platform for multitudes, each individual retaining more or less of peculiarity, to meet upon, as does Unitarianism. On another point we are equally certain. No other sect can deal as ours can with the great social and reforma. tory questions of the time. Its principles of Biblical interpretation, its loose organization, the entire absence of consideration about "the interests of the denomination," in short, all the peculiarities which cripple its power as a sect, give it a great advantage here. If the great body of earnest men and women, about whose radical and disorganizing principles many are, not without reason in some cases, alarmed, are to be kept within the pale of Christian influence at all, we believe most firmly it will be by administrations which shall breathe the spirit of our distinctive faith as Liberal Christians. We believe, further, that if some of our conservative friends, who have the most to say of the radicalism and vagaries of certain brethren, knew of the service they are rendering in just this way, and to just such classes as those to whom reference has been made, - we believe our conservative friends would learn a new lesson, we will not say of charity, but of faith in the great, the various, the multiform work which Unitarianism is adapted to do, Unitarianism differing in some respects, it may be, from the type which it generally exhibits in Boston or New England.

III. We have left ourselves barely enough space to speak even briefly under the third and last head of our general subject, namely, the bearing upon our prospects of certain opinions and movements in other religious bodies. Looking at these, with reference had to the progress of ideas rather than to their influence upon the poor triumphs of sect, we can hardly exaggerate the importance of the three "signs of the times" of which we are about to speak.

The first important theological movement in point of time is that made by Dr. Bushnell in 1849, in his work entitled "God in Christ." A few very brief extracts will show its character.

In this able work Dr. Bushnell says of Trinitarians : "They are practically at work in their thoughts to choose between the three [i. e. Persons of the Deity]; sometimes actually and decidedly preferring one to another; doubting how to adjust their mind in worship;

uncertain often which of the three to obey; turning away, possibly, from one in a feeling of dread that might well be called aversion; devoting themselves to another, as the Romanist to his patron saint. . . . . The mind involved in a dismal confusion." It is not to be assumed from this extract that Dr. Bushnell is a Unitarian. He is rather what is styled a Sabellian, according to the explanation of the theory of Sabellius given by Schleiermacher. Still, it is very evident that, as the New York Evangelist remarks, "the doctrine of the Trinity as held by the Orthodox he wholly rejects."

From the Orthodox theory in respect to the Atonement he dissents. "He [the Saviour] is regarded, not as a power in the manner of the New Testament, but more as a paymaster; not as coming to bring us life and take us to his bosom, but, in literal dogmatic verity, to suffer God's displeasure in our stead, and so reconcile God to us. Taken as he stands, theologically represented, there is nothing given to us of Christ, which is closer to feeling, often, than that he fills out a judicial machinery, and is good as a legal tender for our sins." (p. 344.) His views in respect to the "subjective" nature of Christ's work are plainly expressed. "We declare a great and real truth when we say that the reconciliation of man to God is the sole object of Christ's mission." (p. 269.) Dr. Bushnell denies that the system of rites and sacrifices, which he styles "the altar form," had reference to expiation in the ordinary sense of the term. "The animal was simply despatched, as when slaughtered for the table." (p. 224.) "Sacrifices were not intended to serve as any direct exhibition of God's justice or judicial abhorrence of sin." (p. 198.) "The value of the sacrifice terminated principally in the power it had over the religious character, the impressions, exercises, aids, and principles which as a liturgy it wrought in the soul of the worshipper." (p. 225.) In other words, the objective or "altar-form" among the Jews was wholly subsidiary to the "subjective" culture of the heart. "We represent a work as done outwardly which is really done in us." (p. 254.) Very truly does the New York Evangelist remark: "His is not the objective Atonement of the Orthodox. It has nothing in common with it but the name. It is that of Unitarianism disguised under the semblance of Orthodoxy."

From the recent " Commemorative Discourse" preached by Dr. Bushnell, we gather that the church to which he ministers has fully sustained him in his struggle against the ecclesiastical action of different religious bodies, and that, having withdrawn from "the Consociation," it now occupies the position of an independent church. His congregation has never been so large, and we learn from other sources, that never before have his services as a lecturer and orator before literary and other institutions especially where young men are their supporters been so much in demand. Cambridge and Andover theological institutions have both invited him to address them.

We are reminded, also, while considering the subject of heresies among our Orthodox friends, of certain lamentations over the Divinity School at Cambridge, uttered by M. Grandpierre in the pages of "L'Espérance." Has he no tears for Andover? Can he have read the pamphlet (published in 1853) of Dr. Dana, than whom no Calvinistic divine possesses more influence, the object of which is to show that the school of the prophets has so fallen away from the faith of its founders, that it has become a nursery of heresy, "so that a minority only of its recent graduates uphold the doctrines of the cross," meaning by these the distinctive principles of the Andover creed?

"The Conflict of Ages," by Dr. Edward Beecher, is a third "sign of the times." The main interest of this work to Unitarian readers is in the forcible exposition of the irreconcilable controversy between what Orthodoxy teaches of total depravity and the instinctive sense of justice and right inherent in the soul of man. The au

thority of these sentiments, as tests of the truth of doctrines in respect to God, Dr. Beecher boldly vindicates. The Unitarians, though he thinks they do not make enough account of a sinful nature in man, "have been perfectly right in asserting this." "The existence of the

Unitarian body is a providential protest in favor of the great principles of honor and right." Their argument on this point "has a principle of vitality which cannot be destroyed."

The tone of respectful dissent which he uses towards what he deems the shades of error connected with the

Unitarian view, is in striking contrast with the absolute horror with which he speaks of the Orthodox system in all its phases alike. Of one "experience," perhaps that which is most common in the church to which he belongs, namely, where the Calvinistic view is held without any effort to frame a theory of explanation, he says: "The living under it is living under the eclipse of the glory of God." "Who can describe the gloom of him who looks on such a prospect? How dark to him appears the history of man!" Mercy now seems to be no mercy." The new-school theory of depravity he treats with as little respect as he does other explanations which have been broached. He asserts that " some of the best of men have ascribed to God in these theories acts more at war with the fundamental principles of equity and honor, than have ever been imagined or performed by the most unjust, depraved, and corrupt of created minds."

66

Bearing in mind that these are the theories of such men as St. Augustine and Calvin and Woods, and that they are taught professedly in the great majority of the theological schools and pulpits of the land, and that, moreover, the saving clause, the new theory which permits Dr. Beecher, as he thinks, to hold them, has never been received by these teachers, it is hard to conceive of language which should embody more of sweeping condemnation of Orthodoxy. The saving clause, the new theory which can alone reconcile Orthodoxy with right views of the Divine mercy and justice, is, in brief, the idea of human preëxistence and a former fall. If we can believe (Dr. Beecher says in effect) that our natures and capacities for goodness are here perverted and impaired because of previous voluntary transgression in a former state of being, and that we are placed here that we may have one further opportunity, one more chance of recovering what we have lost, and so attaining to salvation, then, though, on any other hypothesis, Calvinism is shocking, monstrous, we may accept its dogma without feeling that we blaspheme the Divine justice and goodness.

We do not propose to examine how far this theory meets the difficulties of the case. This has been already

done in the pages of this journal.

The bearing of this work on the question we are considering must be important. The first part of the book will have more influence than the last. Many will "skip the moral," and, taught of the difficulties besetting Calvinism, and confounding Christianity with that system, reject both. Many others, we trust, will perceive that a belief in preëxistence is not the only way of escape from the conclusions of Dr. Beecher; and be thus led to adopt that theory of human nature which we think has far more support in Scripture than has that which the author of the "Conflict of Ages" defends.

One cannot but be impressed by the earnestness which characterizes this attempt to solve a mighty problem. What entire confidence must he have in a favorite theory, who, having succeeded in undermining and knocking away almost all the supports of a large and venerable edifice, so that it seems to stand only by the sufferance of the demolisher, says to anxious observers, "Brethren, be not alarmed! I am only improving the old building. Wait a while and you will find that it will stand all the longer for having its foundations, stone by stone, removed. To those ancient walls, which crack so at every blow of my hammer, I am about to give a coat of varnish that shall fill up all the fissures there, which I and others have made, and lend to the dingy plaster such a bright and cheerful hue, that people who saw it some years ago, in its former ugliness, shall hardly recognize it as the same. Fear not! Be patient, and you will see that all the doubters who shall behold it will marvel at its increased solidity, as well as its rare and new symmetry and beauty!" That Orthodox observers share in the same confidence, so far as we may judge from the criticism of Orthodox journals, is quite doubtful.

We trust we shall not be thought to underrate the importance of the theme on which this writer expresses himself so ably as well as earnestly, if we use another illustration to convey our opinion of the effect of this publication upon our own prospects as a religious body. Dr. Beecher compares the system of Orthodoxy "to a steam-ship whose wheels play in opposite directions, so that she has no power to move ahead." We suspect some of his fellow-passengers will think that the condition of the ship is but a poor plea for his attempt to