1 Tlie 3?ropertry 
 
 
 OF THE i 
 
 
 lliim CWMTIM 
 
 
 2ii2n:M7-i, 
 
 
 BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 # H 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 — IN TlIK — 
 
 LIBRARY^^ 
 
 — flF THK — J WC 
 
 ESSEX INSTITUTE. 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS' 
 
 OX THE C0M3I0N 
 
 MODE OF DEFENDING 
 
 THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 
 
 A5D THE 
 
 UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 By G. CLARK 
 
 BOSTON; 
 
 Fl'BUSHED BY IS^LiH THOM.iS. JH 
 
 1817. 
 
MODE OF DEFENDING THE TRINITY. 
 
 ^npHERE perhaps never was a doctrine or tenet the subject 
 of man's investigation, or which has been offered to the 
 contemplation of the human mind, more apparently doubtful 
 than the doctrines of the Trinity in Unity, and the union of 
 the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ ; and^ when I 
 say they are highly disputable, I regard this declaration with 
 great seriousness ; because it appears most evidently, that 
 those doctrines make no part of the subject of Divine Reve- 
 lation : on the contrary, that their whole support, or pretend- 
 ed support from thence, is, upon one or all of the following 
 grounds. 
 
 1. Upon arbitrary surmises. 
 
 2. Upon voluntary and unfounded deductions) and infer- 
 
 ences. v 
 
 3. Upon disingenuous and artful comparisons. 
 
 4. Upon capricious or misconceived expositions. 
 
 5. Upon interpolations, or alterations of the Sacred Re- 
 
 cords. 
 
 6. Upon palpable mistranslations of them. 
 
 7. Upon dogmatical postulata, in many instances contrary 
 
 both to Reason and Revelation. 
 1st. Upon arbitrary surmises. Instances of this kind are 
 very plentiful. — We may advert to the use which is made of 
 the Hebrew word Aleim. — We are told that this word di- 
 rects our views to 3. plurality oi persons in the Deity ; and 
 this is contended for by Trinitarians, in direct opposition to 
 the evidence of the Seventy translators, in every instance — 
 who uniformly render it by 'the singular noun ©"j — against 
 the frequent examples we have of the use of it of single per.- 
 sons, Exod. vii. 1. — 1 Kings xi. 4. 33.— Psal. xlv. 6, 7, &Co 
 —against the almost constant use of it with singular verbs, 
 and pronouns — against the authority of the apostle Paul, Heb. 
 i. 8, 9. and against the authority of Christ himself, who 
 uses a singular noun as the true translation of it, Mark xii. 29. 
 We may also advert, in proof of this charge of surmise, 
 to the use which is made of the pronoun Us^ Gen. i» 26. 
 "J^et us make man," Stc. And this against the laws of reason 
 
and common sense, which assure us that God doth not con- 
 sult any one — that he cannot consult himself. It is ph>inly a 
 mere figurative mode of speech, by which God, who work- 
 eth all things according to the council of his own will, is rep- 
 resented as consulting and deliberating, before he determines. 
 
 These are arbitrary surmises, in that the Scriptures never 
 declare that the word Aleim, points out a plural personality in 
 the Deity ; or that when God said, Let us make man, the 
 first person in the Godhead spake to the second and third. — 
 If this charge be denied, let it be done by shewing, that the 
 Scriptures somtwhere prove, that by the plural form of the 
 word Aleim, is intended rather a plurality of persons, than of 
 powers ; and that the use of the plural pronoun, is rot a fig- 
 urative mode of representing to us the wisdom of the Divine 
 determination. — And let the proofs which shall be adduced 
 to these poin s be plain and opposite or we shall not be able 
 to withdraw the charge of surmise and conjecture. 
 
 But the most dangerous of these surmises, is to be found 
 ivith those, who contend for the supreme Deit}" of our blessed 
 Lord, because no one else could have merit sufficient to atone 
 for the sins of mankind — no one else would be equal to the 
 arduous task — no one else could prevail with the Dtity for 
 pardon and reconciliation ! This is an arbit iry and an im- 
 plicit surmise, if there ever was one. It is arbitrary, because 
 it stands aloof both with reason and Scripiure ; it is mplicity 
 because the least examination would shtw its impious absur- 
 dity, and refuse it credit. Ho/y Scripture knows it not ; the 
 Scriptures never say that God wanted full satisfaction — that 
 he wanted one of infinite merit to redeem mankind ; whereas, 
 if this were a truth, it would be of such singular importance, 
 that every pa ^'e of the Divine Writings would teach it ; it 
 would not be left to the uncertain fate of inference and de- 
 duction. It is a dogma wh'iclr reason totally reprobates : — 
 Jieason tells us, as the Scriptures do, that God is willing to 
 receive the returning sinner, without an adequate satisfaction ; 
 which could have no -other end, but to exclude Divine mercy. 
 Beason tells us, that God could not satisfy himself — that if 
 Christ were the true God, he would as much want satisfaction 
 as the Father and the Holy Ghost — that Divine justice is 
 one ; and that even admitting the Trinitarian hypothesis, the 
 justice of God the Son would be the same, and would as 
 much want satisfaction as the justice of the Father and Holy 
 Ghost. And here reason would add, that it is impossible thp 
 greatest and best of all Beings, the wonderful cause and origiji 
 
of all things, could be made subject to his own law, and could 
 be a criminal ; and that if it were possible, it would be use- 
 less ; because God may as well pardon without satisfaction, 
 as pardon with a satisfaction made by himself. 
 
 SJ. Upon voluntiry and unfounded deductions and inferen- 
 ces. Aij that, because Christ restored the dead to life, and 
 did other acts of omnipotence, he must therefore be God, 
 without considering, or without believing the positive and un- 
 equivocal declarations of Christ and his apostles, that the 
 power which he exercised was not his own, but the omnipo- 
 tence of God, who had sent him. The Scriptures do indeed 
 ascribe to him the works of Omnipotence ; but the same 
 Scriptures tell us that all power in heaven and earth w?^?, given 
 to \\\m — that the works which he did were not his, but the 
 Father'' s who sent him — tlvat he could do nothing' of himself, 
 thai the Father who dwelt in him did the works — that they 
 were brought into eflfcct by the fnger or spin toi God. And 
 that the miracles, and wondfus, and signs, which evi- 
 denced the mission of our I^ord, were ?mrac/esy and ivonders, 
 and signs, vvliich GOD did by him. Acts ii. 22. 
 
 3d. Upon disingenuous and artful comparisons. By shew- 
 ing, for instance, Irom one of Paul's epistles, that Jesus Christ 
 has ti.e appellation God, and that in another he is denominat- 
 ed a Man ; and so proving that he is both Got/ and Man. Or by 
 shewingihat God is called a Saviour, and Christ is called a Sav- 
 iour, and therefore concluding that he must be God. Or by 
 shewing that he must be God, because the same acts are as- 
 cribed both to Christ and to God ; not considering that our 
 Lord's appearances were in the Divine authority and power ; 
 and not considering, that for the same reason, the same names 
 and acts have been in the Scriptures applied and ascribed to 
 Moses and to God. 
 
 Thus, Numb. xii. 3. "Now the man Moses was very 
 meek " &c. Here Moses is called a Man. Compare this 
 with Exod. vii. 1. "And the Lord said unto Moses, see I 
 have made thee a God, Meim, to Pharaoh ; and Aaron thy 
 brother shall be thy prophet." 
 
 So, Numb xii. IL Moses is prayed to by Aaron..^ — 
 "Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my Lord, I beseech thee, lar 
 not the sin upon us wherein we have done f jolishly, mid 
 wherein we have sinned," &c. And Exod. x. 16, 17. ''Then 
 Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaro;i in haste, and he said, 
 I have sinned af^ainst the Lord your God, and against you ; 
 now therefore, forgive 1 pray thee, my sin this once," &c. 
 
The deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt, i( 
 attributed to Moses and to God ; Exod. xxxii. 7. "And 
 the Lord said unto Moses, Go get thee down ; for thy people 
 which thou broughtest out of the land of Ee:ypt, have cor- 
 rupted themselves." And Exod. xxxiii. 1. Deut. v. 6. 
 *'l am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of 
 the land of Egypt," &c. 
 
 Moses is also joined with the Supreme Deity as the object 
 of faith, Exod. xiv. 31. "And the people feared the Lord, 
 and believed the Lord and his servant Moses." 
 
 Deut.xi. 13. Moses is represented as using language of him- 
 self, ivhich if used bv Christ, would be considered as a very 
 ample proof of his supreme Godhead. "And it shall come to 
 pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto mi/ comtJiandyicnts, 
 which I command you this &dv^ to love the Lord your God, 
 and to serve him with all your heart, and with all your soul : 
 that I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, 
 &c. And 1 will send grass in thy fields f >r thy cattle," &c. 
 
 4th. Upon capricious or misconceived expositions of words 
 and language. — The word Immanuel^ for instance, which is 
 in plain English God with us, is made to signify that Christ 
 is both God and Man — whereas the word conveys no such 
 ir^Heaning, signifies no such thing ; but points out to us what 
 it expresses— that when Christ was in the world, God was 
 with us : not becau'^e Christ was God, but because "Goi> 
 was in Christ reconcihng the world unto himself," 2 Cor. 
 V. 19. Or as it is elsewhere expressed more emphatically— 
 "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and 
 and with power ; who went about doing good, &c. for God 
 was with HIM," A.cts x. 38. And so Zacharias, Luke i. 68. 
 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for having visited dLwd 
 redeemed his pecple^ having raised up an horn of salvation for 
 them in the house of his servant David." 
 
 And when our Lord declares his inferiority to the Father, 
 wc are told that he speaks as mediator, that he speaks of him- 
 self as he was man, not as he was God — And thus they make 
 our blessed Lord to be perpetually on the quibble ; sometimes 
 speaking as mediator, sometimes as God, sometimes as man, 
 sometimes as both God and man ; by which means the excel- 
 lency of our Lord's character is ei^ceedingly degraded. 
 
 Besides, every man of common sense must see and feci 
 liow trifling and impertinent such declarations as these are, 
 M'hen considered as answers to rational arguments. — The 
 ?5criptures do not. in any one instan';Cr distinguish the wisdoi'ri 
 
«r power of Christ as he is God, from his wisdom ind power 
 as he is man ; or from his wisdom t>nd power as God-man or 
 mediator. And if the Scriptures do not so distingui-sh, 
 where is our authoriry to do it ? 
 
 Again, it is said upon the authority of Phil, ii, 6. that 
 Christ is equal with God — But what do they mean by being 
 equal with God ? Do they mean by the term God here, the 
 whole Godhead ? No ; for Christ being one in the God- 
 head, he would then be equal with the whole Godhead, 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and so equal with himself ; 
 which is nonsense say they. — The meanmg then must be, 
 that the person of the Son, was equal with the persons of the 
 Father and Holy Ghost.— -But here again we may inquire, 
 what authority we have to say that the Father and H ly Ghost, 
 in exclusion of the Son, are called by the absolute term 
 God ^ — And may we not ask, if this is the fact, why we 
 are not told so ? VV hy we were left to find it out by a train 
 of uncertain deductions ? I say uncertain deductions — for, 
 where is an infallible rule ? Where is our certain authority ? 
 Who told us it was so? Is it in the Scriptures? Is it in Reason? 
 Is it in some General Council, or Synod ? Or, is it the empty 
 fabrication of some visionary speculatist, or metaphysician. 
 
 And sometimes the meanuig of the Scripture is miscon*^ 
 ceived ; as 1 John v. 20. where Christ is supposed to be de- 
 liominated the true God and eternal life ; whereas that pas- 
 sage plainly means, that Christ hath given us an understand- 
 ing that we may know him that is true, that is the true God : 
 and that we are in him that is true ; that is, we are in the true 
 God — How ? Why, IN or through Jesus Christ — And 
 this true one, in whom we so are in or through Christ, is the 
 TRUE God and eternal life — See our Lord's own words, 
 lohn xvii. 3, " This is eternal it/e, to know thee the onfy 
 TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." — The 
 unlearned reader should be informed, that the word even, in 
 the passage 1 John v. 20. is not in the origmal text, but is 
 suppiied by the translators, and totally subverts the apostle's 
 meaning. 
 
 So, " The church of God, which he hath purchased with 
 his own blood," Acts xx. 28.^- As though he who only hath 
 IMMORTALITY, should havc shed his blood for the restora-* 
 tion of mankind— Impious id^a ! Tne Trinitarian starts back 
 with horror, and denies the position. — He says God did not 
 die — he tells us it is called the blood of God, because God 
 was personally united to flesh and blood, — But the Scripture 
 
never speaks of any such personal union — And it may with 
 much more propriety be contended, that it is called the blood 
 of God, because the death of Christ, the shedding of his 
 blood, was the eft'ect of the goodness and love of God. — 
 ** God (says the apostle) commended his love towards us, in 
 that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And 
 Rom. iii. 24, 25, " The redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; 
 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, througu faith 
 in his Ifiood.^^ Those who are dispossessed of prejudice, will, 
 without much difficulty, estimate the comparative merits of 
 these two observations. 
 
 And 1 John iii. 16, " Hereby perceive we the love of 
 God, because he laid down his life for us.*' This is sup- 
 posed to prove the Deity of Christ, because the text inti- 
 mates that God laid down his life for us ;— -but it is to be 
 observed, that the words " oj God," are not to be found in 
 the best Greek manuscripts, nor in the very printed Greek 
 text we generally use — But if the words are genuine, the 
 sense is very clear, as speaking of the love of God, because he 
 (Christ) laid down his life for us ; and would then be exactly 
 parallel to verse 9 and 10, in the next chapter. " In this was 
 manifested the love of God towards us ; because that God 
 sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live 
 through him. — Herein is love ; not that we loved God, but 
 that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 ©ur sins." — The love of God being expressed in sending his 
 Son to submit to death for our advantage. 
 
 5th. Upon interpolations and alterations of the Sacred 
 Records. — As in the instance of John v. 7, and 1 Tim. iii. 
 16, two of the Trinitarian bulwarks : both of which have 
 every thing against them, which can render ^ny thing suspi- 
 cious and exceptionable. 
 
 6th. Upon palpable mistranslations of them, 
 
 7th, Upon dogmatical pu^tulat a, unsupported by Scripture ; 
 and in many instances, contrary both to Reason and Revela- 
 tion, — And this is to be seen in such declarations as teach, 
 that the union of the man Christ was with the second per- 
 son in the Trinity, when the Scripture in every instance re- 
 presents that union to have been with the Father — and - 
 in such as teach that this union was ^ personal union, whereas 
 the Scripture represents it as an union by the indwelling of 
 God. 
 
 This is also the case where they would teach us, that txvo 
 natures can be one person ; the one mortal, the other immor- 
 
9' 
 
 tal : the one passible^ the other impassible : the one finite^ 
 the other m^/;?7<?.— That one of thesok " the humati** was a 
 mere nature, without a person — and yet Christ is represen- 
 ted by them as frequently speaking in his human capacity. 
 
 Th.it persons in the Trinii3% are not to be considered in the 
 common sense of persons^ — by which they destroy the Divine 
 persoiiahty altogether ; - and yet that one of these persons sor- 
 ved for two natuies in one Christ. 
 
 That THREb: persons subsist in one common nature ; and 
 that thia is essentially necessary to be known — -which is in- 
 deed passing strange, when we consider that the Scriptures 
 so frequently and expressly speak of the absolute Unity of God, 
 and yet leave us no express declarations that in that unity is a 
 Trinity ! 
 
 A reader unused to theological disquisitions, will stand 
 aghast, and enquire how it is possible that men should believe 
 positions so much above reason, without rational evidence of 
 the fact ? It may also be asked, whether those vi^ho so earnestly 
 contend for the Trinity, do under these circumstances really 
 believe it ?— 'It has been very much doubted whether men can 
 seriously and sincerely say oae thing (as to speculative points 
 of religion) and believe another — It seems to me very proba- 
 ble that men may do so — and I think it has been, in a great 
 measure, the case with Trinitarians — For while men have en- 
 deavoured to support an equality of the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost, with the Father, they have in their gen ral views, ideas, . 
 and practice, paid Divine honours to the Father as the su^ 
 preme ; — and although they contend for the personality and 
 equality of the Holy Ghost, they rather pray to the Father to 
 send his Holy Spirit upon them, than to the Holy Ghost to 
 influence them : — This may appear strange, but it is no more 
 strange than true, it is pretty well known that Christianity 
 has been grCvitly corrupted from its original purity and sim- 
 plicity ; darkness has been called light, and light darkness ; 
 the world has long been immerged in a thick cloud of ignor- 
 ance and superstition. — But amidst all this darkness and ig- 
 norance, this 1 verily believe to be a fact, that in true and un- 
 disguised sentiment the whole Christian world has been and 
 is, Unitarian. — Truth is great, and will prevail in tlie heart of 
 the sincere Christian, although his tongue m«iy deny it — and 
 it is to the iinind^ as the seat of truth and error, that God looks, 
 I am inclined to thiivk that there never yet was a Trinitarian, 
 who did not in his mind pay that honour and distinction t» 
 God even the Father, that he did not to either the Son or the 
 2 
 
10 
 
 Holy Ghost. — The ascription of supreme honour and glory 
 is invariably to the great Father of all : although ihe 
 tongue pleads for the ionsubstantiality, and co-equality of the 
 Son and Holy Ghost. And this observation may serve as an 
 apology For our Trniitarian bretliren, and does them the jus- 
 tice of an excuse, without any imputation upon their sincerity : 
 For if the prejudices of education will force an implicit faith/ 
 i:xnd external conlcssion, contrary to the powerful impulse of 
 truth upon the mind, in acts of religious worship ; we have 
 only to admire the goodness of him who keeps the mind un- 
 contaminatcd by error, amidst the various opinions and in- 
 ventions of men. 
 
 The ill effect, however, of the doctrine, is but too visible 
 in the weapons it furnishes the deist with — in the doubt and 
 
 ^dii^tress it occasions to many honest minds — and in the horrid 
 ideas* that attend an inadequate know^ledge of it. 
 
 The question between us, is not whether there are, or are 
 not, certain expressions in the Old and New Testament, 
 ■which might be accommodated to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 there no doubt are ; and it would perhaps be difficult to con- 
 ceive a doctrine, which particular passages of the Scriptures 
 might not be accommodated to. But the question is, Do 
 the Scriptures, in any one instance, expressly teach that there 
 are three persons in the one undivided essence of the Trinity ? 
 The answer is palpable — they do not ; and therefore it comes 
 not to the point before us, to contend, that a passage in Mo- 
 ses, and a passage in Paul put together, might be so under- 
 stood as to indicate, at first sight, the Deity of Christ. — Nor 
 does it fill up the proof, first of all to take for granted that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of Revelation, and then 
 to shew that a passage in Paul does not cow^mJ^c^ it. — Where 
 is the passage which declares that in God are three distinct 
 perso?Js ? Or that the Son is one in essence with the Father ? 
 Or with the Holy Ghost ? Or that the Son and Holy Ghost 
 arc in any od\er sense one ? Where is it said, or supposed, 
 that the Father is iht Jrst person of the Trinity, the Son the 
 
 ^awzr/ person, the Holy Ghost the third ? Does it appear in 
 
 * •' Clirist is ascendotl up to Heaven, 
 '• The Comforter to us is given : 
 " One God's divided in thrpe, 
 " Without which none can saved be." 
 
 See a Grulj-strocl poem, in llie hands of half the ohl women and 
 chifdrcu in the kingdom, called raradise Lost and Paradise Hejrained. 
 
11 
 
 Holy Writ, that the Son and Holy Ghost are as constantly 
 the objects of prayer and praise as the Father is ? Or does . 
 not supreme adoration appear there to be the prerogative of 
 the Father only ? Does it there appear, that the Son is the 
 foundation of wisdom, power and goodness; oris the Father 
 the single indisputed source of these perfections ? In all the 
 past ages of the world, where is the Holy Spirit represented 
 as acting or speaking as Him who is supremely God ? Do the 
 Scriptures ever represent him in the personal character of God? 
 or as any thing distinct from God? Or rather -do they not 
 speak of the Spirit as the power, influence, or energy of God ? 
 Or do they not represent the one living and true God, as act- 
 ing and speaking in and hy\\\^ Spirit? If the Son were the 
 supreme God, equally God with the Father ; if the Holy 
 Spirit were the supreme God, equally God with the Father — 
 would not the Son, would not the Holy Spirit, appear through- 
 out the Scriptures in those characters ? Would the Supreme 
 Being be constantly represented as one, and that one as havm 
 ing a spirit, if that spirit were as supremely God, as he is God 
 whose spirit it is? Do not the Scriptures represent God sim- 
 ply and absolutely as speaking of the Spirit— but do the Scrip- 
 tures ever represent God simply and absolutely as speaking of 
 the Father ? And why is not this the case, if the Spirit is 
 equally supremely God with the Father ? Does not the Old 
 Testament throughout speak of the Spirit, or the spirit of Je- 
 hovah, as the spirit of Aleim ? Does not this particle of. in- 
 dicate that the Spirit belongs to, and is not a person co-essen- 
 tial with Jeliovah ? And does not this shew that the Spirit is 
 not the Supreme Being, in the sense in which Jehovah is the 
 Supreme Being? Arc not love, benevolence, wisdom, power, 
 goodness, mercy, attributed to the Father? But are benev- 
 olence, wisdom, power, or mercy, even ascribed to the Spirit ? 
 Is it ever said that the Spirit is omnipotent? omniscient? or 
 merciful? just? or good? Or are Christians ever denom- 
 inated the church, the people, or the servants of the Holy 
 Ghost? And are not all these deficiences proofs, that ideas of 
 co-equality, co-essentially, distinct personality in the Deity, 
 Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, are children of the 
 imagination, the offspring of fanciful philosophy, equally des- 
 titute both of evidence and of truth ? 
 
 And with regard to the Deity of our Lord — Let it be 
 shewn where he ever spake of himself as possessing more 
 essences than one ? As having in tivo natures or essences, ojie 
 person ? Or as being in his own person the very and eternal 
 
12 
 
 God, and a Man, the work of Goal's hands? Or where he 
 has distinguishtd himstlf as God, from himself as Man f 
 And if no proof can be given where he so spake ol himself, 
 let some plain and indisputable pr >ols be adduced where his 
 apostles or disciples have so spoken ? Let it be sht wn where, 
 distinguishing his manhood from his G'idlicad, our L(»rd 
 claimed tqnnl dominion, equal supreni.icy with the Fathtr ? 
 And w here he has spoken of the Hcij Ghost as one in essence, 
 dominion, and supremacy vvith the F.ther and liiniNelf ? Let 
 it be made out saiisfactorily, th.it when he dedartd the su- 
 perior greatnesrj of the Father, and that he dc rlv^d his wibdom, 
 his power, and his authority from him, either th t he meant 
 nothing, or that he did not spcdk of hiiviself, but only of a 
 part oi himscli ■?. And that wlien he declared "'Thr Father 
 is greater than 1,*' he meant that tlie Father was ^^r^'o^er ; but 
 was nevertheless no more than equal ? In a word, let it be 
 shewn that the Great and Eternal iiod, possessing one un- 
 derstanding, one mind, one will ; the first person in that Dt ity 
 was full of wrath, thcsecond person in that Deiiy was full of 
 mercy, and the third person was willing to assist the second 
 in quenching the flames kin. hd by the urath of the first. — - 
 Let it be shew n that Divine justice is (ine — and that the 
 second person, assisted by the thircS, aciually satisfied ali the 
 demands of justice in the fir->t. Bur let it be also shewn that 
 the justice of the third was satisfied b\ the inicrvension and 
 mediation of the secoiid ; and ihat the jnsti e of the second 
 was ever satisfied at all, either by a sacriiice . id offering made 
 of himself, by himself, to h'ms<lf or by wliat other means ; 
 or shew that no such satisiaction was required ? And tlien 
 that the justice of the second, which was the same with the 
 justice of the firt:t person, was not so ri,ind as the justice of 
 the first, that is, th,at he v/as not so rigid as itself was ? These 
 things done, the author will yield the palm to Thuth, and 
 confess its inscrutable and uncoi>qutr.ible power ; but 'tillth'S 
 i>e done, he nuist rtsist the inflmnce of Errors so apparently 
 opposite to common observation aijd common sense — Errors 
 which liave nothing to recoi7»mend them but mystery and 
 tradition, except that they are the high road to the temples 
 of WEALTH and power.* 
 
 * Th''! luttr-r |»rsr} of (his spiifeiico rpf rs to t!ie ecclesiaslical estab- 
 li'-V.mertt in h.?:f^l ui>' ■ If ia '.!«;pec}, Ihaf 1 • suin.' c'!)n(liti!>ns <»f prefer- 
 ment, >^LicLi are rc(,uired tliMo, will long be uukii'jun ia this couutryr 
 
^% 
 
 
 t-v^