tinct person from the Father, but only another name for the same being.

Now I wish you would attempt to meet a Swedenborgian on the following points. First, try to prove the distinct personality of the Father, and then I think you will find that you must use just exactly the same method that Trinitarians use, in proving the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. Next proceed to prove the divinity of the Father, and you will find that you can do it in no better, and in no other way, than that in which Trinitarians prove the divinity of the Son; viz. by showing that all the names, attributes and actions, of God, in its highest sense, are ascribed to him. Then try to prove that it is the Father who is the God of the Old Testament, and see if you can find any other mode of proof than that which sustains the position, that it is Jesus Christ who is the God spoken of through the Old Testament. For, bear in mind, that the names Lord, Jehovah, and God, do not show which is intended, the Father, or the Son. Of course, in this process, we are restricted to passages that ascribe to the Father by name, the attributes, names and actions of the Divinity, and to those passages in the New Testament, which refer to the texts in the Old Testament having reference to the Father and not to the Son. There is one passage in Isaiah, where thereis a most magnificent description of Jehovah, and in the New Testament in speaking of Christ, the Evangelist refers to this passage thus, "these things said Esaias when he saw His glory (Christ's) and spake of

Him." It is such references as these, that are demanded to prove that the Father was the God of the Old Testament. I believe if you will read the Old and New Testament with reference to this point, you will find the proof that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, is as decided, as the proof that the Father was.

In conclusion, let me inquire if it is not your duty to examine this matter for yourself, and decide where the truth is, by those laws of evidence which you employ in settling all the practical matters of life?

An Infidel, or a Unitarian, needs to be a very learned man, and a very diligent man; for he takes the hazardous side of the venture. It will do for me to rest on the testimony of others in trusting the Bible as a sure and infallible guide, which never presents contradictions, or errors, or mistakes, for if Unitarianism is the true doctrine I am safe. But you are running the hazard of throwing aside all the most powerful motives that the gospel presents, which are calculated to influence the human mind to that course which prepares a man for heaven; and you ought to look well to your steps, in venturing on this dangerous ground.

I ask you, then, to commence a thorough examination of both sides of this question, taking for your guide these safe and indispensable rules.

First, That, is to be considered as truth, which has the balance of evidence in its favor.

Second, Nothing is to be assumed as true, which has not been shown to have the balance of evi⚫dence in its favor.

Third, The primary, literal meaning is to be given to all expressions, unless it can be shown that this would convey a sense contrary, either to reason, or to the known properties of the thing spoken of, or contrary to the other declarations of the writer.

If you will take these rules and use them fairly and thoroughly, I believe you will escape Unitarianism, and every other ism that is not the pure gospel which was preached by Christ and his Apostles.

Yours, &c.

LETTER XVIII.

MY DEAR SIR,

I will first reply to some of your remarks upon the manner in which Unitarians are treated by the Christian sects who differ from them in sentiment. To a part of your remarks, I entirely assent. I do not think it either right or wise to manifest toward any person, either dislike or contempt, on account of any opinions he may hold, however erroneous. There is no sentiment, however wild, visionary or absurd, which has not been adopted by honest, amiable and conscientious minds, under the influence either of education, or excited imagination, or a weak intellect, or false reasonings, or the bias of feeling, or other influences that entitle them to the sympathy and kindness of those from whom they differ, rather than to opprobrious rebuke. It is the voluntary perpetration of what at the time is known to be wrong, that alone gives just cause for indignation, and retributive contempt and dislike. Where men differ in intellectual views of duty,

kindness and fair argument are the only proper weapons of warfare.

It is very important, therefore, to make a distinction between the opinions, or the fatal tendencies of opinions, and the persons who hold these opinions; or, as Coleridge would express it, between ans and isms. But it is a distinction which is not so readily preserved; and men are very apt to allow the dislike and disapprobation they feel for what is false and injurious in opinions, to be associated with the persons who adopt and propagate such sentiments. This part of the evil, in regard to Unitarians, I as sincerely deprecate and condemn as you do. I deem it the duty of all Christians, to treat them, and all other persons, of whatever religious views, with all the respect, and kindness, and regard, which their other good qualities entitle them to receive. I do not think it is right to undervalue their talents, or acquirements, or amiable dispositions, or honorable and upright principles, or the sincerity of their religious belief, or their piety, if they give proper evidence of it.

But when I say I would give them credit for their piety, on seeing proper evidence of it, I should not judge by their standard, but by my own. If I see the evidence of true piety existing in a Unitarian, a Catholic, or one of any other sect, I would never refuse them the name and claims of a child of God, because of their false intellectual views. Yet this would make no difference with my views or feelings as to the disastrous nature and tendency of the religious system they maintain and attempt to