from their system. This practice is unfair and injurious." I am not conscious of this "habit." I do not think it right for any one to fasten upon his opponents the consequences which seem to him to follow from their system; when they themselves disavow those consequences, or do not generally admit them. Against such a practice, I would cordially join with you in the most earnest and decided "protest." But the present is a very different case. It is a well known fact, that those who deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, do also generally, if not universally, deny the doctrines of atonement and justification by faith, as held by orthodox* christians. Your reference to Dr. Samuel Clark and to Bible News is utterly irrelevant. Dr. Clark did not deny the essential divinity or the eternal existence of the Son of God; and hence was not under the necessity of denying the doctrine of atonement. Though, nevertheless, I believe Dr. Clark's views of the Trinity erroneous, and to have been solidly refuted by Dr. Waterland; yet it is not with Dr. Clark, or with any who do not deny the essential Divinity of Jesus Christ, that I am concerned in the present discussion. My concern is with those who hold Jesus Christ to be only a creature; whether they hold him to be "the first production of God, the most exalted being in the universe with the single exception of the infinite Father," or a mere man, fallible and peccable like other men. Whatever terms may be employed to set forth the dignity of Jesus Christ, and to represent him as being almost equal to the supreme Father, it is nevertheless certain that, if he is only a creature, he is infinitely inferiour to the Father; and is no more to be compared with God, no more to be represented as approaching in dignity and glory to him, than any other creature, even man that is a worm. Before Him whose name is JEHOVAH all creatures are as nothing. This the highest holy creature will the most deeply feel, and, feel

*I still use this word in its common acceptation, to denote those christians, who hold the doctrines of Christ's true divinity, atonement for sin by his death, and justification by faith alone in him; in opposition to those who deny these doctrines, and whom I call Unitarians, not because I think them justly entitled to appropriate this name, but because it is the name by which they choose to be called.

ing this, would shudder at the ascription to him of the names, and titles, and honours ascribed to Jesus Christ. As it respects the doctrine of atonement then, and other evangelical doctrines connected with it, it matters not whether Jesus Christ be regarded as a mere man, or as a creature of superangelick dignity. If he is a mere creature, whatever rank you choose to assign to him, his death could not have been of the nature, or of the meritorious efficacy of a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world. It is therefore with perfect consistency, and a matter of course" and necessity, that those who hold him to be a mere creature, do actually deny the doctrines of atonement and justification, as held by orthodox christians. What, then, I "again and again intimate," is not a matter of mere inference, but a notorious matter of fact.

But is it not remarkable, Sir, that in the very paragraph in which you protest against "fastening on opponents the consequences which seem to follow from their system," you should do the very thing against which you protest? You here assert, that "the system of the Trinitarians makes the sufferings of Jesus Christ nothing more than the sufferings of a man." Do you not know, Sir, that the Trinitarians decidedly deny this consequence? Do you not know that they hold Jesus Christ to be God and man united in one person that this one complex person suffered and died, and that his death had all the importance, all the merit, all the efficacy, which could be derived to it from the infinite dignity of such a person? HE WHO WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, AND THOUGHT IT NO ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GODwas made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled himself and BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO How could you then say, that our "system makes the sufferings of Jesus Christ nothing more than the sufferings of a man?”

DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS.

To several very solemn quotations of scripture, in my former Letter, this remark is subjoined: "If this language sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust, Sir, you will have the goodness not to impute the fault to me; and that you will not on account of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse

1

to give attention to the momentous sentiment contained in it." Of this you complain. The serious truth is, that I was so forcibly struck with those passages, in contrast with the language which we are accustomed to hear from your quarter, that it really occurred to me that such disgust would be excited by them in the minds of readers of the liberal class, as would almost induce them to throw down the pamphlet and read no further: and I paused to deliberate whether it might not be expedient to suppress the quotations. It was under this impression that the remark was made. On reflection, however, after the Letter was published, and before I saw your reply, I was apprehensive, that, in this instance, I had conveyed an unjust imputation, and sincerely regretted that I had made the remark. When I found that you considered it in this light, and were wounded by it, my regret was increased. I confess my fault in this particular; and devoutly wish that the remark could be obliterated from the Letter, and effaced from every mind.

I have now, I believe, noticed all the instances, in which you have intimated that I am chargeable with misrepresentation, or unjust imputation; and with these brief remarks, I cheerfully submit them all to the candid and serious reconsideration of yourself and every reader.

My next inquiry was, whether you had invalidated any of my "criticisms," statements, positions, or arguments: and after a very attentive examination and re-examination, you will permit me, dear Sir, to say, what I feel perfectly safe in saying, it is my deliberate judgment, and in it I have the concurrence of all with whom I have conversed on the subject, that you have not directly met me at a single point, shewn me to be incorrect in a single statement, nor refuted me in a single position or argument; and, in a word, that your Remarks are no real answer to my Letter.

It becomes then an inquiry, by what means you have given to your Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer? For that they have with some this appearance and this effect, I do not doubt. This inquiry, though a delicate and unpleasant one, justice to the cause of truth forbids me to decline.

In the first place, you have imputed to me a bad spirit anti intention. With this you begin, and with this you end; and in this, I believe, the effective force of your Remarks mainly lies. Were no bad spirit or intention imputed to me, I presume no person would suppose my Letter to have been answered. But with persons who allow their feelings and passions, instead of reason, and conscience, and scripture, to decide upon the controversy, this imputation has all the effect of the most victorious argument.

My Letter, you say, “though milder in language, BREATHS too much of THE SPIRIT OF THE REVIEW." The spirit of the Review you have represented, in your Letter to Mr. Thacher, as being a spirit of "falsehood," "unfairness,” ❝disingenuousness," "uncharitableness," "illiberality," "censoriousness," "insult," "bitterness," "malignity," "pride," "cruelty," "fury," "denunciation," "heresy," and "awful temerity." It was by imputing this spirit to the Reviewer, that you roused the passions of your party into a flame.. And now you impute to me the same spirit-whether in equal measure you do not say. It was easy, Sir, if nothing in the breast rendered it difficult, to make this imputation: but it ought not to have been made without proof-clear, substantial proof. Had you convicted me of such a spirit, though it would not have been a refutation of my Letter, yet it would have fixed on me an indispensable obligation to humble myself before you, before the world, and above all before Him whose servant I profess to be. But you have offered no proof; and utterly unconscious as I am of having written with such a spirit, I confidently refer it to all candid judges -I humbly refer it to Him who judgeth righteously—whether the imputation is not entirely gratuitous and unjust.

Of my Letter you further say, "It is too obviously DESIGNED to drive both me and my brethren from the church and from the ministry." Could charity, Sir, neither discern nor imagine any other design than this? What other course should have been adopted, what other means should have been used, had one designed to do what he could to convert his brethren from the errour of their ways, and thus to hide a multitude of

sins?

You repeatedly speak of my "ATTEMPTS to render your preaching and your sentiments ODIOUS;" and this you represent to be one "GREAT OBJECT of my Letter." This also plainly imports a malignant spirit and intention. But, Sir, in what way have I attempted to render your sentiments and preaching odious, excepting by a simple exhibition of them; without discolouring, distortion, or declamation, in contrastwith those of orthodox ministers and of the apostles of Christ.

In pp. 22 and 25, you make a representation of my spirit and intention, at which you "shudder," and at which you had reason to shudder. But that part of your Remarks I shall have occasion to consider in another place.

Towards the close you have this passage: "It does not "appear, no, not in a single line, that Dr. Worcester ever "brought home to himself the case of his injured brethren, "ever imagined himself in their situation, and inquired how "under such circumstances he would himself have felt and "acted." Here I am represented as devoid of brotherly sympathy and feeling; and here is the consummation of that unchristian and malignant spirit, which is imputed to me from the beginning of your Remarks to the end. Sir, I have reason to sympathize with my brethren, whenever they are injured by attempts to drive them from the ministry," or to deprive them of their comfort, their good name, or their usefulness; I have no occasion to imagine myself in their situation;" and I should, indeed, be a monster of insensibility, had I no tenderness of feeling for them. I have not forgotten that I was once myself "driven" from a settlement, a church, and people, dear to my heart; driven, indeed, not by persecuting Calvinists, but by liberal men; yet not on that account entirely without pain. I have witnessed the sufferings of others in similar circumstances, and particularly of a beloved brother in your vicinity. If I have not been deceived, these painful scenes, while they have brought me pretty fully acquainted with the charity and liberality of the age, have had a salutary effect upon my feelings, and taught me how much it becomes the professed servants of Christ to treat their brethren with forbearance, kindness, tenderness, and undissembled good will. This lesson may I never forget