Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

LETTERS ON THE INTRODUCTION AND PROGRESS OF

UNITARIANISM IN NEW ENGLAND.-No. VII.

DEAR SIR,

In my last, I was led to speak of the concealment formerly practised by the Unitarians of Massachusetts, as one of the means resorted to, to facilitate the propagation of their sentiments. The error crept in secretly among us, and the churches were corrupted unawares. I shall now call your attention to another circumstance, connected with the progress of Unitarianism in this region.

Those who have watched the measures and the publications of Unitarians cannot but have observed a want of consistency in them -a disposition to write and act according to present circumstances and feelings, without much regard to what may have been previously said or done. If this course has been adopted unconsciously, I can only say that it betrays a surprising lack of system, and of discernment, in those who have fallen into it. Or if it has been adopted with design, with a view to make the most of circumstances, and to be able to turn one way or the other, according as (at the time) should be thought convenient, it betrays a want of principle and integrity, for which artifice and management can make no amends. Or if those who have adopted the course described have been compelled to do it, in order to sustain a cause, to which they were cominitted, and which they were unwilling to abandon, still, the inference is scarcely more in their favor. The fact, that gross inconsistencies have been very common, in the measures and in the publications of Unitarians, is undeniable. In proof of this, I must be permitted to call your attention to a variety of particu

[blocks in formation]

lars. And if the statements about to be made shall have an unfavorable bearing upon some individuals, the fault will not be mine. I shall endeavor to use acceptable words,' give a true account, and quote their publications as I find them.

There was a time, as you may well remember, when Unitarians were the avowed enemies of Foreign Missions. They disbeliev ed, they pitied, they derided and opposed. But as the cause of missions rose in importance and in public favor, and events took place out of which something might, perhaps, be gained—suddenly the tone was changed, and the former opposers of missions became their warm advocates and friends. More recent events seen again to have chilled this ardor, and voluntary associations for Evangelical purposes have become the objects of suspicion and alarm.

The time, too, is within your recollection, when Unitarians were opposed to Sabbath Schools. So strong was this opposition in Boston, that an attempt was once made to prevent the schools from assembling in the public school rooms of the city. But as Sabbath Schools continued to prosper, and children flocked to them, and it was found that they would rise and be successful, in spite of opposition, the opposition quickly ceased, and Unitarians became apparently as zealous in promoting Sabbath Schools, as they before had been in endeavoring to crush them.

Unitarians have ordinarily opposed religious meetings during the week, and especially meetings in the evening. One of their ministers, only a few years ago, published a sermon on the fourth commandment, the design of which was to show, that men are imperatively required to labor the whole of six days, and that it is as much a violation of the law of God to hold a religious meeting during the week, as to perform ordinary business on the Sabbath. But wherever meetings during the week, or in the evening, become frequent and popular, these scruples, it is observed, are easily dispensed with, and Unitarians can have their extra services and evening lectures, as well as others.

* See Christian Examiner, vol. i. p. 182.

At the instance of a Clergyman of this city, (who professes to belong to no party, but whose influence is uniformly exerted on the side of Unitarians,) an order passed in the School Committee of Boston, Dec. 1821, by which the school houses were closed against the Sabbath Schools. A very earnest appeal was immediately made to the School Committee on the subject, and in the Jan. following the obnoxious order was rescinded. Shortly after this, Sabbath Schools were, I believe, commenced in connexion with some of the Unitarian Societies.

This extraordinary sermon was from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Bancroft, of Worcester. In the course of it he says, "The duty of stated employment extends to every portion of the six days. We may not, therefore, suspend our weekly business under the pretence of attention to religious exercises not enjoined. In these cases, the question ever occurs, Who hath required this at your hands? The direction is as imperative to work six days, as it is to rest on the seventh. As we may not carry the labors of the week into the Sabbath, so we may not carry the rest of the Sabbath into the week" p. 12.-From the foregoing extract, it appears, that at the time of its publication, Unitarians in general had not discov ered (what they now believe-see Christian Examiner for Sept. 1829) that the fourth commandment is not obligatory at all, and that the Christian Sabbath is not of divine insti tion.

Much reproach has been cast upon the Orthodox, on account of their holding meetings and promoting divisions (as it is said) in Unitarian parishes. This is a favorite theme of declamation at the present time, by which an odium is expected to be excited. But strange as it may seem, Unitarians are frequently intruding into the parishes of the Orthodox, and holding meetings, and endeavoring to gain proselytes. Unitarian minorities are also exhorted to separate themselves from the parishes of the Orthodox ;* and separations of this nature have, in several instances, occurred.

If we turn now from the measures of Unitarians, to consult their publications, which is more especially the object which I have in view, the same inconsistencies will be observed.

It is sometimes alleged, that the Orthodox have fallen into great errors, and are fostering and spreading a horrible corruption. of Christianity. But in other connexions, these appalling errors suddenly vanish, and those who retain them are regarded as differing very little, if at all, from their Unitarian brethren.-In 1815, a pamphlet was published by a noted "Layman" of Boston, entitled, "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ?" implying that a Calvinist is not a Christian. In this work, the views adopted by Calvinists are represented as "most false and pernicious," "hurtful to general morality, opposed to the true character of God, tending to produce intolerable spiritual pride and bigotry in one class, often the least worthy, and causeless anxiety and tormenting oppression in another." p. 57. But within only a few pages of this representation, Unitarians are spoken of as the "NATURAL ALLIES" of these Calvinists; "allies, who ... ... have no other end in view than union and harmony in the Christian church." p. 60.

Unitarians have declared, that they regard the system of the Orthodox as being, in its essential principles and tendency, opposite to the true spirit of the gospel ; "and" that, if the influence of its peculiar doctrines, by themselves, should be fully imbibed, and permitted to operate uncontrolled, it would turn the fruits of the gospel into wormwood." They have declared that "transubstantiation is a less monstrous doctrine, than the five points of Calvin ;" and that the Orthodox make "representations of God, which every generous and honorable man in the community would shudder to have applied to himself." But again they tell us that the two parties" may really AGREE in all that is of essential importance to religion and to salvation ;" and that the difference be

* See a long article on this subject in the Christian Register for July 23 and 30, 1825, in which various reasons are urged to show, that Unitarians, residing in Orthodox parishes, ought to separate, and support public worship by themselves.

+ Hurlbut's Presumptive Arguments, p. 6

Unitarian's Answer, p. 8.

Christ. Examiner, vol. iii. p. 76.

tween them "seems a question of arithmetic, rather than of true theology.""If we differ in one particular, we unite in a hundred. If our speculative metaphysics are at war, our practical morality, our evangelical spirit, may meet together and embrace each other. In all the great topics of Christian exhortation, we are alike."*

The late Rev. S. C. Thacher, in an article ascribed to him by his biographer, charges the Orthodox with "attempting to revive the exploded absurdities of the dark ages." But in a sermon, written at a later period, he declares that "the differences between us and our fellow Christians" (referring directly to the Orthodox) are chiefly rebl.”‡

The Unitarian Advocate, speaking of the controversy in this region, says, "It is a great controversy. It is not about the minor forms and features of religion. It is not about a church government or ritual. It is, in fact, about the very nature of morality and piety." "The great questions at issue are these, What is the true character, the real moral perfection of God; and what is the system of religious sentiments that truly illustrates his character and perfection? What is it to be a good man, and a Christian? What constitutes the true preparation of a moral being for happiness and God's favor, here and hereafter?" Vol. ii. pp. 229, 230. These questions are properly stated, and certainly they are radical questions, going to the foundation of all religion. But this same periodical, when apologizing for the concealment formerly practised by Unitarians, says, "Unitarians generally did not think those points of doctrine on which different opinions were entertained among Christians the essential principles of religion, those which men ought to be instructed in, for the sake of their salvation. They believed that a Trinitarian held all the vital truths, notwithstanding his errors." Vol. i. p. 190.

The inconsistency here pointed out, runs through most of the publications of American Unitarians. In nearly all their controversial writings, you will find the differences between them and the Orthodox represented, sometimes as very great, and at others very small; sometimes the Orthodox are charged with holding the most pernicious errors, and then again their errors dwindle almost to nothing, amounting to but little more than an exceptionable phraseology. This species of self-contradiction is very manifest in the writings of Dr. Channing. In his controversy with the late Dr. Worcester, he represents Trinitarians as holding "some of the grossest errors." Of Calvinism he says, that he considers it "as one of the most injurious errors that ever darkened the Christian world." He speaks of it as a "heart-chilling doctrine,” “a

* Gilman's Sermon on the Introduction to John's Gospel. pp. 18, 20.

Defence of his Review respecting the Andover Theo. Seminary, in Anthology, vol. vi. p. 205. Sermons, p. 288. Remarks on Dr. Worcester's second Letter, p. 25. Letter to Thacher, p. 14.

dreadful corruption of true Christianity."* "Did I believe," says he, "what Trinitarianism teaches, that not the least transgression could be remitted without an infinite expiation, I should feel myself living under a legislation unspeakably dreadful; under laws written, like Draco's, in blood.” Unitarians "look with horror and grief on the views of God's government, which are materially united with Trinitarianism."+-Let us now compare these representations with some others made by the same writer. "The differences between Trinitarians and Unitarians are very often verbal.” "Ought distinctions so subtle and perplexing to separate those who love the same divine character, and respect the same divine will?" "I have stated once and again that the differences between Unitarians and Trinitarians lie more in sounds than in ideas; that a barbarous phraseology is the chief wall of partition between these classes of Christians; and that, would Trinitarians tell us what they mean, their system would generally be found little else than a mystical form of the Unitarian doctrine. These two classes of Christians appear to me to concur in receiving the most interesting and practical truths of the gospel. Both believe in one God of infinite perfection; and we must remember that it is this perfection of God, and not his unknown substance, which is the proper object of the Christian's love. Both believe in the great doctrine, that eternal life is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. Both learn from the lips and life of Jesus the same great principles of duty, the same exalted views of human perfection, and the same path to immortality. I could easily extend these points of agreement." "Trinitarians are apt to think themselves at an immeasurable distance from Unitarians. The reason, I think, is, that they are surrounded with a mist of obscure phraseology. Were this mist dispersed, I believe that they would be surprised at discovering their proximity to the quarter of the Unitarians, and would learn that they had been wasting their hostility on a band of friends and brothers."||

Before leaving Dr. Channing, I must be allowed to hint at another of his inconsistencies. He sometimes represents Unitarians as very far from being confident of the correctness of their religious views. "Let us beware," says he, "lest opposition and reproach lead any of us into a sectarian attachment to our peculiar opinions." "Let us be..... willing to believe that we, as well as others, may have been warped in cur opinions by education and situation, and that others may have acquired important truths, which, through weakness or prejudice, we may have overlooked." "We

* Remarks on Dr Worcester's first Letter, p. 34.

+ See Dedication Sermon at New York.

Remarks on Dr. Worcester's first Letter, p. 26.

Remarks on Dr Worcester's second Letter, pp. 22, 23: "Letter to Thatcer, p. 28.

« ElőzőTovább »