wholly wanting in christian piety," or is "without christian virtue." Neither of these things is either affirmed or implied in any passage of mine; but the terms used by me, and the entire connexion, are particularly and pointedly guarded against such a construction. Had not you said it, I should certainly have thought that the person who could say, that the interpretation which you have given is "the natural meaning of my words," "that in giving such an interpretation no violence is put upon my language," and "that no other sense offers itself to an unprejudiced mind," really had not "ability to decide on the obvious import of a letter written in our native tongue," and ought to be sent to school, to learn the very rudiments of grammar and logick. This remark I apply to all the passages which you have cited. Taken severally or collectively, in a detached state or in their respective conexions, they neither naturally express, nor by all the torture to which you have put, or can put them, can they be made to yield the sense which you have so resolutely attempted to fasten upon them.

Had it, however, been otherwise; had my expressions been such as easily to admit, or even naturally to convey the sense of your statement; yet, if they would bear another construction, and I had explicitly said that such was not my meaning, it might have been compatible with the laws of common courtesy for my disavowal to have been candidly accepted. It has been thought allowable in debate, for a person, when misunderstood, to explain; and right that his explanation should be admitted. But this privilege has not been allowed to me.. I was misunderstood,-certainly misrepresented: and though I thought my language sufficiently plain, yét I went, in my Second Letter, into a full and candid exposition of my sentiments and views; and not only said, but shewed, that my meaning was not, and could not have been, such as you had stated. Yet after all this, you take it upon you to say, that you "cannot avoid the belief that my recollections on this point are imperfect;" you resolutely insist on your former interpretation, which I have explicitly disavowed, and refuse to admit my frank exposition of my own meaning. This, Sir, is carrying the claims of your "self respect very far; to an extent,

I believe, beyond what any courteous, and candid, and modest, and honourable man, to say nothing of a christian minister, ever before attempted.

I must here quote from your Remarks an extraordinary passage. "Dr. Worcester, however," you say, p. 12, “assures me that I have misrepresented him; and I have no disposition to question the sincerity with which he now declares that he did not intend to communicate the sentiments which I ascribed to him. I cannot indeed avoid the belief, that his recollections on this point are imperfect, and that in the hurry of his thoughts and feelings, he was not so watchful over his motives as he now imagines." In the same style you say,p. 4, "Dr. Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings and intentions which I have ascribed to him.-That he is sincere in reporting what now appears to him to have been the state of his mind during the composition of his first letter, I am far from denying. But on a subject like this, memory is sometimes treacherous; and I confess I cannot shake off the conviction, that some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by Dr. Worcester, occasionally guided his pen." Here, Sir, is an expedient to save one's "self respect" from the pain of a concession, and to fix upon an opponent an injurious charge, the whole credit of which, I do believe, belongs to you, and ought forever to remain in your uncontested possession: an expedient of which, I presume, the annals of controversy might be searched throughout in vain, for an example, a prototype, or a parallel. Will any reader in the world suppose that, in both or either of those instances, I really misremembered? or that you seriously meant to be understood that I did misremember? Why then this spurious irony, this wayward circumlocution? Why not charge me directly with falsehood, as you had before done the Reviewers?

You have had, Sir, a fair opportunity for a display of candour. You had misstated the import of an important part of any Letter. This was a different affair from that which was before between us, relating to the Reviewers. That was a question concerning the meaning of a third party, and, therefore, concerning which I as well as you might misjudge; this was a question respecting my own meaning, and respecting

which I could not mistake. I supposed you had wronged the Reviewers; I knew you had wronged me. Without, however, imputing to you any ill intention or motive,I remonstrated,explained, and called upon you to retract. It was only, in a christian spirit and manner, to acknowledge that you had misapprehended my meaning, and the credit for ingenuous feeling, especially the consciousness of having done an act of magnanimous equity to an opponent, would have abundantly compensated for any self denial which there might have been in the case. But you have chosen a different course, and must look for a different reward. I can, however, assure you, Sir, that it would have afforded me much greater pleasure to have had occasion to acknowledge your generous candour, than I have found in making the kind of stricture which you have compelled me to make.

III. Page 13, you make this statement. "Dr. Clark believed, that the Father alone is the Supreme God, and that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, but derived his being, and all his power and honours from the Father, even by an act of the Father's power and will. He maintains, that as the scriptures have not taught us the manner in which the Son derived his existence from his Father, it is presumptuous to affirm, that the Son was created, or, that there was a time when he did not exist. On these subjects the word of God has not given us light, and therefore we ought to be silent. The author of Bible News in like manner affirms, that the Father only is the Supreme God, that Jesus is a distinct being from God, and that he derives every thing from his Father. He has some views relating to the "proper Sonship," of God, which neither liberal nor orthodox christians generally embrace. But the prevalent sentiments of liberal christians seem to me to accord substantially with the systems I have above described. Like Dr. Clark, the majority of this class feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a creature, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which they find it, carrying with them, however, an impression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other being "

Upon this statement I submit the following remarks. 1. The appellation "liberal christians," is ambiguous and indeterminate. In your first pamphlet you tell us, that "liberal christians are scattered through all classes of christians;" and that although "in this part of the country they are generally," yet "by no means universally Unitarians." And you somewhere, I think, estimate that about one third part of the ministers and christian professors in this commonwealth are of the liberal class. I have myself computed, that about this proportion are non-calvinistick; and it should seem that all these are included by you in the denomination of "liberal christians." Of these, however, I have supposed there are many, who are not Unitarians. They may have some difficulties and doubts respecting the terms in which the doctrine of the Trinity is often stated, and some diversities in the manner of conceiving and speaking of the doctrine, and yet believe in the true divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If so, they ought not to be classed with Unitarians. "Those," as justly observed by Bishop Huntingford, who hold the doctrine of a Trinity, however individually they may give different explications of it, are nevertheless Trinitarians; as those, who protest against a particular church, although unhappily among themselves they have separated from each other, by multifarious divisions, and discriminate each other by subtle distinctions, implying even dimidiation, are nevertheless all protestants."

Dr. Samuel Clark was not a Unitarian, and ought not to be so called or classed. He held to an "EVER-BLESSED TRINITY," to a Trinity of "DIVINE PERSONS,"-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who existed together "FROM THE BEGINNING." This is the substance of his scheme; and in this he agreed with orthodox Trinitarians, though in other respects he differed from them. And if, as it "seems" to you "the prevalent sentiments among liberal christians in this quarter of our country accord substantially with Dr. Clark's," then these "prevalent sentiments" are not Unitarian. How large a proportion of those whom you would assign to the liberal class, are Trinitarians, or believers in the essential divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I do not know;

for do I know in what manner they would severally explain themselves upon this subject, or where they would choose to be considered as standing. I have, however, entertained the hope, that by the process of developement it would be found, that not a few of them are more orthodox than Dr. Clark; and that the Unitarian brotherhood is much less numerous, than you seem desirous of having it understood to be.

2. It appears from your statement, that the "prevalent sentiments of liberal christians" are exceedingly unsettled, indistinct, and indeterminate. "The majority of this class,' you say, feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a creature, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which they find it, carrying with them, however, an impression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other being." With these "liberal christians," then, it is a matter of utter uncertainty, of endless doubt, and, it would seem, of cold and lofty indifference, who the Saviour of the world is!-whether he is a created, or an uncreated being; whether he existed from eternity, or begun to exist in time; whether he is a God, who, though inferiour to the “supreme God," has yet a rightful claim to religious worship, or only their fellow servant, to whom no divine honours belong! From other passages, on which I shall have occasion in another place to remark, it appears that the same uncertainty, and doubt, and indifference exist with these same "liberal christians," in regard to what Jesus Christ has done for them: whether he died to expiate their sins with blood of inestimable merit, or whether "in consequence" merely "of what he has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is averted from the penitent;" as it may have been, in consequence of the sufferings and labours, the instructions and intercessions of Paul and other good men, by whose means sinners have been brought to repentance! Of course, there must be similar uncertainty, doubt, and indifference, as to the obligations which they owe to him; as to the love and trust, the thanks and honours to which he is entitled.-Do they then honour the Son, even as they honour, or should honour the