I request, any of the numerous works of Orthodox Divines, Churchmen and Dissenters, and settle with yourself to whom Dr. Johnson's definition does properly apply. Remember that the second signification of PRIDE is, "Insolence, rude treatment of others, insolent exultation."-If, however, you have none of those works at hand, wait a short time; and the Orthodox Reviews of these Letters will perfectly answer the purpose.

APPENDICES AND NOTES.

APPENDIX I.

A few Extracts from PROFESSOR NORTON'S STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR NOT BELIEVING THE DOCTRINES OF TRINITARIANS, &c. &c., mentioned in the Preface of the present Work*.

PROFESSOR NORTON, after mentioning that, in 1819, he had published a Tract, to which he had given the title which is now prefixed to the work from which the following Extracts are taken, proceeds to say:

"I have said, I resumed the task;' and the expression is appropriate; for the discussion is one in which no scholar or intellectual man can, at the present day, engage with alacrity. To the great body of enlightened individuals in all countries, to the generality of those, who, on every subject but theology, are the guides of public opinion, it would be as incongruous to address an argument against the Trinity as an argument against transubstantiation, or the imputation of Adam's sin, or the supremacy of the Pope, or the divine right of kings. These doctrines, once subjects of fierce contention, are all, in their

* The work of Professor Norton being still scarce in this country, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity of giving a few specimens, taken somewhat in connexion with a few of the topics in the preceding little work`; and of expressing my very high sense of the ability and learning displayed in that (according to my judgment) perfectly triumphant refutation of the established or orthodox Doctrines on the Nature of God and the Person of Christ.

view, equally obsolete. To disprove the Trinity will appear to many of whom I speak a labour as idle and unprofitable as the confutation of any other of those antiquated errors; and to engage in the task may seem to imply a theologian's ignorance of the opinions of the world, and the preposterous and untimely zeal of a recluse student, believing that the dogmas of his books still rule the minds of men. It would be difficult to find a recognition of the existence of this doctrine in any work of the present day of established reputation, not professedly theological. All mention of it is, by common consent, excluded from the departments of polite literature, moral science, and natural religion; and from discussions, written or oral, not purely sectarian, intended to affect men's belief or conduct. Should an allusion to it occur in any such production, it would be regarded as a trait of fanaticism, or as discovering a mere secular respect for some particular church. It is scarcely adverted to, except in works professedly theological; and theology, the noblest and most important branch of philosophy, has been brought into disrepute, so far, at least, as it treats of the doctrines of revealed religion, by a multitude of writers, who have seized upon this branch of it as their peculiar province, and who have been any thing but philosophers.

"Why, then, argue against a doctrine which, among intelligent men, has fallen into neglect and disbelief? I answer, that the neglect and disbelief of this doctrine, and of other doctrines of like character, has extended to Christianity itself. It is from the public professions of nations calling themselves Christian, from the established creeds and liturgies of different churches or sects, and from the writings of those who have been reputed orthodox in their day, that most men derive their notions of Christianity. But the treaties of European nations still begin with a solemn appeal to the Most Holy Trinity ;' the doctrine is still the professed faith of every established church, and, as far as I know, of every sect which makes a creed its bond of communion : and if any one should recur to books, he would find it presented as an all-important distinction of Christianity by far the larger portion of divines. It is, in consequence, viewed by most men, more or less distinctly, as a

part of Christianity. In connexion with other doctrines, as false and more pernicious, it has been moulded into systems of religious belief, which have been publicly and solemnly substituted in the place of true religion. These systems have counteracted the whole evidence of divine revelation. The proof of the most important fact in the history of mankind, that the truths of religion have not been left to be doubtfully and dimly discerned, but have been made known to us by God himself, has been overborne and rendered ineffectual by the nature of the doctrines ascribed to God. Hence it is, that, in many parts of Europe, scarcely an intelligent and well-informed Christian is left. It has seemed as idle to inquire into the evidences of those systems which passed under the name of Christianity, as into the proof of the incarnations of Vishnu, or the divine mission of Mahomet. Nothing of the true character of our religion, nothing attesting its descent from heaven, was to be discovered amid the corruptions of the prevailing faith. On the contrary, they were so marked with falsehood and fraud, they so clearly discovered the baseness of their earthy origin, that, when imposed upon men as the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, those who regarded them as such were fairly relieved from the necessity of inquiring whether they had been taught by God. The internal evidence of Christianity was annihilated; and all other evidence is wasted when applied to prove that such doctrines have been revealed from heaven."-Preface, pp. i-vii.

"The doctrine (of the proper divinity of Christ) is proved to be false, because it is evident from the Scriptures that none of those effects were produced which would necessarily have resulted from its first annunciation by Christ, and its subsequent communication by his Apostles. The disciples of our Saviour must, at some period, have considered him merely as a Before he commenced his ministry, his relations, and fellow-townsmen, certainly regarded him as nothing more than 'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph, and of Judas and Simon? And are not

man.

a man.

his sisters here with us?' At some particular period, the communication must have been made by our Saviour to his disciples, that he was not a mere man, but that he was, properly speaking, and in the highest sense, God himself. The doctrines with which we are contending, and other doctrines of a similar character, have so obscured and confused the whole of Christianity, that even its historical facts appear to be regarded by many scarcely in the light of real occurrences. But we may carry ourselves back in imagination to the time when Christ was on earth, and place ourselves in the situation of the first believers. Let us reflect, for a moment, on what would be the state of our feelings, if some one with whom we had associated as a man, were to declare to us that he was really God himself. If his character and works had been such as to command any attention to such an assertion, still through what an agony of incredulity, and doubt, and amazement, and consternation, must the mind pass, before it could settle down into a conviction of the truth of his declaration! And when convinced of its truth, with what unspeakable astonishment should we be overwhelmed! With what extreme awe, and entire prostration of every faculty, should we approach and contemplate such a being; if indeed man, in his present tenement of clay, could endure such intercourse with his Maker! With what a strong and unrelaxing grasp would the idea seize upon our minds! How continually would it be expressed in the most forcible language, whenever we had occasion to speak of him! What a deep and indelible colouring would it give to every thought and sentiment in the remotest degree connected with an agent so mysterious and so awful! But we perceive nothing of this state of mind in the disciples of our Saviour, but much that gives evidence of a very different state of mind. One may read over the first three Evangelists; and it must be by a more than ordinary exercise of ingenuity if he discover what may pass for an argument, that either the writers, or the numerous individuals of whom they speak, re

* Mark vi, 3.-"I have retained the words 'brothers' and 'sisters,' used in the common version, not thinking it important, in the connexion in which the passage is quoted, to make any change in this rendering; but the relationship intended, I believe, to be that of cousins "