forty years, over one million and a half of dollars; to the "Cooper Institute," endowed by one " Liberal Christian" to the amount of some three hundred and forty thousand dollars; to the Lawrence Scientific School, endowed by Hon. Abbott Lawrence, also a Unitarian, with a sum equal to one hundred thousand dollars; to the Lowell Lectures, that most excellent investment for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; or to many public institutions besides, associated with the names of Gore and Dane and Smith and Eliot and Thorndike and Lyman and Appleton and Lawrence and Grinnell and Graham and Munson and Perkins and Lowe and Brooks. We believe that the large benevolence associated with the names of these more conspicuous enterprises and men is largely imitated in less signal connections. There is scarcely a benevolent enterprise of any description, in any place where our faith is prevalent, which would not be seriously crippled were aid from its adherents withdrawn or withheld. Perhaps no better proof of the prominence of Unitarians in all benevolent enterprises could be offered, than that given by a glance over the list of officers of benevolent societies in Boston. Looking over a list of such which was published in 1848, without the slightest reference to such a conclusion, we find that, out of twenty-six charitable institutions of Boston, not connected with sectarian objects, fourteen, and possibly fifteen, have the office of their President filled by a Unitarian. There are not more than two or three, at the most, which do not count among their other officers those of "the sect everywhere spoken against," - sometimes"spoken against" because of its supposed bad tendencies practically upon the community. The number of eminent men, public characters, writers, and others, who have adopted our views, hasalso an indirect bearing on our subject. Among those who have held high offices under our government, are three Presidents (including Mr. Fillmore), Christopher Gore, Commissioner under Jay's Treaty, Samuel Dexter, Secretary of the Treasury, appointed in 1800, Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, and Messrs. Wheaton, Everett, Bancroft, and Lawrence, who have represented our country abroad. The late Chief Justices Parsons and Parker of Massachusetts, and Eddy of Rhode Island, and VOL. LVI. 4TH S. VOL. XXI. NO. III. 36 Judges Story and Wayne, of the United States Supreme Court, were Unitarians. Chief Justice Cranch, of the United States Circuit Court, and Judge Curtis of the United States Supreme Court, are also of our faith; and the same is true of Judges Parker and Jeremiah Smith of New Hampshire, and of Judge Gilchrist of the same State. The two Senators of Massachusetts in our national Congress are Unitarians, and so were their immediate predecessors. The office of Governor of Massachusetts, for the last thirty-eight years, has been held by Unitarians twenty-seven years. Of the thirteen judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Common Pleas of Massachusetts, seven are Unitarians. Among the eminent writers (omitting the large number of clergymen of our faith who have distinguished themselves as theological writers) may be mentioned, in the department of history and biography, Belknap, Tudor, Prescott, Bancroft, Sparks, Quincy, F. Parkman; in jurisprudence and politics, Fisher Ames, Webster, Sullivan, Nathan Dane, Judge Story, John Q. Adams; in poetry, Bryant, Longfellow, Sprague, Pierpont, Lowell, Tuckerman; in science, Bowditch, Dr. Prince of Salem, Pierce, Farrar; in elegant literature and criticism, Ticknor, the Everetts, William Ware, Prof. Bowen, George W. Curtis, Hillard, and most of the leading writers in the North American Review since its commencement. To this enumeration may be added various female writers, such as Miss Sedgwick, Mrs. Follen, Mrs. Child, Mrs. Butler, Mrs. T. Lee, Mrs. G. Lee, Mrs. Gilman, Mrs. Kirkland, etc.* The weak point in the benevolence of Liberal Christians undoubtedly is, that they have not given (compared with other religious bodies) so liberally towards objects distinctively religious, as they have towards other objects. It must be granted that there is some reason for this charge, and yet we suspect that, if all the sums given to importunity in aid of religious objects not exclusively Unitarian were added to those which many of our brethren contribute from time to time towards the build *We would here acknowledge our obligations, for several facts, to an excellent article on "Unitarianism in the United States," by Rev. F. A. Farley, which makes a part of the volume entitled "Unitarianism exhibited in its Actual Condition," edited by Rev. J. R. Beard, and published in London in 1846. ing of distant churches, the deficit would be very much less than it appears. The want of interest which our body has shown in the two fields of religious effort occupied by our theological school at Cambridge and the Unitarian Association, is much to be deplored. A Liberal Christian, who thinks of the field already ripe for the harvest, which nothing but denominational supineness, excusing itself oftentimes on the poor plea of dread of sectarianism, has prevented us from reaping, -cannot but wonder that these organizations have been so often allowed to languish on this account; yet the whole truth should be stated. Neither the Unitarian Association nor our theological schools have been fostered as they should have been. Still, the one has received from Unitarians, since 1825, $ 202,314, or an average of over $7,000 annually, enabling it to employ 212 missionaries, and to print 20,000,000 pages of tracts; and one of the schools has been aided to the amount of $90,000 or $100,000; the Meadville theological institution receiving about $40,000 in addition. The general view of the bearing of all these instru mentalities, influences, and facts on our condition and prospects as a religious body, does not authorize the disparagement with which the power and influence of Unitarianism are sometimes spoken of, neither is it discouraging. As regards this latter point, nothing is more apparent than the tone of increased confidence prevalent at this time in our ranks. It contrasts very much with that which was manifested only two or three years ago. Our outward condition on the whole justifies it. Our churches in Boston, though much affected by the removal of parishioners into the country, and diminished in number by the loss of one church edifice, under the operation of somewhat similar circumstances which have caused to our Orthodox brethren the loss within a few years of three of theirs, are, with scarcely a single exception, in a more prosperous state than they have been for a long time; and the same is true, we believe, almost universally, of the churches throughout New England. In distant places our cause is advancing. The societies at Chicago and Detroit, for some time languishing, bid fair to emulate those at Buffalo and Syracuse and St. Louis. In San Francisco the Unitarian society is quite promising. In the State of New York, all our societies, with scarcely an exception, are increasing largely. Within a very brief period two new societies have been established in the immediate vicinity of the city of New York; and since we commenced this article, we have heard of another having been gathered in Jersey City. Those already existing in New York and Brooklyn now number larger congregations, and exert a wider influence, than at any former time. These, and other facts of recent occurrence, are of an exceedingly encouraging nature. It may be, that, as an organized body, our progress may be slower than we hope. It may be, that the great truths which we value more than sectarian triumphs shall have their progress impeded by the absence of a right zeal, which is in no degree inconsistent with the genius of our liberal faith, and in which we have heretofore been too much wanting. We would fain, however, cherish a hope that this will not be the case, and we think we can find, in some of the recent tokens of new and increased interest, some foundation for that hope. On two points we feel very confident, and think they could be established by facts. One is, that opposition and impediment from Orthodox quarters is one of the smallest of the obstacles now existing to our progress. Orthodoxy has enough to do to hold its own, without concerning itself with our movements. Its attitude is defensive, not aggressive; - not so aggressive, by far, as it was when it was resolved, some years ago, that an Orthodox church should be built in every village where there was a Unitarian one. We apprehend that, take our towns and villages through the country, our ministers find a very different state of things in this regard from that which existed some ten or fifteen years ago. We suspect the time has gone by, when, even during great revivals, anxious reference shall be needful to possibilities such as were wont to trouble now and then our more sensitive ministers. Though Orthodoxy is far from having lost its efficiency, yet it keeps very much within its own intrenchments; and so gives us a fairer field than we have ever had before. God save us from being slothful husbandmen! The other point upon which we feel great confidence, justified also by facts familiar to most, is, that our religious system has great advantages because of its re - as markable power of adaptation to different minds. It owes this peculiarity not to its believing too little, some pretend, but to the fact that a large body of belief necessarily covers more space than a small one, and has more points of contact. Thus in some of our parishes it is administered under forms to which few Orthodox men of the liberal school would object, while in other churches still, those who dislike even a leaning in the use of technical terms towards Orthodoxy, and who are pleased only with preachers who share this feeling, are edified and content. Other ministers, most of them following mainly the bent of temperament and judgment in this matter, present Christianity under aspects not opposed to the prevalent tone of conservatism in their parishes, while others still draw around them congregations ultra and radical in their views; and all this happens, not because there is necessarily a reference that is cowardly or having an eye to popularity, but because, besides recognizing individual personal peculiarity, our system of faith itself is large and many-sided. No religious system presents truth under so many different phases as does ours, and, further, no denomination numbers among its adherents so many persons of different minds. It would be difficult to say what is the peculiar type of intellect, or temperament, or character, with which Unitarianism, we mean as a broad, liberal, generous system, most harmonizes. Of Calvinism the reverse is true. A Calvinistic congregation, whether found in conservative Massachusetts or in the Western Reserve of Ohio, in Paris or Boston, in Glasgow or New York, seems to be made up of very much the same people. The type, the mould, is the same. It is not thus with the congregations of our faith, even where they are of long standing. In societies of more recent origin, especially out of New England, the opposite peculiarity is very observable. A member of an old, established Unitarian church in Massachusetts would be very much amazed at the diversity of training, opinion, sect, and generally of nation, represented in any one of our societies in the State of New York, to say nothing of the congregations farther west and south. Trinitarianism has nowhere so wide a sweep. No denominational body offers so broad a |