LETTERS ON THE INTRODUCTION AND PROGRESS OF DEAR SIR, My original purpose in these letters, though unavoidably delayed for several months, has not been forgotten. I propose now to resume the subject, and to finish what I have to offer, in as little time and space as circumstances will permit. When Unitarianism had gained footing among us, in the manner already pointed out, its growth and prevalence were greatly promoted by concealment. It is obvious that concealment, if successfully practised, must have essentially aided the progress of Unitarianism; as by this means excitement would be prevented, suspicion avoided, and the deluded churches would receive those as pastors, and ministers (in their ignorance) embrace those as brethren, whom otherwise they would have rejected. The poison would in this way be taken without alarm, and the infection spread through the religious community, before apprehension should be excited, or the friends of truth were apprised of their danger. That such would be the tendency and effects of concealment, is too obvious to need explanation. In what follows, therefore, I shall produce the evidence that this tendency was duly appreciated by the early Unitarians of Massachusetts, and that, until the controversy in 1815, a studied, and, to some extent, a successful concealment was practised. It should be observed, however, that in this respect the Unitarians of Massachusetts have not been singular. It is mentioned by one apostle as a characteristic trait of damnable heresies,' that they shall be brought in 'privily' (2 Pet. ii. 1.); and by another, that those who deny the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,' are wont to creep in unawares.' (Jude 4.) Unitarianism, whatever may be its character in other respects, will be found uniformly to have borne these marks of error. Wherever introduced, it has been brought in 'privily '—has 'crept in una wares.' In this manner it was introduced and propagated by the ancient Unitarians. Irenæus describes them as "using alluring discourses in public, because of the common Christians;" as "pretending to preach like us" (the Orthodox ;) and as complaining that, though their doctrine be the same as ours, we abstain from their communion, and call them heretics." But he adds, "When they (Unitarians) have seduced any from the faith by their disputes, and made them willing to comply with them, then they begin to open their mysteries." * When Paul of Samosata, a Unitarian of the third century, was "charged with holding certain opinions which he had preached, he solemnly denied the charge, nay, denied it on oath. Yet, in a little while, he preached the same doctrines again, and was again charged, and again found to deny and equivocate;" until, at length, his true character was exposed, and he was excluded from the sacred office.* Arius, the father of the Arians, a short time before his death, was summoned to the Imperial palace, and asked whether he agreed to the Nicene faith. He without hesitation answered in the affirmative. The creed was then offered him, which he readily subscribed; and when, to remove all doubt, the emperor required him to swear that he believed as he had written, he solemnly swore that he did. At the time of this oath, (as Socrates, a cotemporary historian, intimates,†) Arius had concealed under one of his arms a paper, on which he had just written his real sentiments; and the meaning of the oath, according to his intention, was, that he believed as he had written on this secreted paper !! The elder Socinus, after his settlement at Zurich, "adopted the Helvetic confession of faith, and professed himself a member of the church of Switzerland." He was "artful in concealing. his wayward opinions," broaching them sometimes "under the form of questions to be discussed," and sometimes in private letters to those "whose judgement he respected, and in whose friendship he could confide." His nephew, Faustus Socinus, who inherited his papers, and propagated the system which he had matured, resorted to the most unworthy arts (if historians are to * See Miller's Letters on Unitarianism, pp. 238, 239. be believed) in order "to conceal, or to varnish over, the most offensive features of his system. The German Unitarians, in the beginning of their career, were careful to disguise and conceal their sentiments. Their publications were, for the most part, "equivocal and deceitful." "In various instances," we are told, "it was not only difficult, but absolutely impossible, fairly to unmask the author, and to convict him of unchristian sentiments; so well he knew how to hide himself under a show of piety and orthodoxy."+ And Unitarianism in England, boldly as it is maintained at present, was by many, for a long time, studiously concealed. Whiston, speaking of himself and Emlyn in 1724, says, "We have had some few, and but a very few followers here; while almost all those who are privately of our judgement, temporize, or prevaricate, or use political management, to avoid persecution, or the loss of preferment." Dr. Clarke strangely equivocated, when his work on the Trinity was brought before Convocation; and whether he was more properly a Trinitarian, Unitarian, or neither, is to this day uncertain. Messrs. Peirce and Hallet, the first promoters of Arianism among the English Dissenters, long after suspicions were excited against them, denied expressly that they were Arians or had "taught anything like Arianism." It is said of the early English Unitarians generally, in the History of Dissenters, that their opinions were " cautiously concealed;" and Dr. Priestley is spoken of as among the first, who, "scorning the crafty concealment and cunning equivocation of his predecessors, frankly told the world his creed." Dr. Priestley himself “declared that there were great numbers in England, even among the clergy, who, while they privately held Unitarian opinions, did not scruple, in public, to countenance a mode of worship which they would not deny to be, according to their own principles, idolatrous and blasphemous."**- -And Mr. Belsham avers, that "there are thousands" of Unitarians in England, who "are deterred by secular considerations, and the harsh spirit of the times, from avowing their real principles."++ It will be seen in what follows, that American Unitarianism has proved itself a shoot of the old stock, and that the same concealment which, at different periods, has been practised so successfully on the other continent, has been attempted and practised here. 1. In the first place, a variety of facts may be mentioned, indicating the existence of such a practice. It was this, undoubtedly, * Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 469. Waterman's Life of Calvin, p. 61. Miller's Letters, p. 240. + Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. iii. p. 58. § See Biographia Brittanica, vol. iii. p. 602. See Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. ii. p. 587. ** Miller's Letters, p. 241. Memoirs, vol. i. p. 312. ¶ ibid, pp. 671, 673. tt Review of Wilberforce, p. 227. which occasioned the violent opposition to public formularies of faith, which commenced here more than thirty years ago. This opposition was disguised under a show of zeal for religious freedom, and for what were called the first principles of Protestantism; but the true ground of it, undeniably, was the character of the existing confessions, and the wish to propagate an opposing system without discovery or alarm. "The In pursuance of the same policy, an opposition was early excited against the examination of candidates for the Gospel ministry. Nothing surely can be more reasonable in itself than that candidates for the sacred office should be examined, as to their fitness for the great work on which they propose to enter. Even the teacher of a common school must be examined, before he can lawfully instruct our children in the first rudiments of knowledge; and is it of less importance that the views and qualifications of those should be ascertained, who are to enter the sacred desk, and be recognized as "stewards of the mysteries of God"? fathers of New England," says Dr. Trumbull, " "were exceedingly strict with respect to those whom they ordained, examining them, not only in doctrinal points of theology, with respect to cases of conscience, and their ability to defend Christianity and its doctrines, but with respect to their own experimental and heart religion."* But near the commencement of the existing defection, the minds of many underwent a change on this subject, and in their zeal for religious freedom and the rights of conscience, the ancient examinations were denounced, 66 as a destructive evil." It was foreseen, as it must have been, that in the ordinary course of examining candidates, Unitarians would certainly be ensnared and detected, and that when detected, they would not be ordained. If Unitarianism, in its early stages, was not intentionally concealed, why did not those who embraced it assume the name which is now so dear to them? That this was not to any considerable extent done, is matter of unquestionable notoriety. There were Arminians, in distinction from Calvinists; and there were those calling themselves liberal or catholic Christians, who believed that every thing essential to the Christian faith might be comprehended in one bright line, Jesus is the Christ,'"—in 'distinction from others who held to the primitive faith of the New England churches; but, previous to the controversy in 1815, there were few, if any, acknowledged Unitarians. The name was unappropriated and almost unknown. It was sometimes charged upon the liberal party by the Orthodox, but the charge was resisted as false and slanderous. But why such an extreme aversion to "Hist. of Connecticut, vol. i. this name? It is a cherished, boasted name now; why such a dread of it in former years? 66 Again; if Unitarianism for a time was not studiously concealed, why was it not fully and plainly preached? Why did not ministers inform their hearers that they disbelieved the Divinity and atonement of Christ, and had embraced a different system of religion from that which their fathers had inculcated? That the peculiarities of Unitarianism were not preached, previous to the controversy in 1815, is on all hands admitted." "We seldom or never introduce the Trinitarian controversy into our pulpits." "We have never entered into discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity."* They touched not disputed doctrines." But why were not Unitarian doctrines preached before 1815, as well as since? If these doctrines are true now, they were then. If they are important now, they were then. If they are denied and assailed now, so were they then. If they now constitute a part of that "counsel of God," the whole of which every minister is bound to declare to his people; so did they then. What reason shall be assigned, therefore, for the reserve formerly manifested in respect to these doctrines, except that they were then new and unpopular, their abettors were afraid to preach them, and chose not to hazard their places and influence by disclosing their views.‡ If Unitarianisin was not concealed, up to the time specified in these remarks, why was it not openly inculcated and defended from the press? The press was indeed enlisted, strongly enlisted, for its inculcation and defence, but not in a way which made any particular individual responsible. Foreign Unitarian works were republished and industriously circulated; but no one was known in the transaction except the bookseller, and with him it passed before the public as a matter of enterprise and speculation. Unitarianism, too, was sometimes advocated in periodicals; but the articles in support of it were uniformly anonymous, and the authors of them were generally unknown. It is, then, a fact, that, up to the time of the controversy in 1815, Unitarianism, in this country, was not openly inculcated from the press. Up to that time, not one of those who constituted the bone and muscle of the Unitarian party in Massachusetts ever appeared before the public, under his own proper name, in its defence. For this * See Channing's Letter to Thatcher, pp. 13-16. Unitarian Advocate for April, 1828. In the Vermont Adviser for 1815, we are told of "a preacher of the Boston school settled in that part of the country. Respecting his opinions," says the Editor, "there was formerly no little controversy, and whether his congregation hare, to this day, found out what his sentiments are, we are by no means sure. It was staunchly contended by him that he was not bound to disclose his principles, and that all the profession of faith which be ought to be required to make was, that he believed the truth of the Christian religion. We have very satisfactory evidence that, in his endeavors at disguising his tenets, he has on some occasions been guilty, if of nothing worse, of pretty gross equivacation." vol. vii. p. 240. |