The expression, “I and my Father are one,” does not strike an Oriental as having some unfathomable, mystic meaning; nor does it convince him of Christ’s being equal to his Father in glory, essence, and existence. “He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” These words, I am told, are regarded as the strongest support of Trinitarian doctrine; “Christ in them declaring most distinctly his identity with God, in every respect.” But this is a simple thing again. Ask a Hindoo child of seven or eight years old, to show you his father’s house. He will direct you to go straight ahead a few rods till you come to a store, and leaving the store on your right, to go a little way and you will presently see a palm-tree; and if you see the palm-tree you see his father’s house. Does this imply that the palm-tree is his father’s house? No. So the passage, “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father,” does not convey, to any one accustomed to the Eastern mode of expressing thoughts, the idea that Christ is God. The palm-tree of the Hindoo child is so _near_ to his father’s house that if you see the one you cannot help seeing the other. Our dear Master exhibited such divine graces in his life, that it is not blasphemous for him to say, “If ye have seen me ye have seen the Father.” I did not dream of a triune God as I studied the New Testament, and when it was presented to me in the creeds I found no support for that dogma in the Scriptures. It seems to me that the doctrine of a triune God, is not able to give “life, comfort, and salvation to the world.” It is neither essential to, nor a part of, the religion of Christ. It is the production of Oriental philosophers. In the course of time, it migrated from the East to the West. As it passed from hand to hand, and country to country, it lost much of its peculiar beauty. In conclusion, I should say that an intelligent Oriental finds nothing rational in the doctrine of the Trinity as it exists among Christians, because he has seen a better one in his own country. Indeed, to receive this doctrine, so absurd, so unintelligible, would be as ridiculous for him, as for a Bostonian to sail to Calcutta for a piece of ice. _The Total Depravity of Human Nature._--As my time would not permit me to consider this subject in a way I would like, and thereby show my reasons for not believing it, I would simply resort to common sense and the Scriptures to expose the awkwardness of this doctrine. I fully believe that such enormous doctrine as that of calling a child of the Most High a totally depraved creature--having nothing good in him, _is_ not, and ought not to be a part of any man’s creed.