of teachers who, they were led to suppose, believed and loved the same precious truths as themselves. But it seems from the letters here laid before you, that your pious fathers and mothers were deceived. They were imposed upon, in respect to their most important interests. They did not know that their ministers were Unitarians. How should they know it? A" cautious reserve was kept up; and neither from the sermons, the prayers, nor the private conversation of those who instructed them, could their real sentiments be gathered. Your fathers would have been " shocked," as Mr. Parkman testifies, if they had heard "their ministers preach the peculiarities of Unitarianism ;" and yet some of these ministers* held these very peculiarities, and would not disclose them. We repeat then the question, Fellow citizens, how ought you to regard this treatment of your venerated fathers and mothers? What say you to the cruel imposition which was put upon them? Was it fair? Was it Christian? Was it what your ancestors had a right to expect? Would the apostle Paul, think you-nay, would any fair and honorable man-have consented to manage in such a way?-But this, you see, was the way in which Unitarianism planted itself in the midst of you. It came in by concealment. It "crept in unawares." We wonder not at all, considering the various devices which have been practised, that Evangelical religion has been, to a great extent, rooted out from these churches. The greater wonder is, and to the credit of the citizens of Boston it ought to be spoken, that there is so much the appearance of ancient order, and principle, and piety still remaining.

But you will say, perhaps, these are old affairs. The present Unitarian ministers, especially those who have been recently settled, are not responsible for the errors of those who preceded them. And we allow that they are not, any farther than they are consenting to them, and are in fact practising the same things. It has been stated, and we believe truly, that Unitarian ministers now are not explicit. "The discussions and disclosures of a twenty years' controversy have brought them out, on several points; but over others of equal importance, there is still thrown a covering of disguise." If your ministers really believe that the Bible is not itself the word of God-and that Jesus Christ was no more than a human being- and that there is no deviland no future endless punishment for the wicked;-if they actually believe thus, as the most of them unquestionably do; then why do they not now frankly tell you so? Why do they not preach out their sentiments, and dwell upon them, and disabuse those of their confiding hearers who are living, as they think, in superstition and error? Why are they afraid-as Dr. Bancroft assures us many are afraidt -to preach what they believe, on any of the important subjects of religion? Between Unitarian ministers and their hearers, it is not our province to interfere, except in the way of publishing facts, affording light, and urging motives. This is all the right that we have in the case, and all we desire to have. If, fellow citizens of Boston and the country, you are satisfied and pleased with the doctrines of Unitarianism, as constituting a religion in which you mean to live and to die, then hear these doctrines. You must have your choice. But, we beseech you, hear them all. Insist upon it with your teachers that they shall be plain and full, and drop all disguise, and bring before you their whole system. The present is no time for "cautious reserves," and temporizing concealments. "For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid that shall not be known."

*" Most of our Boston clergy are Unitarians."-Mr. Wells' Letter. + Sermons, p. 392

WAS DR. WATTS A BELIEVER IN THE SUPREME

DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST?

UNITARIANS claim to rest their faith, not at all on the authority of names, but on the ground of reason and revelation. Yet no people, perhaps, were ever more fond of appealing to names, than they. The few distinguished names of which they boast, as Newton, Milton, Locke and Watts, have been repeated, till their own friends, we are sure, must be tired of hearing them.

To say nothing, at present, of the other individuals mentioned, we have long been satisfied that to the name of Watts they were not entitled. Indeed, we have considered the case so clear, as scarcely to admit of inquiry or discussion. Since, however, Dr. Watts continues to be claimed as a Unitarian, and not unfrequently in a style of confidence, as though this was a given point; we have thought it would be well to call the attention of our readers to the question above proposed. We believe it may be determined by a weight of evidence which ought to put it at rest forever.

It is admitted, on all hands, that Dr. Watts was educated in a belief of the proper Divinity of Christ, and that he continued in this belief during the greater portion of his life; but it is alleged by some, that he renounced the doctrine in his more advanced years, and became a decided Unitarian.

That the views of Dr. Watts respecting the Trinity and the person of Christ underwent a degree of change in the course of his life, is not denied. But what was the nature of this change? and to what did it amount? These are the questions; and in replying to them we shall show, conclusively, that the change of sentiment on the part of Dr. Watts did not amount to a renunciation of the Trinity, but merely to a different, and, (as he thought,) a more full and consistent explanation of it; and that he continued, to the last, a firm believer in the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Before offering direct proof on this point, it may be proper to examine the evidence which has been adduced to show that Dr. Watts did become, towards the close of life, a Unitarian.

This pretence was first set up many years ago; and was examined, refuted, and put to silence, by Mr. Samuel Palmer, in his appendix to Johnson's Life of Watts. More recently, the same story has been revived by Mr. Belsham, in his Memoirs of Lindsey, which has led to another publication by Mr. Palmer, entitled, “A Refutation of the Testimony of Dr. Lardner, as brought forward in the Rev. T. Belsham's Memoirs," &c. To these works of Mr. Palmer, we shall have occasion frequently to refer.

The amount of Dr. Lardner's testimony is, that "in the latter part of his (Dr. Watts') life, for several years before his death, he was a Unitarian." And again, "Dr. Watts' last thoughts were completely Unitarian."* Dr. Lardner founds the opinion here expressed, partly on certain unpublished manuscripts of Dr. Watts; and partly on the testimony of a Mr. Neal. We propose to examine both these sources of evidence.

It has been urged frequently and confidently, by others as well as Dr. Lardner, in proof that Dr. Watts became a Unitarian, that he left manuscripts disclosing his change of sentiments, which were destroyed by his executors.-The

* Dr. Lardner here uses the word Unitarian, as synonymous with Humanitarian; for he says, "I think Dr. Watts never was an Arian, to his honor be it spoken."

+ This Mr. Neal was a son of the historian of the Puritans, and nephew of Dr. Lardner.

manuscripts of Dr. Watts were entrusted to Doctors Jennings and Doddridge. He had himself personally requested these gentlemen to take charge of them, and the same trust was committed to them in his Will, with directions" to publish or suppress, as they should judge best." He had made Dr. Jennings acquainted, in general, with the number and character of his manuscripts "three or four years" before his death; and, at the time of making his Will, he arranged them under eight specific heads or titles, a complete list of which is published by Mr. Palmer in his Appendix. Three out of the eight unpublished collections, as appears by the titles, were on the subject of the Trinity; but that neither of them contained sentiments different from what appear in the last works which the author himself published, we have complete proof. For, in the first place, they were all written previous to his own last publications on the same subject. If written "three or four years" before the author's death, according to the testimony of Dr. Jennings, they must have been written as early as 1745. At any rate, they were written previous to July, 1746, the date of his Will. But it was near the close of 1746, that Dr. Watts published his last work, on the "Glory of Christ." Consequently, his unpublished manuscripts, whatever they might be, did not contain his last thoughts respecting the person of the Saviour.-But one of the three manuscripts on the subject of the Trinity, and the last of them, has since been published, and is found to contain nothing different from the work on the "Glory of Christ." It appears also from the titles of the other two, as given by Mr. Palmer, that they were in the same strain, going to show "the ill effects of incorporating the Divine doctrine of the Trinity* with the human explications of it;" or, in other words to set forth, as we may presume, the supposed advantages of his own peculiar "explications" of this "Divine doctrine."

Dr. Lardner saw some of the manuscripts of which we are speaking, and had they clearly disclosed the fact that Watts was a Unitarian, he would, we doubt not, have insisted on their publication. But instead of this, he tells us, "They were not fit to be published." Dr. Watts" had never been used to a proper way of reasoning on such a subject." He had never reasoned himself, it is true, into the same conclusions with Dr. Lardner. Another "gentleman of veracity, who had seen the manuscripts, assured" Mr. Palmer, "that they appeared to him to contain nothing new, being only a farther illustration of his (Dr. Watts') sentiments concerning the Trinity, which he had before published to the world."

We turn now to the testimony of Mr. Neal, as reported by Dr. Lardner.

My nephew, Neal, an understanding gentleman, was intimate with Dr. Watts, and often with the family where he lived. Sometimes, in an evening when they were alone, he would talk to his friends in the family of his new thoughts concerning the person of Christ, and their great importance, and that if he should be able to recommend them to the world, it would be the most considerable thing that ever he performed. My Nephew, therefore, came to me, and told me of it, and that the family was greatly concerned, to hear him talk so much of the importance of these sentiments."+

Now, taking this language just as it stands, what evidence does it furnish, in support of the conclusion of Dr. Lardner, that the "last thoughts of Dr.

* Strange phraseology for a Unitarian-"THE DIVINE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY." + This testimony, it should be observed, passed through several Unitarian hands, before it was made public. Mr. Neal reported it to Dr. Lardner; Dr. Lardner to a Mr. Merrivale; Mr. Merrivale to Dr. Priestly; Dr. Priestly to Mr. Belsham; and Mr. Belsham published it. These reports, however, or the most of them, passed in writing.

Watts were completely Unitarian?" Obviously none at all. Could not Dr. Watts, in his old age, cherish any new thoughts concerning the person of Christ," and thoughts which seemed to him of "great importance," without becoming a Unitarian? The truth is, that Dr. Watts did, in the latter part of his life, acquire some "new thoughts concerning the person of Christ”thoughts which he unfolded and endeavored to defend in his last publications ; but these thoughts, he believed, and strenuously insisted, were entirely consistent with the Supreme Divinity of his Lord and Saviour.

We mean not, in anything we have said, to charge Dr. Lardner with intentional misrepresentation; but he evidently drew a wrong conclusion from the testimony of Mr. Neal. And in further proof that he did, Mr. Palmer appeals to the different members of the family in which Dr. Watts lived and died, and who, as Mr. Neal says, were "greatly concerned to hear him talk so much of the importance of his new thoughts concerning the person of Christ." He appeals "to the Rev. Thomas Taylor, who for many years lived as chaplain in the same family;" to " Mr. Joseph Parker, his (Dr. Watts') amanuensis, who was constantly with him ;" and to Mrs. Abney, at that time mistress of the family; neither of whom had the least reason to suppose, from what they saw or heard, that Dr. Watts ever adopted any sentiments relative to the person of Christ, different from those contained in his last publications. Mr. Palmer also quotes Dr. Gibbons and Dr. Stennett, both of whom visited him but a short time before his death, and found "his soul swallowed up with gratitude and joy, for the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ," speaking "particularly of our dependence upon Christ," as the foundation of all our hopes. "So far," says Dr. Stennett, " from having embraced the Socinian system, he expressed his firm belief of the doctrine of Christ's atonement, and lamented, even with tears, that so many should have given it up. Correspondent with which," adds Mr. Palmer, "is the epitaph which Dr. Watts ordered to be inscribed on his tomb-IN UNO JESU OMNIA-In Jesus alone is my all." It should be further observed, that Dr. Jennings, a thoroughly Orthodox divine, and one of those who were entrusted with Dr. Watts' manuscripts, preached at his funeral, and afterwards published the sermon, in which he speaks of the religious character of his departed friend in the highest terms—a thing which he certainly would not have done, had he discovered, from the manuscripts of Dr. Watts, or from any other source, that he became, at last, a Unitarian. Indeed, Mr. Belsham himself, who brings forward and arrays the evidence from Lardner, does not appear to consider it of much force, or to believe that Dr. Watts ever regarded himself as a Unitarian. "There can be little doubt," says he, "that, owing to early prejudice, he (Dr. Watts) would, to the latest day of his life, have started from the imputation with horror."

One of the papers, left by Dr. Watts and published by his executors, contained a solemn Address to the Deity," imploring light and direction in his inquiries on the subject of the Trinity. This has often been referred to, as evidence that he became a Unitarian. But so far from proving the point in question, it proves directly the contrary.

"Hast thou not ascribed Divine names, and titles, and characters to thy Son, and thy Holy Spirit in thy word, as well as assumed them to thyself? And hast thou not appointed to them such glorious offices as cannot be executed, without something of Divinity or true Godhead in them?" Speaking of Christ in this prayer, Dr. Watts says, "I believe he is a man, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God; he is God manifested in the flesh; and that the man Jesus is so closely and

inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one person, even as the soul and body make one man.'

Strange, that a prayer, containing expressions such as these, should be quoted as evidence that its author was a Unitarian!

It has been said by some, that Dr. Watts, at his decease, left a corrected copy of his Psalms and Hymns, from which he had expunged all those expressions which speak of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ.-On this point Mr. Palmer well observes,

"The evidence of this fact is by no means satisfactory. What became of the copy thus corrected? Mr. Parker, the Doctor's amanuensis," without whose assistance nothing was done, "knows of no such thing, and never heard of the author's having such a design." This, like some other reports, is without any just foundation."

Others have alleged that Dr. Watts was dissatisfied with some of his hymns, and wished to make alterations; but that, having disposed of the copyright, his bookseller would not suffer them to be corrected.-That Dr. Watts wished to make alterations in some of his hymns is not improbable. They were written and published in early life, and it is not strange that, after frequent revision, alterations and improvements should be suggested as desirable. Indeed he has told us that this was the fact. " I wish some things were corrected." But does it follow from this that Dr. Watts had become a Unitarian, and wished to expunge the doctrine of Christ's Divinity from his Psalms and Hymns? By no means. There is no evidence of his having ever indulged a wish or thought of this nature, but abundant evidence, as we shall show, to the contrary.

It has been inferred from some expressions in the later writings of Dr. Watts, and particularly from a letter to Dr. Colman of Boston, written the year before his death, that he had renounced the Divinity of Christ, and become a Unitarian. The letter to Dr. Colman is as follows:

"I am glad my book of Useful Questions came safe to your hand. I think I have said everything concerning the Son of God which Scripture says; but I could not go so far as to say with some of our Orthodox divines, that the Son is equal with the Father; because our Lord himself expressly says, "My Father is greater than I." I hope there is nothing contained in my book of 'The Glory of Christ,' which I now send you, with a volume of 'Evangelical Discourses,' but what Scripture is express in determining, that Jesus Christ, at least his human soul, is the first of the creation of God." On this letter we remark, that it professedly followed Dr. Watts' last work but one, his "Useful and Important Questions," and accompanied his last work, on the "Glory of Christ," in both of which the supreme Divinity of Christ is, as we shall show, very largely inculcated. We cannot, therefore, interpret any expression in the letter in opposition to the general sentiment of the books. But what is the doubtful expression in the letter? "I could not go so far as to say, with some of our Orthodox divines, that the Son is equal with the Father." In explanation of this, it need only be observed, that Dr. Watts considered the phrase, Son of God, as referring entirely to the human nature of Christ. It was a part of his theory, that the human soul of Christ was created before the world, before angels, that it was "the first of the creation of God," and that his Sonship belonged entirely to his human nature.* In this sense, he might well hesitate to say, that the Son is equal with the Father.

"The Son of God is throughout represented as dependent on the Father, and receiving all from the Father, which is hardly consistent with the idea of supreme God