and the revelation, rejects Christianity. That class of men to which I referred as slandered, receive and believe the miracles, receive and believe the revelation. These books were written for the express purpose of converting infidels from unbelief to the belief of what? Precisely what Unitarians now believe, the Divine origin and authority of the Gospel. If these men have stated the question on its true merits, they may convert a man to the belief of Christianity, and still, according to our learned and charitable divine, he is an infidel. How can they be said, with the least regard to truth or candour, to reject Christianity? With what truth, or fairness, or even decency, can those who receive the Christian miracles and the Gospel as a revelation from God, be classed with Herbert and Hume, who denied them both? It requires a meekness almost superhuman to bear a calumny so wanton and unjust.

Well, and what do the Christian miracles prove? Do they prove that Christ was God, or a Person in God? By no means. What then do they prove? They prove that the doctrines he taught were from God. They prove his Divine inspiration, and nothing more. They do not touch his metaphysical nature at all. The revelation, when confirmed by miracles, is equally true and certain whatever may have been his nature. . It is the same on every hypothesis. Hear himself on this subject. "But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish,

the same works that I do, bear witness of me," not that I am this or that by nature, but "that the Father hath sent me."

The impartial examiner of the evidences and sects of Christianity, after this explanation, would know how to appreciate the denunciation he had read of the worshippers of one God in the name of Christ, as rejecting Christianity. He would perceive that the question as to the miracles, the inspiration, the Divine authority of Christ is fundamental, the turning point between belief and unbelief. But the question concerning Christ's metaphysical rank and nature, is a question of interpretation between the sects of Christianity. And the origin of this denunciation is the refusal of one sect to adopt the interpretation of another sect, which they attempt to dictate upon that common revelation which all receive, and of which all have an equal right to judge. The worshippers of one God in one person, are denounced as unbelievers, as rejecting Christianity, not because they do actually reject the Gospel as a divine revelation, for they receive it as such, but because they reject the interpretation, which others choose to put upon it.

If we compare these things with Scripture, we shall find this simplicity of belief in admirable accordance with the confessions of faith made by some and required of others of the early Christians. Who was the first convert and member of the Christian Church? It was Peter. And what was

his confession of faith? "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;" or as it is reported in Mark, "Thou art the Christ." Jesus answered, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Thou art my first convert, the corner stone of the new edifice, never to be destroyed. That "Christ," and "Son of God," were synonymous, I have already explained. They were both Jewish phrases, significative of the Divine commission and authority of their expected Messiah. This was the only confession of faith required of the eunuch, whom Philip converted and baptized, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." "If thou," says Paul to the Romans, "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved."

These considerations, moreover, explain the propriety of the formula of baptism, as an epitome or abstract of faith, to be confessed in order to admission into the Christian Church. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father," into a profession of belief in one God, the Father Almighty, and "of the Son," that is as we have before explained the Divine authority of Jesus of Nazareth, and "of the Holy Ghost;" into a belief of the miracles by which his mission was proved and established, which are often in Scripture termed the Holy Ghost. Such is the simplicity of the Christian's

Creed, for which the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Christianity is the same now that it was then, and the same Creed which was sufficient then is sufficient now. We have arrived then at the answer of the first part of our present inquiry, what is it necessary for a man to believe in order to be a Christian? He must believe in the Divine origin of Christ's teaching and miracles, and that God raised him from the dead.

We now come to the second part of our inquiry, what is it necessary for a man to practise in order to be a Christian, and as such to be entitled to the name, privileges, and hopes of a Christian?

This part of our subject, I confess, is surrounded with more difficulties than the other, from the very nature of the case. Because it is more easy to judge of what is true or what is revealed in the language of the Scriptures, than to judge of human character and conduct. I confess that is impossible to judge that we ourselves, much less any other persons whose hearts we do not and cannot know, are true Christians in a state of salvation and acceptance with God. No one in this life, such I believe to be the design of God, can arrive at a state of perfect assurance. The most that we can do is to entertain a hope, a strong confidence that we are in that state; and that others, of whom we form an opinion, are also. On what is this hope and confidence founded, and on what ought it to be founded? We reply, upon the general tenor of the life and actions. This evidence is, indeed,

imperfect, because we cannot see the heart and the motives; but it is the best, and only standard we can adopt. A good life, a Christian practice, is the only evidence that man can give or man can require of a Christian character. Our Saviour has given us this rule of judging, "by their fruits ye shall know them." We have already seen the Creed which it is necessary for a man to adopt in order to be a Christian. We now see what Creed is necessary in a practical sense for the same purpose, such a belief as produces a Christian life. When the most simple faith is accompanied with such a life, we cannot withhold the name and character of Christian. And where this practical character does not exist, no matter how long or how mysterious the Creed, the seal of true discipleship is wanting, and the name and hopes of a Christian are entertained in vain.

But is it not necessary for him to have some experiences to relate, to be able to tell when, how and where he became a Christian? Not in the least. If his life be truly Christian, such experiences are unnecessary. They add nothing of evidence. If the life be not Christian they are certainly deceptive. Nothing is more uncertain, equivocal and suspicious as a test of character than mental exercises. They come and go with health or disease, with excitement or tranquillity, with sympathy or solitude. But a patient continuance in well doing, a calm and conscientious discharge of duty, accompanied by that faith in Christ which we have described, concerning these