tained, 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 path 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 con

vinced 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 appellations. 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 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 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 unsocialby 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 controversialistsand 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 is 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 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.

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