The word " Unitarian" has always been repulsive to the evangelical Christian, being the synonym for a practical infidelity as to the word of God, and above all, for that which can never for one moment be condoned, a denial of the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. The name is still repellant even in these days of indifference and so-called liberal-mindedness, for men are not yet ready to cast off the forms of orthodoxy, although the substance may have largely slipped from their grasp.

As we look, however, about us, at the condition of things in professing Protestantism, the general trend of thought, the growing departure from the standards of truth once held dear, we cannot but see that Unitarianism in essence and in fact, if not in name, has triumphed over that which once held it in abhorrence. It may be well to look at a few details which justify this most serious statement.

First :The place occupied by the Scriptures. Unitarianism has always stood for a large liberalism as to the inspiration of the word of God, and the comparative value of the Bible in relation to other works of literature. It has been quite free to admit the literary excellence of the Bible ; that it is a priceless heritage of the best literature in poetry and historical narrative. But with this apparent recognition of the Bible's claims to literary merit, Unitarianism has refused it a place of eminence above all other literature. Of course, many differential statements have been made as to its superiority to one and another author ; but as a matter of fact, inspiration has been applied to Shakespeare and Goethe as well as to Isaiah and Paul.

What, let us ask, is the attitude of Protestantism at the present day to the word of God ? Do we not hear from the pulpit faint praise of the Bible, which could be uttered as readily by the Unitarian as by the professedly orthodox ? The word of God is no longer supreme. It is no longer unique. It no longer commands the reverence, the submission to " Thus saith the Scriptures," nor does it awaken in the hearts of most that "fear of the Lord" which is the "beginning of wisdom." Inspiration is not now, " Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" and "All Scripture . . . given by inspiration of God," is now modified so that it cannot offend the susceptibilities of the more liberal. Thus Unitarianism has triumphed as to its view of the inspiration of the word of God.

Second:The condition, salvation and prospects of man. Unitarianism has always contended that man had in him the elements of reformation, which needed only cultivation to develop a true ideal. It has denied the fall in any real sense; and as to the doctrines of total depravity, the helplessness of the sinner, and the eternal doom of a just retribution awaiting him-these have been ever repudiated. What is needed is simply for man to assert himself; to shake himself free from the grosser vices which mar the body socially; to become a kind father, a better husband, a good citizen; to cultivate a taste for literature, music and the arts, and thus to answer to the inward light which is in his own heart.

The " orthodox" pulpit of the day reiterates the same teaching. All the doctrines which teach the humiliating truths of man's guilt before God, his need of an atoning sacrifice, his helplessness to better himself, his need of new birth-are becoming more and more obsolete. They are either considered narrow and old-fashioned views, or else are more boldly repudiated. We need but read the titles of the sermons that are being preached, to see that good citizenship, civic righteousness, business morality and the cultivation of man, are now the themes which occupy the average pulpit. Here again, Unitarianism has triumphed.

Third:The Person of the Son of God. The name " Unitarian " is the opposite to "Trinitarian," and describes that belief which declares that God is but one Person; the Holy Spirit is therefore but an influence, and Jesus is but a man.

We speak of that which characterizes Unitarian-ism as a whole. Of course, there have been some who have shrunk from the bold statement that our Lord was a mere man; but as a whole, Unitarian-ism has stood for Christ being one like ourselves -an ideal man indeed, of exalted morality, of devotion to duty, of singular unselfishness and absolute purity of life, a model for imitation, and one whose teachings embody all that is best in the great work of the moral uplift of humanity. Rightly, all this has been considered but a fresh insult to the Lord of glory. To classify Him with fallen man, no matter how exalted in his personal character, has been to declare that He has inherited a nature like the rest of mankind. To deny the fall for these, has been but to degrade Christ to their level. To make Him a mere example, is but to declare that others can be like Him in the loftiness and the purity of His character and in the rectitude of His life.

Orthodox Christians have shrunk with horror from all this, and have branded it as blasphemy of the most terrible kind. To deny that "the Word was God," that "all things were made by Him," and that He who became flesh and dwelt among us in the lowliness of manhood, was also ever "God over all, blessed forever "-to deny these has been rightly considered as depriving one of any right to be called by the name of Christian.

But, alas, how is it now ? Unitarianism has triumphed here too, as in its doctrine of the Scriptures and the condition of man. The virgin-birth of the Son of God may be trifled with or even denied ; His Godhead is passed over so lightly as to be practically ignored or more openly refused. His humanity is so dwelt upon that His deity is lost sight of, and His character is so presented as the model for man's imitation, that its unique, spotless purity, its Godhead glory, are eclipsed, and we have Jesus as a man only before us. Here, then, is the triumph of Unitarianism as to the Person of Christ.

Fourth:The Atoning Sacrifice. Once we heard, with horror, the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus, the value of His precious blood, spoken of as "the religion of the shambles." Unitarianism, in denying the fall, consistently denied the need of a sacrificial Substitute for sin. If man was not the guilty and lost sinner that the word of God depicts him to be, he did not need an absolutely spotless sacrifice as His substitute. Conscience needed to be educated, to be emancipated from the low thought of a God of vengeance and of judgment and brought into the " sweetness and light" of the universal Fatherhood of an all-good, all-wise, all-loving Being.

To speak of being made nigh by the blood of Christ, of having boldness to enter into the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus, of the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleansing us from all sin, was to be held in the bonds of superstition. Peace with God on the ground of the atoning work of Christ, redemption, acceptance, a known present and eternal salvation through the finished work of Christ, all these belonged to the same category.

Is it possible that the orthodoxy of to-day finds nothing too shocking in such statements as these! That it can take up more or less boldly similar declarations and present self-culture, education, liberality of view, and the pressing on to higher ideals as a substitute for that which gave their fathers peace, which brought them into a relationship with God where they could call Him "Abba, Father," not as being part of a common humanity, but as those whose sins had been forgiven and as those who had received the Spirit of adoption unknown to the world ? Is conversion preached now? Are sinners warned to flee from the wrath to come ? Is the blood of Christ presented as the only hope for a lost and guilty man ? Is the Cross presented as the only shelter for a guilty world over whom judgment is hanging ? Without being unduly censorious or hopeless, must we not say that here, too, Unitarianism has triumphed and has robbed the professed people of God of the Cross and sacrifice of Christ ?

Fifth:The destiny of man. Unitarianism has always been practically identical with universalism, in that it has denied the certainty of divine retribution and the eternity of future punishment. Man makes his own hell and carries it in his bosom, it declares; an undeveloped character, an habituation to vice, bring their own consequences; but a God who would inflict punishment, who would pour out His wrath upon the ungodly, who would banish eternally from His presence the unclean and the unholy, is not the God whom Unitarians believe in. We need only compare the solemn warnings which once were heard in the preaching of the gospel with the studied silence as to future punishment, or the bold denial of it, to see that here, too, the leaven of Unitarianism has permeated into orthodox denominations.

We may thank God unfeignedly for every exception to the above sad facts. There are still multitudes of His own who abhor all this Unitarianism, and there are many faithful servants who still are determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. We thank God for these, and for all who maintain "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

One question presses. If the word of God declares that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," what shall we say of a system over which Unitarianism has triumphed ? Let God's beloved people take heed to the warnings which the word of God gives, and have no part in the dishonor done to our Lord Jesus, and refuse association with those who are but the enemies of the cross of Christ. S. R.