honoreth the Father who hath committed all judgment into the hands of the Son. There was a time when all judgment was not committed to the Son, and there will be a time when the Șon will resign all judgment and authority to his Father again.

Phillippians ii. 2, was read; I said, Christ was only in the form of God; which is, in plain words, that he was not really God. Mr S. replied, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and he was equal with God. I asked him in what respect, prove it? Mr S. after reading John i. 2, 3, and Heb. i. 2, said that Christ was the Creator of heaven and earth. I said, Christ himself, in returning thanks to the Father for the success of the Gospel, said, 'I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.' If he himself was the Creator of heaven and earth, how could he call the Father, Lord of heaven and earth? St John wrote the history of Christ's life, and he could not be supposed to contradict Moses' account of the Creation of heaven and earth by God himself, which is often repeated by God himself in the Old Testament, particularly in the 4th Commandment, which must stand good forever. Mr S. replied that it was not contradicting Moses, but was saying that God made the heaven and the earth by Christ.

Heb. i. 8, was read. I said, that was originally applied to Solomon, and if in its original sense it will not make Solomon the true God, of course the same words cannot prove Christ to be the true God. Christ in his prayers to the Father says that his Father is the only true God. St. Paul says, 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6, For though there be that are called gods whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us [Christians] there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' Therefore there cannot be more than one true God; and that one true God is not Jesus Christ, but his Father.

Mr S spoke about the atonement, and read, Without shedding of blood is no remission;' and Heb. ix. 14., 'How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?' I said, the shedding of Christ's blood was necessary to perfect the new dispensation, and by it our consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God. We read of sacrifices under the law, but we do not read of any sacrifice being made for moral guilt. God forgives sinners on their repentance and return to duty; and it is plain from the parable of the prodigal son, that when he

*confessed his faults and returned to his duty, his father did not require any compensation before he could forgive him. It was enough that he returned to his duty. Then come the best robes, &c. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive,' is the same under the New Testament as it was under the Old.

I read the 8th verse of the 5th chap. in Rom., and asked, was the love of God which he bore towards his creatures the cause of Christ's death? or was the death of Christ the means of procuring God's love towards his creatures? To which Mr S. replied; It was God's love towards his creatures, that was the cause of Christ's death; and himself read the 16th verse of the 3d chap. of John. I said, where can God procure an atonement, the whole creation being his property? The word atonement means reconciliation: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.' If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.' Creation is of two kinds; the first is the natural creation of heaven and earth and all things that are in them; the second is the moral creation or reformation of men; the former was that of God himself, the latter was effected by means of Christ, or by the Gospel.

Mr S. spoke about Christ having two natures. I said, this is no part of Scripture; It has been often said to oppose right reason, that Christ had two natures; it never had been proved, and certainly it can never be proved, that Christ possesses divine attributes; he is not self-existent; he is not eternal; he possesses a body, while God has none; his goodness, wisdom, and power are not underived; he did not know the day and hour when his predictions with respect to Jerusalem and the Jews would take place. Mr S. and the other European gentleman there present, said, all these are true with respect to his human nature, but he possesses a divine nature. John, chap. x. verse 30, was read, and they said that Christ was God and one with the Father. I asked them to read as far as the verse 37. They did so. Then I said, by the words, ' I and my Father are one,' Christ means nothing more than that he was an obedient Son to his Father, which appears plainly in the 36th verse- Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?' Here you see, God is one being and his Son is another being; the former sanctified the latter, and this took place in time; what was then the use of his own divinity? If he was God by his own right, he

surely did nothing to prove his divinity; every thing that he did he and his apostles in the plainest language possible ascribed to the Divinity of his Father.

Mr S. said, God was manifest in the flesh. I answered, God was manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, his good will was fully revealed in the Gospel; but the common notion of incarnation is inconsistent with common sense. If Christ was God, how could God raise him, exalt him, and give him a name which is above every name? An infinite Being cannot be contained in a finite Being. Mr S. said, that was a mystery; that we cannot explain; God can do all things. I said, God cannot contradict himself; if he had told mankind by his Prophets and by his Son that he is one being, that must stand good forever; it is impossible that God should have one equal to himself.

The conversation lasted about four hours. The other European gentleman who was present said, that my arguments were right; but they go yet further; he meant of course that they believe in the divinity and atonement of Christ. We spoke a good deal, but they did not present any new argument to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

This will show you I am still bearing my humble testimony to the great truth.

My son, Theophilus Roberts, is now with Abraham Chiniah at Secunderabad, and they and we are all pretty well, thank God. I remain, Rev. Sir,

Dear Sir: In my last letter, you had brief statement of what I knew concerning Unitarianism in Maine. In this, I intend to state a few facts relat

ing to our views in some of the places west of us, that I have visited, and present some of the convictions, which observation has either produced or confirmed in my own mind. It was early in the last autumn when my journey towards the Ohio was commenced. Few opportunities presented themselves for learning anything definitely concerning the state of religious affairs in most of the places through which my journey led me; and my remarks must be confined to what was observed in the few places in which I made some stay.

A short time was passed at Trenton, N. Y. There was found an insulated society of Unitarians which has long been lashed by the surges of Presbyterianism and unhallowed enthusiasm. The surrounding sea is laboring to break in pieces or to bury this island, but the angry billows do not effect their purpose. The traveller, whose faith is like ours, delights to reach this place, and it gladdens his heart to find that the foundations of this society are firm. Their worthy pastor has for many years been leading them along the ways of truth, and aiding them in the cultivation of the christian virtues. Those theological opinions which we deem Scriptural are highly prized by them, and they welcome with much cordiality the stranger who goes among them prepared to preach those truths, which, in their opinion, constitute that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth. These people were found in a good condition. Many of them are well acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity, and the spirit of our religion seemed to reside in their hearts. Alone, as they are, it seems proper that sympathy with them

be expressed, by those of kindred faith, who live in this more favored part of the religious world.

A very short stay was made at Syracuse. Only twice before, if I was correctly informed, had any Unitarian preacher addressed an assembly in that place. One meeting was held during the time that I remained there, and the attendance was more full than we anticipated.

When at Meadville, Pa., half a day's ride south from Lake Erie, interesting information was obtained relating to the Unitarian society in that place. There has been a number of Unitarians in Meadville for several years, and they have often been supplied with preaching. Success in other years was as great as could reasonably be expected, and during the last it has far exceeded the anticipation of any one. Peculiar circumstances have recently operated to bring the real opinions of Unitarians and Presbyterians before the people of that town, in such a manner that they could compare them; and in such a manner also as to enable them to estimate the value of the evidence by which the truth of each system is supported. The result is, that many have become convinced of the truth of Unitarianism. A young gentleman, recently of the Theological School in Cambridge, has been laboring among this people during the past year, and has been eminently successful. There were but few who attended upon his ministrations when he commenced preaching at the place, but not many months elapsed before the number was very much increased; it continued to augment, and in the autumn there was promise of a more general reception of our views, and