JAMES MARTINEAU. JOHN H. THOM. March 11, 1839. HENRY GILES. --------------------- _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._ Gentlemen,—In our last letter we gave up the “Improved Version,” so far as you, _as individuals_, are concerned, because, _as individuals_, you disclaimed it. We are surprised, therefore, that you should revert to it, and the more so, because you have now ventured to say, not only that _you_ disclaim it, but also, in the face of known facts, that it is not “the Unitarian version,” nor is it “commonly so called.” When you disclaimed it _for yourselves_, we did not demur. But when you go on to disclaim it _for the Unitarian body_, (for which, by the way, you have no authority,) we strenuously deny your assertion, and call in evidence the language of all the best writers upon the controversy. You have misstated our question. We did _not_ ask, “Is our discussion to be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of _Scripture_?” We did ask, “Is it to be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of _truth_?” We receive the Scripture as a _standard of truth_. The substitution of the one word for the other, in this question, has mystified your whole letter. We collect, however, from your letter, and from Mr. Martineau’s sermon, to which you refer us, (and which we consequently conclude contains the sentiments of you all,) 1. That you do not believe in a _written and infallibly-accurate Revelation_ from God to man. 2. That Paul the apostle may have “_reasoned inaccurately_,” and “_speculated falsely_.”[7] 3. And that, consequently, you feel yourselves at liberty to judge his statements (and all the statements of Scripture) as you do those of any other books. You seem to think that this is of little consequence, and say that “the process of interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the theory of verbal inspiration.” We reply that such a process can lead to nothing but waste of time. For when we shall have proved some great truth, or condemned some fatal error, upon the authority of Paul, or some other inspired writer, you have kept an open door for yourselves to escape from the whole force of our demonstration, by saying that, in the words on which we rely, the sacred writers “_reasoned inaccurately_,” or “_speculated falsely_,”—while, if any passages in those writers _seem_ to favour your views, you have adroitly retained the privilege of ascribing to them a sort of inspiration.[8]