the object of his heart; declining three successive invitations to suspend his labors, and seek temporary rest in the land of his birth; and when at length compelled to do so, hastening back to his work with an eagerness that seems almost allied to impatience; see him through all his career, casting away every impediment from without and from within, that he may the more certainly attain the object of his life-the renewal of an empire of souls-which he regards as but one scene in the great drama, the ultimate regeneration of the race. See Judson thus at work as a preacher, as a pastor, as a translator, with this world-wide comprehensiveness, without permitting himself to be diverted from his purpose for thirty-seven years, and it will appear that he, rather than Theodore Parker, is a representative of the ministry which the world needs.

It is time to sum up the characteristics of the two men. We may say, then, that according to his published life, Mr. Parker was a man of uncommon ability and learning, of vast industry, of illogical cast of mind, great sensibility, obstinacy of will, sadness kept down by hard work, and extreme severity. We are under the necessity of saying that he was irreverent, illiberal, sarcastic, and sometimes positively slanderous; that he was guilty of impugning the motives of men and charging them with hypocrisy, without the least foundation for it; that his views of sin were radically false; that he regarded Jesus as having made mistakes in his moral and religious processes; that he had no belief in the necessity of salvation by Christ; that in some things he was very conscientious, in others not at all so; in some things had a sharp sense of justice, in others had none at all; toward certain classes had, as he ought to be ever honored for having, great benevolence, but was wanting in active sympathy with hundreds of millions of the race; that, while he was among the foremost in self-denying labors for the good of the colored population, he was more active in effort to subvert the authority of the Bible, and to make men believe that reason is authority enough. In a word, we must say in

estimating his intellect, that Mr. Parker was a man of little originality, except in the use of words, having borrowed from others what theology and philosophy he had; and in estimating his heart we must say that according to the common law of England and the United States he was often well-nigh indictable for the crime of blasphemy.

Of Mr. Judson it may be said that, though a man of learning, he was not equal in this respect to Mr. Parker; that he was endowed, however, with a better balanced, more discriminating, more logical, more accurate mind; that, though he was naturally very ambitious, his ambition early gave way to an impulse infinitely safer and purer; that he had great strength of will without obstinacy, and perfect singleness of aim directed toward the loftiest possible object; that he was a man "of singularly happy temperament"; that illiberality, sarcasm, impeachment of men's motives, are spots that never defiled his character, but that on the contrary he was eminently kind and charitable; that he was profoundly conscious of sin, yet a firm believer in the certainty of forgiveness through the substituted sufferings of the Son of God; that he was intensely interested in the welfare of all his fellow-men, and consecrated his eminent abilities with unsurpassed self-denial and energy to its promotion, giving to one entire nation a translation of that book, the authority of which Mr. Parker did all in his power to destroy.

The two men are before us in their teachings and spirit. They are before us as the representatives of opposite types of ministers. The comparison that has been made may seem to some to have been a waste of words; but if making Theodore Parker our model in training men for the ministry seems improbable, it should be considered that it is not impossible. Impossible it can be made by guarding against the possibility. Not gloomily should we look upon the present state of Christianity; for not one sign of decrepitude can be seen. God is vindicating his truth. His spirit is seeking the lost; revivals abound; evangelical Christians, though still retaining distinct denominational outlines, are

learning to hold them in love, and to feel that in effort to obey the great commission they are one. Never before have the treasures of wealth been so freely opened to aid the Christian cause. Pagans are believing; northern and central Europe are convalescent; victory blazes on the banners. We are, therefore, no alarmists in respect to the world as a whole; yet how can we shut our eyes to the fact that the old enemy has marshalled his forces for a new conflict? Was it not affirmed a few years ago that the seeds of rationalism which some were sowing would bring forth a fearful harvest? But mark how deceitful the process. There is one thing in the old-fashioned Voltaire infidelity that one cannot but like; it was honest; it never stole the livery of heaven to serve the devil in; it was not ashamed to flaunt its own name; it preferred to be known as a downright hater of all that bore even the name of Christian. That was fair. We cannot help respecting it for that one good quality. If we go back many hundred years before Voltaire till we get to Hierocles in the fourth century, Porphyry in the third, Celsus in the second, then, too, we shall find an infidelity that never was ashamed of the name. It stood up manfully to its chosen work, not trying to shelter itself under the name of Christianity. That was fair. The current, most popular form of infidelity, in addition to the ancient characteristics, has also this: a pretty thorough shame of its own signature. It rejects the Old Testament, yet it is Christian; it rejects the Epistles, yet it is Christian; it rejects the Gospels, yet it is Christian; it denies that Jesus was miraculously conceived, yet it is Christian; it denies that he raised Lazarus from the dead, yet it is Christian; it denies him as a mediator between God and man, yet it is Christian; it denies him the title of Lord, yet it is Christian; it affirms that the Bible contains errors in doctrine and fact, still it is Christian. That is not fair; it is undertaking to act Hamlet not only without Hamlet, but without the king, and without Horatio and without Polonius and without the queen, without the ghost, and without Ophelia. It must be admitted

that the old style of infidelity was low, coarse, vulgar; but as already said, we knew where to find it. The current rationalism must therefore be put a little below the infidelity of Voltaire himself, as Satan must be put considerably lower by all good judges of character for coming to Eve as serpent instead of devil. That way of coming was mean as well as wicked.

Let us hope, however, that the mask will yet be thrown off. On the thirty-first of May, 1867, a convention was held in the city of Boston to consider "the condition, wants, and prospects of free religion in America." Youth and middle life and old age, all degrees of culture and both sexes, were represented. It must be admitted that the most active spirits of the meeting seemed to have at last attained such a degree of virtue as to manifest no desire to be considered as fighting under the banner of Christianity. "Religion," said one of the speakers, "is one thing, and Christianity is another." "Whether the Bible teaches future puuishment or not," said another, "our own spirits, the light that shines within us, teaches us there is none. The men of science, God's prophets, say that we must bow down not to Jesus Christ, but to the Infinite Spirit." "The great Messiah, as he is called," said a well-known Quakeress," and there have been some great ones since." A letter was read by the president of the convention, which was written, we were told, by a liberal Jew who was unable to be present. "Truth," said the writer, "is the only redeemer I acknowledge"; and this brought applause from the convention. "We profess," said a clergyman from New Hampshire, "no discipleship to Jesus." "Religion," said another, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly, "is the affirmation of spirit made in the soul of man, the report which the spirit makes of itself. So we can say, I know." He denied that logic has anything to do with the matter. He wanted no premises, for spirit is self-affirmation. Said another gentleman, also a well-known writer for the Atlantic Monthly: "The moment we call ourselves by the name of Christ we lose the real expression of truth.

We take Christ as a leader so far as we take any man as a leader." It is enough to add that whenever the name of Theodore Parker was mentioned, and whenever anything was said against Jesus Christ, the convention greeted it with rapturous applause, We may presume, then, that by-and-by rationalism will everywhere have the honesty to discard the name of Christian, and be known, as it seemed almost willing to be known in this convention, by its appropriate name, There is no safe position between that taken by Theodore Parker and that held by Adoniram Judson. He who begins to rationalize away the word of God, even at a single point, is in danger of dashing through the entire course till he is precipitated upon the rocks of infidelity. We have no hesi tation, therefore, in concluding that the type of ministers which the world still needs is substantially that which is represented in Adoniram Judson.

ARTICLE V.

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PROVIDENCE.

BY DR. BENJAMIN W. DWIGHT, CLINTON, N. Y.

PART II. ITS SUBJECTIVE ASPECTS; OR, THE DEVELOPING POWER UPON THE HEART AND LIFE OF TRUE VIEWS OF ITS NATURE AND WORKINGS.

EVERY truth has its value in its uses. It becomes in itself, as such, as soon as it is discovered, a law of action in higher or lower relations, in the physical, intellectual, or moral direction in which it manifests its existence. He who is continually discovering new truths is in the same measure discovering new responsibilities.

We shall the more easily comprehend the true practical bearings of the doctrine of God's providence if we gather about our minds, more closely, ere we proceed to their consid

1 For Part I. see Vol. xxi p. 584.