We thought that you, in common with Unitarians generally, acknowledged the Scriptures of the New Testament, as contained in what is commonly called “The Unitarian or Improved Version,” to be inspired of God, and consequently of infallible truth. This however you, as individuals, have disclaimed; and, therefore, we are compelled to ask _what you do_ acknowledge INSPIRED REVELATION? Is our discussion to be, 1. Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of truth? Or, 2. Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is it? We affirm the inspiration by God of the Holy Scriptures, as contained in our authorized canon, and are willing to refer every question for decision to their ascertained meaning. Do you agree in this? Our standard being known, it is a matter of obvious fairness that we should ask to have yours stated. Either you admit the divine inspiration, and consequent infallible truth, of the Bible, or you do not. Or, you so admit a part, and reject a part. You will be so good as to state clearly how this matter stands. Are you believers in a WRITTEN and INFALLIBLY-ACCURATE REVELATION from God to man? If so, _what is_ that Revelation? If you admit only _parts_ of our Bible as inspired, you will oblige us by stating _what parts_. The character of the discussion must obviously depend upon this: is it to be a discussion upon EVIDENCE or upon INTERPRETATION? It would be manifestly a waste of time in us to enter upon the interpretation of what you might afterwards get rid of, (so far, at least, as you are concerned,) by declaring it only the opinion of a _fallible man_. We remain, Gentlemen, Yours, for the sake of truth, HUGH M‘NEILE, FIELDING OULD, March 4th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH. --------------------- _To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._ Gentlemen,—You ask us, Is our discussion to be, 1. “Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of TRUTH?” Or, 2. “Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is it?” We answer, distinctly, that our controversy is upon the meaning, ascertained by INTERPRETATION, of the _Hebrew_ and _Greek_ Scriptures. Should any questions of criticism arise respecting what is the text to be interpreted, these must, of course, be argued separately, upon purely _critical_ grounds. We conceive that the real controversy between us respects the nature of Christianity itself;—you holding the Revelation to consist in doctrines deducible from the written words; we holding the Revelation to be expressed in the character and person of Jesus Christ, and to be conveyed to us through a faithful and authentic record. Which of these two ideas is Scriptural?—that is our controversy.