And now, in concluding this Letter, permit me to say that as reason does not and cannot decide against the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained in my second Letter, nor against the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, the question whether these are truths or not, rests solely on the decision of revelation. What then is that decision? This question I have endeavoured to answer.

I will now acknowledge that I was induced to undertake the above examination, in consequence of the challenge which you make (p. 9) in the following words,-" We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God,......unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, does not mean the Father.” I have accepted this challenge, not, I hope, in the spirit of contest, but with the desire of contributing, so far as lies in my power, to develope what the New Testament does teach. I have laboured to show, that the very reason, above all other reasons, why I believe Christ to be truly divine, is because the connexion, when he is called God, ascribes to him such attributes and works as leave me no room to doubt that the New Testament writers meant to assert his proper divinity.

After stating your apprehensions in regard to the doctrine that Christ has two natures, the belief of which, you affirm, is "an enormous tax on human credulity," you say (p. 14), "I am aware that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him." Whether the number of texts, in which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge whether the "class of passages" is "not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him," with equal facility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a doctrine. We have conceded the Bible to be of divine authority. The simple question is, what, according to the rules of interpretation in all other cases, does any passage mean? This being ascertained, only two courses are before us,-the

one, to receive its meaning as the guide of our faith; the other, to reject its authority, and deny our obligation to believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the New Testament does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a finite creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpretation of it, I will either receive this doctrine-receive it implicitly (for, if I am not deceived in respect to myself, I only desire to know what God has taught, in order to believe it) or else I will reject all claims to inspiration in the sacred writers, and follow their instructions only so far as they coincide with my own speculations. I am fully satisfied that there is no middle part here; and that a man who investigates for himself, extensively and independently, must eventually follow one or the other of these

courses.

Convince me, then, that you apply the principles of interpretation which you have laid down in an unbiassed manner, and that the New Testament does, according to them, clearly teach that Jesus is not, and cannot be, divine, and you will make me a convert to the doctrines (at least some of them) which you embrace. Where the

Apostles lead me, I will go, or else renounce all deference to them. While I have a being also, I will cherish a grateful remembrance of any man who shall convince me, by sound reasoning, that I am in an error, and am wandering from the paths of life.

But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless affirm of yourself, "I cannot be convinced, until I am satisfied that my principles of interpretation are wrong, and my application of them erroneous." You have described (p. 14) in what manner you avoid the conclusion drawn from those texts which call Christ God, and which apparently ascribe divine attributes to him. On the principles of exegesis there disclosed, I shall remark in another Letter. I will at present say only, that they appear to me far from being well established.

Your candour will easily concede, that the positions which I have just laid down are correct, and are such as become every sincere lover of truth. I am very ready to grant that we ought not to expect to convince you and your friends, by using reproachful epithets, or severe ap

pellations. We cannot convince you, by appealing to our New England Fathers, or their creeds to the ancient Fathers of the Church, or any body of men whatever. You may always reply to us, "Are not men fallible? and have not the best of uninspired men cherished some errors? Give us the reasons why our Fathers received the doctrines in question, and then we will hear you. The fact that they did receive them is a part of Church history, but certainly no theological argument. The Papal hierarchy is supported by the Fathers; and there never has been a sect in Christendom who could not, sooner or later, make an appeal to the Fathers whom they respected."

Nor can we convince you, by a tenacious and unreasonable opposition to all critical examination of the New Testament, or by throwing out hints in our sermons or writings, that critical studies belong only to those who have a wish to be heretical or sceptical, or by a forced and mystical explanation of various passages of Scripture, and converting them to the support of sentiments which they never were designed to support. The sound rules of interpretation will soon sweep away every vestige of such defective opinions 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 namesby 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 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.

Pos

In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one is grieved to find how much of this spirit is indulged. I have seen it even in many great and good men. sessed 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 argument. 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.

K

LETTER IV.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,

In my last Letter I endeavoured to offer reasons why I believe that Christ is truly divine. You will very naturally expect me to take some notice of those texts on which you would specially rely, to prove his inferiority to the Father. This I must do; but in as summary a manner as possible. Not because it would not be easy to say much, even more easy than to write briefly, and yet with perspicuity; but because there would be danger of protracting the subject, and tiring the patience of both writer and reader.

Let me begin, then, by stating certain things which are intimately connected with the subject in question. While I believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe that he is as truly human-that he was a real man, and lived, acted, suffered, and died as a man. He resembled, however, man in his primitive state, i. e. Adam, as he came out of the hands of his Maker. He was pure and sinless; but he possessed all the feelings and all the innocent infirmities of human nature. I know no proposition that can be proved from the New Testament, if this cannot; nor do I know of an opinion more inconsistent with the whole history of Jesus than that of the Docetæ, who averred that Christ was a man in appearance merely, and not in reality.

I regret that I am not able to find in your sermon an intimation that Christ was truly and properly a man. All that you appear to maintain is, that he was a being distinct from the Father, and inferior to him. Perhaps I must retract, therefore, my sentence against the Docetæ, lest I should seem to have treated your opinion with severity. But the state of my mind, in regard to the weight of evidence, I cannot retract. If the evidence be not overwhelming that Christ was perfectly a man, I cannot conceive it possible that any point in theology or morals is