While, therefore, we shall continue to use all lawful methods of argument and persuasion, in the hope of being useful to those who, though called Unitarians, are not so entirely separated from our common humanity as you seem to be, we have no hesitation in saying that, with regard to _yourselves_ as individuals, there appears to be a more insurmountable obstacle in the way of discussion than would be offered by ignorance of one another’s language; because the want of a common medium of language could be supplied by an interpreter, but the want of a common medium of reason cannot be supplied at all. We remain, Gentlemen, yours respectfully, HUGH M‘NEILE. FIELDING OULD. March 18th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH. ----- Footnote 7: _To grant that Paul reasons, and be startled at the idea that he may reason incorrectly—to admit that he speculates, and yet be shocked at the surmise that he may speculate falsely_,—to praise his skill in illustration, yet shrink in horror when something less apposite is pointed out,—_is an obvious inconsistency_. The human understanding cannot perform its functions without taking its share of the chances of error; nor can a critic of its productions have any perception of their truth and excellence, without conceding the possibility of fallacies and faults. We must give up our admiration of the apostles as men, if we are to listen to them always as oracles of God.—_Martineau’s Sermon_, pp. 34, 35. Footnote 8: I believe St. Matthew to have been _inspired_; but I do not believe him to have been _infallible_.—_Sermon_, p. 27. Footnote 9: All peculiar _consecration_ of miracle is obtained by a precisely proportioned _desecration_ of nature; it is out of a supposed contrast between the two, that the whole force of the impression arises.—_Sermon_, p. 24. --------------------- _To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._ Gentlemen,—We regret the misstatement of your question, which appeared at the commencement of our letter of the 13th instant. We regret still more that it did not occur to you to attribute it to its real cause,—the carelessness of a printer or transcriber. In the autograph manuscript which remains in our hands, your question is correctly stated thus—“Is our discussion to be upon a mutually-acknowledged standard _of truth_?” How the word “truth” became changed into “scripture,” we cannot tell; and not having read our letter after it was in print, we were unaware of the mistake until you pointed it out. Whatever “mystification” it introduced, you will consider as now removed.