“The dogmata are too few, too general, too unimportant, to elicit inquiry, or to excite anxiety as to their truth.” There is some truth in this, though not exactly of the kind the author contemplated. The interest of Trinitarianism depends greatly on the number of its dogmata, their intricacy, their supposed necessity to salvation, the exactness of their right mutual positions. There is much in a saving _Theology_, having an intricate scheme, and whose main principles and evidences are external to the mind of the believer, and therefore constantly agitating him with apprehension as to whether he has disposed them according to the precise conditions of orthodoxy, to occupy and sometimes oppress minds that have little affinities with a saving _Religion_, a simple spirit of Worship, Duty, and Trust immortal. _But is it true_ that these Unitarian doctrines are “unimportant”—The Fatherhood of God—the Brotherhood of Man—the relations of Jesus to God as His Image, and to Man as his Model—the retributions of Eternity—the Heaven of Duty? --------------------- Page 119.—See the Note.—Surely Mr. Byrth will perceive the unfairness of concluding a Book to be _our_ Standard, merely because some _other_ parties, very unfavourably disposed towards us, choose to represent it as such. --------------------- Page 124.—See the Note.—“I have been charged with almost or altogether suppressing, in the delivery of this Discourse, the word ‘controversially.’” I eagerly assure Mr. Byrth that no such charge was ever made, nor could be made with truth, and I am much grieved that any rumour has conveyed to him the pain of such an impression. Though using hard words to his opponents, and giving them the choice of _any one_ of three _bad_ characters, I believe him perfectly incapable of “dishonesty.” Believing me to have made such a charge, whilst I do not excuse him for so believing upon hearsay, I feel obliged by his forbearance, and for a courtesy in denying the charge, which if made I should not have deserved. I complained that the “controversial” attitudes of Unitarianism were confounded with _its own peaceful and positive ones_, two things that were most carefully separated in the speeches from which Mr. Byrth took extracts; and that he represented as a description _of Unitarianism_, what was distinctly stated to be Unitarianism, “controversially” described. Mr. Byrth, though giving the _word_ “controversially,” overlooked its _meaning_. --------------------- Page 132.—“Epiphanius asserts that the Ebionites,” &c.: also the note marked †. As it is exceedingly inconvenient to repeat subjects and answers, and so never to get rid of a topic, I refer Mr. Byrth and my readers to note B, on the Ebionites and their Gospel, in the Appendix to the Second Lecture of our Course. ---------------------