f course your own, you say "_Christ is God, and
God is love._" As you have given no explanation, we take it to come from
you as a literal exposition of the word; and although the editor of the
Herald, of Dec 4th, endeavors to justify you in your published view of the
Unity in 1842, and thinks he has made it clear that you have not changed
your views on this subject, just as he is in the habit of doing without
your knowledge, but still you have not confirmed it, and your having
changed your views once at least since 1844, leaves us in doubt about the
editor's remarks. We ask, then, where you find this passage, and if ever
love was seen; and if that is what we are looking for from heaven, to come
the second time? If so, how will it look, and where is the scripture that
describes it? It seems to me that the shakers have a better claim to you
than we have.

We believe that Peter and his master settled this question beyond
controversy, Matt. xvi: 13-19; and I cannot see why Daniel and John has
not fully confirmed that Christ is the Son, and, not God the Father. How
could Daniel explain his vision of the 7th chapter, if "Christ was God."
Here he sees one "like the Son (and it cannot be proved that it was any
other person) of man, and there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a
kingdom;" by the ancient of days. Then John describes one seated on a
throne with a book in his right hand, and he distinctly saw Jesus come up
to the throne and take the book out of the hand of him that sat thereon.
Now if it is possible to make these two entirely different transactions
appear in one person, then I could believe your text if I could believe
that God died and was buried instead of Jesus, and that Paul was mistaken
when he said. "Now the God of peace that _brought again_ from the _dead
our Lord Jesus_ that great shepherd of the sheep" &c., and that Jesus also
did not mean what he said when he asserted that he came from God, and was
going to God, &c. &c.; and much more, if necessary, to prove the utter
absurdity of such a faith. Without going any further, we say that one of
two things is certainly clear, that the doctrine of the second advent,
which you, and your adherents promulgated down to Oct. 1844, was
positively wrong, if you _now_ are right. We believe it was right and
approved of God and therefore we fully believe that we are in the right
road still, but we have nothing to boast of; our track has been made dark
by your oppositio