this argument in my letter. because,
_as an argument_ it seemed unworthy of notice.  There is,
however, [36] another view of it, in which it deserves attention. 
I refer to the spirit which it indicates in _some_ or our
opponents.  The story which the Reviewer tells, of a number of
men assembling on the evening of Commencement, and putting
together their observations on the President's prayer, sounds
badly. One has reason to fear, that these men listened to the
prayer, with something of the temper of certain persons in the
time of our Saviour, who assembled to hear him, that they might
"catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him" 
We learn too, that it is not impossible, that we are surround by
spies, when we suspect no evil; that our words may be treasured
up, and my be published months, and even years, have passed away,
and have blotted every recollection of them from our minds; and
that we may be summoned to answer, at that distant period, not
only for what we said, but for what we omitted to say.  I think
that we discover something of this system of _espionage_ in the
story, told by the Reviewer, of the complaint of a Boston
minister on visiting New_York, where he was not invited to
preach.  The peace of society and of the church, and the freedom
and confidence of social intercourse demand, that this very
degrading practice of publishing what people _say_, should be
exposed with great plainness an strong disapprobation.

     There is another charge against the President of Harvard
University, which no one certainly will expect me to notice; it
is the charge of having written an article in the Anthology above
four years ago.  I am not in the habit of asking gentlemen,
whether they are authors of pieces which appear without a name;
nor do I conceive that the President of Harvard University is
bound to answer to the publick, whenever an anonymous publication
shall be laid to his charge.