gant or unclean and do-no-good hands; we shall in running through its pages, stumble on many things dark and startling, on many things which, aggravated by presumptuous heedlessness, might prove destructively offensive."

Every man is welcome to his own way of saying things, as well as his own way of thinking. But why can he not say his own thoughts, without striking at other men? Here is sound truth in what we have quoted, but it must needs be coupled with the insinuation, that the truth does not dwell with you, only with us; and then to give the insinuation a definite shape and personal application, it is pointed at the bugbear race called Socinians! Not to enlarge on that which has been repeated until we are quite weary of it ourselves, viz. that he who gives the name of "Socinian" to those now known as Unitarians, either does not know the meaning of the word, or forgets both parts of the precept, to "speak the truth in love,"-we have something to say about the reasoning of the passage; a kind of reasoning, which perplexes us nearly as much, when it comes from fair minds, as the continued application of the false and offensive name.

66

Mark, first, the admission. The Apostles wrote to those, who, they knew, were both able and inclined to make due allowance for the latitude of epistolary expression." There would seem to be no remarkable concession or great danger in such an admission. It is required by the nature of things. All writing supposes it. No letters, essays, or treatises of any kind, could be freely written or fairly read, without allowing this. Every kind of composition has its laws, determined not by convention or assumption, but by the circumstances of the case, by universal common sense, by necessity. A man is to read what is written in any book, for any purpose, precisely as he hears what is spoken every day; that is, as a man, as a reasonable being. When Paul says, in the very beginning of his first Epistle according to the common arrangement, "Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar," or again, "Let us do evil, that good may come," the reader who should refuse or forget to make due allowance for the latitude, not only of epistolary composition, but of all composition and all human expression, would be in danger of coming to singular conclusions.

This is obvious. And yet it is all, as the Guesser at Truth seems to apprehend, it is all that the liberal interpreters of Scripture contend for. It is all they ask. And little and unavoidable as it seems, it cannot be granted, without granting the main principle which distin

guishes Unitarian interpretation from all other. Nay, it is no distinction. It is not a monopoly, nor the peculiarity of a sect. Trinitarians use the principle as much as others. They surely make "due allowance" for the latitude of the kind of writing which is before them-Epistle, Gospel, history, psalmody, or prophecy. The only distinction is, that they make it in their own way, and others make it in their way. Both and all judge for themselves what the latitude of the writer is, and what the allowance of the reader should be. The Catholic reads "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right ??? and says, Here surely is great latitude of expression, this cannot be taken literally, due allowance is to be made; I will abide by the decisions of the Church.' The Protestant reads "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" and says, 'This cannot be meant literally; I will abide by the dictates of reason, and give that latitude which it demands.' So the Trinitarian, so the Unitarian decides, on this particular passage, and the Catholic tells them they are both wrong. Again, Christ says—“ I and my Father are one," and the Catholic and the Protestant Trinitarian now agree in saying, that the passage is to be taken literally, and no latitude allowed, not even the explanation of our Lord to be applied, when he prays that all his disciples may be one with him and the Father. But Christ says yet again-" My Father is greater than I," and Here,' cry the same interpreters of both churches, the words must not be taken literally, due allowance must be made, great latitude must be given; so great, that we must believe the very opposite of the literal sense, viz. that the Father is not greater than he.' Try now the latitude of "epistolary expression." Paul says, "Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh;”

6

This is literal,' the Trinitarian declares; no allowance is due here, no latitude.' But the same Paul also writes, "To us there is but one God, the Father;"-This is not literal; for then we could not speak of God the Son;' we must make due allowance, such as will suffer us still to believe that not the Father only, but likewise the Son and the Spirit are each God.'

Let no one think that we are speaking lightly. We have adduced these common passages, only to show that all Trinitarians are constantly applying the very principle of interpretation which is now in question, and applying it very differently in different cases, according to the church or the creed. It is a grave fact, and it deserves con

sideration, that there is no doctrine in the Christian church, which calls for greater latitude of interpretation, or requires more of reason to sustain or to find it, than the doctrine of the double nature of Christ, and in fact the entire Trinity. It not only stands upon inference, but it demands in one place a most literal adherence to the literal sense, and in another place, in the same connexion, gives to words the freest possible construction; in fact, makes them mean that which they never mean in any other connexion, or any other book. If this assertion is strong, we simply call up the Trinitarian interpretation of the words "My Father is greater than I"-"The Son can do nothing of himself"—" Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not even the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

No one, we suppose, has ever denied or will deny, that some allowance is to be made for the latitude of expression in the Bible, as in all books. But if some, how much? "How shall we discern the due from the undue ?" every one will ask with the author quoted. And every one must give substantially his answer,-" As we discern every thing else; by the honest use of a cultivated understanding." And now what does all his subsequent remark, all his reasoning, and that of many others, clearly imply in regard to Unitarians? Nothing less than this; that they do not, any of them, make an honest use of their understanding. They are dishonest. They are corrupt. It is this intimation, this monstrous assumption, which most amazes us, and which we still hear or see so often, that we are constrained to notice it. We must entreat our brethren to think of what they are saying; to think of it, first, as a matter of mere reasoning, and then as a serious allegation. Is not the reasoning puerile, unworthy of intelligent minds ? We are first told that if we make an honest use of our understanding, we shall discern between the due and the undue allowance, the right and the wrong interpretation. And, then, simply because we come to a different result from theirs, they infer and avow that we did not make an honest use! Such an argument might, though we hardly think it would, satisfy children; it is too small for men. This is not however the worst. The implication that Unitarians "banish the Holy Spirit by slights and excesses," and when they study the Bible, do it not "with inquiring and teachable minds,"-is a most serious charge. It is fearful, even as an intimation. We know not how any humble Christian can dare to utter it, to whisper,

to think it even, in reference to whole classes of men, and to no inconsiderable part of the Christian world from the beginning. For all departures from the faith of the individual or the party involve the same principle, and are liable to the same condemnation.-But we have no wish to dwell on the thought. We leave it with repeating the strong, but not too strong, language of THACHER, in one of the earliest discourses that was preached here directly on the subject of the Trinity. "Have we forfeited our Christianity, nay, our integrity as men, because we have not so learned and so preached Christ? Will this accusation be repeated by our brethren, think you, when we all stand together before the judgement-seat of Christ? Oh far, far rather would I appear before my Judge, at that solemn hour, with all the accumulated errors and absurdities which the human mind in its most pitiable weakness has ever engendered, than with the tremendous responsibility of having made such charges as these against my brethren, on light and insufficient grounds."

We have lately been assured by a clergyman, whose conscience has constrained him to discard the doctrine of the Trinity, after preaching it several years, that he was brought to this conclusion chiefly by the study of the Scriptures, and that most of his other reading was in defence of the Trinity, to fortify his mind with reasons for retaining his faith, if possible. The more he read, the less was he satisfied; and he found it particularly difficult and painful to use the common Doxology, for which he could find no example and no authority in the Bible. It is one of many instances we have known, among clergy and laity, of similar difficulty and similar result. And it would seem enough to teach charity and humility at least, to consider-what we often see in departures from other views and from our own-that the mind which thus changes its views retains the same sentiments and habits as before, the same reverence, the same piety, the same earnest desire of truth and devout study of the word of God. Shall a single change of doctrine, while the man is the same, turn all our feelings, destroy confidence, and make an angel of light to be a spirit of evil? Alas, how little do we know ourselves. How poorly do we interpret the character of our religion. Sadly should we suspect the soundness or efficacy of our faith, if it required us to cast off those who go out from among us, or allowed us to malign their motives. Does any one suppose, that the Reformers possessed no piety until they became Reformers? Were Luther a

Zuingle any less Christians, or any more, while in the bosom of the mother church, than after they left it? You call the Catholics bigots and calumniators, for saying that those noble men lost all their piety when they changed. How much better is the feeling or the insinuation, that they gained it all by the change? We mistake the relation of faith to piety. It is an intimate relation, it is vital. But its complexion and influence depend not on the kind of faith, so much as on the power. Or rather, they depend on the kind in reference to the heart, much more than to the mind. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." And the belief of the heart, its honest conviction, its undoubting trust, its affection and devotion, may live and grow through all outward changes and amidst many diverse influences. "Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

The action of Piety, or the state of the heart and the character, upon Interpretation and its results, is a great subject. We desire to see it faithfully presented. We believe it would be found, that it bears equally on all classes of Christians, and that it invokes all to give more earnest heed to the inner man and the actual life, as affecting every thing outward, and greater than all beside; as, indeed, the teacher and interpreter of all. We are constantly quoting the words, but we have not yet fathomed the depths of the sublime truth—“ If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

E. B. H.

CHURCH MUSIC.

Ir seems to have passed from recollection, that music was admitted into our public worship as a means, not as an end. The importance and usefulness of it, as an aid to devotion, seem to have been erased from men's minds, either by the desire to be gratified in their love of it as an art, or from the neglect which has given up to hired musicians the whole direction, as well as execution, of that part of our service, which should lead the mind to sublime and soul-raising thoughts. It is not surprising that there are some who oppose the use of music in