accomplishes the end, and keeps the school in subordination. For Solomon never advocated whipping for the mere pleasure of wielding the rod over a trembling urchin.

The Bible should not be confined to the sanctuary, or used to build up a mere Sabbath-day religion. But in all the teachings of childhood, in all the influences that bear on every-day life, from its commencement to its close, let that blessed Book speak; and let man live by it, pray by it, and die by it. In the eloquent language of the Secretary of the Board of Education in Maine, "this bread of life' must cease to be the shew-bread' of the sanctuary; it must be broken for the people." Aye, and for the children of the people!

Hallowed be our fathers' memory, and the institutions they reared! The sanctuary;-the school;-both consecrated to God and the Bible. In the one, childhood receives, with its earliest teachings, an impression from the oracles of truth. In the other, both the child and the man receive anew, all along life's pathway, the heavenly impress more and more deeply stamped with the image of God and his Christ.

Let the work of improvement go on. Let it go on wisely; not razing the foundations of many generations; but, on those tried foundations, rearing a more perfect superstructure. Let the modes of instruction and discipline be improved, more commodious and tasteful school-houses be erected, and a more highly educated and better disciplined class of teachers be prepared. When Israel's wisest king built, on Mount Moriah, the wondrous temple, of costly marble and scented cedar, overlaid with the gold of Ophir, he brought out, from the curtains of the humbler tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and put it within the most consecrated place, the Holy of Holies in the new temple, as it had been in the tent of the wilderness. So from the rude and humble structures which our fathers reared, let us bring into our more finished and beautiful edifices, the BIBLE, that Book of books in every sound system of education.

The School and the Sanctuary: those pillars of freedom! may they ever rest on the broad base, whereon our fathers reared them. May no Samson, blinded by any of the innovating Philistines of the day, drag them down, making for himself and for our liberties a common grave.

"UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY."

SUCH is the title of a discourse, delivered by the late Dr. Channing, nearly thirty years ago, in the city of Baltimore, at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks. It created at the time a great sensation; partly on account of the elevated standing of the preacher; partly because Unitarianism was planting its standard on an untried field; but principally because it was the first public declaration, by its chief leader, of the principles of the sect.

The object of this discourse is to exhibit a system of religion, which repudiates what has been the faith, with a few exceptions, of the entire Christian world from the age of the apostles, until the present time. According to Dr. Channing the Bible has been misunderstood, because credulity has usurped the place of reason; and ecclesiastical authority has been listened to, rather than the voice of nature. He would restore to reason her legitimate sway; and would fray away from the dark chambers of the soul the owls and bats which have haunted them, by pouring in the light of a new and glorious day. The design is benevolent, if it rests upon facts. But the great point in dispute relates to this very assumption, that there has been an almost universal mistake for nearly eighteen centuries, in regard to the doctrines of Christianity.

Without referring, at present, to the Apostles, whose united teachings settled the belief of the primitive Church, we feel disposed to say something of their successors, who, though not inspired, held and maintained views as opposed to those of Dr. Channing, as noon-day is to the darkness of midnight. They who dwelt nearest to the apostles, who caught, as it were, their falling mantles, and received their solemn charge, have, in their writings, transmitted the very doctrines which Dr. Channing discards. It is not fair then, to say, that Trinitarian views had their origin in that subsequent period called the "dark ages;" or to ascribe to ecclesiastical authority, exerted at a time when the human mind was sunk in ignorance, opinions held in the earliest centuries, and still so generally and sacredly cherished.

Dr. Channing, on this and on other occasions, has given the impression, that the true light went out with the age of the apostles, and that after the world had groped through eighteen centuries of darkness, a new ray has been struck out in this age and

country. We feel a little concerned for the memory of some who have gone before us. We have been accustomed to feel some veneration for Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, Augustine, and a host of learned and pious men, versed in the oracles of God, taught of the Holy Spirit, dwelling in closer proximity to the apostolic age; but who, it would seem, misunderstood and misinterpreted the Word of God, on points the most important and fundamental. Calvin too, and Melanchthon, with their preeminent piety, their unequalled erudition, their patient and prayerful research, will come to remembrance, when the orthodoxy of past ages is ascribed to ecclesiastical authority, or unskilful interpretation of the Scriptures. Then there is a starry host of English divines, who caught their radiance from the same sun, who lighted their censers from the same altar. What shall we say of them? How shall we charge them all with ignorance of the truth, and blind obedience to authority!

Under the first head of the discourse, the views of Unitarians as to the authority of the Scriptures, and the principle of interpreting them, are thus exhibited: "We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revelations to mankind; and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception. We do not however attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testa ment. The dispensation of Moses compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system; and chiefly useful now, as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures." In these remarks, are some things to which we can assent; but we feel obliged to protest against this marked disparagement of the Old Testament. The Scriptures are one; equally authoritative; given alike by inspiration of God; nor should we seek to put asunder what Heaven's high authority has so joined together. Indeed, when an apostle affirmed that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," he referred entirely to the books of the Old Testa ment. The Old Testament serves for other purposes as well as to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures; this latter peculiarity being by no means their principal excellence. We do

VOL. II.

3

not feel satisfied to have this part of the inspired Word treated as an old moral alphabet which "the human race, in their childhood might learn;" but which now,-so great are men grown, is useful only in spelling out some hard words in the new and better record. In such notions we see the beginning of that scepticism, which now comes out more boldly; and talks of the Old Testament as a "mill-stone about the neck of Christianity." Blessed be God, the Old Testament is still the heritage of his people. How can they spare the touching melodies of the sweet singer of Israel; or how dispense with the lofty strains of Isaiah's harp, as it resounds the praises of Immanuel? No; these shall ever be " songs in the house of our pilgrimage."

our

"A leading principle," says Dr. Channing, "in interpreting the Scriptures is, that the meaning is to be sought in the same manner, as that of other books." This principle, he further explains, by the remark, that "the reader or hearer is constantly to exercise his reason." On this point, Dr. Channing did not differ very materially from his Orthodox neighbors. In the interpretation of Scripture, they discard neither reason, nor common sense, nor philosophy. The Bible is to be examined by the same. critical rules which are applied to other ancient books. In this respect, the author of the discourse does not claim any originality; for he adds, "we do not announce these principles as original or peculiar to ourselves." He does not blame the Orthodox for not. reasoning, for he admits that they do reason; but for "violating the fundamental principles of reasoning." We know not on what grounds we are charged with undervaluing reason; unless it be for not exalting reason above faith. Nor are we content to be* classed with "atheists," under the scarcely less objectionable name of "bigots;" because, with the apostles, we believe there are truths beyond our comprehension. When Dr. Channing has introduced human reason as our guide, he seems to be conscious that he has taken a perilous step; for he adds, "we indeed grant that the use of reason in religion is accompanied with danger; but we ask any honest man to look back on the history of the church, and say, whether the renunciation of it be not still more dangerous." But there is a wide difference between its renunciation, and giving it the supreme control. There is an intermediate and safer course. In the interpretation of the Divine Word, reason is neither to be rejected, nor to be raised above dependence on divine

aid. The Bible is different from all other books; its peculiarity being, that it is a revelation from God. There is an atmosphere, so to speak, surrounding it, such as encompasses no other book. Reason, though necessary, is not to be trusted alone. We need also the teachings of the Holy Spirit. In Dr. Channing's theory of interpretation, here seems to be a grand defect. True, there is a passing acknowledgment of a divine influence to aid our investigations, but he evidently relies on the unassisted efforts of reason. There is more of cold criticism in his method,

than of warm devotional investigation.

He

The next point which the preacher announces, and in which he assumes that he differs from orthodox Christians, is a belief in the Unity of God. He does indeed admit that Trinitarians claim to believe in the divine unity; but thinks that it is an acknowledg ment in words, whilst the doctrine is subverted in effect. says that we ascribe to the persons of the Godhead, different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions; thus making them, in his opinion, three different beings. But is this a fair representation of the doctrine held by the orthodox of all ages? We do indeed believe that, "in the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons;" that they are revealed as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We believe that these three persons are one God, "the same in substance, equal in power and glory." This doctrine is derived solely from the Bible, which reveals the persons of the Godhead, under the title of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; each acting in the high capacity, and exercising all the prerogatives, of Deity. Yet is there but one God. To this mystery, involving the mode of the divine existence, we bow, as a disclosure simply of revelation, not contrary to our reason, above her legitimate researches. This doctrine, foreshadowed under the old dispensation, is more fully revealed in the new; not, we admit, in the exact words in which it stands in our confessions of faith and religious formularies, but clearly deducible by a comparison of Scriptures, and a fair interpretation of them. Unless language be tortured out of its natural meaning, the Scriptures certainly assign to Christ the prerogatives of deity. We have no difficulty in explaining those passages which refer to his humanity, for in that humanity we believe. But how great is our advantage over Unitarians, in respect to that large class of texts which so explicitly speak of his divinity!

but