Because they contain absurd and unreasonable doctrines.

mi todel of Which of their doctrines are so?

The doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of inherited sin, the doctrine of substituted punishment, &c.

Yes, each of these is obviously either absurd or irrational; but is either of them a doctrine of the Bible?

A doctrine of the Bible! why certainly. They are all doctrines of the Bible. At least, all our preachers tell us that they are, and they whose business it is to teach the doctrines of the Bible ought to know what it does contain, and what it does not.

Yes, they ought to know-but many of them it seems do not know; for not one of those doctrines to which you object, can be found in the scriptures.

Not found in the scriptures! If that be true I should be rejoiced to know it; for I would gladly believe in a revelation, if the doctrines of the revelation were rational. What does the Bible teach?

It teaches that there is one GOD. That the Father is the only true God. That Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD. That the children of men are not punished for the iniquity of their ancestors. That God will reward every man according to his deeds, &c.

When by means of conversation they have been made acquainted with our views, conscientious sceptics have often been brought to desire, and to express a desire, to know more concerning the contents of the Bible, and its claims to be the record of revelation from GOD. There are many thousands of these men, who have been made infidels by the preaching of those who are called orthodox, and who will become

sincere Christians, if aided by us with such light as will enable them to come to a knowledge of the truth. Our inducements to labor in behalf of pure religion in the west are unspeakably great. The people need it, they would rejoice to receive it, and it would be to them as it is to its possessors every where a most invaluable treasure. Let us labor in faith that the blessing of GOD our Father may crown our labors with success. Yours Respectfully,

A. Z.

LETTER FROM A CLERGYMAN.

Messrs Editors: It has been my fortune to carry the doctrines of Unitarianism, or, I would rather say, of Christianity, to many places where they were entirely new, at least in the form and manner in which we usually present them. In doing this, nothing has seemed to me more remarkable, than the little knowledge held by the majority of people, as to the very first principles of scriptural interpretation, and the most important facts relative to our translation of the scriptures. Connected with this subject so many facts have come to my knowledge, that I thought they might fill, not uselessly, a page or two of your work. I do not propose however to give a particular statement of facts, but rather some inferences and conclusions to which I have been brought by the observation of facts. Of these I will offer but two now, one bearing upon the orthodox, the other upon the liberal clergy.

I am compelled to believe that the orthodox clergy generally are not faithful to the great duty of giving their people instruction in regard to our Bible. I may be wrong in this opinion, and hope I am; but it has not been formed hastily, nor without opportunities of observation. If it be not how can we account for the indisputable fact, that the great body of people, in all new places to which we go, are entirely ignorant of facts affecting essentially the whole character of the scriptures? They seem to me in very many cases not even to have known, that the scriptures they read are a translation from another language; certain I am, they seldom think of this or make any allowance for it in

F

90

219

reading or hearing as99 134) AV151902, 91131:9989 any Every has of the orthodox proof texts depend entirely on their English dress, and yet are quoted and urged as if they were first spoken and written in these very English words by our Saviour and his apostles. And when you Shyou remind them of this fact, they appear not before to have thought of it, and are not willing or not ready at once to allow it any weight, if they do any credit. Would this be so if they were properly instructed in these allimportant matters? Is it an uncharitable inferenceit is one to which facts force me at any rat rate-that many of their ministers are willing they should be ignorant or forgetful of that which would from their

sco

Let me illustrate this by a fact relative to the age of our common version, I was once conversing with an orthodox lady of more than common mind, and evidently of sincere and fervent piety, who at least discovered a very intimate acquaintance with the language of scrip

ture. On my replying to one of the passages which she brought against me, that it read very differently in ready

ม

the original Oh!" said she, if it has stood so in our Bible for so many ages, I

man

"How many ages?" said I.

am satisfied of its accuracy.' She did not know; and could hardly believe that our Bible' has been in existence but two hundred rs, in its present form.—Now I do not know but there may be as many Unitarians as orthodox ignorant of these first truths respecting the scriptures. Of that I may say a word by and by.

ཡ་ང་བ་། །

years,

* £} ¥G

C

Let me take another illustration, having no connexion with these great parties;-one offered by the QuaKers. On asking some very intelligent members of that excellent society, their reasons for adhering to and insisting upon ng upon the use of thee' and thou,' in all their conversation-they replied, it arose from their wish to copy our Lord's simplicity as far as possible, and asked me if he ever said 'you' or 'yours?" I answered, that I was not aware of our Lord's ever having used any English words at all; a fact which seemed not to have occurred to them before.-To this might be added the case of the Baptists, who are well known to build one of their best arguments for immersion on the words and out of, in connexion with the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament; not knowing or not considering, that these words might just as fairly have been rendered to and from the water-and thus their argument, destroyed. Indeed, on this point, I could never see how the fact, if admitted, of our Saviour and others having gone into the water, proves necessarily that they were immersed.

"into"

But a more important fact than any other perhaps, illustrative of my assertions, relates to the italics used

in scripture. I verily believe that not one half of the christian community are aware that these italics, found in our translation, have no corresponding words in the original. If I am wrong in this opinion, I shall rejoice to know it. But I have been amazed to find so many, among constant hearers, firm Christians, and intelligent men, utterly ignorant of this simple fact. They seem, indeed, in very many cases, not to have had their attention directed to the little, but rather important circumstance, that some words and verses in their Bibles are printed in a different type from the rest; they have not noticed it, and of course know nothing of its meaning. This I have seen in our own denomination as well as in the other. But I do believe it to be more common in the other, and that this ignorance and heedlessness in our people must be ascribed in great part, to their having but very lately come from different teachers. Indeed they have told me, that though they have set under orthodox preaching all their lives, they never once heard this fact mentioned or alluded to. Is this right? Is it not true to a lamentable extent, that orthodox preachers say little or nothing about this matter, and take no pains to impress it on their people or help them to a right understanding and use of it? Is it not singular, that some of the most famous Trinitarian prooftexts are quoted again and again without the least seeming suspicion or regard to the fact, that their whole force and value depend on some italic words Outs of many instances, let me adduce two, as sufficient to show both the truth and the importance of my position. 25)

11

Look at the oft-quoted case of Stephen, Acts vii, 59. The word God,' on which the argument so much de