Examiner," since an objection to the chief doctrines of Orthodoxy could not be whispered safely." "I can remember the time, and I am not old, when, though Boston was full of Unitarian sentiment and feeling, there was NO OPEN PROFESSION OF IT." (Consequently all must have been concealed.) "A dead silence was maintained in the pulpit on doctrinal subjects; a silence which was not disturbed by the press." vol. iii. pp. 113, 114.

6

5. It should be added, that Unitarians, previous to 1815, not only did not avow their sentiments, they endeavored to keep up the impression that they were not Unitarians; that they did not differ materially from the Orthodox; and when the charge of Unitarianism was preferred against them, they resented it as a slander. In proof of these strong assertions, I appeal, first, to the publications of the Orthodox in those times. The editor of the History of American Unitarianism urges as a reason for making that publication," Many complaints have been made that the Boston clergy have been slanderously reported to be Unitarians. This pamphlet will show who are their slanderers,' if indeed they are entitled to this character, and exculpate some who have been falsely accused in this thing." p. 5. The conductors of the Panoplist represent it as "an artifice practised systematically," by Unitarian clergymen, "to inculcate the opinion that they did not differ materially from their clerical brethren through the country. This artifice has been carried so far as to induce them to complain in bitter terms, that they were slandered by our work, when represented as thus differing, and as promoting the circulation of Socinian books."* "They have complained that they were not invited to preach, when travelling through the country, and have imputed this neglect to the effect of slander." vol. xi. p. 242.

The Vermont Adviser too says, that when "the clergy of Boston have" been represented "as having departed widely from the true doctrines of the Gospel, and verged far towards Socinianism," such charges "have uniformly and boldly been pronounced the offspring of misrepresentation and calumny.' vol. vii. p. 228. The testimony of Dr. Miller is equally explicit. "Charges" of Unitarianism "were frequently made; but by most of the" Unitarians "repelled, as unkind and even slanderous. They appeared anxious to have it believed that they did not differ materially from the Orthodox around them." Letters, p. 242.

But in proof of the point now under consideration, I do not rely exclusively on the testimony of the Orthodox. The leading Unitarians of their time uniformly considered themselves as slandered, when charged with Unitarianism. In a review of Dr. Porter's convention sermon in 1810,† and referring to a previous review of *When the conductors of the Panoplist "charged the liberal party with having patronised and circulated the Improved Version" of the New Testiment," the charge was very angrily rebelled," vol. xii. 205. Dr. Porter of Roxbury.

66

the same in the Panoplist, they say, " among other flowers of rhetoric, we are charged with UNITARIANISM, misrepresentation, dishonesty, resemblance to the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, and enmity to every thing which constitutes the peculiar glory of our forefathers." Did not these gentlemen mean to be understood here, that they were as far from " Unitarianism," as they were from "misrepresentation, dishonesty, or a resemblance to the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees?" In other words, did they not mean to be understood that they were not Unitarians? In the same article they say, "on what authority they (the conductors of the Panoplist) imply that Dr. Porter is a Socinian, in any sense, we know not." "There is nothing in the great principle for which he contends which has the slightest reference to Unitarianism." "With regard to the numerous charges of latitudinarianism, Unitarianism, &c., Dr. Porter may reply in the eloquent language of Bishop Watson, 'What! shall the church of Christ never be freed from the narrow minded contentions of bigots; from the insults of men who know not what manner of spirit they are of?" It was then an "insult" to Dr. Porter, in 1810, to call him an Unitarian.

But I must hasten to a close. If any inquire, Why bring up these old affairs? They have passed out of mind-and why not let them rest, and be forgotten?" I answer, in the first place, that these things ought not to be forgotten. They are worthy to be recorded and transmitted to future generations, as a memorial of the manner in which not a few of the ancient churches of Massachusetts have been corrupted and undermined. But, in the second place, the facts here published are an instructive comment on the boasted tendencies of the Unitarian system. Much has been said and written in praise of this system, as tending to invigorate conscience, quicken our moral sensibilities, and lead to the purest practical results. With these results, or with a portion of them, the public have here the means of becoming acquainted. We have seen that Unitarianism, not only in this country, but wherever planted, has been, in a greater or less degree, (according as temptations have prevailed more or less) disguised and secreted from public view. Or as stated by Dr. Miller, " In all ages, from the time of Ebion to the present hour, where the mass of the surrounding population was Orthodox, Unitarians have manifested a disposition to conceal their sentiments, to equivocate, to evade, and even solemnly to deny them when questioned, and to disguise themselves under the garb of Orthodoxy, to a degree which no other sect calling itself Christian ever manifested. To what, I ask, is this fact to be asscribed? I leave it with you, Christian brethren, to solve the question. I will only say, that I can think of no possible reason for it, but such as must stamp the character of deep corruption upon the Unitarian cause." Letters, p. 245.

Another reason for this publication is, that individuals and churches may be on their guard against new impositions. By the controversy of 1815, Unitarianism, in some of its leading characteristics, was brought to light; and by dint of discussion since, farther disclosures have occasionally been made. We have been told that Christ is no more than a man; that the Scriptures are not the word of God; that the Sabbath is not of divine institution; that the Old Testament ought to be rejected; that it is doubtful whether there is any soul separate from the body; that there is no devil; and no eternal punishment for the wicked.* How much further this alledged reformation has in private proceeded, to be unfolded in due time, does not as yet appear. But if, with all the light that is now before the public, any are again duped and ensnared, it must be their own fault.

It would also be a sufficient reason, were there no other, for publishing the facts here stated, that they belong necessarily to my subject. I am writing "Letters on the Introduction and Progress of Unitarianism in New-England." I am endeavoring to exhibit the means by which the error was introduced and has prevailed among us. One of these means, and a principal one, was the concealment formerly practised by those who had embraced the doctrine. But to have asserted this concealment, without proving it, would have availed nothing. It was necessary that the evidence should be exhibited. Especially is this necessary, since, in the teeth of all evidence, the fact in question is pertinaciously denied. It was denied by Dr. Channing in his letter to Mr. Thatcher. It has since been denied, perhaps in all the Unitarian periodicals. "The charge," we are told, "is utterly false. There was NO SUCH CONCEALMENT. It has been denied, or declared never to have been proved, by Rev. Mr. Parkmant--the same gentleman who, in 1812, testified to the "cautious reserve" practised by Unitarians in Boston. While Unitarians persist in denying the charge of concealment, the proof of it ought certainly to be exhibited. And if they do not wish to see this proof repeated, with painful additions, and more widely circulated, then let them be willing to acknowledge the truth. INVESTIGATOR.

* I would not be understood to assert that all Unitarians have expressed these sentiments, or that all approve them; but they have been expressed by leading individuals, who are supported and applauded in the course they have taken.

Unitarian Advocate for April, 1828. In the Christian Register for April 18, 1829.

ON THE HOPE OF FUTURE REPENTANCE.

From the Letter of a Father to his Son.

I infer from your last, that, like most persons who have been religiously educated, you are not living altogether without hope; but the hope you express, instead of coniforting me on your behalf, has led to the most painful apprehensions. For what is your hope? Not that you are at present interested in the promises of life, but that hereafter you may be. Or, to adopt your own phrase, "I hope my heart is not fatally hardened, but that I shall yet come to repentance, and the enjoyment of religion."

66

You doubtless intended I should infer from this, as I do, that you believe religion an important reality,and yourself a sinner in need of its consolations; for if you did not believe as much as this, you would not hope to possess religion, or think of delaying it ; you would banish it from your thoughts at once and forever. But, my dear child, if religion is an important reality; then why delay it at all? For what can you be justified in delaying it? As has been well observed, "If religion is anything, it is everything." If it is of any importance, it is of the utmost importance. If it will ever deserve your most earnest attention, does it not deserve it now?

Besides, it should be remembered, that your conclusion to delay religion is a deliberate conclusion to persist in sin. If you purpose to delay religion another year, you thereby purpose, through another whole year, to be a rebel. You purpose to offend the God who made you, to resist the hand that supports you, to abuse mercies, pervert blessings, to tread under foot the Son of God, and grieve the Holy Spirit, and violate all the obligations under which Heaven has laid you-another year. Will your heart suffer you to form such a purpose? And yet you cannot conclude to delay religion without forming it.

But what is it that encourages you to form the mad conclusion to delay? Is it not this,-you believe that God is good, and will bear with you, if you do offend him? If you did not believe this, you certainly would not dare to offend. If you believed he would come out in wrath against you, and strike you dead for your next offence, you would tremble at the thought of ever sinning again. But is it right to take encouragement in sin, from the consideration that God is good? Can you consent to harden yourself in opposition to your heavenly Father by the very consideration which, more than any other, should melt you into gratitude and love?

But to come more directly to your hope, in the terms in which you have expressed it." You hope your heart is not fatally hardened, but that you shall yet come to repentance." Now what is it, my child, to come to repentance? What is it to repent of a

It is to

course of sin? It is doubtless to be heartily sorry for it. hate and detest it. It is to mourn, and lament, and be in bitterness, on account of it. Your hope, therefore, comes to this ;-you are doing that now, and choose to do it, which you hope you shall be heartily sorry for at some future day! You are loving, pursuing, and persisting in a course, for which you hope you shall mourn, and lament, and be bathed in tears of sorrow, before you die! Just look at this, my son, and tell me, if a hope so strange, so preposterous, was ever deliberately indulged in regard to any other subject. What would you think of a person, who was pursuing a particular kind of business, and for the present was resolved to pursue it, which he really hoped he should be sorry and distressed for, before he left the world? Or what would you think of the traveller, who was pursuing a path, and for the present was determined to pursue it, which he knew was leading him directly out of his way, and every foot of which he hoped he should at some future time be obliged to retrace with penitence and tears? Would you not think such a traveller beside himself? And yet, what is your hope more consistent than his ?

But on what, my dear child, does your hope, your expectation of future repentance rest? What reason have you to expect that you shall ever be more ready, or more willing, to repent of your sins, than you are now? Do you flatter yourself that you shall hereafter be favored with more powerful means than you have at present? But what more powerful means can you have? God will give you no other Bible than that he has given you. He will send you no more awakening truths, no more exciting motives, no better Gospel, than that he has sent, and you statedly hear. And he has himself said that, if you will not be persuaded by this Gospel, you would not be persuaded, though one rose to you from the dead. Do you imagine, then, that your heart will be more tender, and that the same means will have a greater effect upon you at some future day? This seems to be implied in the hope you express, that your heart is not yet fatally hardened.' But if not fatally hardened, do you not know, my son, that, under abused privileges and resisted means, your heart is continually hardening? Do you not feel that your sensibilities are less easily excited, and that your soul is becoming stupid and callous? And have you not reason to know, persisting in your present course, that the same means which now affect you, and make you solemn, will shortly have this power over you no more?-You cannot expect, that while you delay, and do nothing but sin, the hold of sin upon your affections, the power of it in your heart, will be gradually weakened; for the opposite of this must be the inevitable result. Your habits of sin are constantly confirming ; the avenues to temptation are opening wider and wider; Satan is confining you more closely in his snare; and the foundation of