quences; the rejection will justly incur the divine displeassure. With all this however fully before me, I do not hesitate; I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrained to cry out with the believing apostle : My Lord and my God! And when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal scenes, and wing its way to the world unknown, with my latest breath I desire to pray, as the expiring martyr did: LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT!

POSTSCRIPT.

In republishing this little volume, after so many years have elapsed, it is not without some hesitation, that I have admitted into this edition the preceding account of the state of theology in Germany, which was drawn up about the year 1820 when these Letters were first published. It is no desire that I have, to show that iny anticipations at that period have been fully realized, which has induced me again to repeat this part of my original publication. The simple account of the matter is, that I have permitted the sketch in question to remain in this edition, in order that it may assist the reader in forming a judgment, at the present time, as to what fruits he is to expect from such beginnings as those in Germany, and to admonish him to take good heed that he listen very attentively to the monition contained in the old proverb: Obsta principiis. The fruits, in our own country, of beginnings like to those in Germany during the years 1770-1800, are now plain and evident to all attentive observers. Had Dr. Channing lived until the present time, it is difficult to say what position he would have taken. But we know what position many of his friends and followers have taken. Mr. Norton's attack on the Old Testament comes nothing short of Ultra-neology. Substantially the same is true of Prof. Palfrey's Lectures on the Pentateuch. Unitarian Periodicals are filled with the like sentiments. Dr. Noyes, in translations of the Old Testament, has inserted notices respecting the several books translated, which are of the like tenor; and it is generally understood, that in the Theological School at Cambridge, with which he is connected, there is,

at least in their own circle, an open and explicit renunciation of the divine inspiration and authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. But above all, the Rev. Theodore Parker, in his book Of Religion, and other publications, has fully and openly taken the ultimate ground to which the principles in question naturally and even necessarily lead, in the mind of a bold and consistent man. I do honour to his frankness and openness, in being willing to appear what in reality he is, a doubter not only of all inspiration, but of all that is miraculous or supernatural. He regards reason and the moral sense in man, as his highest source of revelation; and by these all else is to be tried and adjudged. His reason bids him to reject all miracles; to regard the Old Testament and the New as full of errors, contradictions, and absurdities; to regard Christ himself only as an unusually able and excellent man, and teacher of morality, i. e. unusual for that period; while he was in fact not only peccable, but has even made some mistakes, (for which Mr. Parker undertakes to apologize). His apostles and followers, moreover, were not only fallible men, but they have shown, in their writings, not a little of superstition, as well as a great many mistakes. In a word, (as the phrase is), he has gone for the whole. The humble Christian, who is accustomed to look to his God and Saviour and Bible with reverential awe, is startled at this; and no wonder. But after all, I must think better of such a frank and open avował of sentiment, than of any concealed course of conduct; and I cannot but deem it an honourable trait of character in Mr. Parker. In my view, he has greatly the advantage, in respect to consistency and frankness and courage, over those Unitarians who are at variance with him, and who still cherish principles that must, at least if logic has any part to act, inevitably end in bringing them to the same views as those of Mr. Parker. He is willing to take the responsibility of his real sentiments, and to come before the public on this ground;* they decline the hazard of do

* On reading this to a friend, whose locality enables him better to know Mr. Parker's pastoral development than myself, he suggested that it is now generally understood, that Mr. Parker is constantly in the habit of using orthodox terms in his prayers and preaching, even to such a degree that many of his undistinguishing hearers deny his heterodoxy. If this be so, I must recall all that I have said above, about his straightforwardness and explicitness. But I cannot help thinking that there is some mistake about this matter, and that he would not degrade himself by practising any imposition of this nature.

ing this, and feel that it is risking too much for themselves and their cause, to be so openly explicit. They have even gone so far as virtually to excommunicate Mr. Parker, and some of them actually begin to call him an infidel. Some Creed, then, they would seem secretly to have, by which Mr. Parker is actually tried, if not actually amenable to it, and in their view condemned. I would hope, therefore, that the orthodox will no longer be reproached for having a Creed, or for adhering to it. And what now is Mr. Parker's heresy? It is not for me to enter into the dispute between him with his adherents, and those who begin to call themselves evangelical (!?) Unitarians. 'Inter TALES certantes, quis dijudicabit?" Geneva and Boston show us, (after all the strong professions of Unitarians in favour of unlimited liberty of religious opinion, and after loudly and often asserting the criminality of making any man responsible for his religious views), that only an opportunity for the safe exercise of power is wanting, to convert the mass of liberal Christians into propagandists of their party views, by appeals to force, i. e. to the power of the magistracy, or to the more dreaded power of virtual excommunication. These are not the first lessons of this kind which are recorded on the pages of faithful history. They probably are not the last, which even the present generation will be called to learn. It lies upon the very face of all this matter, at least such is my serious apprehension, that nothing but power is wanting, among some of the leading zealous Unitarians, to exclude the orthodox not only from Cambridge University, (which has already so long and so effectually been done), but to exclude them from all active and influential participation in affairs of church, state, civil office, and education, so far as the government has the control of any of these matters.

There are men, indeed, and I would hope that they are not few, in the Unitarian party, who would not intentionally do such things. But I am compelled to believe, that the leaders of the dominant party would at once go full length and breadth in all matters over which they had control, if they did not fear a reaction. In the mean time, the Trinitarians are, as yet, by far the greater majority of the State; and if such battles are to be fought, I am greatly mistaken if they may not be relied on as ready to take their place, in the ranks of those who are obliged to do battle in their own defence. That this latter party (if I must so name them) are on the increase, is plain enough, so far as I can discern, to every man whose eyes are really open. That Unitarianism, divided against itself, and contending with

more asperity in this felo de se contest than with Trinitarians, is likely to be rather on the wane, is somewhat probable. I think the fact will scarcely be denied.

The young people of Boston and its vicinity in general, evidently have less zeal about supporting and propagating Unitarian sentiments than their fathers had. If any one should reply and say, that this is because they have less zeal for religion in any shape than their fathers had; I do not feel authorized to deny the truth of this allegation. I must also say, that in my appreheusion, this is one of the genuine fruits of Unitarianism. A religion, the prominent feature of which is NOT TO BELIEVE, can never deeply interest any community, for any great length of time. The human soul, made sooner or later deeply to feel its sins, and wants, and woes, pants for something more than a not believing religion to rest upon, and will have it if it be attainable.

In Germany, since the first edition of these Letters was published, the work of boasted philosophy and reason has been going on, until it seems at last to have reached its ne plus ultra. First came Semler and Eichhorn's accommodation scheme. Next followed Paulus and others with the plan of explaining everything by mere natural causes, allowing at the same time a spice of superstition and ignorance in the writers of the Scriptures. Then came De Wette and his friends, with honest maxims of interpretation, but renouncing all idea of inspiration in the Bible, and maintaining that it abounds in mistakes and errors. Next came Strauss, with his scheme of mere moral romance. The Jesus of the Gospels is altogether a personage of romance, an exhibition and symbol of singular piety and virtue, as conceived of by the mind of the romancers. The numberless discrepancies and errors of the writers of the New Testament show, as this party aver, that the book is no authentic account either of facts or of doctrines. Last of all comes Bruno Bauer, with the downright charge of fraud and imposition on the part of the evangelists and apostles. What step lies beyond this, it is difficult to see.

Philosophy, however, has rather outstripped even Bauer him

self. God, (in the view of what is now called the philosophy by way of eminence), is not a personal conscious being. He is only the unknown, unthinking, unfeeling anima mundi, and is indebted for his personality and his consciousness to men. Not only is it true that "we are God and God is we," but we are altogether the most conspicuous and important part of the Godhead, inasmuch as he has not consciousness at all without us. And as to sin

how can God sin against himself? The decantated maxim of the party is: "If the world were not world, God would not be God."

Thus ends (shall I say?) this recent lesson. I cannot call it the first lesson, nor the only one. But is it at an end? For us poor starvelings of this western world, as to the richer feasts of philosophy, it might seem that this is as far as men can go. But no. The German mind is capable of still further advances; and I predict that ten years will see Hegelism melting away, and the market supplied with ware of a new pattern.

But enough. A false prophet I was not, as it seems from the present state of facts, when I penned those remarks in my Letters, twenty-six years ago, to which the present postscript has relation. But I take to myself no great credit for sagacity, in having written them. The truth is, that these things are everywhere so connected on the pages of ecclesiastical history, that one must be a dull reader not to know, that certain causes will produce certain effects, in respect to a great variety of matters. Even more than I predicted has taken place; and more is yet to come. The vantage ground which Mr. Parker has, in respect to his supposed frankness and sincerity, bids fair, perhaps, to strengthen him from the ranks of his more timid and shrinking brethren. Beyond Mr. Parker's position, we in this country, as I am inclined to think, cannot well go. It needs a German mind and education to do this. But when the mass of the Unitarian party shall be led to occupy his ground, (which can hardly fail to take place), we shall then know where we are; and if we must take the field of contest, we shall know at least what fashion of armour we are to cope with, who our opponents are, and what kind of defensive or assailing weapons may be expedient on our part.

Since completing my preparations for the present edition of these Letters, originally addressed to Dr. Channing, a friend has put into my hands a new work, which, as he informs me, is very popular among the Unitarians, and is circulated, even in remoter parts of our country, with no little zeal and assiduity. From a very natural curiosity, and from the interest which I feel in the subject, I have run my eye through the pages of this work; and it might argue some want of comity in me, if I should pass it without at least a brief notice.

I must confess, that when my eye met, on the title page, the