tions at the time of communion are thoroughly exclusive. Three forms I have known used. One is this. "Members of sister churches in fellowship with this church, are invited to commune with us." Another is this. "All members of other churches who believe that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, are invited to commemorate his sufferings and death." A third is this. "Those members of other churches who can give satisfactory evidence of the new birth, are requested to commune with this church." But this is not all. Your ministers have stood before the Lord's table, and declared that the ordinance was instituted to commemorate the divinity of Christ; and that all who did not believe him to be God, could not partake worthily. They have done this, when they knew that some of the most intelligent Christians present were unitarians, and thus have designedly driven them from the feast of love. All these circumstances and many more of a similar character fully prove, that the orthodox denomination violate this second grand principle of the Pilgrims, openly, palpably, and systematically; and that all possible exertions are used to prevent any from coming to the Lord's table, unless they will assent to the articles of a human standard.

And does the unitarian denomination observe this principle of the Pilgrim fathers? Yes; they have no human doctrinal creeds to keep conscientious believers from their communion. Since so many of the churches of the fathers have fallen into their hands, they have been raking up their first covenants, and restoring them to their proper and former standing. When unitarian ministers give out their invitation to strangers, it is frequently in this form. "Members of the Christian church, of whatever name or denomination, are cordially invited to partake with us at the table of our common Lord." When assembled at the feast of our Lord, we dare not drive from his table any guests who have thought proper to comply with his invitation. In short, we make evidence of Christian character our only condition of fellowship And, so long as a believer takes the Bible for his guide of faith and practice, and exhibits a Christian character, he is cordially welcomed to our celebration of the ordinances. In this way, we adhere most firmly to this principle of our Pilgrim fathers; and take special care, "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 conscientiously complied with by sincere Christians of all denominations."

And what was the third grand fundamental principle of our Pilgrim fathers? "The perfect independence of every congregATIONAL CHURCH." This right they guarded with extreme jealousy. When the first pastor was ordained in Salem, a deputation arrived from the first church in Plymouth. They were allowed to take no part in the services, except to give the right hand of fellowship. And before the person could do this, he was obliged to declare, "that no inference

should ever be drawn from it in support of the idea, that there was the least dependence whatever in this church upon others, or the least jurisdiction over it in any external body, or the least necessary connexion between this and other churches wherever it might be." So in the first church in Woburn. They were about to ordain a pastor. ⚫Delegates from other churches were present; but fearing they might claim some jurisdiction over them, they were not allowed to take any part in the exercises. They preferred doing the whole themselves, though the services should not be so well performed. You thus perceive what the Pilgrims understood by the independence of the churches. Now, which denomination has adhered most closely to this sacred principle of our ancestors?

Does the orthodox denomination scrupulously guard the independence of the churches? No; look at the consociations in Connecticut. They destroy this principle as effectually as presbyterianism or episcopalianism. Not a church has the least independence left. All have virtually abandoned the congregational order. Look next at the various attempts to introduce the same system of slavery into the churches of this Commonwealth. And even at this moment, your conferences of churches virtually destroy the independence of particular churches. The pilgrims would no more have allowed such a combination, than they would have yielded to the Pope of Rome. And, lastly, your measures to prevent ministerial intercourse with unitarians are utterly subversive of the rights of individual pastors and churches. So that every one must readily perceive, that the leaders of your party openly, palpably, and systematically, violate this third fundamental principle of the Pilgrims; and use all their influence to bring the congregational churches into spiritual subjection.

And does the unitarian denomination observe this dearly cherished principle of the fathers? Yes; can you produce an instance in which they have infringed the independency of any church? Have they not uniformly opposed the attempts of the orthodox to introduce the enslaving system of consociations? Is not each church in their order perfectly independent, having no connexion whatever with any other body, transacting all its own concerns in its own way? This you must admit. And, consequently, every one will grant that the unitarians have sacredly observed the third principle of the Pilgrims, and ever done all in their power to prevent the orthodox churches from falling into scrvitude.

And what was the fourth principle of the Pilgrims. "THE PERFECT EQUALITY OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES." Each church was literally independent of all others. Still all were acknowledged to be on an equal standing. Each one respected as sacred the rights of all the others. Each one endeavoured to do unto others as it would have the others do unto itself. When members removed from one town to an

other, they were cheerfully dismissed and cordially recommended to the fellowship of the churches in the place of their new residence. In this way the perfect equality of congregational churches was preserved. Now which denomination adheres most rigidly to this principle of our Pilgrim fathers?

Does the orthodox denomination sacredly guard the equality of congregational churches? No; leaders of your party have visited the church members of their ministerial brethren, endeavoured to prejudice them against their present pastor, and urged them to recede from his communion and form themselves into a new church. When members from your churches have removed into other towns, and requested a dismission, and a recommendation to the congregational church in the place of their residence, their request has been absolutely refused; and they have been assured that their former brethren would regard such a transfer of their relations as manifestly unsafe and sinful. In short, look at all the cases I have recorded, and tell me, if you can reconcile such proceedings with a rigid maintenance of the equality of the churches? No; every person must perceive that the fourth fundamental principle of our Pilgrim fathers is openly, palpably, and systematically violated by the orthodox denomination; and that your leaders are exerting all their influence to destroy the equality of congregational churches.

Does the unitarian denomination observe this sacred principle of the fathers? Yes; they have regarded the parishes of their ministerial brethren as sacred ground. They have urged unitarian minorities in such societies to keep quiet, to pay their ministerial taxes, to attend the orthodox preaching, and to submit peaceably to orthodox usurpations of their rights. They have lent their aid to new societies when regularly organized; but have discouraged the formation of unitarian churches where the orthodox ministers would exchange with unitarians. And when church members have removed into orthodox parishes, they have cheerfully given them a dismission and a recommendation. So that no one will pretend that unitarians have disregarded the equality of the churches; but all will admit that they have observed the fourth fundamental principle of the Pilgrims. These, Sir, are the leading and important principles of our Pilgrim fathers; and I know of no way in which you could have violated them more thoroughly, or in which the unitarians could have observed them more sacredly.

2. Doctrines of the Pilgrims. What were the religious doctrines of the Pilgrim fathers? The Calvinistic articles of belief. This I do not dispute. But does the orthodox denomination agree with the fathers in their doctrinal sentiments? I think not. And I will give the reasons for this opinion. Soon after the settlement of our country, the great assembly of divines at Westminster drew up a Confession of Faith and two Catechisms. The opinions of Calvin, as received by

134

his followers of that period, were embodied in these formularies. To these statements our Pilgrim fathers of that day assented, and pronounced these articles the best human expression of their orthodox faith. Now can you aver, that your denomination in New England believes the Westminster Confession of Faith? I will quote a few passages, which I believe most of you concur in rejecting.

"In the

And, first, take the doctrine of God and Christ. Here it is. unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Now I need not ask if you can assent to all the statements of this article. I know you cannot. For in the first place, you do not believe in three persons in the Godhead. This you have declared in your first Letters to Dr. Channing. You hold merely to three distinctions. In the second place, you do not believe the Son was eternally begotten of the Father. For so you have proclaimed in your Letters to Dr. Miller. In fact, this book was written for the express purpose of proving that this doctrine was neither Scriptural, rational, nor received by the early Christian fathers. And you must know that an avowal of your disbelief of these two points would have been regarded as dangerous and alarming heresy by our Pilgrim fathers. And, secondly, take the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all "Our first parents, being seduced his posterity. Here is the article. by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was IMPUTED, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." Now I need not ask if you believe all the statements in this quotation. I know you do not. Your For, in the first place, you reject the doctrine of imputation. friend and colleague, Dr. Woods, in his Letters to Dr. Ware, ridicules the idea of Adam's sin being imputed to his posterity. Dr. Appleton, late President of Bowdoin College, has a very powerful and conclusive argument against this view, in his volume of Sermons. And it is well known, that the Professors at Princeton are very bitter against the New England divines for giving up this belief of our Pilgrim fathers. In the second place, you know that the New Haven Professors have renounced the doctrine of our original corruption of soul and body

being the cause of our actual transgressions. So that the whole article is virtually abandoned by the Connecticut divines. And you well know, that an avowal of your disbelief of these two points would have been regarded as dangerous and alarming heresy by our Pilgrim fathers.

And, thirdly, take the doctrine of the damnation of infants. This was very generally received by the early Calvinists. Here you have the article which implies this horrid belief. "ELECT INFANTS, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Now I need not ask if you believe that any infants are among the non-elect; for Dr. Beecher has publicly declared that this doctrine of infant damnation is given up by the denomination.

And, fourthly, take the doctrine of free-will. The real Calvinists hold that our wills are not free. Here is the article. "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. So as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." I need not ask if all your leaders can assent to this article. I know you cannot. For in the first place, you know that the New Haven and New York divines are now controverting this very doctrine, and contending, that man is able to prepare himself for conversion; that he is active and not passive in regeneration. And in the second place, you know, that Dr. Beecher has advocated the freedom of the will with the conclusive arguments of Arminianism. One extract from a tract lately published on this subject will put the question beyond dispute. Here it is. "By a free moral agent, I mean a person who is capable of discerning between moral good and evil, who is voluntary in the right or wrong course he pursues, and who is praise or blame worthy, according as he obeys or disobeys the law of God." This is a direct contradiction of the article from our fathers' creed. And you must know that an avowal of your disbelief in these two points would have been considered dangerous and alarming heresy by the Pilgrims.

And fifthly, take the doctrine of election and reprobation. Here it is. "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or per