If anything is clear from the Scriptures, Christianity is a method of redemption from sin and its penalties; from that sin which involves guilt and moral condemnation. It is a sinful and fatal disobedience to law, which occasions the interposition of God. Christianity did not come to aid on the peaceful progress of natural laws and a normal development of human nature, but to deliver man from a self-imposed burden of sin and guilt, from which he could not deliver himself. Here, in the awful fact of sin, lies the necessity for supernatural intervention. Christ was sent into the world "to save sinners," and "to destroy the works of the devil." He who drops the fact of sin out of his theological system, has no office for revealed religion to fulfill. At least, the need of a revelation is not so imperative; the work to be accomplished by it, in distinction from natural religion, is not so considerable as to warrant the miraculous intervention of the Creator, or render faith in such an intervention easy. If there is need of a deliverance from guilt and from the yoke of sin, we can understand why the Son of God is sent to procure that deliverance; but not otherwise. To make light of sin, or to give up the simple, earnest view of its nature and guilt, leaves Christianity with no specific work to accomplish; and the step thence to the denial of a supernatural revelation, is a short

one.

6. It is impossible, on this theory of sinless aberration from God, to oppose successfully Mr. Parker and the school of Naturalism.

Mr. Parker disbelieves in revelation because he does not believe in the doctrine of sin, or rather oscillates between Pantheistic notions on the subject, and the true Christian view. In his published "Experience as a Minister," in a formal description of his theology, he has not a word to say on the subject of sin. A theology that takes no account of the corruption and guilt of mankind! A theology that ignores the most palpable fact in every man's knowledge, and a fact of infinite significance! Throughout his writings are scattered passages which, in effect, deny the reality of guilt, making sin, as he somewhere expresses it,

the "tripping of a child who is learning to walk;" that is to say, an inevitable occurrence, according to natural laws; an evil that cures itself. If he thoroughly held this view and carried it to the end, he would be a Pantheist, like his friend Mr. Emerson, whom he lauds so highly. But having a strong sense of justice, and a conscience, he halts, denounces iniquity, believes in personality, and proclaims himself a Theist. If, again, he would take this conviction and carry it out to the end, clearly and profoundly grasping the fact of sin, he would believe in redemption and Christianity. But his trouble is, that he sticks to nothing; he vibrates between incompatible systems, and mixes up in his belief and teaching incongruous principles. If he did not believe so much in sin, he would be a Pantheist; if he believed in sin enough, he would be a Christian. He is neither the one nor the other, but alternately approaches both. He takes up the historical opinions of the Tübingen school, in regard to the origin of Christianity and the New Testament canon, appearing not to see that they are inseparable from the Pantheistic philosophy, are founded in it and required by it; a philosophy which they hold, and he discards. It must be clear to every competent reader of Mr. Parker, and to none more clear, we fancy, than to such men as Mr. Emerson, that he stands, theologically, in an equivocal, self-contradictory, unstable position.

Dr. Bellows condemns the views of Mr. Parker, as well as the temper with which he advocates them. There is manifested in the discourse before us a decided repugnance to the Naturalism with which Mr. Parker's name has become, in this country, identified. But Dr. Bellows, as far as he lets go the clear and earnest doctrine of sin, the great postulate of Christian theology, the truth to which the mission and work of Christ are the correlate,--throws away his weapons. He cannot logically defend himself against the assaults of unbelief, he cannot contend for a supernatural revelation against such as are content with a pure system of natural religion, while he continues to hold these loose and feeble views upon the nature of sin and the character of mankind before a holy God. It is vain to surrender the premises and then demand

the conclusion, to proclaim that there is no disease and then to extol the heaven-sent remedy.

7. We come to the real source of that conscious weakness in the Unitarian body, which this Address admits and endeavors to explain. It springs from the same cause that has occasioned the lapse of Mr. Parker, and so many with him, from the faith in revealed religion. Unitarianism denied the incarnation and atonement of Christ; but the motive of this denial was disbelief in the doctrine of sin, as taught in the Scriptures and held by the Church. The doctrine of human guilt was the first truth renounced, and the others were given up afterwards, as a matter of course. Not only were the philosophies in regard to the origin of sin in the individual and the race, called in question, as they fairly might be; human character, it was affirmed, had been grossly defamed, and men deserved to be much better thought of, and might hope for better things in the world to come, than the creeds of Christendom had allowed. The consequence of these negations was, that the characteristic, essential truth of Christianity was very much reduced. It was natural for another generation to raise the question as to the necessity of communicating from heaven truth, the most of which had been suggested, if not established before, by the unassisted reason. It was natural, moreover, to doubt the reality of miracles which fulfilled no higher end than to give a divine sanction to this truth. If Christianity added so little to natural religion, why look for miracles in connection with it? Why not regard Christianity as a purely human product? Then, when the first period of conflict attending the rise of Unitarianism among us was over, candid minds would inquire if St. Paul and St. John did not really teach, in substance, the theology of the church upon sin and the Saviour's person and work. And being obliged to give an affirmative answer, and being at the same time fixed in their rejection of this theology, they must needs give up the authority of the Scriptures. Thus the abandonment of the doctrine of sin led surely and logically to a more radical unbelief. The loss of vitality in the Unitarian denomination, which furnishes Dr.

Bellows with his theme, is due to the same influence. The Unitarian movement, through the views of human character which it favored, tended to obliterate the distinction between the converted Christian and the unconverted, and thus to submerge the church in the world. Take away the common. experience of forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ, with the new and peculiar hopes and purposes resulting, and the bond of the church is dissolved. A denomination may remain, a school or type of opinion, but not a church. Hence, in our judgment, the Unitarian body had in itself, from the outset, the seeds of self-destruction. It must be dispersed as soon as these inherent tendencies to dissolution could have time to work out their results.

It follows that we cannot look with much hope to any church of the kind which Dr. Bellows sketches, as promising to cure the evils of the time. A suspense of faith, in our view, must be remedied by a revival of faith, and not by the establishment of forms of worship, let these be ever so appropriate and imposing. The weak point in this Address and in the position of the author is the want of a firm grasp upon the distinguishing principles of the gospel, as these have lived in believing minds and hearts from the Apostolic age until now. Many men who appear to be in quest of a church are in reality in quest of faith; in pursuit of more firm and satisfying convictions. We need the church, and the church will exist and flourish where there is a living faith in the Redeemer incarnate, and crucified, the just for the unjust. It is well for every kernel to have a shell, but not well to cry for the shell when the kernel is gone. A church which is not founded on truth which can be stated, and shown to be substantially coincident with the doctrines of the Reformation, is a house built on the sand. The confusion and unbelief of the age call not so much for the construction of external institutions which always grow and are never made, as for the clear apprehension of the essential principles of the gospel, and above all for a more vital and adoring faith in Him who brought us salvation.

Yet we thank Dr. Bellows for his timely plea for institutions and for his pithy rebuke of the radicals and come-outers. That a man of his standing and influence should raise his voice on the conservative side in behalf of reverence and order, is a gratifying event. While we differ from him as to the cure which the disorders of the times require, and have plainly stated the grounds of this dissent, we desire to record our appreciation of the high literary merits of the Address, and our cordial agreement with many of the reflections which it embodies.