part; and I never could find any Trinity there. And as for later Jewish writings, I utterly deny that there is any clear, decisive, and respectable testimony among them all, which will prove that the Jews, in any part of their history, received the doctrine of the Trinity. If the testimony of these distinguished Rabbins is so accessible, as P. W. pretends, he is bound in honour to go and get it, and bring it down to us, and prove to the confusion of Jews and Unitarians, that whatever the former may now be, there was a time, when all their fathers were good Trinitarians. But I utterly deny the truth of the assertion.

With regard to the second part of the above extract, which announces in such a knowing manner the famous reason, why the Jews are now so perverse as to deny the Trinity, I candidly confess that I do not see the point of it. In short I do not understand it. It is one of the darkest oracles I ever read.

The next quotation, which I shall give from this writer, is sufficiently plain, whatever may be its other deficiencies. Referring to a passage of my last letter, he says;

"But let us not overlook their redeeming virtue. It is called 'constancy. They have clung fast to the faith of their fathers.' Does W. P. mean 'the faith of their fathers' of the Old Testament? What was their faith? Not faith simply in a Messiah, but in the Messiah whom the prophets foretold; and who, even Unitarians believe, has already come. On this supposition, the present Jews, instead of clinging fast to the faith of their fathers, have apostatized from it. Will W. P. call this "noble?"

If I ever saw a sophism, it is contained in that paragraph. Let P. W. prove that the Jews of the Old Tesment believed in the very Jesus whom we acknowledge; that they knew exactly when he was to be born; that if

they had lived at the time of his appearing, they would have received him as the Messiah; and that if they were now alive, they would acknowledge, instead of rejecting him, as their descendants do; and then there would be some force in what he has said; but till he can prove all this, there is no force in it whatever. But I have not yet finished this part of his argument. He is very fond of getting me into what he imagines to be dilemmas; and proceeds thus;

"But perhaps he means the 'faith of their fathers' since the coming of Christ. If so, it ought to have been called the unbelief of their fathers. In my view, the rejection of the Saviour of the world is associated with fearful guilt. 'He that believeth not shall be damned.' Would Jesus Christ have used such language, if persevering unbelief had been pardonable? The constancy' with which the Jews have clung to this infidelity of their fathers, is the darkest feature in the aspect of the whole affair. If this constancy would but relent, there might be some hope. But as it is, 'hope never comes.' It was at the expense of this constancy, that Protestants emerged from Popery, and Unitarians from Trinitarianism; and yet it is noble. No matter, for so indeed W. P. teaches; if they worshipped brutes and vegetables, instead of the living God,'it still would be noble! He would pronounce it noble! For this purpose he 'would lift up his voice! I sincerely hope, for the honour of Unitarians, that he would 'lift it up alone.""

And I sincerely hope, and believe, that Unitarians will never be so unmindful of their honour, and their principles, as to suffer any one to lift up his voice alone, in applauding resistance to persecution. Whether they would, or would not, join me, however, would make but little difference, as far as the expression of my own opinion was concerned. I do not flatter myself that I should be heard far, but I should speak as loud as I could, and if no other voice would unite with mine, I should even lift up mine alone. In this point of view, I care not what the Jews believe or disbelieve, or what their fathers believed or disbelieved; it may be called faith, or it may

be called infidelity, or any other name you please; it is opinion at the last, and it is a sacred thing, and when force, or penalties, or obloquy, are put in requisition to eradicate or change it, they ought to be resisted, and I should call that resistance constancy, let others call it what they would. When the great question of liberty of conscience is at issue, all creeds are on the same ground, and all distinctions of faith sink into nothing. Christians, Jews, or Idolaters, it is all one; their minds are their own; and when any violence is offered to their faith or their heresy, their religion or their irreligion, they act a manful part in holding it fast, and resisting to the end. This is what I intended by my remarks on the constancy of the Jews; and I am sorry that this writer could not, or would not, understand me. I have no wish to defend that people, for shutting their eyes, and hardening their hearts, against the evidence and the influence of such a religion as the religion of Jesus. But they have suffered their punishment, and are still suffering it. The loss of Christian hopes and blessings would be a grievous punishment, if no other had been inflicted; and I cannot believe that to all their woes are to be added the pains of eternal damnation. If that is the meaning which P. W. affixes to the words of our Saviour, I can only say, that his rules of scripture interpretation differ most widely from mine. How far the rejection of Christianity by the Jews is to be attributed to their insensibility or wickedness, God forbid that I should take it on myself to decide; but as far as it is owing to the persecution and contumely which Christians themselves have heaped on them, they have not only their excuse, but their justification. Under all

circumstances of this kind, I continue to assert that their constancy has been noble. The sarcasms of P. W. may, for the present, pass for what they are worth, for I feel too much in earnest to reply to him in the same strain.

"It was at the expense of this constancy," he says, "that Protestants emerged from Popery, and Unitarians from Trinitarianism." It was not at the expense of their constancy. Their constancy emancipated them. Their convictions began the change, and their constancy perfected it, in spite of odium and tribulation. Protestants and Unitarians have been persecuted for changing their faith, and Jews for not changing it; it was the free will of the former to leave their ancient belief, and of the latter, to keep as they are; their constancy and perseverance have been the same. P. W. is unfortunate in his illustrations.

There is now one point in these remarks left for me to notice, and it is one in which you, Mr. Editor, are personally interested. Because I said it was presumption to tell people in the newspapers that "the divine veracity was pledged" to promote the purposes of the American Society, and that every body must come forward and help to fulfil them, this writer's patience almost forsakes him, and he insists that I am contradicted not only by the daily practice of all men, but by the Report of the Unitarian Book Society, which was published in the same number of the Miscellany with my last letter. From the quotation which he makes, it is sufficient to repeat the following passage; "truth will conquer at last, but it requires incitements from human aid. God is the author of all, but men are his agents; we must labour if we would hope." He then

declares that the Miscellany "may choose its own post; but it cannot advocate both the doctrine of the Book Society, and of W. P.”

It would be singular indeed, if a periodical work, containing the communications of many different writers, should preserve a perfect consistency; but I will venture to affirm, that if the Miscellany never exhibits on its pages greater inconsistencies than in the present case, it will be the most consistent book of the kind which was ever published. I do not think, Sir, that you are yet called on to "choose your own post," by deciding, where there is no difference.

There seems to me to be a great distinction to be made, in the first place, between considering ourselves, generally, as instruments in the hand of God,-and regarding ourselves as instruments for some particular purpose, to be accomplished in a particular way. There exists a wide distinction also between fulfilling those designs of the Almighty, which are always and incontestibly our duty, such as the advancement, in ourselves and others, of truth and virtue,—and setting ourselves up as fulfillers of prophecy Bonaparte, it is said, once had a design of restoring the Jews to their own country. And if he had announced that "the divine veracity was pledged" to perform this work, and had called on the powers of the earth to assist him in fulfilling the word of the Almighty, would he not have been presumptuous? I think so. And yet he had as good a right to consider himself as the instrument of God for this purpose, as the American Society, or P. W.