believe, then, that children cannot be trained up in the best exercise of true Christian feelings, or to the complete establishment of Christian principles in their hearts, unless they are taught the truths or doctrines of Christianity, as the fountain that is to sustain the constant flow of these feelings, the basis on which these principles may permanently rest. We should, then, teach doctrines in our Sunday schools, in order to cherish true Christian feelings and implant true Christian principles in the hearts of those who are there taught.

If,

We are inclined to believe that many minds have been confused upon this subject, by the fact that there are different opinions held, in regard to the doctrines of Christianity, by different denominations of Christians. Some seem unwilling to teach what they themselves honestly believe to be the true doctrines of Christianity, lest by so doing they should seem to teach, by implication at least, that others who may differ from them are in error. In order to free the mind from all confusion arising from this cause, let us imagine a different state of things. Suppose, then, that there was no difference of opinion upon the doctrines of Christianity, and that there never had been, but that, from the time of our Saviour to the present day, the Christian Church had, with one voice, held precisely the same views of Christian doctrine which we now hold. under such circumstances, the question were proposed, whether it were proper to teach the doctrines of Christianity systematically, what would be the answer? Would not every one feel that it would be a fatal omission, should we neglect to communicate to our children those doctrines or truths which were to us the fountain of spiritual life, the source of religious strength, and the justification of our hopes of everlasting bliss beyond the grave? And will the fact, that there are those who do not believe the doctrines which we have embraced, change the grounds of our duty? There are those who reject Christianity entirely, and regard it as wholly an imposition upon the credulity of mankind; shall we, on that account, neglect to instruct our children in Christianity at all? Will our obligations to our children be in the least degree weakened or altered by the fact that others doubt and disbelieve? And will not the same principle hold good in regard to what we believe to be the true doctrines of Christianity? Shall we neglect to teach these to our children, when we honestly believe them to be the true doctrines of the Gospel, simply because others reject them as untrue? Our obligations in

1848.]

Controverted Doctrines.

27

this respect rest not upon the unanimity of the opinions of the community, but upon the firmness and the honesty of our own convictions of the truth and importance of what we would teach.

But it may be said, that we have not as yet touched upon the point at issue, that all will agree to what we have thus far advanced, relating, as it obviously does, to those great, general truths in which all, or nearly all, Christian denominations are united. And the question may be asked, " Would you teach the disputed doctrines in their controversial aspects in our Sunday schools?" To this question we should give a distinct and emphatic affirmative answer. Are we asked for our reasons? We answer, that we do not understand how the New Testament, how the declarations of Jesus, can be thoroughly taught, without doing this. Suppose that we are carrying a class of the older pupils of the school through the New Testament, and we come to the declaration of our Saviour, "I and my Father are one," what shall we do? Shall we say to our pupils, "That is a passage upon the right interpretation and proper application of which Christians are divided in opinion, and therefore we shall leave it without explanation"? And shall we adopt the same course in regard to all passages upon the interpretation of which there is a difference of opinion among Christians? If so, will not our instructions upon the New Testament be broken and incoherent, superficial and inefficient? Or shall we take a different course, and simply give the explanation which we may regard as the true one, without informing the pupils that there are among Christians other and different opinions in regard to the true meaning of the passage? And shall we in this way be dealing fairly and honestly with the minds of our pupils? They are receiving our instruction as the truth; or, at least, they will naturally infer, if we do not state that there are differences of opinion, that we mean to leave the impression that no such differences exist. They will not understand us as giving them merely our opinion of the meaning of the passage, with the full knowledge, on our part, that it is an opinion in regard to which many wise and good men differ from us. And when in after life those pupils learn that we have passed off upon their confiding minds as the truth what we knew at the time to be only one opinion among several, of the existence of which we did not inform them, will they not have reason to feel that they have not been fairly dealt with?

It seems to us, then, that the proper course would be, when, in giving instruction upon the New Testament to the older pupils in our Sunday schools, we come to passages in regard to which there are differences of opinion, to inform the class that there are such differences, to state the different opinions that are held, together with the reasons or arguments upon which they severally rest, and then explain the reasons why we have adopted the one we would recommend, and why we have rejected the others. In pursuing this course, we should feel that we had dealt fairly with the minds of our pupils, and had placed our interpretation of a disputed passage before their minds in its true light, simply as our opinion, founded upon reasons satisfactory to us. Nor do we understand how we can honestly and thoroughly give instruction upon the New Testament, without in this way teaching the disputed doctrines of Christianity, even in their controversial aspects.

But, again, we would teach the disputed doctrines of Christianity in their controversial aspects, in order to give our children clear views of the truths or doctrines they may embrace, together with the grounds on which a belief in them may rest, and so prevent their becoming bigoted sectarians. We have generally observed, that, among all denominations, other things being equal, the more clear and definite a man's ideas may be of the doctrines he professes to embrace, of the arguments by which they are supported, and of the objections usually alleged against them, together with the way in which these objections may be met and answered, the more truly charitable will he be in his feelings towards those who may differ from him in opinion. And is it not perfectly natural, that the more fully a person has investigated the doctrines which he professes to embrace, the reasons for them, and the objections against them, the more clearly he will be able to perceive that others may be just as honest as himself, and yet embrace opinions different from his own? In order, then, to impart to the rising generation a clear understanding of the doctrines they may embrace, and prevent their becoming in later life narrow-minded and bigoted sectarians, and in order to lay the foundation for their being truly liberal and charitable, even in their attachment to their own opinions, towards those who may differ from them, we would have them taught carefully and systematically the doctrines of Christianity, together with the arguments by which they are supported, the objections alleged against them, and the way in which those objections may be met and answered.

1848.]

Change of Denomination.

29

Still further, we have watched carefully the characters and the courses of those who have changed their religious opinions and their denominational relations, and we have observed that they may be divided into two classes. There are those who have from some outward influence connected themselves with Unitarian societies, and have perhaps honestly thought themselves Unitarians in their belief. But they have not fully understood the doctrines of Unitarian Christianity, in all the depth and extent of their spiritual meaning, in all their positive aspects and practical applications. Neither have they made themselves acquainted with the arguments by which these doctrines are supported, nor with the way in which objections to them are to be met and answered. Such sometimes become excited upon the subject of religion, and are led, under the influence of strong religious feelings, to change their denominational relations. We do not say change their religious opinions; for the truth is, they never clearly understood the doctrines of the denomination they have left, and they seldom take the pains to understand those of the denomination with which they connect themselves. They are influenced more by feeling and impulse than by argument, and what, in either case, they dignify with the name of opinions, might with more propriety be called prejudices. But these are the very persons who, upon changing their denominational relations, are most apt to become extremely bitter in their denunciation of the doctrines embraced by the denomination they have left. There are others, however, who have understood the doctrines they have professed to embrace, have sought to regulate their conduct by a regard to them, and have for a time enjoyed much in the religious strength and Christian peace derived from them, but who have afterwards, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, changed their religious belief and their denominational relations. But such are usually liberal in their feelings towards the denomination they have left, and candid in their judgment of the opinions they have renounced. It is not, then, because we have any wish to bind down our children to our own views, that we would have them taught in their early years what we believe to be the true doctrines of Christianity. It is because, in the first place, we would endeavour by such instruction to prepare them for becoming intelligent and candid Unitarians, should they spend their lives in connection with the Unitarian denomination, and because, in the second

place, we would seek in this way to prepare them for examining carefully and candidly the arguments which may be alleged in support of any system of doctrines that may be presented to their notice, and would have them so trained, that, if they shall ever renounce Unitarianism, they may do it understandingly, with a full knowledge of the doctrines they renounce, and of their reasons for renouncing them, - of the doctrines they embrace, and of the reasons why they embrace them. And we should expect, as the result of such a course of Sunday school instruction, that our young people, whether they should adhere to Unitarianism or renounce it, would always be found intelligent, candid, and liberal members of the denomination with which they might at any time. be connected.

But there are those who doubt the propriety of giving distinct and definite instruction upon the doctrines of Christianity in our Sunday schools, on the ground that it is an infringement of the child's right to form his own opinion unbiased by the prejudices of early education, when in after-life he may examine the subject for himself. "We," say they, "have formed our own opinions for ourselves. Our children ought to enjoy the same privilege. We have no right to take advantage of our age and superiority, nor yet of our parental relation, to impose upon them our opinions, which with us are the result of examination and conviction, but which with them must necessarily be the mere prejudices of education." But it may be asked, if it be possible to train up our children, either in the family or in the Sunday school, in such a manner that they shall be entirely free from prejudice upon this subject. Children are not, by any means, entirely indebted to direct instruction for the prejudices they imbibe. Many early prejudices are derived from incidental influences. The simple circumstance, that we, as parents, Sunday school teachers, or members of the community, embrace one class of opinions rather than another, or worship with one denomination rather than with another, will prejudice our children, if they have any respect for our characters, in favor of the doctrines or the denomination to which we have given our adherence. But their opinions, so called, will be mere prejudices, resting only on their respect for the characters and practices of those who are older than themselves. If they go out into the world nominally Unitarians, it will be only because their fathers, or the community in which they were ed