their conduct. You talk of duty.

This is enough, perhaps, so far as your own conscience is concerned. But this does not alter the nature of the deed itself. It does not weaken the injurious tendency, nor remove the ill effects of your charges.

The question, you tell us, "must be left for decision before a higher tribunal." All questions will, most certainly, one day be decided by the great Searcher of all hearts, and Judge of men. But how is this important fact concerned in the present instance? The question between us is to be decided here, else why are we writing about it? Not the question, whether you were conscientious in what you have done; but whether you did not act unadvisedly, without sufficient knowledge and caution; whether your representations are correct, and whether you have not aided in fixing false impressions in the minds of many, and in keeping alive a narrow and unjust prejudice against unitarians. These questions are not to be settled by an appeal to a higher tribunal, but by a clear statement of facts, and a just course of reasoning. By such an appeal as you make, the greatest enormities, which have been committed in the christian world, have been defended.

But you say, "allow me to ask, are unitarians in the habit of being very scrupulous about bringing forward their peculiar opinions, on public and special occasions, and even in preaching ordination sermons?" This question, it is presumed, every unitarian will joyfully answer in the negative. The time will never come, it is hoped, when unitarians will be "scrupulous about bringing forward their peculiar opinions" in any place. And what does this prove? Nothing, certainly, in your favour. No one has complained, that you should enforce your peculiar opinions in such a place and man

ner as you choose. That you made charges against the character of others is the complaint, and not that you attacked their opinions, or published your own.

what occasion has a unitarian preacher done this? Never. Look over their printed discourses, consult as many persons, as you will, who have heard such as have not been printed, and then show me a single example in which the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, or any other sect, have been selected and denounced, as peculiarly immoral from the nature of their religious faith, or from any other cause, show me but one example, and I will give up the argument.

You can find none. But suppose you could; suppose it were true, that Presbyterians, or any other body of Christians, have been accused of immorality by unita rian preachers; it affords no justification to any one, who follows their steps. We are not to return railing for railing. In the first place, then, there is no precedent among unitarians for your discourse; and in the second place, if there were, it would afford no argument to your purpose.

Before closing this letter, I have only to remark, in few words, on two or three passages in your preface. In one place you express yourself as follows. "When the orthodox use this title, (unitarian) they consider it as only designating those, who reject all belief in that mysterious, threefold mode of existence in the one Supreme and Eternal Jehovah, which the scriptures, as we think, plainly teach,-and of which the rejection always has been, and always must be, connected with a denial of every essential principle of the Gospel.” It is not easy to say precisely what you mean, by this "threefold mode of existence." It is the language of Sabellians. The notion of a trinity is gone. A trinity

of modes is no trinity at all. No unitarian would object to this fancy, nor suppose it in any way affects the unity of God. That the Deity has various modes of existence, no one, probably, will think of denying. If you believe only in a modal trinity, you are too much in the faith of unitarians on this point, to be at any more pains to show a difference.

And again, if you do not mean what your language expresses, but still hold to the old fashioned Athanasian and Calvinistic trinity of persons; is it true, that such a trinity is "clearly taught" in the scriptures? Has it not always been defended as a doctrine of inference? Where is it said in the Bible, that God exists in three distinct persons? Bishop Smalridge is very explicit on this subject. "It must be owned," says he, "that the doctrine of the trinity, as it is proposed in our articles, our liturgy, our creeds, is not in so many words taught us in the holy scriptures. What we profess in our prayers we no where read in scripture, that the one God, the one Lord, is not the only person, but three persons in one substance. But although these truths are not read in scripture, yet they may easily, regularly, and undeniably be inferred from scripture." The trinity, then, as usually received, is not supported by any direct authority in the scriptures; and I submit to you, whether such a doctrine can be said to be clearly taught.

The last clause of the above paragraph is still more extraordinary. It tells us, that a rejection of the trinity is "connected with a denial of every essential principle of the gospel." Are not the doctrines of the divine attributes, a superintending providence, the moral agency of man, repentance, pardon of the penitent, a resurrection, a future state of retribution, and

salvation by the free grace of God,-are not these essential principles of the gospel? And what have these to do with a trinity? Or in what respect will denying the one, have any influence on our opinion of the others?

Near the close of your preface, you speak of the "atoning sacrifice and purifying spirit of JEHOVAH manifest in the flesh." Are we to understand here, that the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth suffered death to make a sacrifice to himself for the sins of his creatures? If this be not your meaning, the words employed do not perform the office for which they were designed. Can you think, without horror, of a doctrine, which teaches the death of the Supreme Being? This was too shocking for Athanasius himself. "Our scriptures," says he, "no where mention the blood of God; such daring expressions belong only to Arians." Does the popular doctrine of the atonement, as adopted by the Presbyterian church, require us to believe, that He, with whom alone is immortality, actually died? It would seem so from your language. Upon such a doctrine no comment is required. It needs only be stated to have its proper weight on every one, who has any just views of his Maker, or reverence of his character.

There is another objection against this passage. The part from scripture is not quoted rightly. The word Jehovah cannot be used there. It helps to strengthen your doctrine, but it violates every rule of criticism. Between the meaning of the words Jehovah and God is an essential difference. The former always denotes the Supreme Being, and the latter is often applied to designate other beings. With no propriety, therefore, or fidelity to the original, can they be substituted one for the other. Nor is Jesus Christ ever called Jehovah.

Besides, you very well know, that the word itself in the original, which you render Jehovah, is of doubtful au. thority, in the estimation even of learned trinitarian critics. Sir Isaac Newton, who should be high authority with you, as you alone, probably, among all men living, pelieve him to have been a trinitarian, has written a very learned criticism to show, that this word was not used by the Apostles, and ought not to be admitted into the original text. Many others have retraced and continued his investigations, and come to the same result. These things considered, is it fair to quote this text, as of equal authority with the undisputed parts of scripture? And, especially, is it allowable to force such a meaning on any word, or passage, doubtful or not, as no construction of the original will justify?

I have now done with the first part of your Reply. In my next letter will be examined the grounds, on which you deny to unitarians the name of Christians, and rank them among Mohammedans and Jews.

Yours,

A UNITARIAN OF BALTIMORE.

To the Editors of the Unitarian Miscellany.

You will greatly oblige me by explaining the third chapter and last verse of the first Epistle of Paul to Timothy. I am aware that the term God is applied to mortals, in the Old Testament, by the Almighty himself-but believe it is not used by the apostles, or any other of the sacred writers, except to mean the Su