LETTER.

REY. AND DEAR SIR,

A REASON of my choosing to communicate my thoughts, on your Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thacher, in a Letter addressed to you, rather than present them to the publick in any other form, was, that I bore towards you very sincere affection and respect, and wished, while performing a most painful duty, assiduously to preserve and cherish these sentiments. In this disposition I was careful that you should receive a copy of the Letter, accompanied with a note of fraternal courtesy, before the pamphlet was published for sale. Though I have not met with reciprocal attention in either of these respects, and have only found, at the Bookseller's, "Remarks" on my Letter, addressed to the publick;" yet, animated still with the same sentiments as at first, and impressed with some new considerations, I choose to address what I have to offer in reply to your Remarks, in a second letter to you.

There are cases in which a fair statement of the truth, even with the kindest spirit and in the mildest terms, will almost certainly be considered by those on whom it bears, as severe if not bitter. This infelicity I deeply felt when writing before, and now, I can assure you, not less deeply feel. I sincerely regret the necessity of exhibiting truths, which will be painful to you; and it will be my care not to render them additionally painful, by any asperity or unfairness in the manner of exhibiting them. I find that your Remarks are almost entirely personal; but in replying to these "personalities,” it will be no object with me to "defend myself," any further than seems, necessary for the vindication of the eause which I espouse. My earnest desire is, that attention may be fixed, not upon me or upon you, but upon the important questions of general concern in discussion between

us. These questions merit attention; and neither we, nor others on either side, ought to be weary of attending to them, until they be well understood, and correctly decided.

In reading your Remarks, my first care was to find, if you had made it appear that I had, in any instance, misapprehended or misrepresented you, or done injustice to you or to others. In two or three instances you intimate that I have misrepresented you, and in three or four that I have wronged you by unjust imputation. To these I will briefly attend.

I stated that "in the terms of your creed," as given in your Letter, there is "a great want of clearness and precision; great indistinctness and ambiguity." You "deny" the correctness of this representation. I have deliberately reexamined the subject, and my views of it remain unaltered. It was not because your "statement," or creed, did not "meet and answer every question which may possibly be started in relation to your sentiments," that I pronounced it indistinct and ambiguous; but because, as I attempted to shew, it was not clear and unequivocal upon the points most directly in question: and I am perfectly content to submit it to the judgment of candid men on either side, who will attentively read what you have written and what I have written, whether in this instance I am guilty of misrepresentation. To them also I would refer, whether, as I have never been charged with concealing my sentiments, I am open to the "reproach, in turn,” of ambiguity and indistinctness, in regard to any statements which I made, or which it was incumbent on me to make.

You seem to intimate, p. 8, that I have misrepresented your account of the manner in which you and your liberal brethren perform your ministry. This also I have reexamined: and only desire that my representation and argument may be fairly compared with your statement, and with the general, notorious, and undisputed facts to which I referred.

You say, p. 12, "I refer to his ipsinuation, that we have adopted a style of preaching opposed to that of the apostles,

BECAUSE WE WISH TO AVOID THE SUFFERINGS WHICH THOSE HOLY MEN ENCOUNTERED, AND WISH TO SECURE THE FAVOUR OF THE WORLD.”—I did indeed suppose that "the favour of

the world" which you enjoy, and of which you speak in your Letter with so much complacency, was to be attributed, at least in part, to "a style of preaching” widely different from that of the apostles. But that you have adopted this style for the sake of such a boon, I have no where "insinuated." Throughout my Letter, I studiously confined myself to the statement and suggestion of facts and principles in "language" which you acknowledge to be "sufficiently soft and guarded," and without arraigning or impeaching, in a single instance, intentions or motives. Had you duly attended to this character of my Letter, you would have spared yourself the pain of many of your remarks.-And here, Sir, I enter my protest against the "rule” of construction which you have professedly adopted, and according to which you seem to think it right to assume the "impression," which any writings happen to make, as the criterion of their real meaning.

P. 15, you quote from my Letter the following passage: "You doubtless will not hesitate to acknowledge what I have certainly very great sorrow in stating, that the doctrines of atonement by Christ's death, and justification through faith in his blood, as held by orthodox christians in all ages of the church,—at once fall to the ground before you." Upon this. you exclaim, “Astonishing assertion!"—"What! does Dr. Worcester really believe that I will acknowledge without hesitation, that I reject these or any other doctrines, as they were held by ORTHODOX christians in the age of Christ and his apostles, or as held by ORTHODOX christians in any age of the church." Really, Sir, I did rely on your candour, that you would not refuse to me the common and established use of the word ORTHODOX, and that you would not, by giving to this word a different sense, evade a notorious matter of fact, and avoid an ingenuous concession. Admit the word orthodox in its general acceptation, and in the sense in which you must have understood me to use it; and I am still confident you will not deny what I supposed you would not hesitate to acknowledge.

In this connexion you say, "Before leaving this head, I would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of fastening on his opponents the consequences which seem to him to follow

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 hoose 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 GOD— was made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled himself and BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO How could you

DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS.

then say, that our "system makes the sufferings of Jesus Christ nothing more than the sufferings of a man?"

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