v $B Mflfl EDS % f ' X Vr- V- n ^•x%'-^.'-' .^^^ Division Range Shelf Received ^/oaJ^J'^^ 1 S7^^ Libiunj. TWO LETTERS TO THE REVEREND MOSES STUART; ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. By BERNARD WHITMAN. H' Vf-nsi^^- Librarij. j) BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY GRAY AND BOWEN, 1830. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS to wit: Be it remembered, that on the ninth day of December, A. D. 1830, in the fifty-fifth year of the Independence of the United States of America, Gray and Bowen, of the said District, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words followingj, to wit : •• Two Letters to the Reverend Moses Stuart ; on the Subject of Religious Liberty. By Bernard Whitman." In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, "An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned"; and also to an act entitled, " An Act supplementaiy toai Act entitled * An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned ' ; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints." JNO. W. DAVIS, Clerk of the District of Massachusetts, /y^7/ CAMBRIDGE : E. W. MCTCALF AND COMPANY. y 1 Library. I, ^l Car.forr.ii , .; ^ // LETTER I, Reverend Sir, In your Letter on Religious Liberty, you accuse Dr. Channing* of publishing certain charges against orthodox Christians. You quote several passages from his writings to substantiate your accusation. You then bring together the substance of his charges in the following sentences. " You have charged the orthodox with a settled, steadfast, unrelenting purpose to suppress all free inquiry respecting matters of religion, to cover with reproach those who may differ from themselves, to drown the free expression of opinion by denunciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by joint and perpetual menace. In addition to all this, you represent them as saying ; — Since argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of opinion, recourse must be had to more powerful instruments of conviction, to Ecclesiastical Courts.^'* Having given this summary, you utter the following positive and solemn declarations. " / do know that the accvsations which you stand pledged to support are not true. I aver that they are not, before heaven and earth." Now, my dear Sir, permit me also to express my honest convictions on this question. For I presume you will admit, that I have an equal right with yourself, to publish Letters on Religious Liberty ; and an equal right, with any orthodox Christian, to utter solemn asseverations. I therefore aver, before heaven and earth, that I firmly believe the above charges to be substantially correct, when applied to the leaders of the orthodox denomination in our country, against whom they were specially directed. And to give you and the public the honest reasons for this belief, is the design and object of the present publication. I address you as the head of the orthodox party, because you seem to me to have assumed that character in your Letter to Dr. Channing. These are your own words. " All, against whom I suppose the denunciations in your works are specially directed, I have the pleasure of being more or less acquainted with ; and I know well their feelings and views." I am sure no other orthodox divine can justly advance an 4 LETTER I. equal claim to preeminence. I shall therefore say you, when I refer to the proceedings of your aggrieved brethren. As you have spoken freely concerning unitarians, you will not object to my using great plainness of speech in relation to the measures of the orthodox. I shall faithfully endeavour, not to please unitarians or trinitarians, liberal or orthodox ; but to speak boldly what I honestly believe to be the truth, and the exact tnith. I do not write as a unitarian, or an advocate for unitarianism ; but as a Christian, and an advocate for Christian freedom. That I may not be misunderstood, I will give a definite statement of the proposition which I shall endeavour to demonstrate. It may be expressed in the following terms. The measures attempted and ADOPTED BY THE LEADERS OF THE ORTHODOX DENOMINATION IN OUR COUNTRY, FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROPAGATION OF THEIR PECULIAR VIEWS OF RELIGION,. ARE SUBVERSIVE OF FREE INQUIRY, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CONGREGATIONALISM. By free inquiry, I mean, that every man may investigate the subjects of religion, without any fear of evil consequences from human power or persecution. By religotis liberty, I mean, that every man may believe and publish and propagate, in a Christian manner, his honest religious opinions, without any fear of human authority or punishment. By tfu principles of contrregationalism, I mean, the sufficiency of the Scriptures, the right of private judgment, the advancement of the Reformation, the independency and equality of congregational churches. A plain state- ment of facts will now be given in proof of my proposition. I. Use made of human creeds. In the first place, I invite your attention to the use made of human creeds by the orthodox denomination. I think the facts I shall adduce under this head will prove the two following and distinct propositions. First, that the orthodox denomination make a human creed, and not the Bible, their standard of religious truth. And, secondly, that the use made of human creeds by the orthodox denomination is subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. My limits will permit me to notice but six different classes of facts under this general division. I. Thtolofrical Seminaries. First. Look at the use made of a human creed in orthodox theological seminaries. Take the institution at Andover as a fair illustration. Before you could be admitted into the office of Professor, you were obliged to express your hearty belief in all the statements of the following human creed. " I believe that tliere is one and but one living and true God ; that the word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the only perfect rule of faith and practice ; that agreeably to those Scriptures, God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and trutli ; that in the Godhead are three per*iirnestly desired them LETTER I. 41 to expose his errors. But they were unable or unwilling to discuss such controverted questions, and accordingly excluded him from his equal rights and privileges in their association. He soon exposed their intolerant and unchristian conduct in a small publication. They chose a committee of the Franklin Association to request him to unite with them in calling a mutual council for the settlement of their difficulties. His principal difficulties were the cruel persecutions of these very ministers, and these he chose to leave for settlement at the great day of ac- counts, and consequently declined their proposal. They however proceeded to convene an ex parte council at Greenfield, some twelve or fifteen miles from Charlemont, for the trial of Mr. Field, in August, 1822. After long deliberation, the council came to a result. They invited the people of the surrounding country to hear it read in the meetinghouse, so as to make their sentence of condemnation as widely known as convenient. The impression left on the mind of the hearers was this; " That the Rev. Mr. Field had been betrayed into conduct unworthy his sacred office, and which evidently tended to injure his reputation and impede his usefulness." And why was all this parade and persecution ? Simply because Mr. Field had renounced some orthodox opinions, and, in a fearless and honest manner, exposed the iniquity of his persecutors. Just reverse the case. Suppose Dr. Chan- ning had called on you to unite with him in a mutual council for the settlement of your difficulties. Suppose you had declined, and an ex parte council had been convened at Salem to investigate your conduct. Suppose they should invite the inhabitants of that and the neighbouring towns to hear their result ; and should leave the impression upon the public mind, that you had been betrayed into unchristian and immoral conduct, and that your ministerial character was ruined. Would you not pronounce such proceedings oppressive, tyrannical, and wicked ? And are they any the less oppressive, or tyrannical, or wicked, when perpetrated by an orthodox ex parte council without a hundredth part of the provocation ? Thirdly, take those cases in which orthodox councils have openly violated their pledges and'the principles of congregational order. The proceedings of an orthodox ex parte council at Charlemont furnish a fair illustration of such usurpations. The circumstances are briefly these. After the Rev. Mr. Field had been excluded from the Franklin Associa- tion for heresy, an attempt was made with some success to create a dissatisfaction with his ministerial services among his people. A part of the society seceded, and held meetings by themselves for nearly a year. They then called themselves the first church, and proposed to Mr. Field to unite with them in calling a mutual council for the settle- ment of their difficulties. But, in proposing a council, they would not allow him the liberty of electing his part of the ministers, only from one or two orthodox associations. This of course prevented his accept- 6 42 LETTER I. ance of their proposals ; for the council would not be rnvtual, if they chose all the members. An ex parte council was then convened by letters from these seceders. The council acknowledged this body as the true and first church ; declared themselves regularly called ; asserted that the church had sufficient reason for such a course, since their proposals for a mutual council were rejected ; dissolved the ministerial relation between Mr. Field and his people ; and vented all their spleen, by abusing him in their result, in the most shameful manner. And all this too, afler one of the council had pledged himself and the council, that their result should contain nothing to wound the feelings either of Mr. Field or his friends. My limits do not permit me to enter into all the particulars of this case. The documents before me are full and satisfac- tory. And the impression on my own mind is this ; that the annals of the inquisition can scarcely furnish a parallel case of persecution, to that which has been carried on by orthodox ministers against Mr. Field. I am credibly informed that one of the orthodox ministers in that very region, when speaking of the persecuting conduct of his orthodox min- isterial brethren, pronounced it " diabolical." Now bring this measure home to our own county. Several of the orthodox ministers in this vicinity have latterly refused to exchange with unitarians. This is contrary to the wishes of a large majority of their supporters. Suppose this majority should propose to their minister to call a mutual council to settle their difficulties ; but should limit his choice of ministers to one or two associations of unitarian preachers. Suppose he should decline the insulting proposal ; and they should convene an ex parte council for the proposed business. Suppose the council should proceed to dissolve the pastoral relation between the minister and his flock, and hold him up to the public as unworthy of confidence. Would you not call this uncongregational, and a direct violation of the rights of minister and people ? And is not the case at Charlemont infinitely worse than this supposition ? Will you not admit that the proceedings of orthodox ecclesiastical councils have sometimes been subversive of the rights of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism ? 4. Ministerial Assocxaiions. Fourthly. Look at the proceedings of orthodox ministerial associations. These associations were originally formed for friendly intercourse and mutual improvement. One would naturally suppose that more progress must be made in Christian knowl- edge, where the members had embraced different religious sentiments. But it appears that such has not been the opinion of orthodox ministers. And facts will show that several of their associations have converted themselves into ecclesiastical courts, so as to call unitarians to account for their honest opinions, to pass sentence of condemnation on their publications, and to proclaim to the world that their characters are unministerial and unchristian. I will mention three different classes of such proceedings. Take,^r«<, those cases in which orthodox LETTER I. 4P ciations have called unitarian ministers to account for their opinions, and excluded them from their meetings for their supposed errors. In 1820, a committee of two was chosen by the Hampshire Central Asso- ciation to catechize the Rev. Mr. Bailey as to his religious opinions. He received them very politely, and answered their questions very cheer- fully. A few months after, he received a letter from the scribe of the association, informing him, that in consequence of his errors, his con- nexion with their body was dissolved. They however granted him the privilege of appearing before them to answer to the charge of heresy. He did not incline to accept their very generous offer. And by what right did they pass this vote of exclusion ? The right of the strongest They were the majority ; and therefore had the power to persecute. This is a fair sample of a multitude of similar cases. Among those who have been excluded from orthodox associations for embracing unitarian sentiments, are such men as the Rev. Dr. Noah Worcester, the Rev* Thomas Worcester, the Rev. Preserved Smith, the Rev. Joseph Field, the Rev. Dan Huntington, the Rev. Winthrop Bailey, and the Rev. Mr. Sher- man. Suppose a unitarian majority should exclude an orthodox minority from their associations. What would you say of their conduct ? Would you not pronounce it usurpation, intolerance, bigotry ? And is it less usurpation, and intolerance, and bigotry, when perpetrated by orthodox majorities ? Secondly, take those cases in which orthodox associations have de- nounced the publications of unitarians. The Rev. Mr. Field published his sentiments on the Trinity and Atonement. The Franklin Association record their testimony, that " those sentiments are not agreeable with divine revelation, nor according to the faith of the true church of Christ from age to age, nor in unison with the testimony of genuine Christian experience." Take another example from the records of the Hopkinton Association. " The Hopkinton Association, having seen and read a publication, entitled Bible JVews, another entitled An Impartial Review of Testimonies, by Rev. Noah Worcester, and several other publications by Rev. Thomas Worcester, all going to disprove the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as held by the great Reformers, by our pious forefathers, by the orthodox churches of the Christian world at the present day, and in the opinion of this association fully supported by the Scriptures of truth ; and feeling it our duty, not only in an individual, but in an asso- ciate capacity, to bear testimony against all error, and especially against so material an error as a denial of the self-existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost ; therefore voted, that the doctrine con- tained in the above named publications is in our opinion a departure from the pure faith of the church of Christ ; tends to strengthen the enemies, and thereby greatly to injure the cause, of Zion." Perhaps these two are sufficient specimens of the votes of orthodox associations. And now what do you consider the character of such, proceedings ? 44 LETTER I. Just bring the measure home to your own bosom. Suppose the Boston Association should record such a vote and preamble as the following : ' The Boston Association, having seen and read a publication, entitled A Letter on Rdigious Liberty^ by the Rev. Moses Stuart, going to prove that the orthodox sect is the only liberal denomination ; and feeling it our duty to bear testimony against all error, not only in an individual but in an associate capacity, and especially against so material an error as that above stated, which is not only contrary to the belief of the true church, but subversive of all morality ; therefore voted, that the above named publication is in our opinion a departure from the truth, tends to strengthen the enemies, and thereby greatly to injure the cause, of Zion.' I need not ask, if you would not regard such a measure as indicating the inability of the Association to answer your publication. But I may ask if you would not call such conduct a very silly business? And is the same action any the less silly when performed by an orthodox association ? Thirdly, take those cases in which orthodox associations have published to the world, that the conduct of certain ministers of good Christian character, rendered them unworthy of public confidence. This was done by the Hampshire Central Association the last year in relation to a worthy minister of orthodox sentiments. The circumstances are briefly these. A part of the orthodox society in Westhampton seceded, and held separate meetings. They employed an orthodox minister by the name of John Truair. The association in that region were inter- ested to prevent the formation of a second parish in that town. They accordingly chose a committee to persuade the two parties to unite, and Mr. Truair to leave the place. The seceders agreed to return to the old congregation, and their preacher to retire from their employment, on certain conditions. The Committee of the Association then gave to Mr. Truair the following recommendation: "We, the Committee of the Hampshire Association, hereby certify, that we consider Rev. John Truair's Christian and ministerial standing good, and as such we reconunend him to the employment of the churches and societies wherever God in his providence shall call him." The old society did not comply with their part of the conditions, and the seceders therefore refused to return, and still employed their present preacher. The Association, with a long and truly papal preamble, publish in the Hampshire Gazette the following resolutions: ^^ Resolved, that the conduct of Rev. John Truair, since he has resided within the limits of this association, has been such as to forfeit our confidence in him as a minister of Christ Resolved, that it is our duty to give public notice of our views of his conduct, and thus warn the churches against his influence ; and that, for this purpose, the scribe of the Association is hereby directed, after sending a copy of this act of withdrawment to the Rev. John Truair, immediately to cause it to be published in the LETTER I. 45 Hampshire Gazette." This bull of excommunication was immediately published, with the names of twenty orthodox ministers attached. And what had this persecuted man done to merit this severe and destructive persecution ? Nothing half so bad as the orthodox preachers are doing almost every day in this vicinity. I wish his Appeal may be read by every friend of religious freedom. Take the case of the Rev. Thomas Worcester of Salisbury, N. H. He had been persecuted in almost every possible manner by the orthodox, because he renounced the doctrine of the Trinity. But the Hopkinton Association filled up the measure of his sufferings, by publishing to the world, that he was not worthy to he owned or employed as a Christian minister on account of his great errors. I have not room for the bull of excom- munication and condemnation which they published in two or three news- papers. You see in this minister a very fair specimen of the persecutions a man must suffer, if he dares to think for himself and differ from the stan- dard of orthodoxy. I wish you to notice this case. I will give you a slight view of his sufferings in his own words. Here they are. " Who can help seeing much, very much, to deter even good men from faithful inquiry, in such reproaches, censures, and privations, as have, in our day, and in this land of liberty, been the consequences of denying such a cardinal point of popular orthodoxy ? Even in New England, in this greatly distinguished portion of the Christian community, a minister of the Gospel has more than a little to fear as a consequence of giving up the triune faith. Take my own case as a witness. Although for more than ten years after an open avowal of my disbelief of the triune doc- trine, I was permitted to hold my place as a pastor, the most of the time in a good degree of peace and comfort at home ; yet to have my name so much, and so extensively as it was, cast out as evil, and to be disowned, and treated as a great errorist, so much as I was, by ministers, who for twenty preceding years had treated me as a brother in deed and in truth, was not a very small trial. And after this, to be separated from a beloved people, to whose welfare I had been devoted for thirty years ; to have the hearts of some torn from me, and to be torn from the hearts of so many as remain tenderly attached, and are to me much endeared brethren and friends ; to have my temporal support unexpect- edly taken away, leaving me under embarrassments and privations, to be felt, in all probability, as long as my life shall continue ; and to be, under a considerable advance in the decline of life, subjected to great uncertainty as to any productive employment, in the only way to which I have been accustomed to it from my youth ; all this cannot be deemed a very small trial. Nor was it expected that it would be so considered. But those, who occasioned it, probably expected it would be so viewed, as to have, like other things of a similar nature, a deterring influence, to prevent other instances of departure from the point of reputed orthodoxy in question." Since this was written, a little orthodox church in the 46 LETTER I. place, a minority of a minority, have passed a vote of excommunication against the man who was once their own pastor. But with all these means of persecution, many of his old parishioners remain firm friends. In the few months tliat the Rev. Mr. Cross has been settled in the town, the venerable and persecuted and dismissed pastor has been invited to attend thirteen out of sixteen funerals which have occurred. Here then is a specimen of the persecutions which many most worthy min- isters have had to suffer from orthodox bigotry, simply because they preferred the language of Christ to the language of human creeds. It is enough to make the heart bleed to read over all the documents in my possession, which reveal the unchristian treatment of unitarian ministers and Christians by the leaders of the orthodox denomination. But I have given facts enough to prove that orthodox ministerial associations have converted themselves into ecclesiastical courts, so as to try and pun- ish the supposed errors of unitarians as heresies, that is, as crimes. And you will surely admit that all such proceedings are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. 5. Churches. Fifthly. Look at the proceedings of orthodox churches. They also have converted themselves into ecclesiastical courts to try and punish Christians for their honest sentiments. They have assumed unscriptural power, and made the exercise of their authority subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregational- ism. I will mention ybiir different classes of facts in proof of these as- sertions, hook, Jirsty at the terms of adinission into orthodox churches. Two circumstances strike me as peculiarly oppressive and unchristian. One is this. The candidate for admission is obliged to profess his hearty belief in the articles of a long human creed, before he can be receiv- ed to communion. Now from what source do you obtain authority to require this confession ? From Christ Jesus ? No ; he has given no such right to any man, nor to any body of men. He has explicitly taught us, that those are his true disciples who keep his words, and not those who compel their equals to subscribe to words and phrases of man's invention. And if you do not obtain your authority from Jesus Christ, is it not usurped ? Is he not the sole Head of the church ? Is he not the only Lawgiver of Christians ? Is he not the only Master of true followers ? Are not all his disciples on an equal footing? Have not the minority of the communicants precisely the same right to prescribe a creed for the majority, that the majority have to do this for the mi- nority ? Has not the only lawful creed-maker for Christians given a per- fect standard of Christian faith and practice in his own language ? Is it not high presumption in man to attempt to improve upon the teachings of the only infallil)le Guide ? And not only so. Is not this practice of compelling members to subscribe a human creed most wicked ? Just consider one circumstance of very frequent occurrence in your church- es. A young man, for instance, who has lived a very tlioughtless and LETTER I. 47 irreligious life, is suddenly converted. After a few weeks he is admit- ted to the communion with great formality. Before God and man, he professes his hearty belief in the articles of a long human creed, which perhaps he never saw or heard till that moment. Is he not thus com- pelled to utter a solemn falsehood ? How can he believe a proposition without evidence ? Has he obtained conclusive proof, during a few weeks' hasty and agitated perusal of the Scriptures, that all the articles of the creed are literally true ? Is this possible? For my own part, I have often shuddered, when I have known young and ignorant converts compelled to, express their hearty belief in propositions which they did not understand, and of course could not believe. I think you will admit that this practice of orthodox churches is both unscriptural and injurious. The other circumstance to which I alluded is this. The candidate for admission is obliged, not only to profess his hearty belief in the ar- ticles of the creed, but he is also compelled to take a solemn vow that he will never disbelieve these articles. Let me quote a few sentences, in proof of this assertion, from the covenant of one of your new churches. " Hereafter you can never withdraio from the watch and communion of saints without a breach of covenant Let it be impressed on your minds, that you have come under solemn obligations, from which you can never escape. Wherever you go, these voivs will be upon you. They will fol- low you to the bar of God ; and in whatever world you may be fixed, will abide upon you to eternity. You have unalterably committed your- selves, and henceforth you mu^t be the servants of God." Now what do you call this ? Is not the candidate made to believe, that he can never depart from the sentiments of the human creed without a breach of his covenant engagements ? — without a violation of his most solemn obligations ? — without a wilful transgression of his everlasting vows ? Certainly. For I have known instances in which those, who had re- nounced their orthodox belief, were so assured. One lady, who request- ed a dismission and recommendation to a unitarian church, was inform- ed that no dismission would be granted, that she must be excommuni- cated for a breach of her covenant engagements. Another lady, who had embraced unitarian sentiments, was told by her pastor, that she had perjured herself And now where do you obtain authority for such a measure? Is it derived from Christ? No. I contend that you have no right whatever to make any person take such solemn oaths, as a neces- sary step to the communion table. For in so doing, you in effect re- quire them to promise to perform one of two things, — either to neglect the Bible wholly, or to perform an impossibility. If you al- low them to study the Scriptures, no doubt they will depart at least from some expressions of the creed ; and they cannot believe the hu- man opinion in opposition to Scriptural evidence. I do hope the follow- ers of Jesus will look to this clerical usurpation of his rightful authority ; 48 LETTER I. and banish all such human traditions from the school of their divine Mas- ter. For I think a candid considerntion of these two practices must convince them of their unscriptural character and illiberal and oppres- sive tendency. In the second p\ace^ look to the causes of excommunications from ortho- dox churches. Three circumstances strike me as peculiarly oppressive and unchristian. One is this. The orthodox have repeatedly excom- municated members from their churches who were not accused of any unchristian or immoral conduct; who exhibited a religious temper and character, and who made the Scriptures their only standard of faith and practice. And for what cause ? Simply for obeying the plain com- mands of Jesus. Simply for searching the Scriptures for themselves, and expressing their sentiments in the very words of the sacred wri- ters. Simply because they followed the Lord Jesus, instead of human masters. Cases of this kind are of so frequent occurrence, that it is not necessary to mention particular examples. In one instance, the minister assured a lady who had embraced unitarianism, that her crime was much more alarming than any open immorality. In anoth- er place, a man, who still adhered to orthodoxy, was publicly excommu- nicated, because he sent his children to a unitarian sunday school and would not pronounce the unitarian doctrine to be as bad as Deism and Atheism. But as you may want evidence of this assertion, I will give you an extract from a letter lately received by a gentleman in this vicinity from a most respectable unitarian minister in another State. The letter was written without any knowledge of my undertaking, and is now used by me without his knowledge or permission. " The Presbyterians are waging most bitter war against us ; war to the very knife. There is no form of accusation or misrepresentation left untried ; the same slandering of private character and the same misrepresentations of which you see something in Massachusetts. They are endeavouring to crush all freedom of thought and opinion. No longer than a week ago, a man, against whose moral and religious character not a single charge was brought, a man who is a presbyterian in his faith, was publicly excommunicated from the presbyterian church ; and these were the reasons, viz. That he had sent his children to an unitarian sunday school, and on being questioned by the church ses- sions, had said, that he did not think the unitarian belief was as bad as it had been represented ; that is, as bad as Deism and Atheism. These were the reasons, as read from the pulpit, in full meeting for communion, for expelling a man from the presbyterian church. The people are taught that it is wicked to hear a unitarian preach, or read a unitarian book. The Rev. Mr. , in a long and labored para- graph, puts on the same ground, permission granted by the presbytery for the people of their charge to hear unitarian preaching, and permis- sion granted by a father for his children to visit a brothel or gaming- LETTER I. 49 table. He says, that those who are trained up in unitarian sentiments, are trained up in the way to hell, to be damned. Every means that can prevent people from hearing, thinking, or knowing any thing of unitarianism ; every measure that can be devised and enforced, is put in operation. The terrors of church censure and hell-fire, things almost equally terrible, are made the instruments of barring men from thought and knowledge. Every thing like freedom of thought is crushed. This is what is to be feared ; not Calvinistic doctrines, but this tyranny over men's opinions and consciences ; a tyranny to the full as bad as any that could possibly proceed froai the union of church and state ; a tyranny that stretches across our land, blighting and withering, and making thousands and tens of thousands of unbelievers and hypocrites. September^ 1830." This, Sir, may seem to you strong language. But my own observa- tion, during an absence of three months, last season, in which I touched upon some ten or eleven of the States, enables me to testify to its literal truth. Without, however, dwelling on this case, I will return to the common excommunications in this region for an honest differ- ence of opinion. And I would ask, from what source you obtain authority for such proceedings ? From reason ? There is nothing rea- sonable in the practice. How much more reasonable would it be for the persecuted disciple to excommunicate the persecuters for not adhering to the words of revelation ? Is your authority derived from Scripture ? I challenge you to produce any such authority from the Bible. I challenge you, or any other man, to produce one passage of holy writ, which gives an orthodox church the right to excommunicate a member for heresy, so long as the member makes the Bible his standard of faith, and exhibits a Christian character. You, indeed, have the majority, and can vote him to be a heretic. But does your vote make him any the less a Christian ? And on the same principle, why do you not vote to see if he may deal honestly, or love mercy, or walk humbly with his God ; as well as to determine whether lie may obey the dying request of his Saviour, and follow the plain language of inspiration in forming his religious belief? I do think that a little consideration must convince candid minds, that excommunication for honest opinions merely, is both unchristian and tyrannical. The Pope excommunicated Martin Luther, and Martin Luther excommunicated the Pope. And was not the bull pronounced by the heretic as valid as the one by the head of orthodoxy ? The next circumstance to which I alluded is this. Orthodox churches have refused to dismiss members and recommend them to uni- tarian churches. And when they have united with such churches, in compliance with congregational rules, they have been excommunicated for their conduct. Repeated instances of this nature have lately 7 50 LETTER I. occurred. Orthodox ministers have assured such members, both in conversation and writing, that theirs were ca?es of peculiar guilt and imniincnt peril, and tliat Ihcy would choerfully recommend them to a Christian church. I will take one instance for an illustration of my remarks. Three individuals of the first church in Newton removed some ten or fifteen years since into the town of Brighton. About a year ago, they requested a dismission from that church, and a recom- mendation to the congregational church in the place of their residence. In answer to their request, the following absolute refusal was received. " l\ev. and Dear Sir, ** Your letter requesting the dismission and recommendation of three of our church members now residing in Brighton, has been laid before this church. After mature deliberation it was voted unanimously, I that w^e do not comply with the request.' The reason for passing such a vote was not because the three individuals were not in good CHRISTIAN standing among us ; but the sole reason was, because we considered a compliance with your request ' manifestly unsafe.^ In thus voting, we have followed the directions given in the Cambridge Plat- form. That expressly declares, ' if a member's departure be mani- festly unsafe and sinful, the church may not assent thereunto." Now had this said church read the whole of the paragraph from which this quotation is taken ; and more especially, had they read a note by the orthodox editor of the new edition of the Platform at the bottom of another page, they would have been obliged to invent some other excuse for their refusal. The individuals concerned perused these remarks, and in strict compliance with the rules of the Platform, provided for their case, joined the first church in Brighton. Whereupon, a bull of excommunication was thundered forth from the pulpit of the first church in Newton. The same body have also more lately excommunicated two others for attending the communion of the unitarian church in Watertown. I would not insinuate that either of these measures, any more than many other late proceedings of the orthodox, have received the approbation of the worthy senior pastor of the first church in Newton. This, Sir, is but a specimen of a great number of cases of a similar character. And will you not pronounce this act uncongregational ? Is not the first church in Brighton in as good and regular standing as it ever was ? And where is the wisdom or the Christianity of such a proceeding ? Let me suppose a parallel case. Suppose one of my church should remove into an orthodox par- ish, and request a dismission, and recommendation to the church in the place of his residence. Suppose my church should absolutely refuse to grant the request, and give as the sole reason of their conduct, that they considered a compliance manifestly unsafe and sinful. We could say this with as much right and more reason than it can be said by an orthodox church. For if the orthodox are sincere in their belief in the LETTER I. 51 doctrine of election, they could not fear for the eternal safety of their members ; because no one can be condemned but the non-elect, and nothing can ever bring them to salvation. And, so far as regards my own observation, I could truly call it unsafe and sinful to place one of my church members under orthodox influence. For I have thought, in one or two instances of this kind which have occurred in other towns, that the individuals were made worse by admission into orthodox churches ; worse, because they began soon to exhibit a self-righteous? censorious, uncharitable, condemning spirit ; and did not observe al- together a strict regard to truth and honesty and fair-dealing. But should I be guilty of refusing to dismiss and recommend an individual, and proceed to excommunication, would you not pronounce the meas- ure unchristian, illiberal, and oppressive ? And is the same act any the less unchristian, illiberal, or oppressive, because perpetrated by an orthodox church ? ,^. The last circumstance to which I alluded is this. Orthodox seceders from unitarian churches have been guilty of the egregious folly of excommunicating those who remained, because they would not follow them to a new place of worship and communion. Many cases of this kind have recently occurred. The circumstances are so similar in the different places, that one example will be sufficient. The orthodox minister of a parish is either dismissed, or pays the debt of nature. The large majority of his hearers have become unitarians. While their pastor, he hedged up the entrance to the Lord's table with such high fences, that but few could overleap the human barriers. Of those who obtained admission, a respectable minority embrace unitarian- ism. The majority of orthodox communicants then secede ; carry off the church records, plate, and Bible, which lawfully belong to the congregation ; beg funds to erect a new house of worship, and proceed to excommunicate those who remain in the old meetinghouse. Such a statement appears so perfectly ridiculous and absurd, that my word will be doubted unless I give names and dates. Take the case then of the second church in Brookfield. The creed or covenant was originally so liberal, that Christians of different religious opinions could honestly give their assent to its requisitions. In 1825, the pastor introduced one, more orthodox, which was assented to by a majority of the mem- bers. A few years afler, the orthodox minister was dismissed, and a unitarian settled in his place. A majority of the male church-mem- bers seceded, and held separate worship and communion. About three months after the ordination of the unitarian minister, the male mem- bers who remained were excommunicated horn the second church by the seceders. And of what crimes were they accused ? Among other things, the following were contained in the letter of exclusion ; " neg- lect of duty in not attending public worship and communion seasons ; '* — " pretending to style themselves, we the church, and as such to hold 52 LETTER I. meetings and act independently of the church and pastor;*' — "and whereas in disregard of covenant engagements, they refuse to walk with the church in the observance of Christian ordinances, and disclaim all connexion with tlie church ; tlierefore voted., that they are gone out from us, and are no longer of us ; that we hold ourselves absolved from covenant engagements to watch over them ; and that tliey are hereby excluded from our fellowship and connexion." Now just notice this solemn trifling. Individuals are excommunicated for not attending worship and communion, for breaking covenant engagements, and for going out from the church ; while it was a literal fact, that these very individuals had not left their usual place of worship, had not omitted the regular seasons of communion, had broken no covenant engagements, as they never signed the new orthodox creed, and had not gone out from any body whatever. On the other hand, those who passed the vote of exclusion had actually forsaken the church, and worship, and ordinances. But this is not the whole of this farcical business ; after the vote of excommunication had been sent to the regular church members, a letter of warning and reproof was also for- warded to each of the excluded individuals. I will give a copy of the letter sent by this said body of seceders to ten females at a still later period. « To Mrs. "With unfeigned solicitude for your most precious interests, the church ore constrained to request you very seriously to consider the feelings and conduct which have placed you in your present situation. With affectionate concern, we beg you in the calm hour of serious reflection, to ask conscience, whether from regard to the will and com- mand of your Lord, or from other considerations, you have ceased to commune and worship with us in the profession of that faith, which in connecting yourself with this church, you publicly declared to be tlie ground of your hope in God ? Is it a light matter to break from a cov- enant 80 solemn in its nature as that into which you entered with the Lord and this church ; the obligations of which you voluntarily assumed, and before God and man you religiously promised to fulfil ? What- ever others may pretend, do you feel, that with safety, you may release yourself at pleasure from the bonds of such a covenant ; and without any formality adopt another essentially differing in articles of faith and rules of practice ? Is this, we would ask, walking orderly as a member of Christ's church ? And have you no anxiety how such a transaction is regarded by your Lord and Master ? Let us not de- ceive ourselves. The whole of these proceedings will be reviewed in the great day. And in the realizing prospect of that awful scene, can you feel, that with an approving mind you will be able to an- swer to your Lord and Judge ? JVe pretend not to exercise dominion over your faith ; nor would we retain you in our connexion contrary to your LETTER I. ' 53 ovm inclinations. If ice cannot walk by the same rule, it is best to he separate. Still we cannot but consider it awfully dangerous to trifle with solemn voivs. And as one with whom we were associated in endearing bonds ; with whom we took delight in going to the house of God, and to the table of our Lord ; and whose departure has occasioned deep regret, we cannot but earnestly desire, that if you are in a dangerous error, as we honestly believe you to be, that you may be convinced of it and repent ere it be too late. AwA as the last expression of our faithfulness and regard, we entreat of you seriously to pause and consider." Now to say nothing of the canting, whining, coaxing, threatening tenor of this letter, how perfectly farcical and ridiculous is the whole business ! Let me suppose a parallel case, in order to bring these proceedings before you in their true complexion. Suppose, then, I should now introduce another covenant into my church, and succeed in obtaining the names of a majority of the members. Suppose my society should see cause to dismiss me next month from their employment. Suppose I should emigrate to Ohio, with the majority of male members who had signed the new creed. Suppose we should then and there call our- selves the second church inWaltham, and the Hollis or Shepard Socie- ty ; and proceed to excommunicate the remaining minority, because they had not attended our meetings and communion seasons. Suppose we should accompany our vote of exclusion with a letter of warning and reproof and denunciation to every remaining individual, male and female. Now this would be a parallel case ; for whether we remove three miles or three hundred, the principle is precisely the same. And should we adopt such a measure, would you not pronounce us either foolish or fanatical ? And does not such a proceeding destroy all religious freedom ? I well know, that, in this vicinity, the excom- munications and denunciations of the orthodox are little feared or regarded. But such is not the fact in all parts of our country ; and where any one is deterred from thinking and acting freely in religious matters by the fear of man, there can be no religious freedom. I must therefore conclude that the causes of excommunication from orthodox churches are destructive of religious liberty, free inquiry, and the prin- ciples of Congregationalism. In the third place, look at the rights claimed and exercised by ortho- dox churches. Three circumstances strike me as peculiarly unchris- tian and oppressive. One is this. Orthodox churches claim and exer- cise the right of determining who is qualified to obey the last injunc- tion of our Saviour. And from whom do you derive this power ? From the Head of the church ? No, he has delegated no such authority to any man or any body of men. But I suppose you will contend that every associated body has a right to decide upon the character of its members. This may be true in most societies ; but the Lord's Supper is a very 64 LETTER 1. different affair. Jesus is the sole Master of the feast He has given out his invitations ; and every man must determine for himself whether he is qualified to accept. And the idea, so often advanced by Uie ortho- dox, that they cannot sit down to the communion with heretics, seems to me to proceed on a very mistaken view of the ordinance. When I approQch the Lord's table, I do not look around to ascertain how many of the guests are unworthy to be in my company. I do not say in my thoughts. There is one, who believes a little less than 1 do, and he ought to be excluded ; and there is another, who believes a little more than I do, and he ought also to be excluded ; on my right is one, who takes more ardent spirit than I do, and he should be excluded ; and on my left is another, who prays less in his family than I do in mine, and he should likewise be excluded ; in that pew is one, who has not been so thoroughly drenched in the waters of baptism as I have, and he must be excluded ; and on that seat is another, who has not received so much spiritual influence as I have, and he must surely be excluded. No; when I sit down to commemorate the sufferings and death of my Saviour, my business is with his instructions and example, and with my own heart and character. If I am faithful to my own soul, I fear no contamination from my neighbours, and incur no guilt in the sight of God. With the opinions and religious observances of the other guests, I have no con- cern. They are answerable for themselves. I have no authority to take care of them, nor have they any right to interfere with me. I merely wish to imitate the example of the infallible Teacher. When he insti- tuted this ordinance, he sat down with twelve disciples, whom he knew to be ignorant of the true spiritual nature of his kingdom. He knew that the whole number would soon desert Jiim in the hour of peril. He knew that one would deny him with an oath. He knew that another would betray him to tiie death. And with this knowledge, he distribu- ted to them the consecrated elements, and even passed the sop to his very betrayer. He has thus left an example of the most unbounded charity for the imitation of all future ages. Whenever a person wishes to comply with the dying request of his Saviour, if he takes the Scriptures for the guide of his faith and practice, and gives evidence of a good moral character, no man and no body of men, have any right to forbid his attendance at the ordinance. And for my own part, I should rather be in the situation of the most degraded Hottentot at the day of judgment, than in the condition of that Christian, who has excluded a sincere and humble follower of Jesus from the table of his Master. I must consider this measure unchristian and oppressive. The next circumstance to which I alluded is this. Orthodox churches claim and exercise the right of choosing the minister. This claim has been asserted in some of your late publications, And more than all, you have proceeded to act on this principle. You have erected several new churches in this commonwealth, and have so bound them down LETTER I. 55 with trust deeds, that no proprietor is allowed to vote for the minister he must support, unless he has heen voted into the number of com- municants. How would this rule operate in our old societies? Take Carlisle for an example. The late minister of that place preached thorough-going orthodoxy, and would not admit unitarians into his pulpit. At his death there were thee male members in the church; twoof them orthodox and one liberal. Now according to your plan, these two have the right to elect a new pastor; and if the society are dissatisfied with their choice, they must retire and leave these two in the peaceable possession of the meeting-house and church property. When you can persuade the great mass of our citizens to acknowledge their inability and incapacity to elect their own religious teachers, your law will go into full operation ; and not till then. This claim of the orthodox is really too absurd to m.erit a moment's discussion. I therefore leave it for you to make the public believe that they are to enjoy religious liberty, after they have surrendered the right of choosing the ministers they are obliged to support. The last circumstance to which I alluded is this. Majorities in or- thodox churches claim and exercise the right of holding all church property. This principle may be illustrated by the actual proceedings of several such majorities. Take the case of the church in this place. An orthodox minister was settled upon the condition that he should leave whenever two thirds of the voters should so decide. After five years' ministrations, the question was taken. But fifteen votes from more than one hundred voters, could be obtained for his continuance. The contract was therefore legally annulled. He left the house with five male members. They took the records ; the plate, which had been presented by the agent of the manufacturing company, a man of known unitarian sentiments ; and the Bible, which had been purchased by a subscription among the ladies. Loud complaints were published that this church had been driven from their house of worship ; when they owned not a cent of property in the building, and might have remained there in the enjoyment of every Christian right and privilege. They soon published a creed, calling themselves the Trinitarian Con- gregational Church of Walthnm. This same thing has been done in several instances during the past year ; although the Supreme Court have repeatedly decided that such seceders have no right to the church property. These decisions were known at the very time by those who openly violated the laws of the Commonwealth. How you can call such conduct consistent with being peaceable snd obedient subjects of the government, is more than T can understand. And how you can reconcile the practice of setting up a human creed, so thnt but few can subscribe it, and then allowing those few to hold the property of the congregation, is also inexplicable to me on any Christian ground. I well know that the orthodox are aiming to have the laws of the State 56 LETTER so altered, that a majority of the communicants shall hold all churcn property. And unless I am greatly mistaken, a very deep plot is laid for obtaining possession of our unitarian churches and funds. I have reasons for this surmise in a circumstance which has already occurred. The facts in the case are briefly these. In a unitarian parish, resided several orthodox individuals. All at once they requested admission to the unitarian church. The minister was so surprised, that lie asked them if they were in earnest. They affirmed their sincerity, and were accordingly admitted. They then seceded, and called themselves the first church, and claimed the large funds of that body. They even endeavoured to have a council called to dismiss the pastor of the regular church and society. Now this short statement will serve to unfold the whole plot. You are establishing orthodox churches in unitarian par- ishes. You make them up of individuals from different and even distant places. Of the ten male members who compose the orthodox church in this place, there are individuals residing in four or five difi^erent towns. Well, get your lav/ altered so that a majority of male commu- nicants shall hold the meeting-bouse and funds, and then let nil the orthodox mcmbeni apply for admission into the unitarian church. There would be nothing in the creed or covenant to which they could object; and unitarians could not consistently refuse their request. Then they might vote the minority and the whole society out of house and home, and take possession of all church property. I can only say, that I hope this suspicion is altogether groundless ; but I have more evidence, sat- isfactory to my own mind, than I have here advanced, or than I care to mention. For their is little probability that you will ever succeed in getting the law altered. I think I have adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy any one that orthodbx churches have converted themselves into ecclesiastical courts, and adopted measures and claimed rights in- consistent with free inquiry and religious liberty. In the fourth place, look at the orthodox conferences of churches. As these are new combinations, I will give somo account of their for- mation, proceedings, and tendency. A number of orthodox ministers induce their several churches to unite in a conference ; and subject themselves to certain definite regulations. They hold quarterly meet- ings in their respective places of residence, which are fully attended from all the branches of the connexion. They have preaching, pray- ing, exhortation, reports of the state of religion, communion, and con- tributions for feeble churches. Their transactions are published in some religious newspaper, so far as it can be efiected without ex- posing some of their worst features. Now four circumstances strike me as peculiarly unchristian and injurious in these conferences of churches. One is this. The progress of religion is measured by an unchristian standard. You hear nothing said of the increase of peace, love, joy, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, patience, forbearance. LETTER I. 67 family concord and harmony. But I will forbear. I have before me the opinion of the Rev. Mr. Hildreth on this subject. As he is not a party man, as he is not classed with unitarians, as he expresses the convictions of several orthodox ministers, I shall use his words as ex- pressing my own sentiments. '* In the first place, I object to conferences of churches, because I consider them unfavorable to congregational order — to the liberty, or independence of individual churches. "A conference of churches consists of a number of churches associated together for certain purposes by a written compact — by articles adopted by each church. Delegates are chosen by the churches respectively and sent with their pastors to the conference ; and delegates from other conferences are also admitted. So far as I know, the articles of conference do not expressly delegate any ecclesiastical authority ; but every body can see, that ecclesiastical authority and influence necessa- rily result from the organization. If no such authority or influence whatever had been intended by the projectors, I very much doubt, if the organization would ever have been made. ******** " In the second place, church conferences are a novelty — an experi- ment. They are a human contrivance, and they set up a new standard of ministerial and Christian character, which the Head of the Church, in my view, has not authorized. It will be safe to remain out of them. " In the third place, there is a display in these conferences, which I greatly dislike, and which is adapted to foster the erroneous impres- sion, that religion is very low and languid, unless it makes a great deal of show and sound. In this land of Bibles, of Sabbaths, of public wor- ship and instruction, I see no call for the whole, or the half of a county's coming together from time to time, to discuss the state of religion, to hear some great preacher from abroad, and to be excited by a great occasion. If we cannot learn the way of salvation within our own houses, and under Christian ministrations within our own parishes, I am persuaded, we shall never learn it at all. And I consider the occasions in question, as highly unfavorable to the usefulness of parish ministers — unfavorable to the steady, gentle, and therefore the most salutary influence of the ordinary services of the Sabbath day. I believe, that experience will show, and has already shown, that no conference of churches is broken up without numbers going away less fitted to receive and relish the plain and wholesome instruction of their ministers at home. "In the fourth place, conferences of churches are calculated, as I be- lieve, to diminish the dignity, as well as the salutary influence of the Christian ministry, by bringing forward, more than is for their own spiritual good, a class of lay brethren, who have great need of learning meekness and modesty at home, instead of coming before the public to make speeches about the state of religion." I will add but one further observation on this topic. The liberty of individual churches is destroyed by these conferences. Yes ; I regard 8 58 LETTER L the orthodox conferences of churches as but another name for con- sociationSi They bring ministers and churches into utter servitude^ This is acknowledged by some of the wortliy orthodox divines of this state ; and on this account they will have no part nor lot in such measures. Their tyrannical power has not yet been exercised to any very great extent ; but let one minister of their body become unita- rian, and he would be tried and punished for his honest opinions. Let a church attempt to hear a unitarian candidate, and they would soon learn that their liberty was sacrificed. I hope the public will awake to this most alarming encroachment on congregational rights, equality, and independency. I hope parishes will no longer suffer themselves to be slandered by their ministers and neighbours, simply because they have not assented to the articles of a human creed. I hope churches will discover the snare set for the destruction of their rights of free inquiry, religious liberty, and Congregationalism. I have room for no more facts under this head. What then must be our conclusion ? Do not the facts I have stated fully prove, that the leaders of the orthodox party have attempted to establish, and in several instances have actually established, ecclesiastical tribunals, so that the supposed mistakes and errors of ministers and private Chris- tians have been tried and punished as heresies ; that is, as crimes ? And do not the same facts fully prove, that such tribunals are subver- sive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congrega- tionalism? I must conclude that both propositions are perfectly de- monstrated. IV. Measures for organizing and establishing feeble churches. In the fourth place, I invite your attention to the measures adopted by the orthodox for organizing and establishing feeble churches in unitarian parishes. I think the facts, which I shall adduce under this head, will prove the two following propositions. First, that the meas- ures recently adopted for increasing the number of orthodox churches are unchristian. And, secondly, that such measures are subversive of free inquiry, religious libert}^ and the principles of Congregationalism* My limits will permit me to notice but five different classes of facts under this general division. 1. Measures for organizing a feeble Church. Pirst. Look at the measures adopted by orthodox leaders to organize a feeble church in a unitarian parish. The circumstances are generally these. There are a few orthodox individuals, principally females, in unitarian societies. These are visited by orthodox ministers, and urged to secede and form themselves into an evangelical church Others are pointed out who are supposed to be wavering, and these are also treated in tlie same manner. They are assured that their present pastor does not preach the truth, but is leading his people to destruction. They are cautioned to conceal from their husbands the contemplated separation, and told that opposition muat be expected in the cause of God. Having enlisted LETTER I. 59 a small party, a day is appointed for the organization of the feeble church. Orthodox ministers are present ; some of them bring their own church members, to help make up a decent number for the new body. In this way the evangelical church is organized, consisting of some four or more females, and perhaps one or more males, residents in the place ; and several males and females from neighbouring and distant towns. And it is a well known fact, that in most instances, the seceders from unitarian churches, have been urged to this measure by the conversation, preaching, and writings of orthodox ministers. Such are some of the measures adopted for organizing feeble churches in this commonwealth. Now is this conduct of the orthodox leaders truly Christian ? Is this doing, as you would wish unitarian ministers to do unto you? Were you ordained over a united parish, should you wish unitarian preachers to come into your society, visit among your people, assure your hearers that you were leading them to hell blindfold, and urge them to separate from your communion, and form themselves into a liberal church ? This question was put to one of your leaders while engaged in this work of division. And what answer do you suppose he returned to the unitarian minister ? These are the words. " O you cannot do this, for it is contrary to your principles." Is this a sufficient excuse ? Suppose my neighbour should come to my bam, and take away my cow. Suppose I should discover him while engaged in the business, and ask him, if he was doing towards me as he should wish me to do unto him ? Suppose he should answer, " O you cannot do this, for it is contrary to your principles." Because my principles would not permit me to steal, does this excuse my neighbour's theft ? Are not such measures truly subversive of free inquiry, religious lib- erty, and the principles of Congregationalism 7 2. Measures for erecting a meetinghouse for a feeble church. Secondly. Look at some of the orthodox measures for erecting a place of worship for a feeble church. Take the proceedings in relation to the one in Billerica, since you sanctioned them by preaching the sermon at the dedication. The circumstances are briefly these. A few years since, the leaders of your party, and the members of the Andover Association generally, determined that an orthodox church must be established in this peculiarly united and peaceable town. The last year, the Rev. Drs. Beecher and Fay, and Mr. Bennett, proceeded to organize a feeble body, collected mostly from neighbouring communions. A house of worship is then needed. And how can it be obtained ? The members of the society by great pinching raise something like two hundred dollars ; and one hundred more is literally extorted from a single lady by over-persuasion. The Rev. Mr. Bennett is employed to raise the remainder by hard begging. He accordingly rides most of the summer, and visits many of the towns in this Commonwealth. He had prepared 60 LETTER I. a very peculiar discourse, of which I have received several abstracts. I will therefore give you some of his remarks in his own words. " I stand before you as a beggar for Billerica. I have vowed to the Lord, that I will obtain sufficient funds to build a meetinghouse in that place. There is great need of one. The gospel has not been preached there for fifty years. Religion and morals are at a very low ebb. They have no sabbath. The town is a moral waste. It is a proper missionary station. The people are in a heathenish condition. No longer ago than three years, there was but one Christian in the place, and she was a female. But the neighbouring ministers have taken pity on their deplorable condition. Several converts have been made by my instrumentality. I call them my children. And they want a meeting- house. It is your duty to give to this object. It is your duty to send the gospel to the heathen at home as well as the heathen abroad. Give. If you have no money, give something else. Give your watches, your necklaces, your finger-rings. If you cannot give a spike, give a nail ; if you cannot give a nail, give a brad." Perhaps you will think I have exaggerated his statements. But T have put down the very words and phrases that proceeded from his mouth ; and respectable men in all parts of the Commonwealth stand ready to testify to tlie truth and accuracy of my record. Now in view of all these measures, you came and dedicated the house, although you were obliged to bespeak and pay for your dinner on the occasion. And after a suitable man was selected for this mis- sionary station, some thirty ministers of your party aided in his ordina- tion, and then bound themselves to contribute about two thirds of his salary for a limited time. And all this mountain labor for what pur- pose ? The number of hearers ranges from five to fifty, taking men, women, and children ; and the fair average in good weather is from thirty to forty. The larger part of them could be accommodated with orthodox preaching much nearer in neighbouring towns. And because the heathen people in Billerica will not permit your missionary to insult them in their own houses, the cry of persecution is raised. Will the public sanction these orthodox measures 7 Can you expect the blessing of God upon a church erected by such means ? Is this the way that Christ propagated his religion? I wish all concerned would read the history of his life, with a particular reference to his measures for spreading the true faith. Now, Sir, what do you think of such proceedings ? I say you ; for I have no disposition to cast the blame of this affair on Mr. Bennet What I should consider heinous crime in another, I regard as lament- able misfortune in him. I have no hesitation in attributing his ludicrous movements, his ridiculous statements, his base misrepresentations, his aggravated offences against all decency, to some mental disorder. Neither would I be so unjust as to blame the orthodox generally for LETTER I. 64 this outrage upon the peace and reputation of a highly distinguished country village. For I know full well that very many of the more sober members of your denomination have taken no part nor lot in this matter ; but have spoken of the course pursued with marked disappro- bation. I also know that some clergymen have been unwilling to let him preach his begging discourse in their pulpits. I likewise know, that one orthodox association requested Dr. Church to write to some individual in this vicinity, and persuade him to regulate Mr. Bennett's movements ; and that Dr. Codman was mentioned as a suitable person for such business. But I wish the public censure to rest on those individuals who employ this man to say and do things which they dare not utter and transact themselves. And who are they? Why, the leaders of the orthodox denomination. For when this man arose on one occasion to deliver his slanders on Harvard College, he read a commissicm from the committee of the Pastoral Association. This association is composed of most of the orthodox ministers in the Com- monwealth. Their committee consists of such men as Dr. Codman and some of the Boston clergy. Let it then be known, that a few Doctors in divinity have employed this man to raise funds for the erection of new churches for feeble orthodox societies ; and that he acts under your commission. If the community will countenance such proceedings, we have no safety for our reputation as individuals or towns. First Billerica is slandered most grossly ; for it is well known that it stands far above most of the orthodox towns in the county for mental, moral, and religious improve- ment. And had -the same remarks been made concerning an individual, the Reverend gentleman would have been prosecuted for defamation of character. Next comes Cambridge, and the venom of the orthodox party against the ancient university in that place, is poured out over the whole Commonwealth. Legal gentlemen have pronounced his statements slanderous and actionable ; but the instrument is considered too contemptible for prosecution. Whose turn will come next, I know not. I hope orthodox Christians, who despise the principle, that the end sanctifies the means, will raise their voice upon such subjects. For it becomes them to remember, that the same crusade might be waged against the peace and reputation of their own societies, were the unitarians sufficiently bewildered to engage in such an undertaking. And every man must pronounce these measures unchristian, and incon- sistent with free inquiry and religious liberty. 3. Measures for Jilling the new meetinghouse. Thirdly. Look at some of the measures adopted by the orthodox for filling the new house of worship. An appeal is made to some of the lowest principles of human nature. In almost every town, there are more or fewer individu- als who are at variance, either with their minister, or with his warm friends. They are ready to pursue a course which may prove injurious 62 LETTER I. to their supposed enemies. Such persons are visited by the orthodox leaders, and assured that their secession must weaken and help to destroy the old society. Thus an appeal is made to the principle of re- venge. — In almost every town, tliere are more or fewer individuals who love their money better tlian their religion. They are for ever com- plaining of the burden of tlieir taxes ; and are always ready to secede when it can be done without the sacrifice of too much popularity. Such persons are visited by the orthodox leaders ; and promised an exemption from ministerial taxes for a certain period ; and after that time, nothing but their voluntary contributions will be required. Thus an appeal is made to the principle of avarice. — In almost every town, there are more or fewer individuals who think themselves too much neglected. They complain, either that their minister has not paid them sufficient attention, or that their fellow-citizens have not noticed them according to their deserts. Such persons are visited, and treated with a comfortable dose of flattery, and made to believe that they shall be of the first importance in the new society. Thus an appeal is made to the principle of vanity. — In almost every town, there are more or fewer individuals, who have no fixed religious opinions. They wish to be very good, and are afi*aid of being too liberal in their sentiments. Such persons are visited, being mostly females, and are assured that the orthodox is at least the safest course ; that tliere can be no danger on their ground ; while they are exposed to imminent peril so long as they remain unitarian. Thus an appeal is made to the principle of fear. — In these several ways, some few are obtained to fill up the new meetinghouse. And this brief statement will also serve to explain the circumstance, that in your new and feebla societies, there are so many varieties of opinion and character. It is a well known fact, that the large majority are females, that some of the males are unitarians, some universalists, some nothingarians, and some unbelievers. Let unitarian preachers adopt similar measures in orthodox parishes, and would not their success be a hundred- fold ? 4. Measures for supporting the feeble society. Fourthly. Look at the measures adopted for the support of the feeble society. A system of begging must be practised for the maintenance of the minister. His parishioners are taxed to the full extent of tlieir ability ; and tlien con- tributions and subscriptions are occasionally solicited to make up some deficiencies. Persons who attend the ordination are attacked, and bind themselves and their societies to contribute so much annually for five years. An appeal is also made to the Domestic Missionary Society, which has large funds for this very object. Besides all these means, it is generally understood, that a large fund has been raised for the express purpose of establishing and maintaining orthodox societies within the borders of unitarian parishes. In these several ways, the minister receives a comfortable subsistence. LETTER I. 63 In order to increase the number of hearers, the minister adopts several singular measures. He calls upon unitarian families, and requests them to come and hear his reasons for being settled over the new society. He visits others, and assures them that their pastor is not converted, that he does not preach the gospel, that he feels no affection for their soul-s. He assures them that their pastor does not preach his real sentiments, that he does not believe the sentiments he advances, that he is a universalist or an infidel. He assures them, that their pastor is not a minister of Christ, that his communicants do not constitute a Christian church, and that his ordinances are not Christian institutions. He assures them, that their pastor is a blind guide, has renounced the grand doctrines of the Reformation, and widely departed from the principles of the Pilgrim fathers. He assures them, that he shall regard no parish limits, but endeavour to convert all who are not already orthodox in sentiment. In this way, he disgusts many, and probably frightens a few into his system of operations. But the great instrument of increase is a revival ; and for the pro- duction of one of these religious excitements, the minister and his church labor incessantly. For they are aware that there are some thoughtless persons who may be easily drawn in by such a system of operations. And the character of the minister, as a successful pastor, depends on his success in getting up these excitements. If he should not be able after one or two years to accomplish this object, he is dis- missed from his society. And what is the reason assigned ? Simply this. " We do not think you well adapted to build up a new society." Yes ; let a minister over one of your feeble churches, be as eloquent and faithful as Paul, let him be really instrumental in making those who attend his ministry pious Christians ; still he will be dismissed unless he is successful in drawing from the unitarian society. I have been astonished, when I have seen young men of ingenuous feelings, and good abilities, and respectable acquirements, thus blindly led about by the chiefs of your party, and subjected to such a life of slavery and degradation. I can account for the fact, only on the supposition that the number of orthodox candidates is large, and that they imbibe largely of the party spirit of their instructors. Now just suppose that unitarians should adopt sinrilar measures in orthodox societies. Would you call them the most Christian, and the most liberal ? 5. Reasons for establishing new Churches. Fifthly. Look at some of the reasons for establishing new orthodox churches. What can they be ? Do you establish these feeble churches for the salvation of souls ? No ; you will not pretend to give this reason. For in your creed the doctrine of election is fully declared. This teaches that God has chosen a certain, limited number for heaven, and foreordained the remainder to an everlasting hell. It also teaches that the number of the elect is definite^ so that neither more nor less can be saved. This 64 ' LETTER I. doctrine is still retained in its original import In a tract lately pub- lished, said to have been written by Dr. Beecher, the principal agent in this work of disorganization, I find these words. " Some he, God, saves. There is a part he rescues from themselves and from perdition. This number is definite." Now if you say, the number of the elect is not definite, you give up the Calvinistic doctrine of election. And if you allow that the number is definite, then you must admit, that not one soul more will be saved, by the establishment of your feeble churches. No ; none but the elect can be saved, and they will be received to heaven at any rate ; and none but the reprobate can be damned, and they must go to hell in spite of orthodox exertions. So that if you are consistent in your belief of the doctrine of election, you will never pretend that your new churches have been organized for the salvation of souls. Will you say that the seceders from unitarian congregations were ever deprived of a single Christian right ? Let us descend to particu- lars. Were such seceders denied the Christian name ? No ; so long as they professed their belief in a divine revelation, and exhibited a Christian character, this name was cheerfully granted to them. Were they denied access to the Christian ordinances ? No ; if they gave Scriptural evidence of being true believers, their children were will- ingly baptized, and they were cordially welcomed to the Lord's table. Were they denounced week after week as infidels, and coolly con- signed to endless burnings for their honest opinions ? No ; they were never condemned for studying and understanding the Scriptures for themselves. Were they obliged to hear doctrines advocated which shocked their very souls.? No; their complaint has usually been, that the unitarian preacher did not go far enough ; that so far as he went, he was very good. And I have no doubt, that if they had judged our Saviour's preaching by the same rule, they would have come to the same conclusion. In short, can you mention a Christian right of which seceders firom unitarian churches were ever deprived by their liberal brethren ? If not, you will not pretend that your new societies are formed, so that the seceders can enjoy their Christian rights. Now how very diflferent is the treatment of those unitarians who reside in orthodox societies ! They are denied the Christian name, and de- nounced as unbelievers. They are denied access to the Christian ordinances, and condemned for their honest interpretations of Scrip- ture. They are held up in orthodox prayers and sermons, as objects of man's pity and God's displeasure. They are deliberately sentenced to hell for obeying Christ to the best of their understanding. And at this very moment, many orthodox ministers receive more than half their support from unitarian funds; for a majority of their parishes have embraced unitarian sentiments. And were unitarians to imitate the example of the orthodox, in establishing a new church wherever a few LETTER I. 65 individuals could be collected, they might form more than a thousand unitarian societies forthwith. And are not the deprivations and perse- cutions to which they are subjected by orthodox tyranny sufficient to justify them in such an undertaking ? Perhaps you will ask, if the orthodox have not a perfect right to adopt measures for the propagation of their peculiar faith. Undoubt- edly. You have a right to adopt and pursue any Christian measures. But will you call all the measures which I have mentioned truly Chris- tian ? Should you wish me to come into your united and peaceable society, and create divisions in families, neighbourhoods, and churches ? especially, if my creed assured me that not one more soul would be saved by all my exertions. Should you wish me to travel from town to town, slandering your parish, exciting the pity of the community for your heathen condition, in order to obtain funds for the erection of a new house of worship for some thirty or forty seceders ? Would this be doing as you would wish me to do unto you ? If not, you cannot call such measures Christian. And if they are not Christian, can you expect the blessing of God upon such labors ? Can you believe that a God of truth and righteousness will prosper churches which have been established by intrigue, and denunciation, and misrepresentation, and extortion ? I know that the miser is so prospered as to become rich in gold. But he is generally cursed by his very wealth. And I am constrained to believe, that many of your feeble churches will prove a curse to your denomination. At first they may spring up like the seed sown among thorns, and on stony ground, and by the way- side ; but they will wither away and perish before the rising sun of truth and righteousness. What then must be our conclusion? Do not the facts which I have stated fully prove, that the measures of the orthodox for establishing feeble churches are unchristian ? And do they not also fully prove, that such measures are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism ? I must conclude that both propositions are perfectly demonstrated. V. Denunciations. In the fifth place, I invite your attention to some of the or- thodox denunciations of unitarians. I think the quotations I shall make from the writings of your authors will prove the two fol- lowing distinct propositions. First, that the leaders of your par- ty have denied unitarians almost every Christian right, and called them by almost every unchristian name. And, secondly, that all such uncharitable revilings are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. My limits will permit me to notice but twelve different classes of orthodox denunciations under this general head, though I could easily increase the number to twelve times twelve. 66 LETTER I. 1. Tht Orthodox deny Unitarians the Christian JSTame. First Look at those passages in which orthodox writers have denied unitarians the .Christian name. My first extract shnll be from " The Spirit of the Pil- grims." "I have no hesitation in sayintr, that were the orthodox, with their creed and views, to treat unitarians as if they believed them to be Christians, and in a safe state, they would indeeti be guilty of the most atrocious cruelty that one moral agent could well manifest to- wards another." There is very little dang-er, that any of the writers in this periodical journal will ever be punished for their cruelty of treating^ unitarians as if they believed them to be Christians. My second quotation shall be from the Letters of Canonicus. " That those, who, understanding at the time what they say, deny the original and entire corruption of the human heart, the divinity and atonement of Christ, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, gratuitous pardon through the merits of the Redeemer, and the everlasting punishment of the impenitent, are Chridians, they [the orthodox] cannot concede, without renouncing all their mnin principles." That the orthodox cannot call unitarians Christians without renouncing all their main principles, re- minds me of the observation of a zealous lady of your denomination ; who declared, that if she gave up her total depravity, she must re- nounce all her religion. My last passage shall be from your friend. Dr. Miller. "You are prepared, I hope, to decide promptly, and without wavering, that uni- tarians are by no means to be considered as Christians, in any scriptural '^tose of the word. Rely on it, my friends, unitarians have been too long courteously called Christians, and recognised as such by the or- thodox around them. We have too long suffered the principles of worldly politeness to betray us into unfaithfulness to the cause of our master." I hope neither you nor your friends will sorrow immoderate- ly, that the principles of worldly politeness have betrayed you into too charitable treatment of your unitarian brethren. I can offer you but one word of consolation under your deep penitence for the aggra- vated crime. It becomes you to remember, that this very conduct which you lament was foreordained by your God, and that he will ex- cuse you for not doing better than he had decreed, because he with- held from you the necessary power and ability. Now argument is useless on this question. When I hear a person declare his firm belief in the divine origin of Christianity, and see him take the Scriptures as his only infallible rule of faith and practice, and search them with honesty and perseverance and devotion, and exhibit a holy temper and character, and manifest a willingness even to lay down his life in defence of his religious faith, my conscience compels me to grant him the Christian name, although ho rejects some of the most precious articles of my belief. And if the LETTER 1. 67 conscience of the orthodox does not move them to perform this act oj justice towards their liberal brethren ; if it does not require them to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, no reason- ino- can ever induce them to perform this duty, or convince them of this error. I therefore leave you to decide the question, how such a denial, for no better reasons, can be consistent with free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. Have not unitarians the same Scriptural right, and as much reason, to deny the Christian name to the orthodox denomination? 2. The Orlhothox deny Unitarians the Chnstian Character. Secondly. Look at those passages in which orthodox writers have denied unitari- ans the Christian character, and endeavoured to make the community believe they were irreligious and immoral in their lives. My first quo- tation shall be from the sermon of your friend. Dr. Beecher, at Wor- cester. " It requires no proof, but universal observation, to support the position, that the irreligious, immoral, and voluptuous part of the community prefer the liberal system, and are vehement in their oppo- sition to the evangelical system. If this assertion needs confirmation, assemble the pleasure-loving and licentious community of the world ; the patrons of balls, and theatres, and masquerades ; and if they sup- port the preaching of any system of doctrines, is it not substantially the liberal system ? " When the Reverend Doctor wrote this paragraph, he probably forgot, that several of the orthodox cities in our country support more than four times as many theatres, and balls, and mas- querades, as the unitarian city of Boston ; and that the state of morals in this liberal city, according to its population, is very much superior to that of most of the evangelical cities in the union. My next quotation shall be from " The Spirit of the Pilgrims." " Uni- tarianism, as a system, is very agreeable to the natural, unhumbled heart, is specially adapted to the tastes and inclinations of the gay, thoughtless, and fashionable world, denying them no liberties or gratifi- cations which come any where within the bounds of decency, while it quiets their consciences with the name and forms of religion, and allays the fear of death by promising happiness beyond the grave ; and it will not be thought strange, with all this variety of adaptation, preparation, and influence, that a considerable number of individuals and churches ivert secretly, and it may be almost imperceptibly, corrupted." Now I was not before aware, that most of our civil fathers were such vile, corrupted characters. One of your writers has been looking over the Registers for several of the last years, and he is astonished to find that almost all our public officers have belonged to the liberal party. And he sums up the result of his investigations in this sentence. " And more than nine tenths of the political infuence is in the hands of the unitarians." I rejoice in the orthodox authority for this fact, for two reasons. First, every man can look to our public men, and de- 68 LETTER I. termine if the nine unitarians are wicked characters, while the one orthodox is the only godly officer. And secondly, persons at a distance will readily conclude, that the wisest, ablest, and best men are elected to office in Massachusetts ; and accordingly determine that unitarians sustain tlie fairest reputation in the land. My two last quotations shall be, one from the " Recorder," and the other from " The Spirit of the Pilgrims." " By his writings for ten years past, Dr. Channing has taken the lead among the enemies of the ortho- dox ; and who are the enemies of the orthodox ? Why, every infidel, and disorganizer, and sabbath-breaker, and debauchee, and gambler, and every haunter of grogshops and theatres in the land. The orthodox are honored with the uniform and unrelenting hatred of all the haters of good order, the haters of virtue, the haters of God." What, my dear Sir, Dr. Channing at the head of a party which includes all these vile characters ? and is this the way to answer his arguments ? And now for the passage from " The Spirit of the Pilgrims." " We cannot contemplate the career of Dr. Channing but with extreme pain. He was once a very serious-minded man, a professed believer in what we deem the religion of the Bible. But of this faith he has made ship- wreck, and has been among the first to let in that flood of infidelity, which, under a fashionable name, has swept over the altars of New England. When licentiousness has reached its height in our land, and a jubilee is proclaimed to those in the upper classes of society who have hitherto been withheld hy public opinion from an open renunciation of the sabbath^ Dr. Channing will be referred to as the gifted mind, who, with commendable caution, first unloosed the yoke of a superstitious observance. May it appear in the judgment that he fled at last to that cross as his only hope, and that he did not go into eternity till the blood shed for the remission of siris ivas applied to his soul, and his peace was made with God through the atonement of his Son." Such language can excite nothing but pity for the writer in the mind of every decent person of any denomination. It is not in the power of man to produce stronger evidence of the weakness of the orthodox cause» and the wickedness of orthodox writers in thus judging the hearts of their brethren. Now if the members of your denomination were free from failings, imperfections, and sins, you would have some excuse for thus passing upon your fellow Christians sentence of condemnation. But you can- not justly lay claim to any such exemptions ; and although it does not become me to speak of the external conduct and character of the ortho- dox, I may quote a few lines from an article in the last American Quarterly Review, written by u Christian who rejects unitarianism, and who has had nmch opportunity for observation. " Admitting that there are pure and bright examples of a good life among the terrorists, not however more or better than are found among their opponents ; if we LETTER I. 69 look at them individually, we shall see them, generally, as devoted to worldly wealth and enjoyments ; as solicitous for distinction and in- fluence ; as easily and happily puffed up with pride and conceit ; and as mere creatures of flesh, as those they pity or spurn, because, for- sooth, their pretensions to sanctity are not so lofty, or their notions of Christianity so mysterious as their own ; nor their observances and deportment squared by the rule they have adopted. They are as impatient of injuries ; as vindictive in their passions ; as unforgiving in their temper ; as keen, close, and avaricious in their dealings ; as hard creditors ; as inflexible and unpitying in exacting their rights." Will any man in your party dare to affirm that this is not the literal truth ? When you or any one of your friends can feel that you are without sin, then will it be time enough to condemn a large, and respect- able, and virtuous denomination as irreligious, immoral, and un- christian. And how far you can reconcile such a practice with free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism, must be left to your own decision. Remember that unitarians have the same right and as much reason to deny the Christian character to the orthodox denomination. 3. The Orthodox assert that Unitarian Ministers are not Ministers of the Gospel. Thirdly. Look at those passages in which orthodox bodies have declared that unitarian preachers were not ministers of the gospel. One extract will be sufficient in this case ; more especially, since it contains the opinion of a numerous body of orthodox clergy and dele- gates. " In the present state of our country, whilst unitarian errors, in various forms, are making their insiduous approaches ; whilst the advocates of this heresy, in many cases, are practising a system of concealment, and insinuating themselves into the confidence of mul- titudes who have no suspicion of their defection from the faith, the Assembly feel it to be their duty to speak without reserve. It is the deliberate and unanimous opinion of this Assembly, that those who renounce the fundamental doctrine of the trinity, and deny that Jesus Christ is the same in substance, equal in power and glory with the Father, cannot be recognised as ministers of the gospel, and that their ministrations are wholly invalid." How you can reconcile such pro- ceedings with the principles of free inquiry, religious liberty, and Congregationalism, is more than I can comprehend. Remember that unitarians have the same right and equal reason to deny orthodox preachers to be ministers of the Gospel. 4. The Orthodox assert that Baptism and the Lord's Supper, when admin- istered by Unitanans, are not Christian Ordinances. Fourthly. Look at those passages in which orthodox writers have denied the name of Christian ordinances to the baptism and supper when celebrated by unitarian Christians. One or two extracts from your friend Dr. Mil- ler, will be sufficient for my present purpose. " You are prepared, I 70 LETTER I. hope, to decide, promptly and without wavering, that their ordinances are to be held unworthy of regard as Christian institutions. With respect to the validity of sealing ordinances administered by unitarians, the hig-hest judicatory of the church to which we belong has given a decision, which ought to be generally known. In the year 1814 a question was laid before the General Assembly, in the following words. A person who had been baptized in his infancy by Dr. Priestley, ap- plied for admission to the Lord's Table. Ought the baptism adminis- tered by Dr. Priestley, then a unitarian, to be considered as valid ? The Assembly after mature deliberation, decided as follows. Resolved^ that this question be answered in the negative ; and it was accordingly determined in the negative." 1 have known several instances of late occurrence, in which the orthodox have rebaptized unitarian church members, and admitted them to their communion only as new converts. I can only ask you to reconcile such votes and proceedings with the principles of free inquiry, religious liberty, and Congregationalism. Remember that unitarians have the same right, and as much reason, to deny the validity and Christian appellation of the ordinances adminis- tered by orthodox ministers. 5. The Orthodox assert that Unitarians spread their Sentiments hy Con- cealment. Fifthly. Look at those numerous passages, in which orthodox writers accuse unitarians of spreading their peculiar opinions by con- cealment. One sentence from " The Spirit of the Pilgrims " will be suffi- cient for my present purpose. " Unitarianism, it is well known, was introduced and propagated in this country by concealment." Is this true ? For my own part, I am free to confess, that I have never under- stood the meaning of this charge. Concealment ! What do you mean by the term ? Do you mean, that unitarian ministers concealed ortho- doxy from their hearers, and thus introduced unitarianism? If so, how do you account for the well known fact, that a large majority of many congregations have embraced unitarianism, to whom their own ministers never preached any thing but rigid orthodoxy, and would permit none but orthodox preachers to officiate in their pulpits ? That such has been the result in many societies in this commonwealth, you have already received abundant testimony ; and that such is the con- dition of many more parishes over whom exclusive pastors are still settled, you will ere long have still more demonstrative evidence. If then such be your meaning, please to reconcile this notorious truth, with your ofl repeated accusation. Do you mean that unitarian minis- ters concealed unitarianism from their hearers ? Where then did they obtain a knowledge of it ? You admit that they have received it, and still believe it true ? From the Bible ? And is this a good reason why they should renounce it? Or is it any less valuable because derived from this sacred source ? Are people to believe nothing but what comes from their preachers ? I know your friend Dr. Miller baa LETTER I. 71 exhorted all the orthodox to consider the preaching of unitarians as blasphemy, and to avoid their publications as they" would a cup of poi- son. If then this be your meaning, please to reconcile the well known fact, of the general reception of unitarianism by the members of uni- tarian parishes, with your oft repeated accusation. Do you mean, that unitarian preachers concealed the name of their sentiments, when de- livering them to their hearers ? If so, wherein lies the guilt of such a course ? Is truth any less precious because stigmatized by an odious name ? Is it a preacher's business to proclaim the party names which have deluged Christendom, and been a principal cause of dividing Christians? And if a parish have embraced true views of the gospel, do you suppose they will be so foolish as to renounce them, because they did not at first know the sectarian title by which they had been christened ? If a man finds a guinea, and knows it to be pure gold, but knows not its name, will he cast it from him as worthless, when in* formed of the appellation by which it is called ? If this be your meaning, please to inform us, if this is the estimate you put upon the under- standings of your own hearers, and by them proceed to form your opinion of unitarian believers ? Do you mean that unitarian ministers have sincerely endeavoured, according to the best of their judgment, to promote the religious knowledge and spiritual welfare of their hearers ? And is not this their duty ? Is it not commanded by Jesus and his Apostles ? Have you any authority to dictate to other peachers how they must perform their ministerial services ? Now, Sir, I wish to know why this charge of concealment against unitarian ministers has been so often reiterated by orthodox writers. Has it not been done to frighten the more ignorant members of our so- cieties, so that you could gain a few proselytes ? Remember, Sir, that the orthodox are peculiarly obnoxious to this charge of concealment. One of your pupils made this confession to me afier he had been in your seminary two years. " If the orthodox community only knew how very liberal many of us are in certain articles of tlieology, they would not hear us preach." How long is it, since a public charge was given to orthodox ministers, not to preach the doctrine of election in times of religious excitement ? How long since your colleague ad- vised your pupils not to bring forward the doctrine of election too of- ten, on account of the prejudices existing against it in the community ? How long since one of your students who had been lately ordained, observed that the orthodox did not preach sufficient terror ? And when asked why he did not preach more, answered — ' Because my people will not bear it.' I have more facts on this subject than you may im- agine. You must remember thai there are men now in the unitarian denomination who were once initiated into all the secrets of the ortho- dox party ; and unless you choose to conduct your controversies in a more Chri«tan and honorable manner, a disclosure may hereafter be 72 LETTER I. made. The literal fact is this ; many of your preachers are much more liberal than their hearers imag-ine, while many others are much more rig- id in their sentiments, and they feel oblifred to trim their course of minis- terial duty, in order to keep their societies united. But, even if this be not blamable (though I certainly wish to pursue no such practice my- self) I do find fault, when you proceed to condemn day after day your unitarian brethren for doing precisely the same thing which is practised to a much greater extent in your own denomination. And how you can reconcile such a custom of denunciation, with free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism, I will not undertake to determine. Remember that unitarians have the same right, and as much reason, to accuse the orthodox of spreading their sentiments by con- cealment. 6. The Orthodox assert that Unitarians are Universalists. Sixthly. Look at those passages, in which orthodox writers accuse unitarians of being universalists. One clause from " The Spirit of the Pilgrims " will answer my present purpose. " Leading unitarians in the United States, with possibly a few exceptions, do believe the doctrine of universal salvation, and are in every thing but the name universalists.^^ Now why have you so often brought this charge against unitarians ? I firmly believe it has been done to injure their influence and disaffect their hearers. Your writers well know, that many among the universalists believe in no future punishment. They also know that this doctrine is peculiarly offensive to a considerable portion of the community. They are there- fore willing to confound the two classes together, and to permit the un- learned to believe, that unitarians have embraced this obnoxious senti- ment. I do not make this statement without satisfactory evidence. And does your charge contain the truth ? Is it a fact, that almost all the leading unitarians in our country believe in universal salvation ? I think not ; although I cannot imitate you, by saying that I am well acquainted with all against whom this charge is specially directed. But I will honestly and frankly state what I believe to be the exact truth on this question. On tiie subject of punishment, 1 think the uni- tarians may be divided into four distinct classes. They all believe that God will render unto every man according to his deeds, and that all who die impenitent and unreformed must suffer the natural consequen- ces of their wicked characters. The first class then believe in tiie an- nihilation of the wicked, after a limited period of suflfering. I say classj although I am unable to name but one individual of this belief in the whole denomination. A second class believe that those who die unre- generated, will eventually become holy, and consequently be saved from the torment of their sinfulness. I again say c.lassy although I am unable to name but few individuals of this belief in the denomination. A third class cannot find suflacient evidence in the Bible to warrant a belief in endless torments, neither can they find sufficient evidence to LETTER I. 73 warrant a helirf'm universal restoration. They therefore leave the sub- ject indefinite, as they believe the Scriptures liave leftit. How many or what proportion of the whole are embraced in this class, I have no means of determining. For on tliis as on all other subjects, every man in the denomination thinks for himself, and there is no human standard erected for making hypocrites. The last class believe in the everlast- ing punishment of the wicked ; and I have reason to believe that it is very respectable both for numbers and character. If my statement is correct, you perceive how very unfounded is your oft repeated accusa- tion. You see that the number who have a firm helitf in universal sal- vation is comparatively small. If you mean to include all who fondly hope and wish, that it may be consistent with the justice and mercy of the common Father, to enable his children to love and serve him, so as to answer the design of their creation, I desire for the credit of human- ity that the whole tlenominationmay be included. Now I could bring the charge of universalism with equal justice against your denomination. For I do know, that some members of or- thodox churches privately entertain the belief of universal restoration. I do also believe, that orthodox preachers have done more, than all oth- er causes combined, to make universalists. And I likewise undestand, that the whole orthodox party in Germany, whom you are ever willing to praise, have embraced the doctrine of universal salvation. I will give you a few sentences from the late publication of the orthodox Mr. Dwight, whose authority none of you will pretend to dispute. Here you have his own words. " The doctrine of the eternity of future pun- ishment is almost universally rejected. I have Been but one person in Germany who believed it ; and but one other whose mmd was wavering on this subject." Remember, Sir, that these are the orthodox Chris- tians whose praises some of your writers have sounded so long and so loudly. And whatefFect has this rejection produced on their Christian character "? Let the same orthodox waiter answer this question. Here you have his words. " I have never seen any Christians, who seemed to rae to have a deeper sense of the odiousness of sin in the sight of God, or whose hearts beat with a more ardent gratitude for our Saviour, for the great redemption he has made for fallen man. I knoio of no examples of huniiliiy greater than those exhibited by some of these gentlemen, or more elevated views of the character of God than you discover in their conversation. So far as an opinion can be formed of them from their reputation and their conversation, we must look in vain for hrighier ex- amples of piety than they exhibit. They certainly manifest a greater spirit of love for those who differ from them, than is found in most of owr sects ; and they feel vei-y unwilling to shut the gates of heaven against all those tvho do not believe evtry ortide of their creut we have been shocked by the open and coarse manner in which their claims to Christianity have been denied ; and the fury by which the LETTER I. ^g members of that church, many of whom we know to be pious, learned, and excellent men, have been in a summary icay. doom,ed to everlasting and hopelss misery, even from the altars of the God (f mercy." Having given you the passage from this al)le and catholic Journal, I will pro- ceed with my extracts from oithodox ministers. The first shall be trom Dr. Beecher's {Sermon at Portland. " Reflect, I beseech you, on the argument; and remember, that in proportion to the certainty of its result, is the certainty of your destruction — your everlasting destruction, if you reject the doctrine of the atonement, and of justification hy faith. Let parents think of this, who put in jeopardy, not their oivn souls only, but the soids of their confiding' oflTspring. Let professed ministers of Christ, who reject the divinity of Christ, and neglect to preach, or preach against, the doctrines of atonement and justification by faith ; — let such ministers reflect, and tremble at the possibility, the probability, the CKRTAiN I Y, that they loill destroy both their oum souls and the soids of them that hear them.'*'' This is sufficiently explicit. Unitarians who reject Dr. Beecher's views of the atonement and justification by faith, will certainly be damned. .My next passage shall be from an extemporaneous discourse, deliv- ered by the Rev. Mr. Green of Boston, at an evening lecture in Salem, and recorded at the time by one of the most distinguished gentlemen of that place. These are the very sentiments advanced. " Nine churches (we do not mention it with a spirit of boasting) have been recently established in the vicinity of Boston, upon ground where another gospel has been preached, we do verily believe it another gospel, WHICH NEVER BROUGHT A SOUL TO JeSUS ChRIST AND TO HEAVEN, AND NEVER WILL, % meuwhom u'c Can love and do love, whom we can pray for and do pray for, whom we can weep over and do weep over" Now several circumstances render these assertions peculiarly unchristian and injurious. First, they were uttered with great solemni- ty to an audience composed principally of females ; and not of that class of females who would be most likely to suspect the infallibility of their origin. Secondly, their spiritual pride and self-righteousness would be very liable to be increased, by such a call upon them to pray and weep over the fatal errors of Christians as good or better than themselves. Thirdly, the remarks allude particularly to such men as Dr. Tucker- man, the late Dr. Foster, Dr. Ripley, and other distinguished worthies. And, finally, neither the preacher nor his hearers had arrived at such Christian perfection, as to warrant them in neglecting their own fail- ings, and in spending their time in weeping and praying for their neighbours. Did they i^member the prayer of the Pharisee ? My third quotation shalVbe from your Letter on Religious Liberty. These are your words. "Ve do from the heart believe, that the eternal salvation of our fellow-beings is connected with a hearty assert to the fun- damental principles which we avow." Now these fundamental principles 80 LETTER I. which you avow are contained in your human creed. You know that no unitarian can give his hearty assent to those principles. You do therefore helieve, that their eternal salvation is forfeited. In other words, you heartily believe unitarians must be eternally damned because they will not profess their hearty belief in the articles of your human creed. Is not this the true meaning of your declaration ? My last extracts hall be from the Farewell Discourse of Dr. Mason. In order to make the whole parajiraph intelligible, I must take the senten- ces already quoted in the connexion. " Long may it be thought a hopeless case to attempt to bring you over to the fellowship of devils. Though I would not slander the Devil ; he promotes his work as the destroyer, not by tempting men to his belief, but by persuading them to embrace what be does not believe — tchal is too coarse and abominable for hell itself; and what the philosophical christians shall find to BE so WHEN THEY GET TO THEIR OWN PLACE. The prctCnCeS of these men to kindness, and candor, and love, are all hollow. They mean to make proselytes of you, and two-fold more the children of hell than themselves. O keep at a distance from them. Furthest from them, and their charity is best. Come nut near their ice^ never to be melted BUT IN THAT FIRE WHICH SHALL NOT BE qUENCHED ! " Tllis Rcvereud Doctor consigns us to endless torments with the most perfect coolness. I am sure no one can envy such a man his disposition or character. Now, Sir, I wish to know what you mean by such declarations. Do you really believe that unitarians are to be consigned to endless misery ? Do you heartily believe that such men as Buckminster, and Thacher, and Prentiss, and Abbot, and a host of similar characters are now suf- fering excruciating torments in hell; and that they are there to suffer to all eternity ! I demand an explicit and public answer to this question. And what will it be.' Will you dnre openly to avow such a belief.' I think not. For in the first place, you must know, that such an avowal would strike a death blow at Christi-'nity ; because the Saviour prom- ised heavenly felicity to those who sincerely obeyed his commands ; and if these men did not render holy obedience, will you pretend that any of your denomination ever have ? In the second place, you must know, that such an avowal would strike a fatal blow at the pillars of Protestantism ; because these declare that the Scriptures are the suffi- cient and only rule of faith and practice, and that every person may study and understand them for hiujself; and if these men did not make the Bible the only rule of faith and practice, will you pretend that any of your denomination ever have? In the third place, you must know that such an avowal would arouse the indignation ofthe majority of the orthodox denomination ; because they firmly believe that these and .similar unitarians were good Christians, and that all good Christians of every sect will be saved. And in the fourth place, you must know, that audi an avowal would awaken the scorn and contempt of all Uberal- LETTER I. 81 'minded men everywhere ; because if you pretend to believe that such men are to be eternally damned for not believing every article of your creed, you will manifest almost unparalleled^weakness and bigotry. And if you dare not openly avov/ your belief in the damnation of these men, why do you make such declarations concerning unitarians ? Do you make them to frighten the young, and weak, and ignorant, so that they may not become acquainted with unitarian sentiments ? If so, how do you reconcile such a measure with the principles of free inquiry, religious liberty, and Congregationalism ? Remember that unitarians have the same reason, and as much right, to sentence the whole ortho- dox denomination to endless torments. I have no room for more quotations. What then must be our conclu- sions ? Do not the extracts I have made from orthodox writers fully prove, that you have denied unitarians almost every Christian right, and called them by almost every unchristian name ? And do they not also fully prove that your denunciations are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism ? I must con- clude that both propositions are perfectly demonstrated. VI. Miscellaneous Facts. In the sixth place, I invite your attention to some miscellaneous facts, which could not well be introduced into the preceding divisions. I think the statements which I shall make under this head will prove the two following propositions. First, that many of the measures of the leaders of the orthodox party are oppressive and unchristian. And, secondly, that these measures are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. My limits will permit me to notice but six different classes of facts under this general division, although I intended to notice some twenty or thirty. 1. Education Society. First. Look at some of the measures of the American Education Society. Three circumstances strike me as pe- culiarly oppressive. One is this. The Society is truly exclusive in its reception of beneficiaries. Although a considerable amount of your funds has been obtained from unitarians, with the express understanding that indigent students of their own sentiments should be assisted, yet your board of directors will not grant assistance to a person of known unitarian belief. You indeed proclaim to the world, that young men of hopeful piety, from all denominations, may be aided in preparing for the gospel ministry ; and that you require no confession of faith from any beneficiary. This declaration is true in one sense, and in another is false. Your conscience is saved, and the public deceived, by the following artifice. Unitarians are Congregationalists ; you assist indi- viduals of this denomination who have embraced orthodox sentiments ; you therefore feel justified in affirming that you aid Congregationalists. And further, you assist none but young men of hopeful piety ; the candidate must bring testimonials to this effect from proper authority ; 11 8^ LETTER I. none but orthodox recommendations answer this description ; and no orthodox man will consider a person of known unitarian views as hope- fully pious. You therefore feel justified in declarinor, that such are refused assistance, not because they are unitarians, but because they give no proper evidence of hopeful piety. On this ground, all persons of known unitarian sentiments are denied the aid of the Education Society. And is not this oppressive, since a portion of your funds was received from unitarian benevolence ? The next circumstance, to which I alluded, is this. The Society is truly exclusive in its dismission of beneficiaries. A strict watch is maintained over their religious opinions. If one is discovered to be verging towards liberal views, he is warned, threatened, coaxed, and almost bribed. But if he should prove sufficiently independent to withstand such influence, and should pursue his inquiries until he ar- rive on the stable foundation of unitarianism, he is forthwith dismiss- ed from the list of beneficiaries, although he still makes the Bible the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice, and continues to exhibit a Christian character. The board of directors assign no reason for their conduct; and wh«n the real cause of such treatment is demand- ed at their hand, they coolly inform him, that he is not so pious as for- merly. And if this be not satisfactory, and he still demands a more explicit reason, he is led to understand, that a unitarian belief is in- consistent with evangelical piety. To substantiate all that I have here stated, facts can be produced whenever the proper period arrives. I have omitted giving particular instances, on account of the individuals concerned, having no desire to bring their names before the public un- necessarily. Such is the course pursued by the Education Society to make the community believe they are liberal in their reception and dismission of beneficiaries, when the most rigid system of exclusion is practised. The last circumstance, to which I alluded, is this. The Society adopt a singular series of measures to prevent their beneficiaries from embracing unitarianism. To some of the more important I will briefly advert. If the beneficiary wishes to receive his collegiate education at Cambridge, every possible exertion is made to frighten him from such a proceeding. The labors of the general secretary proved suc- cessful in preventing several young men from entering Harvard Uni- versity at the last commencement. If the beneficiary visit freely in unitarian families while teaching a winter school, he is called to ac- count for his conduct. I boarded with one, who was complained of by an orthodox clergyman for visiting in light and trifling company, simply because he attended a weekly reading party in an unitarian parish. The beneficiary is occasionally presented with books of a truly orthodox stamp and an allowance of some hundreds of tracts is put into his hands for gratuitous distribution. In this way, his or- LETTER I. 83 thodox impressions are confirmed ; and liis zeal in orthodox measures Jcept glowing and burning. The beneficiary receives an annual visit from an appointed agent, who converses with him freely on his religious opinions, and worms out his real sentiments on all controverted questions of theology. He then prays with him, and especially for him ; and in- forms tiie Almighty of the dangers to which he is exposed, and what means are necessary to preserve him in the paths of orthodoxy. All those beneficiaries, who reside at the same literary institution, are obliged to assemble together once a month, according to the laws of a printed constitution. They must make one of their number the secretary of the body, who is to keep an account of all absences from the monthly meetings, note all aberrations in thought, word, and deed, and trans- mit a faithful history of the same to the general secretary. His an- swer will then be read for the special benefit of all concerned. The constitution further requires, that four prayers be made on each eve- ning of meeting, and specifies the subjects. One is to be especially for their secretary, that he may be faithful in recording their errors and failings ; and also for the whole Education Society. Another is to be made for the cause of orthodoxy in the institution in which they are stationed. A third is for the success of orthodox missions. And a fourth for the conversion of the world to orthodoxy. If this is not binding down the young men to the cause of a party, I know not how it can be done. Every beneficiary must give his note to repay all he re- ceives after he shall have been settled in tlie ministry three or four years. How those who are ordained over your feeble churches are to comply with this condition is more than I can understand. Every thing connected with the Society is directly calculated to keep the minds of the beneficiaries on one grand concern; the grand concern of orthodoxy. I think this brief statement of facts is sufficient to con- vince liberal-minded men, of all parties, that your Society do not a little to ofier a bounty on orthodoxy ; not a little that is enslaving to the minds of the young men you aid ; and not a little that is subver- sive of religious liberty, free inquiry, and the principles of Congrega- tionalism. 2. Praying. Secondly. Look at certain orthodox prayers. I will mention/oiw classes which appear to me to be truly unchristian. And, Jirst, take those instances in which orthodox believers undertake to judge the hearts of unitarian preachers, and proclaim their unchar- itable judgments to the world, in their solemn addresses to the Deity. I allude to those prayers of frequent recurrence in which orthodox ministers earnestly pray for the conversion of unitarian pastors. Not to deal in generals, I will take one example from the multitude of cases within my knowledge. When I was residing in Billerica, a few years since, one of the students of your semmary held a meeting at the house of a certain widow lady. Almost the whole of his prayer 84 LETTER I. on the occasion was for the late venerable Dr. Cumings, then senior pastor of the church in that town. He became exceedingly earnest, and even agonizing. The substance of his petition was this ; that this aged minister might he^n the great work of salvation before called to render up his solemn account ; that he might be converted, regene- rated^ born again, and not suffered to leave the world with his unre- pented sins on his soul. Now, Sir, will you not pronounce such prayers unchristian ? Did he not judge the heart of his elder brother ? — pronounce it wicked and unregenerate ? And for what cause ? Simply because the worthy servant of Christ did not believe the articles of his human creed. For no pretence was ever made, that his Christian temper and conduct were peculiarly defective. Just review the circumstances. Here is a minister of the gospel. He once believed the trinitarian creed. He searched the Scriptures prayerfully, and found no support for his pe- culiar opinions. Like a true disciple, he sacrificed his erroneous sen- timents on the altar of divine truth. He manifested the spirit of his Master to an uncommon degree, during a ministry of nearly sixty years. When the infirmities of age had palsied his powers, a young man of very little theological knowledge, and no uncommon excellen- cies of character, comes among his devoted people. In solemn prayer he assures them that their revered friend and pastor has never been converted ; that he has yet to begin the great work of life ; that he has been leading them in the ways of error and perdition ; and that he must go down to everlasting woe unless the Lord regenerate his soul most speedily. Do bring this case home to your own conscience. Suppose a bold and confident young man, who has just begun the study of theology, should be sent from Cambridge into your neighbourhood. Suppose he should, by any means, collect a few of your pupils and friends to hear him hold forth. Suppose he should make most of his prayer relate to yourself; and earnestly beseech the Almighty to convert your soul, and enable you to beg^in the work of salvation before called to render up your solemn account. You will admit that he would have as much right, and as Scriptural reasons, for saying all tliis in relation to you, as your pupil had for saying it in respect to Dr. Cumings. For you certainly will not pretend that you give better evidence in your temper and conduct of being born again, the only Scriptural evidence on this question, than the Doctor had exhibited for more than half a century. Should such a case occur, would you not say that the young man had travelled out of his province, and taken too much on himself? Would you not aver, that he had violated a plain command of Jesus in pro- nouncing you unconverted ? — that he was endeavouring to injure your usefulness and character by uttering opinions in liis prayers which he would hardly presume to make in his discourses ? — that he was at- LETTER I. 86 tempting to alienate from you the confidence and affection of your friends and supporters ? — and that such a practice was inconsistent with free inquiry and religious liberty ? Why then should not the same things be said of your theological students ? And, secondly, take those instances which strike at the foundation of domestic happiness. I allude to those examples in wliich orthodox wives have been encouraged to meet together to pray for the conversion of their unitarian husbands, and confer on the subject, and devise new means of influence. Now, Sir, do you really believe that such a pro- ceeding can be productive, on any principle, of sufficient good to com- pensate for the domestic misunderstandings and distrust it must engen- der ? Is it not consistent with your consciences or with orthodoxy to spare the peace and sanctity of our homes ? On this topic, however, I forbear to dwell, though I have evidence in my possession to convince any candid person that the public are as yet but half apprized of the extent of the evil. Look then, thirdly, at those instances in which whole bodies of men are prayerfully slandered. I allude to the extensive combination among the orthodox to pray for the conversion of Harvard University. This union has been formed some time, but has lately been awakened to more fervent devotions by the charitable exertions of an agent of your party. He has recently visited various and distant parts of this commonwealth, and solemnly assured many congregations, that this ancient college had become a poisoned fountain ; that it would be tempting God, to send their sons to this seat of learning ; that unless funds are raised to erect a church, an orthodox church, in the very vicinity of this synagogue of Satan, we are all dead men and dead women. After getting the one thing needful, he exhorts them to be very fervent in tlieir prayers for the conversion of Harvard University. And many of the orthodox, believing these stories, unite very sincerely one hour a week to pray for some special aid from Heaven to make this college orthodox in its creed. Now, Sir, will you not pronounce this an unchristian and illiberal measure ? Just bring the practice home to your own feelings. Suppose the unitarians should form a combination to pray an hour a week for the conversion of your theological seminary. Suppose they should com- mission some fiery zealot to visit the various parts of the commonwealth for this object. Suppose he should declare, that you had become dis- satisfied with the Scriptures, and had set up a human standard of religious truth ; that you were training up young men to disturb the harmony of our families, neighbourhoods, and societies ; and that you allowed no freedom of opinion and thought to your pupils. Suppose he should affirm, that the instructers had lately been so divided among themselves as to lead the students to think they were possessed of very little religion; and that the students adhered so tenaciously to the 8d LETTER I. ejected professor, as to cause the other heads of the faculty to fear they were destitute of piety. Suppose he should aver, tliat unless a mass of money was obtained to erect a unitarian church on Institution Hill, Ave are all dead men and dead women. You will allow that he would have as much foundation in trutli for such assertions, as your commissioned beggar had for most of his declarations. And suppose such exertions should be successful in organizing a union to pray for the conversion of your seminary to unitarianism. Would you not pro- nounce such a measure truly unchristian, illiberal, and uncharitable ? And is the same conduct any less unchristian when perpetrated by orthodox leaders ? when a union is formed for prayerfully slandering Harvard University ? And, fowthly, look at those instances in which unitarians are forced to give an outward assent to the trinitarian belief. I allude to those unscriptural doxologies which are sung in orthodox churches at the close of religious exercises. The congregation are expected to arise and stand during this solemn act of worship ; and to have the following or similar sentiments pass through their minds : « To God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit, Three in One, Be honor, praise, and glory given, By all on earth and all in heaven." Now, Sir, is not this an unchristian practice ? For there are but veiy few orthodox societies in this commonwealth which do not contain a considerable number of unitarians. And should they dare to assert their rights, and either leave the church or remain sitting during this act of devotion, the indignation of the minister and his friends would be heaped on their heads. I indeed know that some have been sufficiently independent to withstand this imposition. In one place, a distinguished judge arose and informed the preacher that no such metisures would be tolerated in that congregation. In another society, numbers would not arise while the human creed was uttered by the voice of music. In several instances, the singers have refused tlms to profess what they disbelieved. I hope such worthy examples may be generally imitated. For this is a modern invention in our congregational churches. I be- lieve such doxologies were never sung in Andover until after the estab- lishment of your theological seminary. I think they were not intro- duced into many of the orthodox societies in your county until after that period. And a more illiberal practice cannot well be imagined. For the design evidently is to impress an article of ortliodox belief on the minds of the young, before they are able to investigate the subject for themselves ; and also to beat tliis error into the heads of tlie adult by dint of frequent repetition. The pious Watts, who wrote so many of these contradictory lines, would have expunged them all from his hymn- LETTER I. 8t book before he died, had he not disposed of the copy right of the work. And who-will dare affirm that there is any Scriptural authority for such a usage ? Just reverse the case. Suppose a doxology could be framed which would express the Catholic worship of the Virgin Mary. Suppose a part of their congregations was composed of Protestants. Suppose they were compelled, sabbath after sabbath, to rise and stand while this act of unscriptural worship was performed. Would you not call such a practice unchristian and illiberal ? I have room for no more facts on this subject. Very many examples of a more striking and unchristian character must be omitted. I think these are sufficient to convince candid minds that certain orthodox prayers are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism. 3. Withholding Patronage. Thirdly. Look at some of the orthodox measures for depriving unitarians of the means of subsistence. Ortho- dox ministers have urged their people to vote for none but orthodox Christians for public offices. They have advised parents to take their children from well conducted schools, because their instructors attend- ed unitarian meetings. Orthodox laymen have withdrawn their patron- age from mechanics, merchants, physicians, and lawyers, because they embraced unitarian sentiments. So many instances of this kind now occur to my mind, that T know not where to begin the selection. I will however take a case which involves many principles as well as indi- viduals. The circumstances are briefly these. A high school was established in Geneseo, New York. Three young men, graduates of Harvard University, entered into written engagements to take charge of the institution. The simple circumstance of their receiving degrees at Cambridge was sufficient to arouse the enmity of orthodox leaders. Accordingly the minister of the place drew up the following circular, and endeavoured to obtain the names of the influential inhabitants of the county. "A memorial of sundry inhabitants of the County of Livingston addressed to the stockholders of the Livingston County High School. — We, the undersigned, inhabitants of the County of Livingston, having been informed that the board of directors of the Livingston County High School have employed as instructors in said school, three young men from Harvard University, beg leave respectfully to represent, that, coming as they do from a college which has long been known to the Christian community as the fountain of the most destructive heresy, with professions of neutrality in relation to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, which facts are accompanied with a train of circum- stances which renders it extremely probable, if not morally certiin, that they are deeply imbued with, and highly in favor of unitarian sentiments, we cannot, consistently with our duty to God, to the community in which we live, and to the youth of our country, either directly or indi- rectly support or encourage the school, while under their auspices ; as 88 LETTER I. we conscientiously believe in so doing, we ehould be instrumental in disseminating principles wiiicli strike directly at the root of the faith, as held by all the Christian denominations of tliis country." You perceive tliat the writer speaks of a "train of circumstances." To what does he allude ? He wrote a letter to the Rev. Dr. Wisner of Boston for information on this subject; and the reverend gentleman returned a very full answer. I have not a copy of the letter by me ; but if I should meet the author I should ask him the following questions. Did you not intimate that unitarians in this region were designing to in- troduce unitarianism into the western part of New York ? — that these young men were doubtless the tools of the leaders ? — tliat it was the duty of the ortliodox to oppose tlieir coming? — and tliat if they could not effect this object in any other way, they had better open an opposition school? An affirmative answer to these inquiries will explain the train of circumstances. And what was the object to be effected by this memorial ? It was to awaken the zeal of the stock- holders so that they might assemble and choose a new board of direc- tors, and thus break the written engagement of the old board. But it was generally known in that region, that one of the three young men was orthodox in his opinions ; and but few names could be obtained. A new memorial was therefore circulated with the word two inserted in the place of three ; and to this a large number of signatures was at- tached. But instead of presenting that to the stockholders, they took the names and placed them on the one I have copied. It seems they could not consistently with their duty to God have young men from Cambridge, but they could practise a gross deception in perfect con- sistency with this duty. I will not add one word to this plain state- ment of facts ; for this alone is sufficient to awaken the indignation of all honorable minds. I will merely say, that I hope the time will speedOy arrive, when these persons can exhibit an example of old fashioned hon- esty, consistently with their duty to God. 4. Convention of Congregational Ministers. Fourthly. Look to some of the proceedings of orthodox leaders in the convention of ministers. A few words of explanation seem necessary to render my statements intelligible to the community. The churches of this commonwealth were originally of the congregational order. Their pastors were early accustomed to assemble at Boston in Election week, and to consult as equals and brethren on the interests of religion. They now have con- siderable funds at their disposal, which were obtained in the following manner. A donation was made by one Judah Monis, a converted Jew; large sums were aflerwards received from benevolent individ- uals ; and there is an annual contribution immediately after the conven- tion sermon. The proceeds of these funds were first bestowed on indigent clergymen; aflerwards on their widows and children; but are now confined to the indigent widows of congregational ministers. LETTER I. 89 By looking over the list of donors, you will perceive that no small amount of the property of the convention was given by unitarian or liberal Christians. The convention seldom, if ever, assumed any ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction ; although orthodox leaders occasionally attempted such measures. The elder clergy will doubtless recollect the speech of the Rev. Mr. Allen of Pittsfield, which openly exposed the iniquity of Drs. Morse and Lyman. In 1804 it was proposed to convert the con- vention into a General Association, and confer upon it the powers usu- ally assumed and exercised by that body. But public opinion prevented the success of this attempt, although the committee reported in favor of such a measure. The most daring attempt was commenced in 1821, and frustrated in 1823. In 1821 an application was made to the con- vention, by three ministers, calling themselves the Old Colony Associa- tion, for an answer to the following question : " What is a congrega- tional church, with which we may have fellowship, as such .5" The request was scarcely noticed. The next year the North Worcester Association proposed the following question : " What is a Christian church, with which we ougJit to hold communion, as such ? " The whole business had been planned and concluded on with intended secrecy in Park Street vestry. The committee which had been previously selected was chosen, consisting of twelve orthodox members and one unitarian, and authorized to report at the next annual meeting. Exertion was made to have t'he report printed an 1 circulated during the year, but was frustrated. Your frienl. Dr. Woods, was chairman of this com- mittee ; but he did not find all the other members so tractable as he wished. He wrote a dictatorial letter to the Rev. Mr. Stearns, of Bed- ford ; and received in answer a few homely but wholesoma truths. However, the report was finished, and at the meeting in 1823, was read to the convention. A motion was made by yourself to have it printed. But you mistook your men. No notice was taken of your desire ; but the following vote quickly passed : " That the convention tvill take no FURTHER order on the subject. ^^ And what was the substance of this famous report. Simply this. That a Christian church, ivith which we ought to hold communion, must subscribe the orthodox creed. Now, Sir, what was the design of your leaders in this most daring attempt? What objects did you expect to accomplish .' Five. First, you wished to learn what portion of the orthodox ministers were pre- pared to take up arms against the sacred rights of unitarians ? Secondly, you wished to ascertain what portion were ready to adopt a human creed, instead of the Bible, as their standard of religious truth. Thirdly, you wished to drive the liberal clergy from the convention, either by adopting a doctrinal test, or by a direct vote of exclusion. Fourthly, you wished to know how far public sentiment would support you in withdrawing ministerial intercourse from unitarians. And 12 90 LETTER I. fifthly, and especially, you wished to obtain complete possession of the funds of the convention: As you will probably admit the correctness of my four first assertions, no reasons need be given in support ot their truth. But as the fifth implies a very serious charge, you may wish for proof The evidence, which was perfectly satisfactory to my own mind, is this. At that time I was pursuing theological studies with an orthodox clergyman, and from various sources obtained not a few of the secrets of your denomination. That very week I was in company with a member of your Seminary, one of your favorite pupils. I asked him what object was to be gained by the adoption of Dr. Woods's report, the character of which we then knew. His answer was simply this : To exclude the unitarians^ and obtain possession of the funds. The answer made a deep impression on my mind, and aided essentially in opening my eyes to the policy of the orthodox leaders. I soon repeated the statement to others, and continued to do the same thing whenever occasion has since required. I do not say that your pupil had any authority to make this assertion ; but I do say, that I then believed he uttered the literal truth ; and that this evidence has ever been per- fectly satisfactory to my mind. And by what means was this bold and unprincipled measure frustra- ted ? The community were awake to the question. On the day for reading the report, the court-house was early filled to overflowing by distinguished laymen from all parts of the Commonwealth. Their appearance had considerable effect in intimidating your leaders. But much had previously been done by ministers of orthodox sentiments. Perhaps more credit is due to the late Dr. Parish, than to any other individual. He openly asserted that certain orthodox ministers wished to introduce religious tyranny, and that the Professors at Andover were among the foremost of this number. And to prevent the success of your attempt, he sent nearly a hundred letters to clergymen in all parts of the State, urging their attendance at the convention, and their oppo- sition to your designed intolerant measure. In this way, all the secret consultations, and artful manoeuvring, and laborious exertions, of the leaders of your party were overruled, and by producing a strong reac- tion only served to injure the cause they were intended to promote. I need not add one word to impress upon the public mind the illiberal character of such an undertaking. 5. Jindover Theolof^cal Seminary. Fifthly. Many of the proceed* ings in your Institution appear to me illiberal and unchristian. Faithful records of several exclusive measures are now in unitarian hands. I am prevented from making use of the existing documents on account of one or two unavoidable circumstances. They will doubtless bo pub- li.rihed in due season. I shall not therefore be so definite and full under this head as I expected. I will merely ask you five questions. And, firsts have you not declared, that you care not what opinions the yoimg LETTER I. 91 men entertain when they enter your Seminary ; but that you shall exert all jour influence to make them embrace orthodox sentiments ; and that if you are not successful in this particular, you shall withhold from them your approbation when they leave your institution? . I know you are bound to this course by your solemn obligations. But is such a pro- ceeding consistent with free inquiry and religious liberty ? Ought not your influence to be exerted for the discovery of truth ; and to preserve the minds of your pupils from prejudice ? Ought they not to have both sides of every question candidly stated, and be left to decide for them- selves on which the argument preponderates ? Ought they not to be rewarded for an honest and fearless examination of the Scriptures, and a rigid adherence to what appears to be the real meaning of the sacred writers, rather than punished for departing from the human standard of orthodoxy ? How very different the measures adopted by you and by unitarian Professors. Look simply at the introductory remarks of Dr. Taylor's Theological Lectures. Here they are. " I do solemnly charge you, in the name of the God of truth, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life, and before whose judgment-seat you must, in no long time, appear ; that in all your studies and inquiries of a religious nature, present or future, you do constantly, carefully, impartially, and conscientiously attend to evidence as it lies in the holy Scriptures, or in the nature of things, and the dictates of reason ; carefully guarding against the sallies of imagination, and the fallacy of ill grounded conjecture. That you admit, embrace, or assent to no principle or sentiment by me taught or advanced, but only so far as it shall appear to you to be justified by proper evidence from revelation, or reason of things. That if, at any time hereafter, any principle or sentiment by me taught or advanced, or by you admitted and embraced, shall, upon impartial and faithful examination, appear to you to be du- bious or false, you either suspect or totally reject, such principle or sentiment. That you keep your mind always open to evidence ; that you labor to banish from your breast all prejudice, prepossession, and party zeal ; that you study to live in peace and love with all your fellow Christians ; and that you steadily assert for yourself, and freely allow to others, the unalienable right of judgment and conscience." This divine was not afraid to trust either himself or his pupils with the use of their reason or the study of their Bible. But how very different must be your charge to your students. In substance and reality it can amount to nothing more than this. ' Unless you believe all the articles of the human standard which I have sworn to defend, I will not give you my approbation when you leave my Seminary. And I do from the heart believe, that your eternal salvation is connected with a hearty assent to the fundamental principles which I avow.' And, secondly^ are you not in the common practice of speaking against unitarians before your pupils ? Do you not often attempt to ridicule 9t LETTER I. and sneer at their opinions, criticisms, and arguments ? Do you not aim to make them appear contemptible as scholars, critics, and Chris- tians ? Do you not strive to prevent your students from becoming acquainted with tlieir writings, or characters, or persons ? Do you not labor to excite and increase tlieir enmity to the denomination? Have you not carried this measure to such excess, as to cause one of your devoted students to declare, that you were " rea ly too bad." I know you are bound to this course by your solemn oatli ; lor this is one of the easiest ways in which you can oppose tlie unitarian heresy. But how different from the dignified and Christian conduct of the theological Professors at Cambridge ! And, thirdly, are you not accuetomed to treat the objections of your pupils to your favorite opinions in an illiberal manner ? I know tliat you and your colleague request the students to make their remarks. But how often are their observations treated with ridicule, with con- tempt, with impatience, with peevishness, more especially if they are in opposition to any of the articles of your human formulary of faith ? Is this the wiy you encourage tlie spirit of free inquiry and religious liberty ? And, fourthly, have not students in your Seminary been cruelly perse- cuted for controverting some of your favorite opinions ? Take one example of no very distant date. As your respected friend, Dr. Woods, had the principal hand in this particular instance, I will put a few questions to his conscience. Sir, do you recollect one James Kimball ? Did you not summon him to your room on a certain evening ? Had you then seen any fault in him ? Had he been guilty of no offence but the one you specified? — that of making his classmates smile by the dissertations which he read in your presence "? Was not the real cause of grievance a very different thing ? Were you not offended because he was courageous enough to controvert some of your favorite positions ? So he Jirmly believed until the hour of his death. And did you not again summon him to your room near tlie close of the second year of his course ? Of what crime had he then been guilty ? Had he committed any offence against morality or religion? Did you even charge him with any ? Did you not affirm that you could name no fault? — that you could not put your finger upon any'? Did you not studiously avoid making any accusation against him whatever ? Did you not know, that as a diligent student, and a plain, conscientious Christian, he had done nothing of which he ought to be ashamed ? Why then did you endeavour to intimidate and disheartecause the*^^ adhere so tenaciously to the grand princi- ples of the Reformation. Unitarians are so often accused of having departed from the great doctrines of the Reformers, that it is quite unnecessary to quote any passage in proof of the charge. Now, Sir, are these three propositions true .^ Can they be substantiated by any proper evidence ? I think not. I will produce the reasons for my opinion. And I believe that the facts I shall here adduce will prove at least six particulars. 1. Reformers. In the first place, then, who are to be regarded as the principal Reformers ? The frst in thfi order of time was Martin Luther. He was born in Germany, in the year 1483. He received a classical education in the University of Erfurt. He was distinguished fur good natural endowments, close application, and extensive acquire- ments. He intended to study law ; but the sudden death of a friend by lightning induced hiin to enter a convent of Augustine friars. In 1.107, he was admitted to the order of priests. The next year he was appointed Professor of Philosopliy in the University of Witten- berg ; and afterwards he received the appointment of Professor of Divinity in the same Institution. He performed the duties of his sta- tion with great fidelity and success. Soon after this period, he became convinced that certain abuses in the Catholic church, of which he was a most zealous member, gret.tly needed reformation. Without any intention or desire of leaving her communion, he boldly commenced his attacks upon her existing and glaring corruptions. Not long after, he was excommunicated from her fellowship, by the Pope, as an obsti- nate heretic. Tliis act only served to animate him in accomplishing hie good undertaking of delivering religion from human traditions. He was well qualified for a leader in this glorious work, being fearless, learn- ed, and persevering ; and, for the times, virtuous and pious. There were indeed many and great defects and blemishes in his temper and character ; but such only as were too common in that period of com- parative darkness and ignorance. He published many works in Latin and German. He framed a system of ecclesiastical government and theological doctrines ; and a large body was then organized as his dis- ciples, and to this day their descendants retain the name of Lutherans. The second Reformer in the order of time was Philip Melancthon. He was also born in Germany, in the year 1495. He completed a clas- sical education at Heidelberg. He was distinguished for supeiior talents, unwearied diligence, a thorough acquaintance with the ancient languages, and a beautiful classical 'style of composition. In 1518 he was appointed Professor of Greek at Wittenberg, where Lutiier was lecturing on theology. They soon became intimate friends ; and Lu- ther had the satisfaction of convincing him of the necessity of going LETTER II. 103 forwafd in the work of reformation. He was, indeed, well calculated to aid Luther on arcount of his accurate scholarshp, and his elegant style of writing. He was, therefore, chosen to draw up the famous " Au'd only rule of faith AND PRACTICE." Now wliich denomination adheres most firmly to this grand pillar of Protestantism ? Let facts decide. Does the orthodox denomination make the Scriptures the sufficieitt and ONLY rule of faith and practice ? Let us descend to particulars. When you induct a Professor into his responsible office in your theo- logical seminaries, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice ? No. Look at Andover and Princeton. Let the Professor elect adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not permit him to enter upon the duties of the station, unless he will first profess his hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed, and his solemn determination to teach his pupils no opinions contrary to its published statements. And unless he will renew his sacred obligations every five years, he must be excluded from the insti- tution, and followed into the world by the reproaches and persecutions of the leaders of your party, although he still retains his Christian char- acter and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When you admit a believer to the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord's supper, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and prac- tice ? No. Look at the terms of admission and excommunication in orthodox churches. Let the candidate for membership adhere to- the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not admit him to your commun- ion, unless he will first profess his hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed. And should a prayerful perusal of the sacred writings lead him to reject any of its statements, you will neither give him a dismission from your body nor a recommendation to a more liberal church, but proceed to excommunicate him for heresy, although he still retains his Christian character, and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When you determine the principles of ministerial inter- course, do you make the Scriptures the sifficient and only rule of faitli and practice ? No. Look at the proceedings in Baltimore and especially in Massachusetts. Let the minister be orthodox in sentiment and adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not welcome him to pulpit exchanges, unless he will subscribe to the articles of a long human creed. And if he should either deny the utility of human creeds, or refuse to enter the exclusive system, he is shut out from your society and sympathy, and either his pulpit declared vacated, or unhallowed exertions are used to rendeT his church vacant, although he 108 LETTER II. still retains his ministerial character, his orthodoxy, and his firm ad- herence to the Scriptures. When you settle the terms on which the proprietors in your meeting-houses may vote for their own ministers, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and prac- tice ? No. Look at those churches which you have lately endeavoured to chain down to orthodoxy with the everlasting fetters of trust-deeds. Let the owners of the house adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not allow them to vote for the pastor they must maintain, unless they will first profess their hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed. And if a prayerful perusal of the Bible should compel them to dissent from the declarations of this human standard, they must forfeit their right of voting for their own preacher, and look to their wiser neighbours to place one over them, although they still retain their Christian character and their firm adherence to the Scrip- tures. Many more instances of a similar character might be men- tioned ; but these are sufficient to convince the public, that the first^ great, fundamental principle of the Reformation, is palpably, and habitu- ally, and systematically violated by the leaders of the orthodox denomi- nation. On the other hand, does the unitarian denomination make the Scrip- tures tlie SUFFICIENT and only rule of faith and practice? Let us refer to the same class of particulars. When they induct a Professor into his responsible office in their theological seminaries, do they make the Scriptures their sufficient and only rule of faith and practice .' Yes. Look at the Divinity School at Cambridge. The Professor elect is re- quired only to profess his firm belief in the Scriptures, his determina- tion to study them with prayerful attention, and his desire to communi- cate' to his pupils the result of his honest investigations. And should his persevering inquiries into the meaning of the sacred writers render him wiser next year than tliis, still his increase in religious knowledge will not subject him to the loss of his situation, or to the blighting suspicions and cruel insinuations of his whole denomination, so long as he adheres scrupulously to the only infallible standard of divine truth. When they admit a believer to the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord's supper, do they make the Scriptures tlieir sufficient and only guide of faith and practice? Yes. Look at the terms of admission and excommunication in tlieir churches. The candidate for member- ship is required only to profess his firm belief in tlie Scriptures, his determination to search them with candor and prayerfulness, and his intention to make them his sole standard of divine truth. And should any circumstance cause him to change his religious opinions, he will be neither excommunicated nor persecuted, but may receive a dismission, and a recommendation to another church, so long as he retains his Christian character and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When they determine the principles of their ministerial intercourse, do LETTER II. 109 they make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and prac- tice ? Yes. Look at their system of pulpit exchanges. If a minister sustains a fair reputation, and endeavours to make the Scriptures his standard of divine truth, and is acceptable to their hearers, and observes the golden rule when preaching and praying in their pulpits, they will welcome him to ministerial intercourse. And should he believe a little more or a little less than they do themselves, still they will not exclude him from their fellowship, so long as he keeps his peculiarities to him- self when addressing their parishioners, and r.^itains his ministerial character and firm adherence to the sacred Scriptures. When they settle the terms on which the proprietors of their meeting-houses may vote for their own ministers, do they make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice ? Yes. Look at the uniform practice of their congregations. If a person owns a seat in their houses of public worship, he is entitled to vote in the choice of a pastor whom he must aid in supporting. And this right can never be legally taken from him, neither will he surrender it, so long as he preserves any self-respect, or any proper estimate of the value of Christian institutions. Do not these and similar facts fully prove, that the unitarian denomina- tion adheres most firmly to the first great principle of the Reformation ? Will you say that they pervert those very Scriptures which they pretend to make their standard of truth and duty ? Remember that they have the same right to bring this charge against your party, that you have to cast it upon theirs ; and be assured, that they can do it with equal rea- son, sincerity, and truth. For they really feel as confident that you are the very persons who depart from the plain teachings of revelation, as you can possibly be, that they are the perverters of inspired truth. So that this accusation will not relieve you from the conclusion to which facts have brought us. Must you not then admit, that while unitari- ans adhere scrupulously to the first principle of the Reformation, the orthodox depart from it most vvridely in all important particulars ? I see not how you or any one can possibly avoid this result of our statements. And what is the second grand principle of the Reformation ? I can- not better express it than in the words of another. " All men have AX EQUAL RIGHT TO STUDY AND UNDERSTAND THE ScRlPTURES FOR THEMSELVES." Were the Reformers agreed in this principle ? In words they were. What is the declaration of Luther ? " We have not re- ceived any authority or power to compel belief If you are willing to believe, yours will be the benefit ; if you refuse to believe, the choice is free to you, and yours alone is the responsibility. We do not unsheathe the sword, neither do we resort to force. Words and arguments are the only weapons of our warfare." This looks well on paper. And what was the assertion of Calvin ? " Now since the consciences of the faithful, being privileged with the liberty which we have described, have been delivered by the favor of Christ from all necessary obligation to ] 10 LETTER II. the observance of those things, in which the Lord hath been pleased they should be kept free, we conclude they are exempt from all human authority^ To say that Calvin openly violated this remark both in word and deed, is to publisli the literal truth. Now wliich denomination adheres most firmly to tliis second pillar of Protestantism ? Let facts decide. Does the orthodox denomination allow all men an equal right to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves ? Let us descend to particulars. When those learned, virtuous, and pious ministers in Connecticut were obliged by a prayerful study of the Scriptures to renounce certain articles of a human creed, why did their orthodox brethren form themselves into an ecclesiastical tribunal ; summon these peaceable, faithful, and beloved pastors before them to answer to the approaching to unitarianism. For in his answer to your publication, you find these explicit declarations : " A number of your arguments ; the strain of your principal objections ; and the license which you indulge, in many cases, in the interpretation of Scripture, — all savour so much of a school with which I should abhor the thought of associating your respected name, that I read them with not a little pain. Yes, my dear Sir, though I know you abhor the senti- ments of that school from your heart ; yet, if your name were removed from the title-page ; and if the several passages in which you profess your firm belief in the divinity of Christ, were expunged from the pam- phlet, 1 should really suspect that it had come from some member of the unitarian ranks, rather than from the midst of the orthodox camp." Now the Doctor is mistaken in calling your belief on this subject unitarian ; he should have pronounced it real Socinianism. For Socinus held the same view of the Son of God, and still contended that he should be worshipped. And I believe you would have all men honor the Son even as they honor the Father. For I recollect hearing one of your party utter these sentiments in solemn prayer about the time of your controversy : " O thou who hast ascended to thy God and our God, we beseech thee by thy wearisome labors, by thy bloody sweat, and by thy agonizing cross, to hear and answer our prayers." So long as reason remains, I shall never forget the shock produced on my feelings, by this prayer to a human deity. I must therefore call this a belief in Socinian- ism. I do hope you will advance one step further, and take your stand on the more rational and Scriptural ground of unitarianism. A second class profess the same belief, that you assure us the Chris- tian Fathers did, for the three first centuries of the Christian era. As you have investigated this subject very thoroughly, I will give the result of your labors in your own words. Here it is. " I begin then by giving the result of my investigations respecting the three first centu- ries. It is this, viz. ; that the great body of the early and influential Christian Fathers, whose works are extant, believed that the Son of God was begotten at a period not long before the creation of the world." Among the unlearned members of your churches, you will find not a few who ' adhere to this opinion. I must call this low Arianism, or the most prevalent form of unitarianism in this country. A third class profess this belief: " That the Son of God was begot- ten by the Father from all eternity." To establish this position, your friend Dr. Miller addressed a volume of Letters to yourself. I find your opinion of his doctrine in the following observations. " I am 16 122 LETTER II. unable to conceive of a definite meaning in the terms eternal generation ; and I cannot regard them in any other light than as a palpable contra- diction of language." This remark gave the Doctor so much offence, that he makes this assertion concerning it : " I will venture to assert that it is as unphilosophical as it is inipious" I believe you and other New England divines regard this doctrine of your southern brethren and of our Pilgrim fathers, as wholly subversive of the real divinity of the Son. For in a volume of discourses by the late Dr. Parish, I find these assertions : " The notion of an eternal generation is not merely a mystery f but an impossibility. It is a violent solecism in language to call any being the son of another, who is of the same and equal origin. ThiSf therefore, infallihly destroys the real divinity of the Son." I should call this belief high Arianism, or one form of unitarianism. I think you entertain the same opinion ; for in your answer to Dr. Miller I find these observations : " I must confess, that with the views which I now en- tertain, if I could be persuaded that the doctrine of eternal emanation or generation is true, I should feel that the first step was taken toioards embracing the Arian system. I cannot help feeling that the idea of a derived God is, in reality, a vastly greater approximation to Arianism, than that which we adopt ; and that the antagonists of Arius had much less reason to dispute with him than they apprehended." You are right in this opinion. There is certainly as little difiTsrence between the Doctor's system and tlie Arian scheme, as can possibly be imagined. A fourth class profess this belief: " That the Son of God is equal to God Jiimself." One quotation from a discourse published the present year will confirm my statement. These are tlie words of the reverend divine : " As a son, he possesses perfectly the same nature with the Father, is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person ; is without beginning, eternal, uncreated, and almighty, omnis- cient, and every where present ; in truth, possesses all divine perfec- tions equally with the Father, is equally with him the object of divine worship ; and must be honored even as the Father. And if any error can destroy the souls of men, it must be that which denies the son^s equality with the Father." I should call this a belief in a second Gody which is an absurdity. Affth class profess this belief: " That the Son of God is God him self." In proof of this assertion, I will give you one extract from a sermon published the present year, by a distinguished divine in Ohio, and circulated widely as a tract in the Western country. Here it is. " That Babe that lies in a manger at Bethlehem is the mighty God I Thai man of poverty who travels through Judea preaching pea4:e to the losty is the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace ! The man who is pressed ivith sorrow and covered with bloody sweat in Gethsemane, is the Lord of Hosts ! He who wears the crown of thorns, and endures the erud scourge, and receives the sentence of death at Pilait's bar, is he LETTER II. 123 loho distributes crowns of life ! That mangled victim which languishes on the cross, is God over all blessed for ever! And that blood ivhich issues from his opening wounds is the blood of God ! " This is explicit. What to call this belief, I know not. I cannot describe it by any Christian name. Such are the various and contradictory systems now in vogue among your denomination. I suppose you will aver, that so long as all classes will agree to use the words divinity of Chnst, all this dis- agreement in ideas is non-essential. 3. Atonement. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, there are now five prevailing systems among the orthodox. T\ie first class pro- fess to believe in the doctrine of exhibition, so called. This view of the subject originated, I believe, with the Rev. Dr. Murdock, your for- mer colleague. He furnishes us with a definition of his scheme in the following sentence : " The atonement, to be a proper substitute for the execution of the law, ought to be ^public exhibition; and such an exhibition as would impress all tlie creatures of God with a deep and awful sense of the majesty and sanctity of his law, of the criminality of disobedience to it ; and of the holy, unbending rectitude of God as a moral governor ; and such the atonement really was." When this theory was delivered in the chapel of your Seminary, most of your pupils regarded it a vast improvement upon the cold, chilling doctrine of Cal- vinism. They accordingly requested a copy of the discourse for pub- lication. Soon after its appearance, some of your leaders thought it contained heretical notions, and would injure the reputation of your institution. An effort was therefore made to crush its popularity and influence, by requesting a gentleman at some distance to review and condemn the pamphlet. A second class profess to believe in the doctrine of substitution, so called. This view was advocated by Luther. Let him then give us an explanation of this theory. Here are his words. " Christ sustained the person of a sinner ; not of one, but of all sinners ; and whosesoever sins, I, thou, we, all have done, or shall do hereafter, are Christ's own sins as verily as if he had done them." He further declares, " that Jesus Christ was the greatest trangressor, murderer, rebel, and blasphemer, that could be in all the world." Soon after the publication of Dr. Murdock's sermon on the atonement, you came forward with some dis- courses on the same subject. It was thought expedient to do some- thing to counteract the growing success of his new views, and accord- ingly a boarder in your family obtained some half a dozen names to request the publication of your theory. Your matter was compressed, and made its appearance in the form of two discourses. You undertake to defend Luther's doctrine of substitution. One quotation from the pamphlet will be suflicient for my present purpose. These are your words. " Since he did not suffer on account of any guilt of his own, on what ground can they reconcile his sufferings with the justice of 124 LETTER II. God, who hold that he is not a substitute for sinners ? " Although you advocate an entirely different view from the one just published by your colleague, it is a little remarkable that you do not even allude to his recent production, in your pa.mp\i[et published by the request of the students^ A third class profess to believe in the doctrine of satisfaction, so called. This view was maintained by Calvin. I will therefore look to him and his followers for an explanation of fhe subject. " The burden of damna- tion, from which we were delivered, was laid upon Christ It was requisite, that he should feel the severity of the divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath of God. There is no other satisfaction by which God, being displeased, may be made favorable and appeased." The pious Calvinistic Flavel makes these declarations : " God stood upon full satisfaction, and would not remit one sin without it. The design and end of this oblation was to atone, pacify, and reconcile God, by giving him a full and adequate compensation or satisfaction for the sins of his elect. To wrath, to the wrath of an infinite God without mixture, to the very torments of hell, was Christ delivered, and that by the hand of his own Father." Soon after your discourses on the atone- ment were well before the public, the Rev. Dr. Dana, of Newburyport, was called upon to deliver an ordination sermon. He took occasion to mention his dissatisfaction with both the theories which had been advo- cated at your Seminary, and to defend the old Calvinistic notion of satisfaction. The leaders of your party soon perceived, that unless something was speedily done to keep the orthodox community quiet, there would be an open theological war among yourselves. An indi- vidual then in Andover was therefore induced to write a review of the three productions for the New Haven Spectator. He endeavoured to make the credulous people believe, that there was no essential dis- agreement between the several writers ; and that the apparent differ- ence of opinion on this important doctrine was more in words and phraseology, than in ideas. But all this deception was displeasing to Dr. Dana. He accordingly addressed a communication to the directors of the Spectator, and requested its insertion in a forthcoming number. This request being denied, he went on himself, but was unsuccessful in obtaining satisfaction. Since that period, great caution has been observed to prevent the unlearned from suspecting the extent of the disagreement. A fourth class profess to believe in the doctrine of infinite atonement, so called. They pretend, that sin is an infinite evil ; and consequently an infinite substitute must suffer to cancel the debt. They tlierefore declare that the divine nature of the Saviour, that God the Son, actually Buffered and died for the sins of men. But would they remember, tliat God cannot suffer ; would they recollect, that if God the Son could so suffer as to satisfy the justice of the Father, still tliere must be some other God to suffer in order to satisfy tlie justice of God the Son and LETTER II. 125 God the Holy Ghost, who were also equally offended with the sinful- ness of men, I think they would say nothing further about an infinite atonement. A Jifth class profess to believe, that nothing but the human nature of the Son suffered. If so, this leaves no atonement at all. For the sufferings of the mere man Jesus could have no more efficacy, than the sufferings of the mere man Stephen. The thinking portion of your denomination are getting upon this ground as fast as possible. This is evidently giving up the whole doctrine, although you may continue to abuse unitarians for the same belief. There are others of your party, who know not what to believe on this subject. About the time your publication on the atonement appeared, one of your pupils presented himself to an association of ministers for examination, in order to ob- tain a license lo preach. One of the Reverend gentlemen asked him three several times to state his views on the atonement. He evaded the question each time. Afterwards he came to the questioner and apologized for his apparent rudeness. Said he, " It does not do for us young men to give our opinion on those subjects, upon which the Faculty have not yet come to an agreement." Whether your Faculty have yet come to an agreement on this doctrine, or not, I am unable to determine. I presume, however, the dismission of one of your Profes- sors may have contributed to restore this harmony. If I have departed from the literal truth in any of the statements under this division, the blame must rest on two orthodox ministers, who were members of your institution at the time mentioned. In view of these facts, how could you quote and treat the extract from Dr. Channing as you have done.^ Did you wish to awaken the prejudices of the ignorant against him .J* Did you not know, that on this very point you were peculiarly vulner- able ? And especially, did you not recollect, that a publication on the 8octrine of the atonement, by the Rev. Noah Worcester, D. D., had been before the public more than a year ; that it had shaken the faith of some of your most devoted friends ; that it had received no notice from orthodox writers ; and that it is regarded as a complete refutation of your views of the subject, and altogether unanswerable ? Such then are the various and contradictory systems of the orthodox on the subject of the atonement. I suppose you will aver, that so long as all classes will agree to use the word atonement, their disagreement in ideas is non-essential. 4. Agreement in Affection. I intended to notice most of the ortho- dox doctrines in a similar manner, and have made most of the neces- sary selections from your writers for this purpose. But I find my limits will not permit this. I therefore simply assert, that the disagreement among your leaders is equally great and striking on the subjects of regeneration, original sin, imputation, irresistible grace, election and reprobation, salvation and punishment, the inspiration of the Scriptures, 126 LETTER II. and revivals of religion. The literal fact seems to be this. In religious truth, Andover is fifty years in" advance of Bangor and Princeton ; New Haven and New York arc twenty-five years in advance of Ando- ver ; Cambridge is fifty years in advance of New Haven ; although one of your students, who still retains his orthodoxy, assured me that he had no doubt, fifty years would find Andover on precisely the same standing that Cambridge now is, so far as the pupils were concerned. Now are the leaders of the orthodox party heartily united in affection ? You are divided into various parties, and distinguished by several sec- tarian names. There are the old, the new, the moderate, and the rigid Calvinists. There are the Hopkinsians, the Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists ; and still you wish all to be included in the orthodox denomination. There are among you great envyings, and jealousies, and enmities. Go among the adherents of Bangor and Princeton Theo- logical Seminaries, and you hear the most severe denunciations against Andover and New Haven. 1 speak from personal acquaintance with this subject. Go among the adherents of Andover ; and you hear the New Haven and New York divines severely censured. One of your ministers was asked by a unitarian, what he thought of the New Haven Professors ? He returned the following answer : " We think they are perverting the Scriptures much worse than the unitarians.^'' And what does the New Haven Spectator say of your friend. Dr. Woods, on account of his late Letters to Dr. T.iylor ? I will select a few passages. The reviewer declares, that " Dr. Woods's Letters abound in remarks, which are not only irrelevant to the point at issue, but personal and invidious in a high degree ;" that " he has held out to view two oppos- ing parties, Dr. Taylor and his friends on one side, and the orthodox on the other ; " that " not content with calling in question the ortliodoxy of Dr. Taylor, he has actually held him forth as identified, no one knows to what extent, with the unitarian party ; and addresses th# man, whom he has thus arraigned before the churches, as an affection- ate brother^ and a respected and beloved brother ; " that " he has, with- out the shadow of a reason, struck a direct blow at every thing that is valuable in the character of Dr. Taylor, as a man, a minister of the gospel, and an instructer of youth ; " that " he has extended the same system of attack, by surmise and insinuation, to the whole body of Dr. Taylor's pupils, and to all, who may agree with bun in his theological opinions ; " that " he prefers a direct charge against Dr. Taylor and his friends, that their sentiments are likdy to result in tlie utter abandon- ment of the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, and at last in infidelity;''^ that "the personal incivility which pervades these Letters is without a parallel in our churches during the last thirty years." And notwith- standing all this. Dr. Beecher could make the observation, to be Uken and circulated by the smaller men of tlie party, that there was little or no disagreement between Andover and New Haven; but that the friendly discussion related to the philosophy of religion. LETTER II. 127 And what have the leading" Calvinists said of you, Hopkinsians ? Take a few extracts which have been published by Dr. Ely of Phila- delphia. The Doctor himself observes, when speaking of some Calvin- istic creeds, "The Hopkinsians, Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians cannot be expected to like them. Any person who maintains either of these heresies has departed from the faith of the pious fathers ofJVeio England^ The Rev. Dr. Smith, of Princeton, observes, when speak- ing of some extracts from Hopkinsian writers ; That this " assortment of the religious emrors and absurdities of certain writers in our country, who have gained a reputation, far beyond what nonsense and impiety should acquire for a divine. And I am persuaded, that these profound divines are preparing the way for a more extensive diffusion of infidel principles, and even of atheism in our country^ The Rev. Mr. M'Niece, of New York, declares, that Hopkinsian sentiments are at war with the philosophy of the human mind, with common sense, and with the word of the living God^ The Rev. Dr. Mason, of New York, declares that Hopkinsianism is " indeed another gospel in some very material points." But there is no end to the quotations I could make to show the real divisions and dissentions which now exist among the leaders of the orthodox. Sir, I must speak with plainness. All this pretended union and harmony among' your leaders is a deception. You agree heartily in but three particulars. First, in using certain loords, while you attach to them very different ideas. Secondly, in making a human creed instead of the Bible your standard of religious truth. And, thirdly, in denouncing and condemning those who will not yield to your dictation. In truth, there is any thing but agreement among you in sentiment, and, judging from your writings, but little in affec- tion. I will conclude this head with merely one extract from a letter lately written by an orthodox divine of eminence, moderation, and can- dor. I hope he will not be offended with this liberty, for his remarks seem too important to be withheld from the public. Speaking of your- self, and of the impression received on reading your Letter, he thus observes : "His theory of religious liberty appeared to me sound and good. But I was surprised, that he should maintain boldly, that the conduct of the orthodox is in full accordance with that theory. For I had known something of his own sufferings from the illiberality of both the South and the North. I knew the long-standing, yet unjust suspicions of his orthodoxy, which have seemed to give him much disquietude ; and which perhaps have induced him to stand forth, from time to time, as the bold champion of the orthodox, and to lash the unitarians, especially, with all his might. I recollected his controversy with Dr. Miller on the sonship of Christ, and with Dr. Carnahan respecting the American Education Society ; in both of which, I supposed, Mr. Stuart would feel there was some want of liberality and Christian charity in his adver- 128 LETTER H. saries. The latter, especially, is full proof of the want of harmony and mutual confidence between the North and South. I called to mind the late commotions among the ortliodox, respecting the doctrine of the atonement, and the singular part Mr. Stuart himself acted in that dis- pute. I looked at the existing civil war, respecting the New Haven theology ; and the book which Dr. Woods was writing against Dr. Taylor, at the very time Mr. Stuart was publishing his Letter, and in which Dr. Woods is thought to have manifested an unchristian and ungentle manly spirit. Of that book, and of the whole history of the controversy, Mr. Stuart could hardly be ignorant, as he is known to be claimed by both parties, though he probably has not the full confidence of either. I also recollected the many orthodox and useful ministers, who have felt themselves injured by the illiberal surmises and the secret machinations of certain leading men. These and otlier topics suggest- ed to my mind numerous facts, which I supposed should have led any man, who was as well acquainted with them as Mr. Stuart, to beware of the broad and unqualified assertions contained in his book." III. Principles a.nd Doctrines of the Pilgrims. Many individuals of your denomination have endeavoured to make the unlearned part of the community believe the three following state- ments respecting our Pilgrim fathers. Ftrst^ that the orthodox observe the same governing principles. Secondly, that they believe the same religious doctnnes. And, thirdly, that unitarians have renounced both their principles and doctrines, and are laboring for their destruction. I per- ceive, much to my astonishment, that you have advanced the same senti- ments. Three quotations from your letter will prove the truth of this as- sertion. My first will relate to the principles of the Pilgrims. Here it is. " The orthodox are not to he diverted from their purpose, by language of severe reproach and unmeasured indignation. The sons of those, who left country and kindred to brave the storms of the ocean in frail barks, to face the gloomy horrors of the wintry blasts and storms, in a savage land and in a boundless forest and who did all this cheerfully that thoy might hold fast the orthodox faith, and worship God according to it — the sons of such men, holding to the same principles, and believing them to be the only founilation of their eternal hopes — are not to be diverted from their course by obloquy and denunciation, however eloquent and severe." You here assert that the orthodox hold the principles of the Pilgrim fathers. My next passage will relate to their opinions or religious doctrines. Here it is. " The orthodox do not understand why they have not the liberty of defending the opinions which their ancestors held, in case they do sincerely accord with them. That they do sincerely agree, they openly profess and avow ; and neither yourself, nor any man on earth, has a right to call this in question." I, Sir, am the man who will call this agreement in question before I finish this topic. My last quotation will relate to the conduct of unitarians in la- LETTER II. 129 boring to destroy the principles and doctrines of the Pilgrims. " The orthodox have as good a right to maintain the doctrines of the Pilgrims as unitarians have to assail them." Now are these three propositions true ? I think not. And I believe the statements I shall now make will prove at least four particulars. 1. Principles of the Pilgrims, Who were the Pilgrim fathers ? Those surely, who landed on Plymouth rock in 1620. And those cer- tainly, who afterwards commenced settlements at Salem, and Charles- town, and Boston. This answer is sufficiently explicit for my present purpose. And by what grand principles did they profess to be governed in their religious and ecclesiastical concerns? Four of the most im- portant I will now describe. What then was the^rs^ great fundamen- tal principle of the Pilgrim fathers ? " The advancement of the Reformation." They earnestly desired to obtain more truth from the sacred Scriptures. You will demand proof of this assertion. I give it you in the words of the venerable John Robinson. You well know that he was the pastor of those, who came to Plymouth in the first ves- sel. You also know that he gave them an affecting farewell address when parting from their friend and minister. You likewise know that this Christian speech contains the fundamental principles of action by which the first emigrants were governed. Here you have the words of this eloquent discourse, which manifests the true spirit of the Pilgrims. '* Brethren, we are now quickly to part from one another, and wheth- er I may ever live to see your face on earth any more, the God of hea- ven only knows ; but whether the Lord has appointed that or no, I charge you before God and his blessed angels, that you follow me no far- ther than you have seen me follow Jesus Christ. If God reveal any thing to you, by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry ; for lam verily persuaded^ I am very confident, the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. For my part I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion, and will go at present no farther than the instruments of their reformation. The Luther- ans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. Whatever part of his will our God has revealed to Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it. And the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were lefl by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This is a great misery much to be lamented ; for though they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God, but were they now living, would be as willing to em- brace further light as that which they first received. / beseech yoUf remember, it is an article of your church covenant, that you be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from the written word of God. Remember that, and every other article of your covenant. But I must herewithal exhort you to take heed what you receive as 17 130 LETTER II. truth ; examine it ; consider it, and compare it with other Scriptures of truth, before you receive it ; for it is not possible the Christian world come so lately out of such thick antichnstian darkness, and tfuit perfec- tion of knowledge shoxdd break forth at once." Now what are the leadinjj sentiments of this farewell address of the Father of the Pilgrims? TWo things are greatly to be lamented ; tliat the Calvinistic churcli in the old world had come to a period in religion, and that Calvinists would proceed no farther in the path of truth than their Genevan master led the way. Two things are stated as undeni- able facts ; that the Reformers could not have discovered all truth, and that much more remained to break forth from God's word. Three du- ties are solemnly enjoined ; that the Pilgrims were not to follow any human authority, any farther than it coincided with the teachings of Christ Jesus ; that the Scriptures were to be their only standard of re- ligious faith ; and that they were to receive information from whatever source it might be offered. And why were these statements made in the last, sad, solemn, afflicting moment of separation ? Simply to remind the departing, that the advancement of the Reform^dion toas the primary object of their pilgrimage. And which denomination adheres most firmly to this great essential principle of the first Pilgrim fathers ? Let facts decide. Does the orthodox denomination endeavour to promote the advance- ment of the Reformation? No ; look into the constitution of your theo- logical seminary. You there learn, that it was tlie intention of the founders to endow an institution for the support and dissemination of principle sstrictly Calvinistic, as they are contained in the Assembly's Cat' echism. You will recollect that this catechism was framed some twenty years after the settlement of the old colony. Had those wrangling divines obtained all the light that was to break forth from God's holy word ? Look also at your solemn obligations. You will remember that you are bound never to alter the least expression of a human creed, which professes to be founded on this said Catechism. Does this look like being at liberty to embrace new truths ? Look also at your churches. You have fettered them down in the same manner ; and those who will not make this creed of the dark ages their standard of religious truth must be excluded from your communion. Look likewise at your de- nunciations of unitarians, because they follow the Scriptures instead of Calvin and the Pilgrims. In short, look at the various measures of your leaders, for binding down the present generation to the Calvinistic arti- cles of the Assembly's Catechism ; and your manifold instruments of persecution, for all who will not acknowledge your infallibility. Every child must perceive, that your denomination violates this fundamental principle of our Pilgrim fathers, openly, palpably, and systematically ; and that all your exertions are directed to prevent the advancement of the reformation. LETTER II. 131 Does the unitarian denomination endeavour to promote the advance- ment of the reformation ? Surely so. Is it not for this very purpose, that they banish all human creeds from their churches and theological seminaries ? Is it not for this very purpose, that they urge all classes to search the Scriptures with earnestness and honesty and boldness ? Is it not for this very purpose, that they grant the Christian name and rights and privileges to all who make the Bible the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice ? Is it not for this very purpose, that they re- print the best edition of the original records of our faith, and encourage new translations of the sacred writings ? Is it not for this very purpose, that they regard no human authority, either living or dead, as of any value farther than it coincides with the instructions of the divine stand- ard ? Is it not for this very purpose, that they encounter the obloquy and reproaches and persecutions of the orthodox denomination? Could they adopt any measures more effectual for accomplishing this impor- tant purpose? No; you will certainly admit, that the unitaran denom- ination adhere most scrupuously to this fundamental principle of the Pilgrim fathers ; and that all their exertions are directed to the ad- vancement of the reformation. And what was the second grand principle of the Pilgrim fathers ? *' Open coMMUiNioN." A good authority thus observes. " While they take care, according to apostolic injunction, that all things be done de- cently and in order, it is their duty not to impose any thing , by way of subscription or declaration of faith, upon those who desire admission to the ordinances, which may not be consciensciously complied with by sincere Chris- tians of all denominations.'''' Your friend. Dr. Hawes, has also declared that the Pilgrims " acted on the principle of open communion ; making evi- dence of Christian character the only condition of fellowship ! " I Ihank the gentleman for what little truth his tHbute contains. I suppose this evidence is sufficient ; but I choose to advance more. I will give you a specimen of covenants adopted by our Pilgrim fathers, to convince you, that they did not hedge up the entrance to the Lord's table with doc- trinal tests and human standards of divine truth ; but that they opened the door to all sincere Christians of every denomination. The church first planted in Plymouth was organized before they reached our shores. The covenant they then adopted has not been preserved. But about fifty years after their landing, a public fast was held, and they re- newed their covenant engagements. The records of the church thus read. " A church covenant was read ; and the church vote