Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

Nothing more, in truth, than that Dr. Miller, twenty years ago, had the honour of a "free and amicable conversation" with that great man, "on some of the fundamental doctrines of religion." This is the only fact connected with the anecdote; and however important this may be to Dr. Miller, it is not easy to discover in what way it concerns the public. I am willing to believe, upon the strength of your word, that Dr. Priestley said precisely what you have put into his mouth, and yet I cannot see the least connexion between these premises and your conclusion. Do you think it fair, or honourable, gravely to quote language, which has been used by any one in private and friendly conversation, and this from memory, after a lapse of twenty years,do you think it fair or honourable to quote such language as a proof, that a large body of professed christians have no title to this name, and are "no more in the way of salvation, than Mohammedans or Jews?" And admitting you can reconcile this to your conscience, pray in what respect are the words of Dr. Priestley to your purpose, except upon the supposition, that you are certainly right, and he certainly wrong? If Trinitarianism be indeed the true doctrine, then we have the authority of Dr. Priestley, as reported by Dr. Miller, that unitarians "are not christians at all." And it is only upon this condition, that his authority in any degree sanctions your conclusions. Nay, let it be admitted, that Dr. Priestley actually believed unitarians to be no christians, or trinitarians to be idolaters, or any thing else, I would gladly know whether in your opinion, this would make it so? And above all, are the opinions of an individual to be made the ground work of a sentence of condemnation on a numerous class of christians, who may, or may not agree in adopting the views of this individual.

Since, then, this anecdote proves nothing, except the fact above mentioned, it is natural to inquire what motive could induce you to record it in a book? To me there is one obvious motive. Your sermon was intended for persons, who were very imperfectly acquainted with the opinions of unitarians. It was intended for those, who are opposed to them more from prejudice and the bias of early impressions, than from the convictions of deliberate inquiry, or a knowledge of the truth. On these persons, and especially on such as not only have not inquired, but are not disposed to inquire, and who are contented to take your conclusion without troubling themselves to examine your reasons, this anecdote, in the connexion in which you have contrived to introduce it, is well calculated to produce an effect unfavourable to unitarians. Whether the end sanctifies the means, let others judge. By making Dr. Priestley speak the language of this anecdote, and giving such a construction to his words, as you think suited to your purpose, you exhibit him in a character directly opposite to that in which he appeared during his whole life. No traits were more remarkable in his character, than his mild and amiable temper, his benevolent and christian spirit, and his desire to open the door of christian fellowship to all the believers in Jesus, and followers of his word. And yet, you have made use of his authority to justify you in the most illiberal censure, which one christian can pronounce on another, and in passing on the persons, whose opinions resemble his, a sentence of total exclusion not only from all ecclesiastical intercourse, but from the common privileges and hopes of christians. Few good men of any denomination of christians can envy you the character, which you have assumed here, of being a censor

and a judge; and least of all the task, which you have taken upon yourself, of passing a judgment so much at variance with the letter and spirit of the gospel of the Saviour, and even the common principles of charity.

In regard to the charge of licentiousness and immorality, which you have made against unitarians, you must not think me importunate in making a few direct and particular inquiries. I will ask you, in the first place, whether you have the testimony of your own experience? Have you lived in the society of unitarians, and do you judge from personal observations? Now, if I am rightly informed, this is not the case. You have never for a moment lived among them. You have had no means whatever of knowing the practical effects of their principles. And even with this, I will not say limited knowledge, but total absence of knowledge, you have dared publicly, and on the strength of your own authority, to impeach their morals. This, Sir, was a degree of presumption, which, however it might be looked for from other quarters, was not to be expected from a gentlemen of your station and reputed worth. There has before been one instance among us, and only one it is believed, in which the moral character of unitarians has been attacked from the pulpit. But the result of this experiment was not such, it would seem, as to encourage any one in repeating it. The unwary speaker found it necessary afterwards publicly to confess his indiscretion, and retract his charges.

Although you have never witnessed the state of morals or religion in a society composed wholly of unitarians, yet you are undoubtedly acquainted with individuals of this belief, and some, perhaps, whom you have reason to call your friends. All the knowledge you possess from personal observation must be confined to

this acquaintance. And have you indeed found among these persons such marks of depravity and irreligion, that you feel warranted from their example in fixing a stigma, and passing the sentence of reprobation on a whole sect? Could any thing, but the most absolute knowledge of facts, be urged in justification of charges so flagrant? If it has been your misfortune to meet only with such characters among unitarians, and you judged from what you saw, it would have been but doing justice to the great body of those who profess their belief, to let the public know the source, as well as the extent of your information. As your charges stand at present, your readers are made to believe, that they are applicable "all over the world." And although you might think your conclusions deduced by good logic, others might not, and in a case of so much importance, it was your duty to make your antecedent propositions at least as clear as your deductions.

Let me inquire still further. Let me call your attention particularly to that portion of the country, where unitarian principles have been long prevalent, and where they are embraced by a very large part of the community. Are you prepared to charge the people of Boston, and its vicinity with a higher degree of immorality, and depravity of manners, than is found in other cities? Are you prepared to say, that the churches in that place, more than in any other, are filled with the "gay, the fashionable, the worldly-minded, and the licentious?" In Boston, if any where, may be found a proof of your assertions, because in that place the unitarians probably make the most numerous class of society. But dare you come before the public with any attempt to exhibit such proof? You dare not. too well informed on this subject to undertake such a

You are

task. You dare not assail the moral characters of a great number of the leading and most respectable members of society. The Rev. Gardiner Spring, of NewYork, it is true, has lately pronounced a libel against the clergy and people of Boston. Whether he was emboldened by your example, I cannot say. His rashness, however, has received its merited chastisement; and it is presumed he will hereafter think himself quite as well employed, in looking to the morals of his own party, as in calumniating the characters of others. And I venture to affirm, that you will never investigate the state of manners, the charitable and religious institųtions, the morals and practical piety of unitarians, as a body, in any place, and have the courage to publish the result of your investigation, as a proof of the aspersions you have cast on them. This is an attempt in which you never will engage. Whoever will acquiesce in the truth or justice of your charges, must rely on your authority, and yours only. You neither will, nor can substantiate them by any credible evidence.

It is true, you have hinted at discoveries, which you might make, had you "time to trace the history of American Unitarianism." Let me tell you, that this was a very unfair insinuation. Your readers are left to imagine much evil to be concealed, which nothing but want of time prevents you from bringing to light. It is incumbent on you to disabuse them by tracing this history. Let it be done impartially, and then compared with the history of the presbyterian church, or of any other church, and no unitarian will shrink from the parallel. He will want no better illustration of the comparative moral influence of his principles, and no clearer refutation of your charges.

2

« НазадПродовжити »