At this period, if we are to believe the representations afterwards brought forward by his opponents, the ‘new notions,’ as they called them, were altogether unknown at Exeter; but this is denied by Mr. Peirce. The writings of Clarke, Whiston, and others, who differ from the common opinion, had been read there before his coming among them; and some few of the people, though they kept it to themselves, had long before, by only reading their Bibles, been convinced that it was not agreeable to the scripture. Still there can be no doubt that a large majority of the society were, and continued to be, strictly Trinitarian; and this being the case, the question arises, how far it was or was not the duty of a man in Mr. Peirce's circumstances, aware that his private sentiments on a point which they thought, whether reasonably or not, to be of primary and essential importance, were materially different from those of the bulk of his congregation, to have explained his views in the first instance openly and without reserve. Something might perhaps be said on both sides. A Whiston or a Priestley would probably have not hesitated to lay their whole mind open, regardless of consequences, while others, feeling, or endeavouring to persuade themselves, that the points in dispute were of little interest or comparative importance, did their best to compromise such debatable questions, and veil their real opinions in general and somewhat vague language,
