It is addressed by me specifically to them and not to others.

I would _not_ address it to Trinitarians; partly, because they are not in a mental state to get anything from it but pain, partly because much of it becomes intrinsically bad _as argument_ when addressed to them.

Many acts and words which would be _right_ from an incarnate God, or from an angel, are (in my opinion) highly _unbecoming_ from a man; consequently I must largely remould the argument before I could myself approve of it, if so addressed.
The principle of the argument is such as Mr.Rogers justifies, when he says that Mr.Martineau _quite takes away all solid reasons for believing in Christ's absolute perfection._ ("Defence," p.

220.) I opened my chapter (chapter VII.) above with a distinct avowal of my wish to confine the perusal of it to a very limited circle.

Mr.Rogers (acting, it seems, on the old principle, that whatever one's enemy deprecates, is a good) instantly pounces on the chapter, avows that "if infidelity _could_ be ruined, such imprudencies[17] would go far to ruin it," p.