severance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth, or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." These were very favorite doctrines with our Pilgrim fathers; and they preached them out openly and boldly. Now I suppose yourself, and most of the orthodox clergy, really believe these points; but many of them dare not acknowledge it either in private or in the pulpit. I have never heard the doctrine of reprobation preached but once in New England. But I think the great mass of your church-members reject this view of both election and reprobation. And an avowal of such a belief would have been regarded as dangerous and alarming heresy by our Pilgrim fathers.

I could extend my quotations much farther, and point out many essential differences between the faith of the orthodox of our day and that of our Pilgrim fathers. But these are sufficient to convince every one, that you have departed from many doctrines which they regarded as essential. In short, they would not have acknowledged your belief as sound or orthodox; and had they given vent to their persecuting spirit, would have banished you from the Commonwealth. And in view of these truths, why have you asserted your agreement in opinion with the Pilgrims? and why have you reproached the unitarians for their disagreement? Are you authorized to say just how far a person may depart from their creed, and still be their son in faith? If not, why do you blame others for doing precisely what you have done yourselves? I am astonished at such conduct in one of your standing.

What, then, must be our conclusion? Have not the unitarians observed most scrupulously the fundamental principles of the Pilgrims? In obedience to these principles, they have advanced the reformation, and renounced many of the absurdities of their doctrinal creed. Have not the orthodox violated their fundamental principles most palpably? And in disobedience of these principles, they have been compelled by the progress of truth to renounce several of the essential doctrines of the Pilgrim fathers. That the Pilgrims were frail, prejudiced, sinful mortals; that they lived in a comparatively dark and ignorant period of the world; that they sometimes acted inconsistently with their own principles as well as the precepts of the gospel; that they were sometimes filled with errors, superstitions, and idle fancies; that they sometimes manifested a bitter spirit; that they were sometimes persecutors; that they were not perfect models either in faith or practice for the imitation of Christians of the present day, I shall not undertake to deny. And if you claim for your denomination to be their imitators in these particulars, I certainly shall not dispute your pretensions.

IV. HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

The leaders of your party have recently as well as formerly manifested great hostility towards Harvard University. The last crusade against its peace, prosperity, and reputation was commenced by Dr. Beecher. A wearisome series of misrepresentations then followed in the Recorder, said to have been compiled principally by the Rev. Mr. Green of Boston. The Rev. Parsons Cook soon ushered into being some statements which his elder brethren had not sufficient nerve to publish. The last season, the Rev. Drs. Beecher, Fay, and Codman commissioned the Rev. Mr. Bennett to disseminate the various slanders of the orthodox leaders through the obscure villages of the Commonwealth. And last, though not least, you have lent all your aid to this nefarious undertaking. But three of your charges, however, appear to me to be worthy of the least attention; and these I will now briefly notice.

1. You complain that the proceeds of funds given by orthodox individuals are appropriated to the support of unitarian instructers. To convince you of the unreasonableness and absurdity of this accusation, I will merely ask you to answer the five following questions. And, first, suppose the early benefactors of Harvard University had done precisely what was effected by the founders of your theological seminary; suppose they had embodied their peculiar religious opinions in a human creed; suppose they had solemnly ordered that this formulary should never be subjected to the least alteration, but must for ever remain the standard of religious truth in the college; suppose they had decreed that no individual should be employed as an instructer in the institution any longer than he could heartily assent to all the articles of the aforesaid creed; suppose they had done all this; and of what service would their funds now be to your denomination? None whatever. For you well know, that not a man in your party could now honestly assent to all the articles which would have been considered essential by the early friends of the University.

And, secondly, suppose the orthodox benefactors of the University had pointed out the publications which should be for ever used as textbooks in the college; suppose they had specified the particular sentiments which must everlastingly be preached in the chapel, and what would now be the consequence? One of three things. Either the funds must remain entirely useless; or the last will and testament of the pious donors must be broken and disregarded; or the obscure corners of Europe would have to be ransacked for a professor, who should be exposed as the laughing-stock of the whole country. Yes; I really believe a smile at least would be excited on the gloomiest and most careworn countenance among the Calvinists themselves, if such a divine as the credulous Dr. Mather were now lecturing in the University, explaining the best methods for detecting and punishing witches;

attributing thunder-storms to the influence and agency of the Devil; taking his pupils out to dig for thunder-bolts at the foot of a tree scathed by lightning; describing comets as certain indications of approaching judgments; retailing wonderful stories of modern miracles; expounding the secret will of the Almighty; and enforcing the wholesome doctrine of Calvinistic reprobation.

And, thirdly, why not extend your complaint to individuals, towns, and other literary institutions? For instance, take an orthodox governor. He is devoted to the interests of your denomination. He leaves a large property to be equally divided between two sons. One of them embraces unitarianism, and contributes generously to the promotion of those objects which his father could never approve. On your principle, his property must be taken from him, and given to the son who still believes more of the articles of their father's religious creed. Not only so. In the town north of this, there is a large fund for the support of the ministry. It was probably bestowed by orthodox individuals. It is now appropriated to the support of a unitarian minister. Perhaps you may collect some half a dozen orthodox females in the whole place. And on your principle, these ladies have a right to the proceeds of this fund, because their religious opinions approach nearer the creed of the original donors. But this is not all. You know that the University of Oxford was endowed by the Catholics. You know their funds were given for the maintenance and dissemination of their religious sentiments. You know the institution is now in the hands exclusively of Episcopalians. You know the Catholics in Great Britain bear as large a proportion to the Episcopalians, as the orthodox descendants of the early benefactors of Harvard University do to their unitarian posterity. On your principle, then, the claims of the Catholics should be immediately granted. In all these cases the progress of society should be disregarded; and if so, why not restore our Commonwealth to the remaining remnants of savage tribes? But enough has been said to show the unreasonableness of the complaint.

And, fourthly, are you the proper person to bring this accusation against the free citizens of the Commonwealth? For you will recollect that all the blame in this business falls upon the voters. They elect a majority of the board of overseers; by whom the appointment of every instructer in the institution must be confirmed. But I would have you look to the concerns of your Education Society. How many of the lifemembers are unitarians? How much of your funds was given by unitarian benevolence? Did these benefactors bestow their property for the education of orthodox young men? Did they wish to aid in training ministers to break up their own parishes, deny them the Christian name, and sentence them to hell for their honest opinions? Has any change taken place in public opinion, which requires that funds thus bestowed should be exclusively appropriated to your party? Whenever your

directors are ready to assist young men of unitarian opinions, I shall be happy to recommend a few candidates. Perhaps some of the number will be those who have been dismissed from your list of beneficiaries for no other cause but embracing unitarianism. And after you shall have done this, you may prefer your complaint of the improper appropriation of funds against Harvard University.

But, finally, did the orthodox benefactors of Harvard University bind down their legacies to the maintenance of their religious opinions? No; they came to this country to advance the reformation; not to retard its progress. They were very confident that more light was yet to break from God's holy word; not that all its essential doctrines could then be embodied in a human standard. They greatly lamented that their friends in the old world had come to a period in religion; not that they were renouncing the absurd opinions of their unenlightened ancestors. They firmly believed that more truth had been revealed to them than to their Catholic fathers; and they fondly trusted that their children would be blessed with still greater illumination. With such views and feelings, they could not aid in suppressing free inquiry. They could not consistently confine the proceeds of their donations to those, and those only, who should ever after believe precisely their religious sentiments. They had sacrificed much in order to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves; and they could not conscientiously deprive their descendants of the exercise of a right which had cost them so dear. They wished to promote good learning and pure religion; and they put sufficient confidence in their posterity to leave them at liberty to pursue the most expedient measures for the accomplishment of these purposes. They therefore put no such restrictions on the use of their benefactions, as everlasting creeds and unconstitutional trust-deeds. I think these considerations are enough to show the unreasonableness and absurdity of your first

accusation.

2. You complain that your rights in Harvard University are wrested from you, and that the institution has assumed a sectarian character. To convince you of the unreasonableness and absurdity of this charge, I will ask a few explanatory questions: Is any religious test required of the students upon their entrance into the college? No; they are required simply to produce a certificate of good moral character. Are not all the students admitted to the same instructions? Yes; all are treated with equal attention. Are the proceeds of the funds given for the assistance of indigent students confined to unitarians? No; they are bestowed without the least regard to the religious opinions of the applicants. Are the honors of college bestowed with a partial hand? No; parts are assigned in strict accordance with the standing of the students. Are all students obliged to attend upon unitarian preaching? No; if of age, they may choose their own meeting; if not, they may go wherever

their parents request. And they can be accommodated with seats in the churches, either of the orthodox, the episcopalians, the baptists, the universalists, the methodists, the Swedenborgians, or the Catholics. Are any measures adopted to prepossess the young men in favor of unitarian opinions, such as giving them tracts, praying for the conversion of the orthodox, pointing them out as heretics, holding conference and prayer and inquiry meetings? No; nothing of the kind. Efforts are indeed made to induce them to love God with all their heart, and their neighbour as themselves; and beyond this, they are left to draw their own views from the sacred Scriptures. In what consists the sectarian character of the Institution? For the life of me, I cannot think of one particular. And what rights are wrested from you any more than from me? I certainly know of none whatever.

And are you the proper person to prefer such complaints against Harvard University? Look at some of the other institutions in the land. I will say nothing of your Theological Seminary, which is so notoriously sectarian, and where every student who does not find the articles of your human creed in the Bible must receive such illiberal treatment. I will say nothing of the Academy connected with your Institution, where so much is done to prejudice youth in favor of orthodoxy, where so many young men have been driven out of all belief in Christianity, and where unitarians are afraid to send their children, lest they should be made thorough infidels. I will say nothing of Dartmouth, where Edwards on the Will was lately introduced as a text-book. I will come to Yale and Amherst Colleges, established for the people, and where as many unitarian parents send their sons, as there are orthodox who send to Cambridge. Can a unitarian instructer find employment in either institution? No; while at Cambridge some two or three orthodox gentlemen are engaged in the government and instruction of the students. And what religious sentiments must the unitarian student hear advanced week after week? The most rigid orthodoxy. Look at Dr. Dwight's five volumes of Lectures delivered in the chapel at New Haven. Do not these contain all your essential doctrines, and are not all your arguments against unitarianism arranged in battle array? And must he not also hear those who embrace unitarian Christianity held up in orthodox prayers and sermons as totally depraved, unconverted, infidels, and sentenced to eternal condemnation for their honest opinions? Must he not be singled out by the hopefully pious young men as an object of peculiar attention on account of the good influence he might exert in his father's family, should he be once regenerated; and is he not so beset with tracts, and books, and exhortations, and prayers, and conferences, as to disgust him with the very name of religion? In all this there is nothing sectarian in your opinion; no rights are wrested from any one; all are permitted to enjoy perfect liberty to think and act as they please, so long as they will think like the orthodox.