we know, do not think it lawful directly to address Christ in prayer. They think that his own example, the direction he gave to his disciples-"When ye pray, say, Our Father,"-and such expressions as the following, " In that day," that is, when I am withdrawn from you into heaven, " ye shall ask me nothing; verily, verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it you," not only authorize, but absolutely require prayer to be addressed directly to the Father. To prove that the ancient Christians were accustomed thus to address their prayers, they allege the authority of Origen, who lived in the former part of the third century, and was eminent for piety and talents, and in learning surpassed all the Christians of his day. "If we understand what prayer is," says Origen, "it will appear that it is never to be offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of all; to whom our Saviour himself prayed and taught us to pray." In regard to the metaphysical nature and rank of the Son, and the time at which his existence commenced, Unitarians undoubtedly differ in opinion. Some hold his pre-existence, and others suppose that his existence commenced at the time of his entrance into the world. The question of his nature they do not consider as important. Some take this view. They think that the testimony of the apostles, the original witnesses to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of him, bears only on his birth, miracles, teachings, life, death, resurrection and ascension, that is, on his character and offices, and that beyond these we need not go; that these are all which it is important that we should know or believe; that the rest is speculation, hypothesis, with which, as practical Christians, we have no concern; that our comfort, our hope, our security of pardon and eternal life depend not upon our knowledge or belief in it. At the same time all entertain exalted views of his character and offices. In a reverence for these they profess to yield to no class of Christians. The divinity which others ascribe to his person, they think may with more propriety be referred to these. "We believe firmly," says one of the most eminent writers in the sect, "in the divinity of Christ's mission and office, that he spoke with divine authority, and was a bright image of the divine perfections. "We believe that God dwelt in him, manifested himself through him, taught men by him, and communicated to him his Spirit without measure. "We believe that Jesus Christ was the most glorious display, expression, and representative of God to mankind, so that through seeing and knowing him, we see and know the invisible Father; so that when Christ came, God visited the world and dwelt with men more conspicuously than at any former period. In Christ's words we hear God speaking; in his miracles we behold God acting; in his character and life, we see an unsullied image of God's purity and love. We believe, then, in the divinity of Christ, as this term is often and properly used." Unitarians do not think that they detract from the true glory of the Son. They regard him as one with God in affection, will, and purpose. This union, they think, is explained by the words of the Saviour himself: "Be ye also one," says he to his disciples, "even as I and my Father are one;" one not in nature, but in purpose, affection and act. Through him Christians are brought near to the Father, and their hearts are penetrated with divine love. By union with him as the true vine, they are nurtured in the spiritual life. In his teachings they find revelations of holy truth. They ascribe peculiar power and significance to his cross. To that emblem of self-sacrificing love, they teem with emotions which language is too poor to express. The cross is connected in the minds of Christians with the atonement. On this subject Unitarians feel constrained to differ from many of their fellow Christians. Unitarians do not reject the atonement in what they believe to be the scriptural meaning of the term. While they gratefully acknowledge the mediation of Christ, and believe that through the channel of his gospel are conveyed to them the most precious blessings of a Father's mercy, they object strongly to the views frequently expressed, of the connexion of the death of Christ with the forgiveness of sin. They do not believe that the sufferings of Christ were penal-designed to satisfy a principle of stern justice; for justice, say they, does not inflict suffering on the innocent in order to pardon the guilty; and besides, they believe that God's justice is in perfect harmony with his mercy; that to separate them, even in thought, is greatly to dishonor him. They believe that however the cross stands connected with the forgiveness of sin, that connexion, as before said, is to be explained by the effects wrought on man and not on God. They believe that in thus teaching they do not rob the cross of its power, nor take away from the sinner ground of hope. To the objection that sin requires an infinite atonement, and that none but an infinite being can make that atonement, they reply by saying, that they find in their Bibles not one word of this infinite atonement, and besides, that no act of a finite being, a frail, sinning child of dust, can possess a character of infinity, or merit an infinite punishment; that it is an abuse of language so to speak; and further, that if an infinite sufferer were necessary to make due atonement for sin, no such atonement could ever be made, for infinite cannot suffer; that God is unchangeable, and it is both absurd and impious to ascribe suffering to him; God cannot die; and admitting Jesus to have been God as well as man, only his human nature suffered; that there was no infinite sufferer in the case; that thus the theory of the infinite atonement proves a fallacy, and the whole fabric falls to the ground. Still is not the sinner left without hope, because he leans on the original and unchanging love and compassion of the Father, to whom as the prime fountain we trace back all gospel means and influences, and who is ever ready to pardon those, who through Christ and his cross are brought to repentance for sin and holiness of heart and life. Further, the Unitarians reply, that whatever mysterious offices the cross of Christ may be supposed to possess, beyond its natural power to affect the heart, it must owe that efficacy wholly to the divine appointment, and thus the nature and rank of the instrument become of no importance, since the omnipotence of God can endow the weakest instrument with power to produce any effect he designs to accomplish by it. They quote Bishop Watson, a Trinitarian writer, as saying that "all depends on the appointment of God;" that it will not do for us to question the propriety of any "means his goodness has appointed, merely because we cannot see how it is fitted to attain the end;" that neither the Arian nor the Humanitarian hypothesis necessarily precludes "atonement by the death of Jesus." (Charge delivered in 1795.) By the Holy Spirit, Unitarians suppose is meant not a person, but an influence; and hence it is spoken of as "poured out," "given," and we read of the "anointing" with the Holy Spirit, phrases, which they contend, preclude the idea of a person. It was given miraculously to the first disciples, and gently as the gathering dews of evening distils upon the heart of the followers of Jesus in all ages, helping their infirmity, ministering to their renewal, and ever strengthening and comforting them. It is given in answer to prayer, as Christ said: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke xi. 13.) Unitarians believe that salvation through the gospel is offered to all, on such terms as all, by God's help, which he will never withhold from any who earnestly strive to know and do his will, and lead a pure, humble, and benevolent life, have power to accept. They reject the doctrine of native total depravity; but they assert that man is born weak, and in possession of appetites and propensities, by the abuse of which all become actual sinners; and they believe in the necessity of what is figuratively expressed by the "new birth," that is, the becoming spiritual and holy, being led by that spirit of truth and love which Jesus came to introduce into the souls of his followers. This change is significantly called the coming of the kingdom in the heart, without which, as they teach, the pardon of sin, were it possible, would confer no happiness, and the songs of Paradise would fall with harsh dissonance on the ear. There is nothing peculiar in the scntiments which, as a body, they entertain of the Bible. They regard the sacred books of it as containing words of a divine revelation miraculously made to the world. They receive it as their standard, their rule of faith and life, interpreting it as they think consistency and the principles of sound and approved criticism demand. They make use of the common, or King James' version, as it is called, but like all well-informed Christians, they think that a reverence for truth and a desire to ascertain the will of God, justify and require them, wherever there is any doubt about the meaning, to appeal to the original, or to compare other versions. In doing this, they say, that they do not fear that they shall be condemned by any intelligent Christian. Unitarians sometimes speak of rever-everlasting life and felicity. Unitarian ence for human nature-of reverence for Congregationalists believe firmly in a futhe soul. They reverence it as God's ture retribution for sin and holiness. work, formed for undying growth and improvement. They believe that it possesses powers capable of receiving the highest truths. They believe that God, in various ways, makes revelations of truth and duty to the human soul; that in various ways he quickens it; kindles in it holy thoughts and aspirations, and inspires it by his lifegiving presence. They believe that how ever darkened and degraded, it is capable of being regenerated, renewed, by the means and influences which he provides. They believe that it is not so darkened by the fall but that some good, some power, some capacity of spiritual life, is left in it. But they acknowledge that it has need of help; that it has need to be breathed upon by the divine Spirit. They believe that there is nothing in their peculiar mode of viewing Christianity which encourages proscription; encourages pride and selfexaltation. They believe that the heart which knows itself will be ever humble. They believe that they must perpetually look to God for help. They teach the necessity of prayer, and a diligent use of the means of devout culture; they do not thus teach reverence for human nature in any such sense, they think, as would countenance the idea that man is sufficient to save himself without God: they pray to him for illumination, pray that he will more and more communicate of himself to their souls. They teach the blighting consequences of sin. They believe that in the universe which God has formed, this is the only essential and lasting evil; and that to rescue the human soul from its power, to win it back to the love of God, of truth and right, and to obedience, to a principle of enlarged benevolence which embraces every fellow-being as a brother, is the noblest work which religion can achieve, and worth all the blood and tears which were poured out by Jesus in his days of humiliation. While they earnestly inculcate the necessity of a holy heart and a pure and benevolent life, they deny that man is to be saved by his own merit, or works, except as a condition to which the mercy of God has been pleased to annex the gift of In proof of their reverence for the Bible, they appeal to the circumstance that several of the ablest defenders of Christianity against the attacks of infidels, have been Unitarians, a fact, say they, which they are confident no one acquainted with the theological literature of modern ages will call in question. To the charge that they unduly exalt human reason, Unitarian Christians reply by saying, that the Bible is addressed to us as reasonable beings, that reverence for its records, and respect for the natures which God has bestowed on us, and which Christ came to save, make it our duty to use our understanding and the best lights which are afforded us, for ascertaining its meaning; that God cannot contradict in one way what he records in another; that his word and works must utter a consistent language; that if the Bible be his gift, it cannot be at war with nature and human reason; that if we discard reason in its interpretation, there is no absurdity we may not deduce from it; that we cannot do it greater dishonor than to admit that it will not stand the scrutiny of reason; that if our faculties are not worthy of trust, if they are so distempered by the fall, that we can no longer repose any confidence in their veracity: then revelation itself cannot benefit us, for we have no reason left of judging of its evidences or import, and are reduced at once to a state of utter scepticism. Such, omitting minor differences, are the leading views of the Unitarian Congregationalists of the United States. They do not claim to hold all these views as peculiar to themselves. Several of them they share in common with other classes of Christians, or with individuals of other denominations. HISTORY. Of the history and statistics of Unitarians in the United States, we have left ourselves little room to speak. The Unitarians of these days do not profess to hold any new doctrines. They speak of its antiquity and revival. The history of ancient Unitarianism, I must pass over, both as foreign to the object of this sketch, and a subject which would require more space than is assigned for our whole article. I will only state in a single paragraph what modern Unitarians contend that they are able to prove in regard to the carly prevalence of this doctrine. They begin by stating that the Jews before the time of the Saviour, were strictly Unitarian; that it is a fact as well ascertained as any fact can be, that the Jewish Christians of the early ages were so also; being believers in the simple humanity of Jesus; that several of the early fathers recognise this fact; and that this belief was not originally deemed heretical. They contend and profess to show, that all the fathers for more than three hundred years after the commencement of the Christian era, never fail of ascribing supremacy to the Father, and held the strict and proper inferiority of the Son; that they made him a distinct being from the Father, though many of them assigned him from all eternity a sort of metaphysical, or potential, existence in the Father as an attribute, that is, his wisdom or reason, which attribute took a separate personal existence a little before the creation of the world, and became an agent of the Father in its formation. In this they differ from the Arians, who taught that he was created out of nothing. Unitarians affirm, that the germ of the doctrine of the Trinity is first traced in the learned Platonizing converts, who brought it with them from the school of human philosophy; they say that its origin is thus in their view satisfactorily explained; they contend that it was of gradual formation, and that they can trace its growth from age to age, till it acquired something like its present form about the middle of the fifth century. These views they think have been well established in modern writings, both in this country and in England. We now come to modern Unitarianism. The history of this, too, in foreign countries, we must dismiss in some half a dozen or a dozen sentences, stating merely a few general facts. We discover traces of anti-trinitarian sentiments, in the early days of the Reformation under Luther, and Unitarianism was openly avowed and defended by Cellarius, a learned man, a native of Stuttgard, born in 1499, and for some time united in warm friendship with Luther and Melancthon. Several of the learned contemporaries of Luther, in Germany and Switzerland, embraced the same sentiments. Servetus, a native of Aragon, was burned as a heretic for his Unitarianism, at Geneva, in 1553. About the same time a society of Unitarians in Italy was broken up and dispersed by the Inquisition. A retreat was afterwards opened to them in Poland; they had a college at Racow, numbering at one time more than a thousand students; they had churches in all parts of the kingdom, and their sentiments were embraced by many of the chief nobility. There they flourished many years, and left behind them many monuments of their learning and zeal. They were banished from the kingdom in 1660. Some went to England; some to different parts of Germany; and some to Transylvania, where they still exist as a distinct sect. Holland still contains a considerable number, and most of the pastors of Germany hold Unitarian sentiments. In England, they are traced back to the early part of the sixteenth century; but there as elsewhere, they were subject to severe persecution for their opinions, and some of them sealed their faith with their blood. The doctrine, however, was ties, in the latter of which there were many Unitarians. In the western part of Massachusetts, in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, Unitarianism had made but little progress. Out of New England, few if any traces of it were visible, except at Northumberland and Philadelphia, where Dr. Priestly had made some converts. not suppressed, and English Unitarian- | state, in Plymouth and Barnstable counism numbers a long line of learned men, the ornaments of their age and of humanity. Among them we find the names of Emlyn, Whiston, Dr. Samuel Clark, Lardner, Price, Priestly, Lindsey, Aikin, Jebb, Rees, and many others, besides the three greater lights, Locke, Newton, and the poet Milton. Unitarian sentiments are now extensively diffused among the Presbyterians of England, and in the north of Ireland; and Unitarian houses of worship exist in different places in Scotland. The last report of the American Unitarian Association, (May, 1842,) states the number of Unitarian Congregations in England at about 300; In Ireland, at 39; in Scotland, at 12. Of those who have renounced the Church of Rome in Holland, Switzerland, France and Germany, the same document affirms, that not less than one half hold the Unitarian faith. American Unitarianism dates back, at least, to the middle of the last century. In a letter to Dr. Moore, dated May 15th, 1815, the older President Adams says, in reply to a statement that Unitarianism was then only thirty years old in New England, "I can testify as a witness to its old age." He goes back sixty-five years, and names some clergymen, and among others Dr. Mayhew of Boston, and Gay of Hingham, who were Unitarians. "Among the laity," he adds, "how many could I name, lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, farmers!" There was, however, little open avowal of Unitarianism at this period, nor until after the American Revolution; nor were there many congregations professedly Unitarian until after the commencement of the present century, though as early as 1756, Emlyn's Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ, was republished in Boston, and extensively read. In 1785, the society worshipping at King's Chapel, Boston, adopted an amended liturgy, from which Trinitarian sentiments were excluded. Between that period and the end of the century, Unitarian sentiments manifested themselves to a small extent in Maine, and Mr. Bently openly preached them in Salem, Massachusetts. The same sentiments were preached in the southern parts of the Thus closed the eighteenth century. But though, as before remarked, there was at this time but little open profession of Unitarianism, the general tone of thinking and feeling in Boston and the vicinity, was decidedly Unitarian, or, at least, the current was strongly setting that way. During the first fifteen years of the present century, controversy on the subject was seldom or never introduced into the pulpit, but Unitarianism was making silent progress. Many having ceased to hear the opposite sentiments inculcated, embraced it, often without any distinct consciousness of the fact. The term Unitarianism was then seldom heard in New England, those since called Unitarians being then denominated Liberal Christians. The appointment of one of them to the divinity professorship at Cambridge, in 1805, was the occasion of some controversy. The year 1815 formed an epoch in the history of American Unitarianism. The circumstances were briefly these: Mr. Belsham, in his Memoirs of Lindsey, published in London in 1812, had introduced a chapter on American Unitarianism, or as it was expressed, on the "Progress and Present State of the Unitarian Churches in America." This was republished in Boston in 1815, with a Preface by the American editor, the object of the republication being to sound the alarm against Unitarianism on this side the Atlantic. The pamphlet was immediately reviewed in the Panoplist, an Orthodox publication of the day. The two publications caused great excitement. The Panoplist especially, was complained of by Unitarians, as greatly misrepresenting their sentiments, and containing many injurious aspersions on their character. A controversy ensued, Dr. Channing leading the way, in a letter addressed to |