ART. IV.-A HALF CENTURY OF UNITARIANISM.

A Half Century of the Unitarian Controversy; with Particular Reference to its Origin, its Course, and its Prominent Subjects among the Congregationalists of Massachusetts. With an Appendix. By GEORGE E. ELLIS. Boston: Crosby, Nichols & Co. 1857.

WE heartily thank Mr. Ellis for this valuable addition to our theological literature. It bears on nearly every page that distinguishing mark of most modern theology, clearness. The best theologians of this age are trained to the perspicous utterance of their ideas in the pulpit and lecture room, and hence will leave behind them few works whose incomprehensibility is their chief claim for admiration. There is a noble candor running through his pages, that ought to shame some of those who arrogate to themselves exclusively the name of Christian. His almost uniform goodnature will prove a gratification to all readers of theological controversy. We feel sure he did not grow old in penning some of these pages. We know we never shall in reading them. One can fairly see the twinkle of mischievous delight that danced in his eye when he wrote the first pages of the seventh essay, describing the pitiable condition of orthodoxy in its Lernæan work of lopping off heresies. Either his good-nature, or his new theology in its last days, has been productive of one good result-the introduction of a model gentlemanly courtesy to the heat of theological dispute.

The book is made up of articles contributed to a progressive quarterly; and as a whole is a review of one side of a most important fifty years controversy. Hence it is scarcely possible that it should be dull in style or made tedious with minutiae. The articles are entitled: A Half Century of the Unitarian Controversy; Unitarianism and Orthodoxy on the Nature and State of Man; Unitarianism and Orthodoxy on God and Christ; Unitarianism and Orthodoxy on the Atonement; Unitarianism and Orthodoxy on the Scriptures; Relations of Reason and Faith; The New Theology. The appendix is made up of twelve chapters, written mostly in reply to a series of articles published in the Puritan Recorder, criticising the seven essays mentioned above.

The author gives the changes of orthodoxy on the points specified, and does it fairly, thoroughly, and clearly. Yet with all his candor and honesty there is an undisguised deception running all through the work. Carrying the impression that Unitarianism has always occupied the same ground on all these points, he shows how

Orthodoxy, by its own vigorous thinking, and the guiding light of Unitarian doctrine, has been slowly and surely coming to occupy ground adjacent to his own. It is the old story of a Roman writing the history and policy of Carthage. The book is wholly onesided and incomplete as a history of that controversy so interesting in its character and so momentous in its results. We do not design to review the book. A review itself, it is not a page too long. It should not be condensed. On the contrary, we design to write a few pages which we believe will add to the completeness and fairness of the work, and give an idea of what we should be glad to see added as a second appendix in the next edition.

Orthodoxy, meaning thereby, as our author always does, Puritanism, has not been alone in its changes of creed. Circumstances here in America have been exceedingly favorable to the change of creed and its exposition. The representatives of all phases of religious belief and non-belief have come upon our shores. They have had perfect freedom to propagate their opinions. The intelligence of the country has afforded a somewhat fair and just examination to every system. Here have opinions been born and nourished, and here have they perished. Experiments that have failed a hundred times elsewhere have been re-tried here with the same result. Here extremes have met, and here have systems divided into extremes. Yet in all this we think we recognize a general tendency, a movement in one direction, common to nearly all. As astronomers followed a thousand diverse motions, forward and backward, of ascension and declension, coming together and separating, till at last they announced the name and place of the central source of light and power; so it may be hoped that a study of the varied developments of the American mind on the subject of religion, may help us to find the general direction of all religious movement, and determine the center of light and truth.

It is with the greatest joy that we note the advantageous circumstances under which this problem is being wrought. We have the greatest hope for man's future religious belief, because we think that what will be believed in the next century is now being brought forth, and being freed from errors, under circumstances more propitious for its right evolution than ever existed before.

We think so, first, because of the type of mind engaged in the work. The Anglo-Saxon mind, made up of the diverse elements that floated to the soil of England years ago, showed itself the leading mind of the world. Its best and most sterling qualities were transplanted to New England; here, strengthened by fresh amalgamations, incited to effort by a universal freedom and the largest

reward of success, the mind of New England and its offshoots shows itself in higher and more general development than any other type of mind in the world. By this highest type of mind the problem is being brought to solution.

This confidence is increased, because, secondly, whatever is thought out is made to show its practical working; men of to-day do not so much believe in and accept abstract ideas and systems. They demand the exhibition of practical results. The question of what is truth in religion is not to be solved by a clouded brain in the smoky atmosphere of a German study. The result shall not come forth from the cogitations of a self-sufficient schoolman, committing himself to the current of a straightened logic. That which stands on uncertain or fallacious premises cannot be proclaimed as eternal truth. The glorious Gospel for the poor shall not be only fine drawn Hegelianism, which, after a life of exposition, is, according to the admission of the author, understood by only one mind in a kingdom. Here a working model must be made before many will consent to look at its theory. Here we oblige men to take the web and woof of life, and by their machinery work out a fabric. If it look well, well; if it wear well, better. If not, after a fair trial, it will be cast aside; for the mass are practical men. In the freedom of the country no man can get a monopoly, and so trade off an inferior article of religion.

Let us note the changes of dogma and exposition of Unitarianism in New England for a half a century, and see whither these bid us look for the central truths of theology.

The one doctrine that gives name, but not definition, to the sect, has been cropping out in all ages of the Church. But Unitarianism in New England is something more than this. It has had a peculiar development, and one well worthy of study. In assuming to direct that study a little we do not expect to escape the charge of misrepresentation. We shall endeavor not to merit it. Our Unitarian brethren are extremely sensitive; and the difficulty is immensely increased by the variegated mass of heterogeneous and opposite doctrines marshaled under the Unitarian banner. Everything, from the baldest theism and rankest infidelity, to a mere quibble about the mode of existence of the Three in One, is covered by that broad bunting. The author whose work we have placed in our rubric says: "Unitarianism is loose, vague, general, indeterminate in its elements and formularies." P. 34. And George Putnam, in installing Mr. Fosdick, successor to Mr. Pierpont, over the then famous Hollis-street Church, declared:" There is no other Christian body of which it is so impossible to tell where it begins and

where it ends. We have no recognized principles by which any man who chooses to be a Christian disciple, and desires to be numbered with us, whatever he believes or denies, can be excluded."

Another difficulty in the way of representing them with fairness is this: they have a chronic habit of concealing, or of not being able to declare, what their real sentiments are. From the time that Iræneas testified against them as using alluring discourse in public because of common Christians," down through the times of Paul of Samosata to Arius, who was supposed to swear to the Nicene Creed he had just subscribed to before a council, and it turned out that he swore to his belief in a creed he had previously subscribed and concealed under his arm; and from Socinus, who, according to Mosheim, bore the same reputation, down to the pending of Dr. Ware's election to the Hollis professorship of divinity in Harvard College in 1804, and even later, when, according to the late Dr. Parkman, "had Dr. Kirkland been an acknowledged defender of Unitarianism he never would have been elected" to the presidency of Harvard College in 1810; through all these periods of their his tory, and according to the testimonies of a dozen prominent Unitarians, their whole line of policy has been concealment. But from the year 1815 they have been forced into the light, and not been permitted to deny merely, but compelled to define. Since that time we follow their development more easily, notwithstanding the fact that Unitarianism has more branches than the banyan tree, though none of its unity.

First: we inquire how they have regarded THE BIBLE? Since this is the source of all spiritual knowledge, and the only sure foundation of hope, their estimation of it is an important element in calculating their true position.

It is a fact to be noticed, that, with all the boasted learning of the Unitarians, no man among them has made Bible exposition his business. Almost every man has tried his hand at some tenth-rate expositions of favorite sections. But the man has never appeared among them who was able, or if able dared, to sit down before the whole, explain every point, and meet its general tone. Mr. Andrews Norton came the nearest to being a Bible expositor of any man in the body; but such was the freshness of his zeal, the recklessness with which he rejected approved readings, explained away the obvious sense, and substituted another, that we have before us a statement of the highest Unitarian authority, that he is not followed by the Unitarians of to-day.

The reaction from the old Puritan reverence for the English translation, the belief in God's inspiration of the commas, headings, FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XI.-26

and divisions of chapters of the old family Bibles, carried the Unitarian mind too far, and the Bible was either neglected or abused. But at length many minds returned to a sincere reverence and love for the Scriptures, and a consciousness that in them only were the words of eternal life.

Said Channing in 1819: "We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception. . . . Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either by his personal ministry or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives."* This revelation, he holds, is to be interpreted by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and understood by the most devoted use of the highest reason; while "we indeed grant that the use of reason, in religion, is accompanied with danger.”

Dr. Dewey says of the Scriptures: "The matter is divine, the miracles real, the promises glorious, the threatenings fearful; enough that all is gloriously and fearfully true, true to the divine will, true to human nature, true to its wants, anxieties, sorrows, sins, salvation, and destinies; enough that the seal of a divine and miraculous communication is set upon that holy book.Ӡ

In rejecting the plenary inspiration of the Bible they have not rejected the Bible itself. The theories of their best men to-day are essentially the same as those of the most orthodox men outside of the Gaussen school. One of them says: "We are not bringing our reason to bear against a doctrine of revelation, which may God forbid our ever doing, but against what we pronounce to be a human dogma, constructively ascribed to revelation."

We would say, in closing this section, that we feel confident that if the Bible can be brought into more notice among them, and be studied by their best men according to their theory, its teachings will not be very materially misunderstood. And we are sure of this result if, at the same time, they can be brought to set a proper estimate on their present powers and also free themselves from the influence of some fragments of a false philosophy. Many selections now before us, from men of the first authority among them, confirm us in this conclusion.

At the same time it cannot be denied that there is a party, we believe a small one, among them, whose reverence and even respect for the Bible has long been on the decline. It has almost reached Works, vol. iii, pp. 60, 61. Controversial Sermons No. 1.