It need scarcely be said that. the systematic theology of the early Socinians is in this country quite a thin4: of the past; indeed, the English Unitarians, though undoubtedly mote or less hammed by their continental brethren of the reformation period, have with tIm latter no very direct historical connection. They seem rather to have arrived at in lependeut conclusions, through their '• rational " interpretation of Scripture, and their consistent rejection of hinnaa authority in matters of faith. The Unitarians of the present day, like almost all Christian sects, must be divided into two classes—a conservative and a progressive class—or, as they are often called, an old and a new school. The former adopt the old rule of the sufficiency of Scripture, though with m my such qualifications as the scientific criticism of the Bible has rendered indispen sable. The most conservative for example, would not contend For the literal truth of the first chaptar of Genesis, nor for the dectriee of verbal 'inspiration in any shape. The Bit is oaf, but it cnntia as. the Word of God. is the form which best expresses their position pn this subject. Tiny generally hold the simple humanity of Christ, and even reject the sapernatural birth, thinking the parts of the gospels which record that event to be less authentic than the parts referring to the ministry, the death, and resurrection of Jesus. To the death of Christ they ascribe much thq same kind of efficacy as we have seen was ascribed to it by the Socinians, regarding his teaching and example as the most essential part of his work, and his death as an attestation to the truth of his mission, and a preliminary to his resurrection. What, however, chiefly distinguishes the Unitarians of this school from those of the new or progressive school, is the place which they give to the miracles as supernatural sanctions of the truth of Christianity. In this respect they must be considered as still under the influence of Locke's philosophy and the theology of Dr. Priestley. Denying that man has any immediate knowledge. or intuition of spiritual things, they regard Christianity as a system of moral and religious truth external to man's nature, and requiring, in proof of its divine origin, certain evidence beyond its inher ent credibility and adaptation to human wants. This evidence they fiud in the miracles, which they accept as well-attested facts, on the same ground on which all historical facts are accepted. "If there be any truth in history," says Dr. Priestley, whose influence can still be traced in the Unitarians of this school, "Christ wrought unquestionable miracles, as a proof of his mission from God; he preached the great doctrine of the resurrection from the dead; he raised several persons from a state of death; and, what was more, he himself died and rose again in confirmation of his doc trine. The belief of these facts I call the belief of Christianity." According to this view, therefore, Christ is an ambassador from heaven to earth; the miracles he wrought are his credentials; and the moral and religious truths which he taught are his message. It is not indeed denied that many or all of those truths might be learned from the light of nature, but they have received from Christianity a sanction which gives them a greater degree of certainty than they could otherwise possess. The Unitarians of the progressive school, on the other hand, have abandoned the philosophy of Locke for more spiritual modes of thought. So far from regarding man as entirely dependent upon his reasoning powers for his knowledge of religion, they rather look upon him as standing in a living relationship with the one infinite source of all truth, and as having within his own nature the germs of the highest religious faith. Christianity, accord ingly, they regard not as a message or a system of truth communicated and authenticated from without, but as the highest expression of the divine in humanity—an expression not necessarily preternatural, but connected with the previous history of mankind by the natural laws of moral and spiritual development. To this view of Christianity, the
miracles are not felt to be essential as proofs; and the truths of the gospel are thought to be quite unaffected by any judgment regarding them. The Unitarians. however, of this school, while, from their point of view, they regard the question of the miraculous as one of critical rather than religious interest, yet generally accept the -miracles as historical facts, considering that there is sufficient evidence to prove that they took place. A few, but an increasing number, agree with Theodore Parker and many of the German critics in rejecting them, on the twofold ground that they are intrinsically incredible, and that the evidence for them is conflicting and uncertain. Generally speaking, the Unitarians of this school, like the so-called Broad-church men, are dis posed to regard with favor the freest criticism of the Bible. Holding that inspiration is a quality which is not peculiar to the Bible, but common to all the most elevated relig ious literature, and that it in no case implies immunity from error, they maintain that the Scriptures must be subjected to the same rules of criticism and interpretation as any other book, and that each book of Scripture is to be studied not as a collection of infallible oracles, but as a record of the mind of the age in which it was produced. In this light, however, and also as a record of the grandest religious movements of the world's history, they hold the Bible in the highest estimation. Such is a statement, necessarily imperfect, of the peculiarities of the two Unitarian schools in their extremest divergence from one another; it need scarcely be added that in fact they merge into each other by imperceptible gradations.
It will, of course, be understood that the Unitarians of all shades of opinion are agreed in rejecting the entire orthodox scheme—including the doctrines of the Trinity, the vicarious atonement, the deity of Christ, original sin, and everlasting punishment— as both unscriptural and irrational. They celebrate the Lord's supper in their churches, not as a sacrament, but as a service commemorative of Christ's death, and expressive of spiritual communion with him. They also adhere generally to the rite of infant bap tism, though there are a few Unitarian Baptist churches. In recent years, the Unitarians have given renewed prominence to the principles of comprehension and of free inquiry apart from the restraints of theological creeds, conceiving that in this they are conform ing to the spirit of their Presbyterian forefathers; and many even object to the name 1Juitarian, as one which might be held to imply a doctrinal bond of union, and to be, to that extent, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the body, which both now and n former times have always included unrestricted freedom of religious thought. It is impossible here to explain at greater length the Unitarian position; but it may be mentioned, as an important fact, that, when, at the meeting of the British and foreign Unitarian association in 1866, it was proposed to add to the rules a clause defining "Unitarian Christianity." the motion was almost unanimously rejected. The motion was intended as a protest against anti-supernaturalism. Its rejection, on the other hand, was an assertion of the principle of comprehension and freedom, and was voted for by those who sympathized doctrinally with the proposer, as well as by those who differed from him.—For fuller information on the history and doctrines of the Unitari4:.s, the reader may consult Dr. Beard's Unitarianism in its Actual Condition; the rev. J. J. Tayler's Religious Life of England; Otto Fock's Socinianismus; and Lange's Geschichts and Lehrbegriff' der Unitarier tor der Nicanischen Synode.