Nay, after this way of speaking which they attribute to Christ, a man may be taught to say his creed backward, and yet make a true profession of his faith, by denying of Jesus Christ in absolute expressions whatever may be denied of one of his natures. Thus since the Apostles' Creed takes notice of nothing to be believed concerning Christ, but what belongs to his manhood, (which is strange, if there were any articles relating to his su preme Deity, which must be most important) one may venture to deny them all, with this secret unexpressed reserve, viz. meaning, to deny them of the divine nature to which they belong not. So that one may say, I believe that Jesus Christ was not conceived of the Holy Ghost or born of the virgin Mary; I believe that he never was crucified under Pontius Pilate, nor was dead or buried; that he never rose nor ascended, nor will return visibly again; for his divine nature which it is pretended he had was not capable of these things. And since they say, the personality is divine, hero seems more warrant to be bolder in denying indefinitely of the person what be'ongs not to the divine nature, whose the personality is, than in denying of the person' what only belongs not to the human nature; as this interpretation makes Christ to do.

Finally, it weighs something with me, in opposition to this way of interpretation, that the Evangelists never take any occasion (when they had so many) to subjoin any caution against taking Christ's words in their obvious sense, when he says, he did not know the hour. &c. and the like. If as we said, our Lord had no mind to reveal his divinity, (though I see not still why he should deny it thus) yet sure his Apostles, who wrote so many years after, whom it concerned to reveal all important truths most clearly, would not fail to have set the reader right, by removing such obvious objec tions as these are against the supreme Deity of Christ; and saying, he spake this only in respect of his manhood, that he knew not all things, &c. here is not one caution given, as often we find there was about less matters, No doubt it was because they would have the thing understood as it fairly lies, not thinking of any such secret reserve in Christ, of a divine nature in his person, to Le tacitly excepted, when he had denied such perfections of his person indefinitely."

But

The foregoing remarks, I trust, are sufficient in this place to prove the absolute error of the essential orthodox fiction.

It is not uncommon, at this day, to hear the orthodox speak of Liberal Christians as insane or deranged persons, because they have independence enough to expose the corruptions of orthodoxy. When they cannot succeed in destroying the reputation and good character of Liberal men, by the most de testable slanders, and by other unrighteous acts, as a last resort, they represent them as deranged persons; and it is whispered from ear to ear, and thus spread through community. These Christian slanders are not confined to the orthodox, or any particular town. These acts remind me of the following just observation: "Weak minds always conceive it most safe to adopt the sentiment of the multitude. They never venture to form an opinion on any subject until the majority have decided. These decisions, whether on men or things, they implicitly follow, without giving themselves the trouble to inquire who is right, or on which side the truth preponderates." This accounts for the great corruptions of Christianity. To have a doctrine believed, however absurd, the clergy convene, pro

nounce it true-and the multitude swallow it down for divine truth-as we have seen in the above comments on 'two natures in God.' But this is not the worst part of the doctrine. Our orthodox and Baptist brethren, when pressed with the unreasonableness of their doctrine of the trinity, reason in this way:

"I believe, that as there is one God, so this one God is three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

"This I confess, is a mystery which I cannot possible conceive, yet it is a truth which I can easily believe; yea therefore it is so true that I can easily believe it, because it is so high that I cannot possibly conceive it; for it is impossible any thing should be true of the infinite Creator which can be fully expressed to the capacities of a finite creature: and, for this reason, I ever did and ever shall look upon those apprehensions of God to be the truest, whereby we apprehend him to be the most incomprehensible; and that to be the most true of God, which seems most impossible unto us."

Private Thoughts, of Bishop Beveridge, part I. p. 29.

A correspondent to the Christian Disciple, thus remarks on the reasoning of this Trinitarian:

The author of this remarkable passage was a dignitary of the episcopal church of England, renowned for his talents and his piety. We are not disposed to question either his piety or his talents, but the principles on which he justified his belief in the mysterious doctrine are, we think, incorrect and of dangerous tendency. To evince the fallacy of those principles, let them be applied to other mysterious propositions. Suppose another bishop should publish the following creed: I believe, that in the Lord's supper the bread is changed into the real body of Christ. I believe that God is both divisible and indivisible; that he is the greatest and the least of all intelligencies; that he fills heaven and earth and yet exists no where ; that he sees and knows all things, and yet is destitute of knowledge that he is absolutely good, and yet destitute of all goodness.

But expecting that others would object to these doctrines as self-contradictory, this bishop justifies his belief in each of them in the following manner:

"This I confess, is a mystery which I cannot possibly conceive, yet it is a truth which I can easily believe; yea, therefore it is so true that I can easily be ieve it, because it is so high that I cannot possibly conceive it; for it is impossible any thing should be true of the infinite Creator which can be fully ex

pressed to the capacities of a finite creature: and for this reason, I ever did and ever shall look upon those apprehensions of God te be the truest, whereby we apprehend him to be the most incomprehensible; and that to be the most true of God, which seems most impossible unto us.'

Now admitting this bishop to be both pious and learned, should we not be compelled to believe that his understanding had been greatly bewildered by the prejudices of education? But to such prejudices all men are liable. How wide then the

range for the exercise of candour. By the following extract from the same bishop Beveridge we shall, however, see the consequences of admitting a mysterious doctrine, as an essential article of faith.

"Hence also it was, that all persons to be baptized were always required, either with their own mouths, if adult, or if infants, by their sureties, to make a public confession of their faith in Three Persons, into whose names they were to be baptized: For this indeed was always looked upon as the sum and substance of the christian religion, to believe in God the Farther, in God the Son, and in God the Holy Ghost; and they who believe in these Three Persons were still looked upon as christians, and they who did not were esteemed infidels or heretics."..Part II. p. 43.

This paragraph opens the way for many remarks; we shall however, confine ourselves to a few.

1st. What the bishop says was "always required" of persons" to be baptized," is we think without any foundation in all that is recorded of the practice of the Apostles.

2nd. We do not admit that a belief in the doctrine in question "was always looked upon as the sum and substance of the christian religion." For there was a time when this doctrine was not known in the christian church; and there have doubtless been many pious christians, that regarded the doctrine as an important article of faith, who were still far from suppos ing that a belief in it was "the sum and substance of the christian religion," Yet we cannot deny that many professed christians have given too much evidence that, in their view, a belief in this article is the one thing needful, and of far greater importance than conformity of temper to the moral precepts and the example of the Messiah. Hence we may account for much of the unchristian treatment which those have received who have dissented from the doctrine, and yet have made it their care to be followers of Christ and to obey his commands.. 3d. If a belief in the mysterious doctrine is "the sum and substance of the christian religion" will it not follow, that Christ's sermon on the mount had no respect to the 'sum and

substance' of christianity? and that he was under a mistake in the conclusion of his discourse, in likening him, who 'heareth and doth' the sayings, or commands which he had delivered, to the 'man who built his house upon a rock?' For he had not, that we can discern, the least reference to the doctrine of three persons in one God in any part of his sermon.

4th. According to the bishop's account, 'the sum and substance of the christian religion' consists in the belief of a doctrine, the meaning of which he could not possibly conceive.' Can it then be wonderful that in past ages the hateful passions of persecution and war, have been deemed consistent with christianity? How different would have been the effects, had conformity of heart and practice to the temper exemplified by the Saviour been duly regarded as 'the sum and substance of the christian religion!'

If any of our readers should say that the articles of faith which we have supposed to be asserted by another bishop, are more inconceivable or more repugnant to reason, than the one which occasioned these remarks, they are desired to remember, that, according to bishop Beveridge, this very circumstance is to be regarded as evidence of the truth of those articles. For on his hypothesis, we are to regard 'that as most true of God, which seems most impossible unto us.' Therefore if it 'seems more impossible unto us' 'that God is the greatest and the least of all intelligencies,' than that he is three distinct persons, then the former of these must be regarded as most true of God,' or the reasoning of the bishop is fallacious and dan

gerous,

We have seen what opinions some christians have maintained. May God in his mercy hasten the time, when it shall be more generally understood that a belief in doctrines, the meaning of which we cannot possibly conceive' is NOT 'the sum and substance of the christian religion."

Some idea of the great corruptions of Christianity of the present day, may be formed by running over the Hymn Books now in common use among all Trinitarians. I have lately examined ALL the hymn books used in New-England among the Calvinist Baptists', the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the Orthodox, and I am astonished at their contents; the gross corruption and great error contained in them. It is a fact, that* on an average, these books do not contain one hymn in fifty, that can be strictly called ascriptions of devout praise and thanksgiving to our Father in heaven. They are filled with the most revolting and inconsistent hymns. In "Freeman's Collection," which contains two hundred and eighty-six hymns,

there is only four that can be called ascriptions to Almighty God; these four hymns are the 27th, 166th; 192, and 239thall the rest, I hesitate not to say, are unscriptural-some of them absolutely impious-and most of them, Idolatrous. Yet, these Trinitarians call themselves the only true worshippers of God; while they use hymns that are impious in the sight of heaven and revolting to human nature. The truth is, they worship, in the use of some of these hymns,they know not what. It would be well for the Trinitarians to examine some of their hymns, and see the sentiments expressed in them. If they will examine for themselves it will be of great advantage to the cause of pure religion, which is now so grossly corrupted and-" perverted, and made a subject of merchandize, and a matter of very little importance, by the absurdities and unreasonable and extravagant doctrines of Calvinism.

Most of the unaccountable corruptions of the Gospel, are advanced in their hymn books, like the following, viz: that God hates the human family-that the devil is after us-that Jehovah died to appease his own wrath-that all mankind deserve eternal damnation-that none can be saved, unless God, contrary to our desires, changes the heart-that men are totally depraved-that God died to make atonement, &c. &c.

For the present, I shall delay many stubborn facts. Enough has already been advanced to satisfy the most incredulous, of some of the popular errors and impositions of certain clergybut not one quarter has been told. It will not do TO TELL ALL THE TRUTH at once-lest the people rise in indignation and spurn all Calvinist ministers from the sacred desk when, in fact, some of them are the excellent of the earth, and deserve respect and confidence.

For the satisfaction of those who can see no danger at home, or discover error in doctrine and practice, which are supremely ridiculous, I will offer a few historical facts relating to other Countries. As a striking instance of the folly and imbecility of the human mind, it may be noticed, that in several churches in France, they celebrated a festival in commemmoration of the Virgin Mary's flight into Egypt, which was called the 'Feast of the Ass.' A young girl richly dressed, with a child in her arms, was set upon an ass richly caparisoned. The ass was led to the altar in solemn procession. High mass was said with great pomp. The ass was taught to kneel at certain places; a hymn, no less childish than impious, was sung in his praise; and when the ceremony was ended, the priest, instead of the usual words with which he dismissed the people, brayed three times like an ass, and the people, instead of the asual response, We bless the Lord,' brayed like the priest.