A FRIENDLY LETTER

TO THE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.

TOUCHING

THEIR NEW UNITARIAN CREED OR GENERAL PROCLAMATION OF UNITARIAN VIEWS.

TO MESSRS REV. SAMUEL K. LOTHROP, D.D., REV. CALVIN LINCOLN, ISAIAH BANGS, ESQ., HON. ALBERT FEARING, REV. HENRY A. MILES, D.D., REV. GEORGE W. BRIGGS, AND REV. WILLIAM A. ALGER, LATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION."

GENTLEMEN :

At the recent meeting of the American Unitarian Association, on the 24th of last May, you submitted to that body a Report," containing certain matters which lead me to address you this friendly letter. As a life-member of long standing in the Association, I feel called on to do this. For while in virtue of my membership, I enjoy the privilege of receiving the "tracts," published from time to time, I am aware that I also owe certain duties consequent on my membership, and on the enjoyment of that privilege. And though the membership was conferred on me without any action of my own, still I must look upon it in the nature of a trust, as well as a benefit, and must discharge the duties it involves. It is, therefore, in my capacity as a life-member of the American Unitarian Association, that I write you this letter, though I confess I feel that I owe likewise a duty to some Unitarian ministers younger than myself, and to the public at large, which I think I cannot accomplish without writing you this letter.

In "The Twenty-eighth Report of the American Unitarian Association," you say the tracts of the Association "are carried to the remotest and least inhabited portions of our broad land, and are read with avidity by the pioneer in our country's civilization;" and add, that "in many portions of our country, the inquiry, 'What is truth?' has lost none of its significance, and cannot be slighted, if we would be faithful to the cause of our Master." Still further you ask, "Is not one of the pressing wants in all new societies, that of well-considered and clearly-defined opinions, as to what the New Testament teaches, and what it requires?"

From these and other statements I infer that you desire to make known, widely and rapidly, the peculiar doctrines of religion which you hold dear. hold dear. You say,

"During the year we have been encouraged in our work by witnessing in different sections of our body a deep-felt desire for a closer alliance among those holding our common faith, a more intimate union of our churches, a convention of their moral forces in accomplishing appropriate Christian objects." (Report, p. 12.)

I rejoice with you in this encouraging aspect of things, and share that desire.

You add, moreover, that a clergyman from one of the Western States assured you

"That there were large numbers earnestly desiring a church organization which would secure mental independence, and waiting to hear the Gospel interpreted more in harmony with the instructions of enlightened reason, and the clearest dictates of our moral nature." (p. 13.)

You express a desire, "not only to enter upon, but largely to occupy this field of labour,"-that is, if I understand your language correctly, you wish to establish church organizations, which will "secure mental independence," and furnish a form of religion that is perfectly in harmony with the instructions of enlightened reason, and the clearest dictates of man's moral nature. You declare that

"Long-established formulas have, to no small extent, ceased to express the results of individual experience, and have lost much of their power over the common mind." (p. 13.)

After stating that the receipts of money for the purposes of the denomination "fail to indicate the required fidelity to our trust, as stewards of divine mercies in Jesus Christ," you "ask attention to the present attitude of our body, the difficulties with which it struggles, and the special duties incumbent upon it." You say,—

"We find that there were in the so-called Unitarian Controversy three primary drifts of meaning and purpose. First, it was a maintenance of the fullest right of individual freedom of judgment in all matters of opinion, a protest of discriminating consciences against the tyranny of church parties, tests, and creeds. Secondly, it was an assertion of the right province of reason in the interpretation of Scripture, and in the decision of religious and theological questions -a protest of enlightened understandings against the unnatural and repulsive points of the prevailing theology. Thirdly, it was a claim for a more genial and winning expression of the Christian character, a more hopeful and elevating view of man and nature in their actual relations to God—a protest of generous hearts against the stiff and stern formalities of the Puritanical piety." (p. 15.)

You state the occasion of that controversy:

"Among the people here, the congregational system of church government, established from the first, had fostered in a high degree the spirit of liberty, personal freedom of thought and speech. Their marked intellectual characteristics, and admirable educational system, had developed, to an uncommon extent, the spirit of intelligence and inquiry. Their ancestral experience, with its transmitted effects, had eminently nourished the spirit of loyalty to individual convictions of truth. And the strong humane tendencies of the age had kindled the spirit of philanthropy. Under these circumstances eagerly interested, and deeply versed, as both clergy and laity then generally were in researches and discussions on all the mooted subjects of theology-a decided and somewhat extensive advance of rational and liberal views could scarcely fail to result."

"Accordingly, the offensive forms in which the darker dogmas of the common theology were at that time held, were emphatically assailed by many, and really rejected by more. This led to discussions, dissensions, bitter charges, and recriminations. The exclusives demanded the expulsion of their liberal brethren from fellowship. The liberals declared that the only just condition of a right to the Christian name and fellowship, was acknowledgment of the revelation by Christ, and manifestation of a Christian character and life. Their opponents insisted on the acceptance of the prevalent creeds in detail. By votes of majorities, they made such a test and com

pelled its observance. Precisely this assumption of human authority was the actual cause of the final outbreak and division. The minority, refusing to yield, were driven from the common fellowship of the churches, and forced into a virtually distinct denominational existence and attitude." (pp. 15, 16.)

You declare that the formation of the liberal, that is, the Unitarian party, was "a necessary act of self-defence, to preserve intact from the tyranny of majorities the right which they had always exercised here of perfect individual freedom in matters of opinion." "The only striking particular on which they all held the same distinct view was in rejecting the Trinity, and proclaiming the unity of God."

But this belief of the unity of God, you are perhaps aware, was not peculiar to the new sect; for almost all the Trinitarians affirm the unity of God, a denial of which, or an affirmation of the multiplicity of gods, would be deemed a heresy, I take it, among either Catholic or Protestant Trinitarians. If this be so, then the new party were distinguished from others by their disbelief in the Trinity. Their only distinctive agreement, therefore, was in a negation. Still further you add:

"The new party in reality chiefly sought to effect the protection of their personal religious freedom from ecclesiastical encroachments, and chiefly desired to assert that Christianity is a practical religion rather than a theoretical theology, and that what makes a man acceptable or otherwise to God is not metaphysical truths or errors, but pure faith and love, piety and good works, or their opposites.” (p. 17.)

It seems to me that you do not overrate the actual services of the Unitarian party, or the influence it has had in the spiritual development of America. You say,—

"In the first place, in co-operation with other causes, it has led to this that while forty years ago there were only about twenty churches on the continent standing upon the Unitarian platform, there are now more than three thousand agreeing with us in nearly all essential doctrines, and entirely agreeing with us in the catholic spirit in which we would have religion established and administered. In the second place, it has been principally instrumental in securing an immense modification of all the most inconsistent and revolting features of the established theology and preaching, so that they are no longer to be compared with what they were." (p. 18.)

Yet you think that the Unitarian body does "not possess the organized and operative power which we ought to be wielding ;" and that " our views have not acquired a tithe of the prevalence which they ought to have reached ere now." (p. 18.)

You then "glance briefly at the causes of this undue limitation of our progress." I will copy some of the things you say respecting five of these causes, of which you speak in detail.

I. "The liberal movement was in its origin a negative act of selfdefence. It was in regard to all detail vague and indeterminate." But, you add, "it need no longer be so." "Now, we are ready to define our position, and concentrate and direct our energies, and invite the attention of the world to our aims and our methods. Our movement is no longer a contingent, local affair, but a broad and determined effort to purify our religion from the metaphysical abstractions and historic corruptions connected with it, and to diffuse a pure and rational Christianity among men." (p. 18, 19.)

II. "Our cause has been greatly hindered by the almost exclusively intellectual character it took at the commencement." "It practically elevated pure morals and kindly charities among men far above all passionate fervours of piety towards God. Its intellectual isolation and quietude could not stir and win the great masses of the people. But in this particular we are now, and have been for several years, more and more improving. Our preachers and our laity now recognize the necessity of piety as well as of morality." (pp. 19, 20.)

III. “A very great obstacle to the general adoption of our interpretations of Scripture, and conclusions in theology, is the tremendous power of prejudices instilled by education, and nourished by custom." (p. 20.)

IV. Another enemy "is the subtle power of social prestige. Except in some parts of New-England, and in a few other places, the socalled best society, the wealth, fashion, power of the Christian world, move in circles alien from our peculiar views, and regarding them with undissembled horror. The immense and dishonourable power thus silently, but most effectually wielded, is beginning to be felt even here, by means of the universal intercommunication of the world. Elsewhere, in scores of places, this influence is known by us to press with most unfair and disastrous weight against the advance of our cause. One of the saddest features of our times is this worldly and selfish infidelity to the light of knowledge, reason, and natural sentiment. Our views will never spread according to their intrinsic merits, until, by unflinching utterance of cogent argument, rebuke,