difference between 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 Unitarian Advocate, speaking of the controversy as it existed some twenty years ago, said, and said truly: "This 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 moral perfection, of God? 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?" But this same Unitarian Advocate, when apologizing for the concealment formerly practised, could say: "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."† He The inconsistency here pointed out discovers itself often in the writings of Dr. Channing. In his controversy with Dr. Worcester, he represents Trinitarians as holding "some of the grossest errors." He considers Calvinism, he says, "as one of the most injurious errors that ever darkened the Christian world." speaks of it as a "heart-chilling doctrine," "a 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 *See Gilman's Sermon, Pp. 18, 20. See Vol. i. P. 190. Vol. ii. Pp. 229, 230. Letter to Thatcher, P. 14. Remarks on Worcester's first Letter, P. 34. On second Do., P. 25. on the views of God's government, which are materially united with Trinitarianism." Compare now these representations with others by the same distinguished 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 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. 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 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."* The self-contradictions here noticed run through most of the controversial writings of American Unitarians, from twenty to thirty years ago. The differences between them and the Orthodox were represented sometimes as very great, and then as very small. Nor is this the only inconsistency chargeable upon Unitarians. How often was it insisted on, years ago, that sincerity of religious belief and character is all that can reasonably be required of us. "It is of little importance what a man believes, or disbelieves, if he is but sincere." "One rule," says Dr. Thayer," shall * See Remarks on Worcester's first Letter, P. 26. On second Do., Pp. 22, 23. : measure the divisions of the great day. Sincerity will be the test of character." But in other connections it is said, and said truly, that sincerity is not sufficient. "It is to be remembered," says Mr. Richardson, "that the sincerity of one's faith gives no evidence that it is founded in truth, or is safe to be adopted." † Unitarians formerly insisted much on the happy tendency of their system, as a convincing argument in favor of its truth. Mr. Sparks published a volume entitled, "An Inquiry into the comparative Moral Tendency of Trinitarian and Unitarian doctrines," with a view to show the vast superiority of the latter. The Christian Examiner, in reviewing this publication, said: "The point on which the whole argument is made to turn, in this book, is that which must, after all, decide the controversy with the bulk of mankind; namely, the comparative moral tendency of the two conflicting systems." Vol. i. P. 223. This, it will be recollected was the subject of Dr. Channing's Dedication Sermon at New York: "The fitness of Unitarian Christianity to promote true, deep, and living Piety." But when a gentleman of Boston renounced Unitarianism, about the same time, on the ground of what he supposed its unfavorable tendency and effects, suddenly this grand argument was reversed, and the American Unitarian Association issued a tract, numbered ninety-seven, to show, that the happy influences and effects of a doctrine, in promoting seriousness, deep feeling, prayer, a strict observance of the Sabbath, and zeal and effort in the cause of religion were "no test," "no sure evidence of its truth." The clergyman who replied to "the letter of a gentleman of Boston," says, that "to decide in regard to the truth or excellence of religious tenets" from" their beneficial effects," "is a very mistaken ground of judging." Again he says: "This argument for a system from the character of those who hold it, is founded altogether in a mistake, and is of no weight at all." Pp. 15, 19. Unitarians long ago insisted that the Orthodox system was decaying and falling to pieces; that it had literally "waxed old, and was ready to vanish away." In 1806, it was "a frail and crumbling fabric." Twenty years elapsed, and it was fast "wearing out." The human errors in which it originated "had * Dedication Sermon, P. 25. † Sermon on Conversion, P. 27. Monthly Anthology, Vol. iii. P. 496. died away." Its roots were perishing." Four years later, and though not entirely prostrate, it was "crumbling in presage of a final overthrow." But from other parts of the same publication, (the Christian Examiner,) it might be inferred that this wonderful system, so long in dying, was hardly likely to die at all. "The whole banded power of the country is orthodox." "All the institutions for religious education in the country, with a single exception, are decidedly, and some of them assumingly, popishly orthodox." A man "cannot travel towards any point of the compass, without being surrounded by orthodox believers, orthodox manners, and orthodox exclusiveness."* We might proceed, if it were necessary, in tracing out inconsistencies like those here mentioned to much greater lengths. But we proceed to the question. How were such palpable self-contradictions made to further the progress of Unitarianism? One might rather suppose that they would be fatal to its progress, and cover its abettors with confusion. But however natural such a conclusion may appear on paper, in real life it is not verified. Most men will be pleased with what seems plausible at the time, especially if it comes from those who possess their confidence; and will hardly trouble themselves to inquire after contradictions, for the sake of exposing them. Of this trait in human character, Unitarians in former years, seem to have been well aware, and of the advantages to be derived from it they availed themselves to the full. They seemed to write and act too much according to circumstances, and with a view to present effect, without much regard to consistency, or to any other principle than that of having their own way. When an odium was to be cast upon the Orthodox on account of their religious sentiments, then they were in the grossest and most pernicious errors; but when a prejudice was to be excited against them on account of their alleged exclusiveness, the existing differences were little more than verbal. When their positiveness was to be reproved, then it was presumption for any person to be confident of his own opinions; but when decision and earnestness were inculcated, then "we ought to speak of religion as something which we ourselves know." When the value of Unitarian speculations was to be exhibited, truth was of vast importance; but when an * Christian Examiner, Vol. iv. P. 66. Vol. viii. P. 320. Vol. iii. P. 113. indiscriminate fellowship was urged, then it was of little consequence what a man believed. Now the happy tendency of Unitarian doctrines decides every thing in their favor; but anon the superior tendency of a religious system, as seen in its declared results, is no sure evidence of its truth. It is certainly very convenient to be able thus to traverse the field of argument, crossing your own track variously, and at pleasure, while good-natured friends applaud your course. There is, however, one attendant difficulty. What you write and publish will remain after you, to be reviewed by other and less partial eyes; and the artifices you have practised, and the contradictions you have perpetrated, may, at some time, be detected and exposed. We must speak of another means of promoting Unitarianism in Massachusetts in former times, resulting from the use made of existing parochial laws, and of the decisions of courts. Massachusetts was originally divided into towns and parishes, over which were settled, with few exceptions, Congregational ministers. In process of time, as diversities of opinion and interest increased, and full liberty of dissent was granted, in most of the parishes there came to be a considerable body of dissenters. Many left the old societies from religious considerations, because they honestly preferred some other meeting, or some other form of worship. But others were induced to leave them from less worthy motives; some in anger; some because they were indifferent to all religion and were little better than infidels; and more, because, in connection with another society, they could discharge the demands of the law upon them at a cheaper rate. But from whatever cause individuals left the original societies, they were always at liberty to return. They had only to give up their certificates, as the phrase then was, and they fell back into the old society of course. When Unitarianism began to prevail, although the clergy in general, were first corrupted, and exerted an influence to corrupt others, still this was not always the case. In some instances, leading individuals among the people became corrupted, while the pastor and the church continued stedfast. In cases of this kind, the design was not unfrequently formed, and too often carried into effect, to dismiss the pastor, seize the property of the church, and turn it all to the support of Unitarianism. The mode of |