ions about the word of God; and orthodoxy must stand or fall, by the simple decision of the Scriptures, interpreted according to the general laws of language..'

On the other hand; you will as cheerfully concede too, that we cannot be convinced, by calling us hard names; by misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving that Calvin helped to burn Servetus; by affirming that our sentiments come from Creeds and Confessions of human authority, fabricated by superstition and philosophy; by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, malignant, and unsocial; by appropriating to Unitarians all that is kind and noble and generous and exalted, and leaving to us the opposites of these virtues; by affirming that we are desirous of infringing Christian liberty and establishing an Inquisition to defend our sentiments, and exhorting others to resist such tyranny; or by representing us as admitting in words, that God is kind and paternal, while we think meanly of him, and treat him as the heathen did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel to the fire of controversy; but can the lover of truth and of the word of God, be convinced by them? They are the arts indeed of controversialists-and arts like them, I am sorry to say, are not confined to any one party. Passion has more control over disputants, than they are aware of. Zeal for what they believe to be truth, is what they think inspires them; while perhaps their words, or the spirit of their representations "breathe out threatenings," if not "slaughter," to their opponents. I hardly dare trust myself to write this paragraph, lest I should catch the spirit while I am describing it. I know in some measure how frail I am; but I think I do sincerely disapprove of such a spirit, in whatever party it may be found.

In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one is grieved to find how much of this spirit has been indulged. I have seen it even in many great and good men. Possessed of feelings naturally ardent, I feel that there is reason to tremble for myself, lest I may, in some respect or other, transgress the laws of Christian propriety in these letters, and hinder something of the conviction, in the minds of some, which they might possibly produce.

In one thing, we shall certainly be agreed. The sober inquirer after truth, must be convinced by reason and argu

ment. All else is nothing to him. And where these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the path of duty.. The approbation of God, for a sincere, candid, honest, believing heart, is worth infinitely more than all the honour which party zeal can bestow, or the world is able to give.

POSTSCRIPT.

AFTER finishing the above letier, your "Note for the second Edition" came to hand. But as it seemed to me, that most which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think it of importance to change the shape of the letter, and adapt it to your Note as well as Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject, all controversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. have not the most distant design of saying any thing, with a view to wound your personal sensibility; but I do feel, and I ought to feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason of a man, who by bis weight of character, sobriety of mind, and eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in society as you have. And in order to do this with propriety, I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to throw the whole subject into the shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that form of writing, which too commonly involves personal reflection.

Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me?

I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with anoth- er, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say;" "We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same Being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal him in this character." In the latter you say; "According to this doctrine, (i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity,) there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular conciousness, will and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and, sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we

are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed,"

But how can Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the“ same Being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that there is a distinction betweeen him and the Father? You yourself represent them, as holding this distinction to be equal to that, which exists between two different men. This indeed is incorrect; but it is equally so, to represent them as holding that Jesus Christ is the "same Being as the Father," if you mean by this, in all respects the same.

Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if Christ were" the same being as the Father, .... we should expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God." For first are we to receive the book of God as it is; or are we at liberty to insist, that it must be conformed to our expectations? and secondly; if Christ was truly man, (a point as certain, as that Christ ever existed,) and was conversant in the human nature with men; how, in` a book which gives us the history of what he said and did during his incarnation, should we expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God? The reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be, at least very questionable.

In truth, the Sacred writers do not appear to me to write as controversialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the way with men, who have extravagant views of the importance of any particular subject, to be ever dwelling upon it, and taking occasion to in troduce it as often as possible. Thus I have heard some preachers, who will not utter a single public discourse, or offer a single prayer, without letting it be known of all men, that they are champions for the doctrine of the Trinity. I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers know that they are emancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages; and have thrown off the shackles of Creeds and Confessions, and Forms imposed by ignorant and bigotted men; that they are enlightened and reasonable Christians; and that their audi ence are bound in duty to become their imitators. The holy apostles however possessed, as I must believe, none of the spirit which prompts to either of these courses. They did not view the subjects, in a distorted and sectarian light. The edifice of truth-the temple of the living God, rose under their hands not only into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which was as conspicuous for symmetry as for grandeur.

All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the system which they taught. Why should they then be continually speaking of Christ as supreme God, when (as I verily believe,) they expected no professed follower of Christ to call this doctrine in question. John seems to have had opponents to it in his eye, when he wrote the first verse of his gospel; but excepting this, I do not remember another passage of the New Testament which has this aspect of opposition to gainsayers, in regard to the divinity of Christ. The Apostles doubtless expected to be believed, when they had once plainly asserted

any thing. That they are not, is indeed to be lamented; but it cannot be charged to their fault. They felt, (what we feel now,) that very frequent, strong, and direct asseverations of any thing are apt to produce a suspicion in the minds of a hearer or reader, that the person making them has not arguments on which he relies, and so substitutes confident affirmations in their room; or that he is himself but imperfectly satisfied with the cause which he defends; or that he has sinister motives in view. For myself, I confess I am inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes very frequent and confident asseverations.

I am the more satisfied then, that the New Testament treats the subject in question, as one which was not controverted; and as one which was not expected to be called in question. My conclusion from the apostles' mode of treating it, is, I acknowledge, quite differ ent from that which you draw, as stated in your Sermon and Notes. But with my present views, I must think it to be more probable than yours.

In regard to what follows in your Note, most of it has been anticipated. I will touch upon only a few points.

With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of Christ's divine nature, you observe that the "strength of the Trinitarian argument lies in those, in which Jesus is called God." This may be true; but it lies in them, as I have from the first endeavoured to show, not simply because the name God is given to him; but because those things are ascribed to him as God, which no being but the Supreme God can perform. My whole argument is constructed on this ground. Your whole Note, on the ground that we draw our conclusion simply from the fact, that the appellation God is given to Christ.

What you say respecting the argument in favour of Christ's divine nature, from the name given him in Matt. i. 23, accords, in the main, with my own views. To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question, is a fallacious argument; although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called "Jehovah our righteousness;" Is Jerusalem therefore divine ?

Why should you say in the third paragraph of your note, that in looking through" Matthew, Mark, & Luke, you meet with no instance in which Christ is called God?" Are there no proofs here of his omniscience, of his omnipotence, of his authority to forgive sin, of his supreme, legislative right? And are not these things better proof of his divine nature than a mere name can be? Why moreover, should such an invidious distinction be implied, to the prejudice of John's writings, and of the Epistles? Do you not admit all the New Testament to be of divine origin and authority? Of what importance then is it, whether the doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part or another? Besides if any disciple could know who the Lord' in reality was, has any one a better claim to be considered as knowing it than John, the disciple "who leaned on Jesus' bosom?"

.

You have passed the whole of John i. 1, with merely commenting on the name Osos. My dear Sir, can you expect to satisfy can

did inquirers with this? Are you not bound to tell us how this Logos (word) could create the worlds, (Ta Tavra, the universe,) before this text is disposed of? You must tell us how creative power, the highest, the distinguishing act of Deity, which constitutes the char-acteristic and prominent feature of the true God, in distinction from all false gods, (Is. xl. 40, and onward,) can be delegated? When you can explain this, then you will bring us upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert the Gnostics, who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Supreme God. Inferior power, they maintained was competent to create the world. What less do they, who ascribe creation to Christ and yet reject his Divinity?

Why should you pass over all that, on which we rely for proof, and touch only that, on which we do not profess to place confident reliance? I mean why should you descant on the name God, and say. nothing of the attributes and works ascribed to him, who bears this name? If we should argue in the same manner with you, ought we to expect to convince you? Much less could we acquit our consciences, of our obligation to represent the opinions of others fairly to the world, should we publish any thing by which we should endeavour to make them believe, that all the evidence in favour of a particular doctrine, held by many Christians, consisted in that very thing, on which they did not rely; or at most, in that which constituted merely but a part of their grounds of belief.

The simile from Plato and Socrates, I must think, is less happily chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly lead you to choose. In the same breath that you say "Plato was in the beginning with Socrates, and was Socrates;" you add, "that whoever saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates, and that as long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught." That is, your first sentence would either be not at all understood, or understood, of course, in a sense totally different from that which you meant to convey, unless you added the commentary along with the sentence. John has indeed added a commentary; but this is, that he means to call Christ THE GOD, WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE.

Of this commentary you have taken no notice. But of this, you are bound to take notice, if you mean to convince those who differ from you; or to deal ingenuously with those, whom you design to instruct. Ou the texts John xx. 28; Acts xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. i. 6; and John v. 20, I have already said what I wish to say at present. The remarks in your Note, do not seem to call for any new investigation.

You say, (near the close of your Note,) that you have "collected all the passages in the New Testament in which Jesus is supposed to be called God." The foregoing letter, however, does represent us as supposing that there are still more, in which he is called God; although I have omitted many, in which a multitude of Trinitarians have supposed, that Christ is called God. Why should you affirm this, when nearly every book on the doctrine of the Trinity, that ever has been published by Trinitarians, will contradict it?

1