are taken of revelation and of reason as sources of religious truth. With the one school revelation, and with the other reason, is the paramount authority. We admit that there is much of the rationalistic spirit in the historic and evangelical school, and something perhaps of the historic and evangelical spirit in the rationalistic school; but the prevalence of either spirit determines the school to which it belongs; and into these two schools may be divided the whole of the Protestant world.

The historic and evangelical school, notwithstanding its many differences, possesses certain common characteristics. A divine revelation is recognized as of supreme authority. The great truths contained in that revelation are those which declare the need of man, through his natural alienation from God, of a supernatural redemption; and the provisions for that redemption in the incarnation, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ, and the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

This school also preserves the historic element by retaining, in a greater or less de

gree, the historic character of the Christian Church.

The rationalistic school, on the other hand, is characterized by the practical, if not avowed, supremacy of reason over revelation. Its method is to approach all religious subjects as if they were to be considered for the first time; and to reject, as authoritative, not only the traditions of the Christian Church, but any portions of the Bible itself which are thought to be in conflict with the moral sense or intellectual convictions of man. The doctrinal system of this school denies any natural alienation of man from God; and its remedy for the sins and sorrows of the world is not the acceptance of a supernatural redemption, but a process of self-culture.

It is true, indeed, that a rationalistic method may lead to evangelical results. Beyond a question, evangelical truth can be defended and maintained on the ground of pure reason. But those who arrive, even by the rationalistic method, at evangelical results, in most cases disown the method,

acknowledge the supremacy of the Word of God over reason; and so cease to belong to the rationalistic school.

This rationalistic school, including, as it does, all those who, in whatever degree, consciously or unconsciously elevate reason above the Word of God, is principally represented, within the pale of nominal Christianity, by the denomination of Unitarians, or, to use a name which they perhaps prefer, Liberal Christians. We know that it will appear harsh to many in that ecclesiastical connection to charge them with rationalism. We certainly do not charge such persons with rationalism, in the odious sense in which the word is usually understood; but we are compelled to express our conviction that the method by which men have been drawn away from the great truths of historic Christianity is rationalistic; that it leads, logically and necessarily, to avowed rationalism, to the rejection of a part, and finally of the whole, of the Bible, and to the abandonment of the Church. This Mr. Parker boldly declares to be the result

with him. And Dr. Bellows admits, with alarm, that the Unitarian body is approaching this consummation of its development. And let it be remembered that neither has Mr. Parker reached, nor Dr. Bellows foreseen, the final goal of this rationalistic course; for the only logical terminus of this progress is in the doctrine of the fool, "who hath said, in his heart, there is no God!"

We do not care to spend much time upon the style and manner of Mr. Theodore Parker's Letter. It comes from him under circumstances which would effectually repress our indignation, were we disposed to cherish it. One who is afar from home, in a foreign. land, suffering under a fatal malady, with the realities of eternity drawing very near to him, is entitled to sympathy and kindness, whatever may be our disapprobation of his temper or abhorrence of his opinions. We shall not, therefore, refer to several passages which we had marked, and which we are sure that even he, in his better moments, would admit to be unfair representations of the views to which

he is opposed. We are compelled to say, however, for so much the interests of the truth demand, that Mr. Parker caricatures evangelical doctrine, and then ridicules the creature of his own imagination.

What we are interested, however, to do is to draw attention to the position which Mr. Parker has come finally to occupy; and which has a peculiar significance for us, since it is, in our view, a logical result of the principles of rationalistic Christianity. This result is startling enough. Mr. Parker, like Mephistopheles, is the great denier. Man's need of Redemption is denied. The fact of a supernatural redemption is denied. Miracles are denied. A divine revelation and the supreme authority of the Bible are denied. The Trinity in Unity is denied. Regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit are denied. The atonement is denied; and the claims of Jesus to be even an infallible teacher are unequivocally denied. It is an abuse of language to call such a system Christian. If there is any significance in words, it is Deism. There