attributed to a pursuit after power over the minds and respect in the eyes of men, and all distinction of good and evil character be considered as futile and without foundation. With respect to the final success of the Trinitarian party, it appears to me the event naturally to have been expected. For, to the people of those ages, doctrines that resembled the polytheistical belief that till then prevailed, must have been more acceptable than those which were diametrically opposed to such notions. The idea of a God in human form was easy and familiar: Emperors and Empresses had altars raised to them even during their lives, and after death were enrolled as divinities. Perhaps too, something may justly be attributed to a certain degree of pride and satisfaction in the idea, that the religion they had begun to profess was dictated immediately by the Deity himself, rather than by any subordinate agency. There had not been among the heathens any class of mankind to whom they were accustomed to look up with that devotion familiarly entertained by the Jews towards Moses and their Prophets, and they were consequently ready to elevate to a God any being who rose in their estimation above the level of mankind.

The violence and outrages which Roman Catholics and Protestants have experienced from each other, were not, of course, as observed by the Reverend Editor, owing in their origin to the adoption of different interpretations respecting the deity of Christ or of the Holy Ghost;

but they were the immediate consequences of the different sentiments they have held with respect to the doctrine of an exclusive power of granting absolution, and leading to eternal life, being vested in St. Peter and his successors. What great mischief has however Seen produced, and how many lives have from time to time been destroyed, from the difference of sentiments held by the parties with regard to this doctrine, which even the Editor himself does not deem an essential point of religion!

The Editor in p. 114* argues, as a proof of the importance of the doctrines of the Gospel, that Christ taught them, fully foreseeing that they would be the subject of dispute; and quotes his saying, that he came not to send peace on earth, but a sword. The whole of the 10th chap. of Matthew, from which the Editor quotes the passage here alluded to, consists of the instructions delivered by Jesus to the twelve Apostles, when he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of heaven to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but has no allusion, that I can perceive, to eternal dissentions amongst those who were already or might afterwards become Christians. That Jesus foresaw, as one of the primary effects of preaching his Gospel, that great dissentions would arise-that he was aware that the great question of confessing him to be the Messiah or not, would be as a sword between a man and his father, the daughter and her mother, and the daughter-in-law *(London Edition, p. 56.)

and her mother-in-law, is evident. But this seems to me by no means to prove that Jesus, as supposed by the Editor, "longed or almost longed" to see a fire kindled in the earth respecting doctrines not essential to the salvation of mankind. Nor would it have been any reason for suppressing the most trivial of his sayings, that priestcraft working on the ignorance and superstition, the bigotry or intolerance of mankind, should have wrested his words to evil purposes.-As observed by the Editor himself, the mischief lay originally in human nature, not in any part of the doctrines of Christ; but as those dissentions are now perpetuated principally by education, a cause essentially distinct from their origin, the case is entirely altered The corruption of the human heart cannot be totally removed; but the evil effects that spring from human institutions may be avoided, when their real sources are known. After the secret and immediate causes of persecution have passed away, the differences of opinion which have been the declared grounds of hostility are handed down by the teachers of different sects; and, as already repeatedly avowed, it was with the view of evading, not those questions concerning which Jesus spoke and which distinguish his followers from all others, but those which have from time to time been seized upon to excite enmities still existing amongst fellow-christians, that the Compiler confined himself to those Precepts, concerning which all mankind must be of one accord.

As to the question of the Editor, "It can scarcely

be unknown to the Compiler, that the very being of a God has been for numerous ages the subject of dispute among the most learned of his own country; does he account this a sufficient reason for suppressing this doctrine? We know that he does not. Why then should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, because men have made them the subject of dispute?" For a direct answer to this question, I beg to referthe Reverend Editor to the Appeal of the Compiler, page 27, wherein he will find that he assigns not one, but two circumstances, as concurring to form the motive of his having omitted certain doctrines of Christianity in his selection.-1st, that they are the subjects of disputes and contention,—2ndly, that they are not essential to religion.* It is therefore obvious, that the analogy between the omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Admitting that the doctrines of Christianity and the existence of a God are equally liable to disputes, it should be recollected that the former are, in the estimation of the Compiler, not essential to religion; while the latter is acknowledged by him, in common with the professors of every faith, to be the foundation of all religion, as distinctly stated in his Introduction to the select Precepts of Jesus. Every system of religion adopts the idea of a God, and avows this as its fundamental principle, though they differ from one another in representing

* [See above, p. 125.]

the nature and attributes of the Deity. The Compiler therefore could have no motive for suppressing the doctrines of the being of a God, though disputed by a few pretended literary men; and he has consequently never hesitated to inculcate with all his power the idea of one God to the learned and unlearned of his own country, taking care at the same time as much as possible not to enter into particulars as to the real nature, essence, attributes, person, or substance of the Godhead, those being points above his comprehension, and liable to interminable disputes. The Reverend Editor thus expresses his surprise at the conduct of the Compiler, in omitting in his selection the miraculous relations of the Gospel :-" We cannot but wonder that his miracles should not have found greater favour in the eyes of the Compiler of this selection, while the amazing weight which Jesus himself attached to them could scarcely have escaped his notice :" and in order to prove the importance of the miracles ascribed to Jesus, the Editor quotes three instances, in the first of which Jesus referred John the Baptist to his wonderful miracles; in the second, he called the attention of unbelieving Jews to his miraculous works as a proof of his divine mission; in the third, he recommends Philip the Apostle to the evidence of his miracles. But after a slight attention to the circumstances in which those appeals were made, it appears clearly, that in these and other instances Jesus referred to his miracles those persons