volumes collected and published by Mr. Sparks, but that he set aside all accounts relating to the revolutionary war as unreal and fabulous, we should deem it, to say the least, a very absurd declaration. It is impossible to separate the life of Washington from the revolutionary war, or to form a just conception of his character, independently of the events connected with that struggle. It is equally impossible to separate the life of Christ from the supernatural events narrated in the New Testament, or to form any just conception of his character, independently of those events."-pp. 32–35.

Thus a denial of the gospel record is going beyond our liberty as Christians. We have a right to interpret its teachings, but not to deny the revelation it contains.

Against this position Mr. Parker and his friends have uttered their strongest protests. They say that all who assume it abandon the great Protestant principle, the right of private judgment, and act the same part which the various self-styled evangelical sects have acted towards liberal Christians. The charge is utterly groundless. There is no resemblance between the cases. Liberal Christians have been denounced as infidels, not for denying the New Testament, but for denying Orthodox interpretations of it. They have been told that they must believe in the trinity, vicarious atonement, total depravity, and endless misery, or they could not be entitled to the Christian name. They have replied, "We find not those doctrines in the Bible; to us they are unscriptural, and, therefore, we feel bound to reject them.” They have complained, not because the Orthodox have made faith a Christian test, but because they have made faith in their interpretations of the New Testament the test. They have complained because denied the privilege of thinking for themselves,— of explaining God's revelation according to their own judgment. They have complained because when they avowed their faith in the New Testament, in the supernatural character of Christianity, in the superordinary wisdom and power of Christ, in his special divine authority to teach, they have been assailed as infidels. This has been the ground of their complaint, and not because a Christian test has been set up. There is, then, an infinite difference between the position of liberal Christians and that taken by the Orthodox.

Many liberal Christians, those who do not question that Christ has supernatural wisdom and power, have been intimidated by the loud and continued cry against this test. "If we ask," they say, "what a man believes, we fall into the very error against which we have been contending! We must ask only, How does he live?" We pity the weakness, while we commend the kindness of such. They want discrimination; they look with a superficial eye upon the Protestant

movement, and fail to comprehend its fundamental principles. Protestantism never said that faith in a supernatural revelation is not essential. On the contrary, it has ever maintained that such a faith is indispensable. Faith in such a revelation has ever been the pillar on which it has rested. In this it has been in perfect agreement with Catholicism, Here it has had no controversy with the mother church. Why, then, should we be terrified by the cry that we are exclusive, that we deny the right of private judgment, because we say that faith in a supernatural revelation is essential to the Christian character? Why must Christianity be different from everything else? There is no science either natural or moral, but what has its essential principles, and which must be believed in order to constitute a man its disciple. Why, then, suppose that Christianity must not have its essential principles, and that it must be unlike everything else ever named on earth or in heaven? The disciples of reason are in this strangely unreasonable.

If Christianity is to mould the character and guide the steps of man, it must have doctrines, and precepts, and facts; and they must be essentials. He that rejects these, rejects the agencies by which the soul is enlightened and saved. You might as well say a man can live without food, as that he can have spiritual life without the agency of the vital principles of the gospel. Then those vital principles are indispensable, and he that denies them denies the gospel. But why, it will be asked, make faith the test? Why not make the test a good life? We reply, because it is only through faith that Christianity can be brought to bear upon the heart; and it is utterly impossible that the unbeliever should exhibit all the fruits of the gospel in his life. There can be no effect without a cause; and the cause of Christian fruits being Christian truth, it is illogical to look for the fruits without the agency of the cause. But, it will be said, Some who have not faith exhibit the fruits. So a flower may live for a season after its stem is severed from the bush upon which it grew. Do any reply, "There are those who never had the faith which we say is essential, and yet their lives are holy?" We answer, They have been influenced by the very gospel they deny,-they have been directed by its guiding power,-this formed their characters, and from this they learned their duties, and acquired strength for their performance, to the essentials of Christianity they are indebted for all they are. Man is an imitative being, and he readily conforms to the manners of those about him. He is

also a creature of sympathy, and feels because others feel. Besides, the mind is in a great degree passive, and is affected by the opinions of others. These considerations are abundantly sufficient to account for the fact, that some have Christian feelings and live Christian lives, who deny the essentials of Christianity. But this by no means proves that the essentials could be safely abandoned; for the moment they were generally denied, all the causes to which we have referred would cease to operate, and we should relapse into a state of moral darkness and death.

There is another consideration worthy the serious notice of those who are engaged in this crusade against faith as a test. They dwell much upon righteousness, and say if men are honest, and just, and humane, it is all we can desire. But what is righteousness? what is honesty? what is justice? what is humanity? These are important questions, and clearly exhibit the folly of denying the rule that is to guide us; for if we have no divine, unerring standard of righteousness, how are we to know what is righteousness? By the revelation that is given us, we have patterns of righteousness in the Father and the Son; we have also doctrines and precepts teaching us how to live, and in what righteousness consists. Revelation, then, furnishes the standard of righteousness. And is not the standard essential? If not, to what can the teacher of righteousness appeal when he would call sinners to repentance, and urge the reformed to still higher attainments? The tippler and gambler might say, "I am righteous; conduct that you denounce as unrighteous is perfectly innocent and proper, and has been so declared by eminent moralists; I live up to what I believe the true standard." Cases like the one we have supposed are innumerable, they occur daily. The Christian says to the tippler and gambler," No; you are not righteous; your conduct is at war with the divine standard; you live in violation of the rules God has given to guide us. And if he can succeed in making the offender feel that the rules to which he appeals are divine, he may have some hope of effecting a reformation. Hence unless God has revealed his will, we have no standard of righteousness, and no infallible means of deciding what are Christian fruits.

We have, perhaps, extended these remarks beyond what is necessary; for the very persons who pronounce those intolerant who make faith a test, and who accuse them of taking away the liberty of their equals, have themselves a test! They have what they call the essentials of Christianity,—

things that are absolute and eternal. Hear Mr. Parker on this subject. He says:

"To ascertain what is absolute Religion is no difficult matter; for Religion is not an external thing, like Astronomy, to be learned by long observation, and the perfection of scientific instruments and algebraic processes; but something above all, inward and natural to man. As it was said before, absolute Religion is perfect obedience to the Law of God; perfect Love towards God and man, exhibited in a life allowing and demanding a harmonious action of all man's faculties, so far as they act at all."-Discourse Pertaining to Religion, pp. 240, 241. "We find the doctrine of Jesus is a simple thing: LOVE TO MAN,LOVE TO GOD. The whole of Christianity is summed up in these two elements, its moral, its religious side, practical and contemplative. All the moral and religious teaching of Jesus; the sermon on the mount, so called; the parables of the Synoptics; the discourses of John, are but an amplification of these; an application of them to life; a statement of the blessedness of obedience, the sadness of disobeying. To take the account as it stands. A man asks what he shall do to fulfil the idea of a man, and have 'eternal life?' He bids him keep the moral law, written eternally in the nature of man; specifies some of its plainest prohibitions, and adds, Love your neighbor as yourself. When asked the greatest commandment of the Law, he sums up all the Law and the Prophets also: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Here is the sum of Christian doctrine."-pp. 253, 254.

"It implies a Faith that is stronger than Fear, prevails over every sorrow, grief, disappointment, and asks only this; Thy will be done; a love which is strongest in times of trouble, which never fails when human affection goes stooping and feeble, weeping its tears of blood; a love which annihilates temptation, and in the hour of mortal agony brings a fair angel from the sky; an absolute trust in God; a brave unconcern for the morrow, so long as the day's duties are faithfully done."-pp. 257, 258.

Here we see that Mr. Parker holds that there are essential truths,-truths that are absolute and eternal. By these essentials we are required to love God and man, and are cheered by the hope of another life. But in order to love God, I must believe that he is, and that he is good. Mr. Parker says there is a God, and that he is good to all. (pp. 160 and 461.) In order to love man, I must believe that he is my brother. Mr. Parker teaches that we are all brethren. (p. 286.) And in order to be cheered by the hope of immortality, I must believe that I am to exist forever. And that we are thus to exist, Mr. Parker declares is certain.

Suppose, now, an individual should say, "Mr. Parker, I deny that there is a God who made all things; the world is eternal; I deny that the races all had one origin; the African is not my brother, neither is the Indian or the Arab.

66

a

I deny, too, that there is a future life; when we die we are no more than a worm. But though I make these denials, I am temperate in my habits, just in my dealings, and live in peace with all. Am I not a Christian?" "How, sir," he would say, can you deny truths that are absolute? We have naturally a Sentiment of God. Reason gives us an Idea of Him. These are founded in our nature, and are in themselves unchangeable, always the same.' (p. 159.) The existence of God is so plainly and deeply writ both in us and out of us, in what we are, and what we experience, that the humblest and the loftiest minds may be satisfied of this reality, and may know that there is an absolute Cause; Ground of all things; the Infinite of Power, Wisdom, Love, whereon we may repose, wherein we may confide. This conclusion comes alike from the spontaneous sentiment, and premeditated reflection; from the intuition of Reason, and the process of Reasoning. This idea of God is clear and distinct; not to be confounded with any other idea.' (p. 160.) It is the same with all absolute truths. They are spontaneous." "No, sir," replies the unbeliever, "they are not spontaneous in my heart; they are absurdities, alike opposed to reason and all the teachings of nature. Your God has no existence; and as it regards the duty of loving all men, it is an absurdity; I could love a toad as well as an African, an Indian, or an Arab. And your hope of a future life is a vulgar superstition; you might as well hope to be a tree as to hope for a spiritual existence. Besides, your notions of right and wrong are arbitrary; and though I am temperate and just and live in peace, I am so not because I see any inherent value in temperance, justice, and peace, but because by being so I am more respected and have a greater influence. Were different views of morality entertained, I would pursue a different course. "What must Mr. Parker say to such a man? Would he not be compelled to say," Sir, you deny the essentials; you are not a Christian; you reject truths that are absolute and eternal; you cannot have my fellowship?" Astonished, the man asks, Would you abridge my liberty, deny the right of private judgment, and deprive me of the Christian name? Am I not temperate, and just, and peaceable? Why, you act the very part which the Catholics acted towards the reformers, and which the self-styled evangelicals act towards. liberal Christians, and which many liberal Christians act towards you! And are you ready so soon to imitate an example of which you have so loudly complained, and in con