In the second place, I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the Father. This I believe of Christ, because the Almighty himself proclaimed the fact from heaven; "this is my beloved Son;"-Christ, while on earth, asserted it, and his Apostles all confirmed and taught it. I believe, that Christ was the constituted Mediator between God and men, to reconcile men to God, and not God to men; that the Son was appointed by the Father to be the Saviour of sinners, and that he freely and willingly accepted the appointment; that it was love only towards men, amazing love, that induced the Father to plan, and the Son willingly to execute, the great and glorious work of salvation, whereby Christ was to become incarnate, to teach and instruct men on earth, to set a perfect example of a pure and holy life, to work miracles, to suffer, and to seal his mission with his own blood, and to be raised to heaven, and seated at the right hand of the Father. All this I believe concerning the Son, because the Scriptures so clearly teach. But I do not, I cannot believe, that the Son of God is the supreme God; because the Bible does not so direct me, and because I should thereby renounce my first article of faith in the one only God, the Father, and should nullify the immutable laws of God, by making the Son his own Father! Neither can I believe, that the Son was a mere man, or no more than a man; for I believe that he was more and bet

ter than men or angels, even "as

much better than

the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more

excellent name than they." The Bible is

my

author

ity for this faith. I further believe, that Christ existed spiritually before men or angels; that he was "the first born of every creature." But I do not consider, that those, who sincerely disbelieve in the preëxistence of the Son, are necessarily guilty of a damnable heresy, or any heresy at all; but that they are only in an error; an error that may be excusable, because the Bible is not perfectly clear upon this point; though I consider, that the whole weight of the testimony is decidedly and irresistibly in favor of his preëxistence. But this appears to me to be a matter, as among antitrinitarians, not of vital importance. It is more a question of time than of substance. Suppose one Christian believes, that Christ has existed only eighteen hundred and forty years, and another believes he has existed eighteen million years; one or the other must be in an error as to time; but suppose they both have exactly the same belief as to his merits, his mission, and his whole character in every respect, could the difference of opinion as to time only be of any consequence? Let me state an easy case for illustration. I believe that Washington was born in A. D. 1732 ; my neighbor contends that he was not born till 1740. But as to his being a great and good man, and under God the political saviour of his country, and as to his whole true character, my neighbor and I are perfectly agreed. Now, must I condemn my good neighbor as a traitor to his country, and a reviler of Washington, because he is in an error as to the time of his birth, a matter of no consequence at all, to

the merits of the case? So, if a professed Christian has a correct and full faith concerning all the merits, and the whole perfect character of Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the Father, though he may be in an error, as to the time when he was begotten, or first caused to exist, I could not pronounce him a heretic to be condemned; the most I could say would be, that he is a brother, who is in an error, on an immaterial point, or in a matter that is not clearly revealed; therefore Christian charity will not anathematize him, or withhold from him any brotherly love and communion.

It therefore follows, of course, according to my views, that I cannot believe in the Trinitarian double nature of Christ. It appears to me, that the hypothesis, that the supreme, unchangeable God became man, "emptied himself" (as they say) into a human body, and there veiled all his infinite, unbounded glories, for more than thirty years; that he became personally and visibly an instructor and teacher to his disciples and the multitude; that he suffered and died on the cross, rose again, and reascended to heaven! This hypothesis, I say, appears to be a thing more absurd, ridiculous, and impossible, than it would be to suppose that, two thousand years ago, the whole boundless ocean emptied itself into, and became a drop of water, which had fallen on the rock of Gibraltar, and there remained, in that drop, (still being the perfect ocean,) for more than thirty years, and then resumed its former station! or to suppose, that the sun, the great orb

of light and heat, and the controller of the planets, some hundred years since, diffused itself wholly into, and became a fire-fly on earth, leaving the planets without an enlightener, animator, and controller, for thirty years, and then returned to its centre, and reassumed its established office; and further, to suppose, that this drop of water is the whole ocean, or equal to it, and distinct from it; and that this firefly is the very sun, the centre of our system, or equal with it, in every respect. And there is as much evidence in the natural world to prove these suppositions respecting the ocean and the sun, as there is in the Bible to prove the Trinitarian hypothesis of two natures (of God and man) in Christ. The unity of the Son is as clearly set forth in the Bible, as the unity of the Father; we find no kind of plurality respecting either of them. "To us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ," the only Son of God.

In the third place, I believe in the Holy Spirit, as the power, influence, or gift of God, made effectual for the conviction, conversion, and sanctification of sinners, and for the consolation and joy of the righteous; I do not, I cannot believe, that the spirit of God is by itself independently God, or a person of Deity equal with the Father, or any person at all; because the Scriptures do not so instruct me. And in this view I consider the holy spirit of vital importance in the Christian's faith.

And I further believe, that repentance and reformation are as necessary to salvation, as faith in Go d

and in his Son and spirit. And I believe with Paul, that "faith without works is dead." And I also believe, that good works, without love to God, and faith in his Son and spirit avail nothing. In fine, without further particularizing, I believe all the doctrines, which Christ or his Apostles taught. Will Trinitarians tell me I " do not believe enough?" If they do, I will ask them, by what authority they tell me so, and who gave them such authority?

I will now respectfully ask Trinitarians, the learned Trinitarians in particular, What think ye of my creed? Is it not consistent with the Bible? Does it violate any of God's laws of nature and reason? Does it go to any principles of ancient or modern. philosophy, to any merely human invention for support? Does it claim any foundation but the word of God? I will further ask, how will you treat this little book, this weak production, as you may call it, for I agree, that it would be weak indeed, if it were not supported by the Bible and by the dictates of reaWill you determine without examination, that no theological good can come out of a layman, and that you must condemn it unread? I have no objection to this course, if you will but allow your flock, those under your instruction and guidance, to read, examine, and decide for themselves freely, without having their minds forestalled, or filled with prejudices; for I have too often found, that able antitrinitarian works (vastly more able than this) have been condemned without a reading, or without fair and full consideration; and that common Christians

son.