loving God and one's neighbor. Many Orthodox men, indeed, -men like Robertson in England, and Beecher here, rise far above this idolatry. So Unitarians many are bound by it, and have a half-and-half opinion of the absolute nature of ceremonial duty. But it is ours to go forward, not backward; to look forward, and to bear up and on the standard of Christian freedom, the oriflamb, which bears the motto of "the worship of the Father in spirit and in truth."

HASE'S "LIFE OF JESUS," AND THE CRITICISMS UPON IT.

THE "Independent"- Orthodox-Congregationalist - says of this work, "In the main, Dr. Hase contends for the historical veracity of the Gospels, in opposition to the mythical theory of Strauss. Indeed, his criticisms upon this point are so thorough and satisfactory, that every biblical student should put himself in possession of them. There are few such examples of compact, solid, historical criticism." The "Monthly Religious Magazine" - Evangelical Unitarian calls it, per contra, 66 a one-sided exhibition of the difficulties in the way of our traditional belief;" and that says, 66 one who asks our attention to such communications as are presented in this volume, should, at least, give the reader an opportunity to form some judgIment of what can be said on the other side."

These two criticisms seem hardly to refer to the same book. One would think that they were certainly describing two works of an exactly opposite kind. The "Independent" considers it as, in the main, strongly and ably opposed to the negative and destructive doctrines of Strauss: the "Monthly Religious Magazine" speaks of it as though it

were all negative, with no positive element whatever. It' does not even give the reader an opportunity of seeing "what can be said on the other side." The "Independent" thinks "every biblical scholar should put himself in possession of them." The "Religious Magazine" thinks it ought not to have been translated at all, but should have been kept for the use of those only who could read it in German.

The writer in the "Independent" does by no means approve of the work in all its positions, but states very distinctly, that, by conceding the existence of a legendary element in the Gospels, Hase admits what is a "subtle poison diffused over the whole body of Christian truth." But then, notwithstanding this admission, he advises that the book should be read for its solid and valuable criticisms. In other words, while the Unitarian shrinks from a book in which truth and error are mingled, and advises it to be let alone, the Orthodox organ recommends it as indispensable to every biblical student, notwithstanding its errors.

Thus the whirligig of time brings about its revenges. A Unitarian periodical objecting to the inquiry which an Orthodox periodical advocates and encourages!

Here is the good done by the scholars at Andover, by Horace Bushnell, by the Beechers, by Moses Stuart, and other such brave and earnest men. They have made all investigation possible, and laid open the way into all earnest, serious study. Let us thank God for their labors, and for the works which do follow them.

Wherein the "Monthly Religious Magazine" would dissent from the conclusions of Hase, the translator of Hase would probably dissent also; but he knows that there is a class who need such books, an increasing body of men, harassed with doubts and serious difficulties which cannot be assuaged or relieved by any amount of sentimental

or rhetorical Christianity. They need cold, and even coldblooded criticism, to cure the wounds inflicted by criticism. They distrust appeals to their feelings or their conscience. They must have arguments purely rational, and not outcries against infidelity. It is to and for such persons as these that the book was written,- for such as these chiefly it was translated. But we do not see why others, not sceptical, should not see and comprehend the course which the study of the life of Jesus is taking, and reap the benefit of such profound and earnest study. We believe that there are classes in our Sunday schools who would carry from the study of this book a better preparation for the possible doubts which may afterward assail them than can be gained in any other quarter. We believe there is no other manual in English, on the same subject, which is so suggestive, and leads to so many insights into the human side of the character of the Master. To be sure, it looks at the Son of man, rather than at the Son of God; but this is the true course of study, that first which is natural (psychical), afterward that which is spiritual (pneumatical). We study "the first man" first, afterward "the Lord from heaven."

HARD TO KILL.

THERE is something about the Unitarian denomination which makes it very hard to kill. It has been dying ever since we can remember; at least, according to the distinct and positive assertions of the Orthodox editors, who ought to know. It has suffered from fightings without and from fears within. Its foes have been those of its own household. Within the last year, what assaults have been made on it by its own friends, real and supposed! THEODORE

PARKER and Professor HUNTINGTON join hands in declaring that it is not as pious as it ought to be. NEHEMIAH ADAMS and MONCURE C. CONWAY turn up at it the nasal demonstration of congenial contempt. Dr. BELLows and Mr. GAGE ("Theology Simmering ") are jointly and severally distressed at its Suspense of faith. Dr. FURNESS does not think much of Unitarianism, except as a good medium for antislavery. JAMES MARTINEAU hastens to express his little sympathy with its general tendency, spirit, and doctrine. In truth, we can hardly recall any distinguished Unitarian leader or doctor, who has not, at some time or other, vindicated his claim to that position, by expressing his dislike or indifference to Unitarianism. We all do so, or have done so. We pass through this period of estrangement from our own denomination, as we pass through the period of measles or whooping-cough. This utter individualism masters all of us at some one period of our history.

"Qui que tu sois, tu vois ton maître;

Il est, ou fût, ou le doit être."

And, indeed, we should hardly respect any of our chiefs if they did not show their independence and liberality by an occasional fling at the doctrines or the practices of the Unitarian body.

With such leaders and examples, the laity are not slow in following in the same direction. Are they wealthy and benevolent? they give their money to the colleges, the missions, and the sectarian efforts of all denominations but their own. This is so well understood, that the Boston Unitarians have lately been systematically called upon to contribute toward the purchase of the Harrison-Avenue church edifice; that is, to help the Presbyterians buy it from the Unitarians. Very probably (we do not know) they may have given liberally to this purpose: it would

be like them to do it. But some of the largest and wealthiest Unitarian churches in Boston have seldom or never given any thing for Unitarian missions or Unitarian enterprises.

Under these circumstances, it may be said that Unitarianism is very tenacious of life. What other organization could have existed, as ours exists, with its leaders taking pains to find fault with it, and disown all loyalty to it; and its laity taking pains to disavow all obligation to encourage or support it? None.

What saves us, then? The absolute impossibility of being any thing but what we are. Just such a body as this is needed for just such people as we are. We may try ever so hard, but we cannot be any thing but Unitarians. It would, therefore, seem to be a better way for all to agree to stand together and work together on the Unitarian platform, as the only spot in the church where there is full freedom. Perhaps it is almost time to suspend this self-criticism. Let us work, brethren; for the time is

short.

"Are we not formed, as notes of music are,

For one another, though dissimilar?

Such difference, without discord, as can make
The sweetest sounds."

We are very hard to kill. In fact, we are not to be killed yet, or for a good while yet. Perhaps we are to shoot up a higher stalk, to be clothed in a new outburst of summer blossoms, to hang heavy with another crop of autumn fruit. Certainly we have a great future, and a noble opportunity, if we could only cease a little while from this plan of self-scrutiny, introspection, and morbid consciousness. There is needed in the church a new theology, which shall make revelation natural, and religion supernatural; which shall show law and love in harmony. Only