1848.]

Prejudices.

31

ucated, have been so, and not because they understand and approve the doctrines of Unitarian Christianity. To prevent this, if possible, we would have them instructed, before they leave the Sunday school, distinctly and systematically in the doctrines of Christianity, that so their previous prejudices may become well-settled convictions, resting upon their own clear understanding of the arguments and reasons adduced in their support. If, then, it is impossible so to train our children that they shall be entirely free from prejudices upon this subject of Christian doctrines, is it not the part of wisdom and of love to give them prejudices which are in favor of what we regard as the truth, while, at the same time, we impart to them such instruction as will enable them to substantiate their prejudices, if they are true, or to detect whatever of error there may be in them, if they are erroneous ?

Again, it may be asked if those who are restrained from giving doctrinal instruction by the doubt we are noticing are consistent in the course which they themselves pursue. Are they as careful not to prejudice their children upon other subjects? Are they not often doing all in their power to give their children right ideas and right principles upon the general subject of moral conduct? Do they not, in order to accomplish this, give line upon line, precept upon precept? But why is this? These right ideas and right principles, valuable as they are and important as they may be to future character, are in the minds of their children only prejudices of early education. Why not leave children to examine these subjects for themselves in after life, unbiased by the influences of early training? Will it be said that correct moral conduct is a matter of such vast and immediate importance, as to authorize the attempt to prejudice the rising generation in its favor? But is it not equally important to give them right prejudices and proper instructions in regard to those great central truths which lie at the foundation of all right feelings and principles, and constitute the only sure basis of a pure, elevated, and enduring morality? Will not consistency require, then, of those who are influenced by the doubt we have noticed, that they neglect entirely all direct instruction upon the whole subject of religious principle and moral conduct?

Still further, it may be asked, whether it is not the duty of the older portion of the community to do all in their power to prejudice the rising generation (if we choose to use that term)

in favor of what is right and true? Those who have charge of the young, as parents, teachers, or guardians, are to "train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” “in the way in which they should go." And what is implied in this early training? In what does it consist? Does it not impose upon those of whom it is required to train up the young the duty of imparting to them true ideas, of cherishing right feelings, and establishing right principles, in their hearts, and of forming them to correct habits of conduct? Can any one conscientiously perform this duty, and yet neglect to give instruction in regard to those doctrines of Christianity which he sincerely believes to be true, which he honestly regards as of great importance, and which seem to him to lie at the foundation of all true morality? And must this be called prejudicing childhood? And may not the same be said of all education? Must it not necessarily be the case, that great and important truths, upon any subject, which in our minds are the result of conviction based upon arguments and reasons, must become in the mind of the child to whom we impart them more or less the prejudices of education? And must they not for many years, at least, remain so? Is it not for this very reason that the young are committed, in so much weakness, to the hands of those older than themselves, that mentally and morally, as well as physically, they may walk, for a time, in the strength and guidance of those in whose hands they are placed? Our answer, then, to the fear sometimes entertained, that by giving doctrinal instruction in Sunday schools we shall prejudice the young and prevent the possibility of their afterwards examining the subject unbiased for themselves, is, that it is impossible not to prejudice them in some way, and therefore it is important to give them prejudices in favor of what we deem the right and the true; that, if we would act in all things consistently with this fear, we should neglect giving any direct instruction whatever upon the subject of moral conduct; and that, if we choose to call this prejudicing the young, yet it is precisely what parents are, by their very relation, required to do.

We have thus far dwelt upon the importance of giving clear and distinct doctrinal instruction to the young. "But why," it may be asked, "should this instruction be given systematically, why given in Sunday schools?" To these questions we will, in closing, give brief answers. Instruction upon any subject, which is given systematically,

the sim

1848.]

Systematic Teaching.

33

plest elements first, and those truths and principles dependent upon them afterwards, will be given clearly and thoroughly; and, consequently, it can be more easily comprehended, and much longer retained, than would otherwise be the case, by the pupil. Then, too, there is a tendency in most minds, at some stage of their religious progress, to arrange and systematize their ideas upon religious subjects, that so they may be more free from confusion and more ready for use. There is, then, a propriety, if we would give instruction upon the doctrines of religion, in doing it systematically; and if so, the Sunday school would seem to be the place in which it should be given. It has seemed to us, at times, that there is some confusion in the minds of the community in regard to the particular sphere which Sunday school instruction should occupy, in its relation to family and parental instruction. Teachers are often exhorted to watch their opportunities to give various and incidental instruction, as the circumstances and occasions of life may call for it. This they cannot do, because they are with their pupils only one or two hours in a week. But this is precisely the kind of moral and religious instruction which may and should be given by parents and in families. At the same time, it is difficult, in the ordinary circumstances of most families, to give systematic instruction. This should be done at the Sunday school. The meeting of teacher and pupils is an appointed meeting, for which preparation is supposed to be made on both sides. And it is expected that the attention of the class will be directed to the subject upon which preparation has been made, and incidental topics find no place there, excepting in their relation to the regular subject of the exercise. If this division of labor could be fully understood, if parents would give their children incidental religious instruction, as it might be called for or rendered appropriate by their circumstances or their conduct, while the Sunday school teacher is giving systematic instruction upon the facts and truths, the principles and doctrines, of the Gospel, then might we hope that the religious training of our children would be thorough and efficient.

J. W-n.

ART. III. - UNITARIANISM IN PORTLAND.—MR. CARY'S LETTER ON THE TRINITY.

Billin

TO THE EDITORS OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIRS, In examining a package of letters of some forty years' standing, presented to me the other day by a friend, I was much gratified to find a long and interesting communication from the Rev. Samuel Cary, formerly colleague with the Rev. Dr. Freeman at the Stone Chapel in Boston. Thinking the letter may give to your readers as much pleasure as it has given to me, I transmit it to you, with the one which called it forth, and such introductory observations as seem to be necessary by way of preface.

Mr. Cary graduated in 1804, and very early came into notice as an acceptable and promising preacher. He supplied Mr. Lowell's pulpit during his absence in 1807. În 1808 he preached for Dr. West and Dr. Freeman in Boston, and his services were eagerly sought for by several other societies. Among these was the First Parish in Portland, to which he was invited to preach as a candidate_for settlement in connection with their venerable pastor, Dr. Deane. It was after one of the visits which he made to Portland that he wrote the letter of which I furnish you a copy, in reply to certain questions and doubts submitted to him by Mr. Freeman, a most worthy member of the society and for many years a deacon of the church.

This society was then in an inactive, I might rather say, in a transition state, moving gradually through a change which was then going on in the religious community of New England. In many of the old societies, the rigid Trinitarian creed was giving way; it had lost its hold upon the understanding and affections of the people. Still it was retained in form, because the mind slowly and reluctantly relinquishes its early-rooted sentiments and prejudices, and because no satisfactory substitute was then offered to the seekers after a more rational faith. Dr. Deane, who had been settled over the parish more than forty years, was what was sometimes called an Arminian and sometimes a moderate Calvinist ; and although not openly avowing Liberal sentiments, still in private rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and the Calvinistic interpretation of the Atonement. His mind was travelling

1848.]

First Parish in Portland.

35

through the same process which a portion of the religious community was pursuing.

A number of persons in the town, as early as 1792, had taken a stand upon the extreme position of Unitarianism advocated by Priestley and Lindsey, whose tracts and other writings in connection with the correspondence of Dr. Freeman first introduced that doctrine to this section of the country. The leader in this movement was Thomas Oxnard, a man of literary taste and scholarship. Although bred a merchant, he became a reader in the Episcopal church in this town; but having adopted the system of Priestley, he abandoned the Athanasian creed, and openly preached this form of Unitarianism. Ordination was refused him on this ground, when he sought priest's orders; and a majority of his people being dissatisfied with the change, his connection with the church was dissolved, and he continued to preach to a few hearers in a school-house. But the public mind was not ready for the new system, especially the Socinian or Humanitarian phase of it; and at his death, in 1799, the society fell to pieces, the individuals mingled with other communions, and all trace of it as a distinct organization was lost.

The First Parish, in 1807, had been established eighty years, and had been the parent stock from which had sprung five other societies, of various shades of belief, Episcopal and Congregational. During this time, although only two pastors had been settled over it, yet it had never been without one, and for thirty-one years it enjoyed both together.* Under these peculiar circumstances, it had become drowsy, and there was danger that it would fall entirely asleep, unless it could by some means get an infusion of new life. The most ready means which offered for this purpose was to procure a young man of talents to be united as colleague with their ancient and time-honored pastor. Invitations were

* In this connection, forty years later, I may add the still more extraordinary fact, that the society, from its foundation in 1727, a hundred and twenty years ago, has had but three pastors, during thirty-four years of which time two were together; never been a day without one; and the third, Dr. Nichols, is now in the full maturity of his ripe and rich powers, giving hope and promise of making this striking and unusual fact of permanency in the ministry still more extraordinary. The first pastor, Rev. Thomas Smith, was settled in 1727, and died in 1795, aged 95. Rev. Dr. Deane, settled as his colleague in 1764, died in 1814, aged 81. Rev. Dr. Nichols, settled as his colleague in 1809, is still living. They were all graduates of Harvard College, where Dr. Deane and Dr. Nichols were also tu

tors.