Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

simply one extract from a standard periodical journal of your denomination, which plainly asserts this principle. Here it is. "It can be, we think, shown, that, in the present state of the world, the Bible is not and cannot be used as the sole test of orthodoxy, while any regard is paid to truth in the constitution of a Christian church." I presume this declaration will be sufficient for the satisfaction of every man. In the second place, do not the facts, which I have stated, also fully prove, that the use made of human creeds, by the orthodox denomination, is subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism? If not, take simply one extract from the writings of your excellent friend, Dr. Miller, which fully implies this conclusion. Here it is. "The Calvinistic articles of the church of England were the means of keeping her doctrinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for the greater part of a hundred years. In the reign of James the First, very few opponents of Calvinism dared publicly to avow their opinions; and of those who did avow them, numbers were severely disciplined, and others saved themselves from a similar treatment by subsequent silence and discretion. The inroads of error therefore were very powerfully checked, and its triumphs greatly retarded by these PUBLIC STANDARDS." This is the Doctor's argument for the utility of public standards, or human creeds, in our country; so that those, who dissent from them may be severely disciplined, and others avoid similar treatment by being hypocrites. This is enough to settle the question. I must conclude that both propositions are perfectly demonstrated.

II. MINISTERIAL INTERCourse.

In the second place, I invite your attention to the orthodox terms of Ministerial Intercourse. I think the facts I shall adduce, under this head, will prove the two following distinct propositions. First, that the measures adopted by the leaders of the orthodox denomination, for preventing ministerial intercourse with unitarians, are oppressive, tyrannical, 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 five different classes of facts under this general division.

1. Misrepresentation. Look at the misrepresentations, which orthodox individuals have invented and circulated, to prevent ministers of their own sentiments from exchanging with unitarians. Take a notorious instance which occurred about two years since. The circumstances are briefly these. The Rev. Mr. Hubbard, a minister of acknowledged orthodox sentiments, and late pastor of the church in Middleton, was invited to a re-settlement over the congregational society in Lunenburg. It was generally known to his ministerial brethren, that he was in the practice of exchanging with unitarians. This circumstance alone induced some orthodox preachers in the vicinity of

Lunenburg to make great exertions to prevent his installation. And what measures do you suppose they adopted to effect this object? I grieve for the iniquity of the individuals concerned, while I record their wicked transactions. They went to Andover, and earnestly solicited from the orthodox ministers in the neighbourhood of Middleton some information derogatory to the character of Mr. Hubbard. False and slanderous reports were invented by an individual in Middleton, communicated to an orthodox minister in Danvers, and conveyed by him to the principal agent in this unrighteous work. The Rev. Mr. Payson, pastor of a very feeble orthodox church in Leominster, having obtained the desired misrepresentations, went into Lunenburg, communicated them to an influential family, and requested them to put them in circulation and conceal the name of their informer. He affirmed, that Mr. Hubbard was a bad man, brought up his children to swear, and would prove a curse to the society if they retained him as their pastor. Such reports now threw the parish into consternation, and reached the ears of the pastor elect. He proceeded immediately to the source of the evil, and eventually dragged to light the individuals concerned. By the TERRORS OF THE CIVIL LAW, he compelled them to confess their wickedness and agency in the base undertaking.

I will now give you a copy of three confessions. Take first that of the Rev. Mr. Braman of Danvers. It will show you that he was earnestly beset by orthodox ministers for information injurious to the reputation of Mr. Hubbard. Here it is. "Whereas, in consequence of earnest solicitation from clergymen in the vicinity of Lunenburg, I made statements of reports which were injurious to the character of Rev. Mr. Hubbard; I hereby declare, that from persons in Middleton who belonged to the society of which Rev. Mr. Hubbard was pastor, in whose veracity I have entire confidence, I have received free testimonials of his moral and ministerial character; and that having been at considerable pains to make inquiries, I now declare it to be my conviction, that all rumors prejudicial to his moral reputation are destitute of foundation, and I hereby express my sincere regret and sorrow, that I was the instrument of circulating the reports in question.”

-

Take next the confession of the Rev. Mr. Payson, who went into Lunenburg to circulate the slanderous reports. He was afterwards asked before witnesses, if he should have taken such a step, had not Mr. Hubbard exchanged with unitarians. His answer was - No. He also intimated, that Mr. Putnam of Fitchburg and Mr. Fisher of Harvard, in connexion with himself, had taken Lunenburg under their special protection. Many other particulars of a similar character might be mentioned to his disadvantage, did my limits or inclination permit. Let us then have his confession. "This certifies to all whom it may concern, that some time during the month of October last, from

information received from a person in whom I confided, I made certain statements to Edmund and Elizabeth Proctor of Lunenburg, and to some other individuals, unfavorable and derogatory to the ministerial and moral character of Rev. Ebenezer Hubbard, now pastor of the congregational church in Lunenburg; which statements have been ascertained by my informant to be false and groundless, of which evidence has been presented to me; therefore, on the ground of this evidence, I do now declare my belief that the said statements are false and groundless. And I further declare my sincere regret, that any statements made by me, from misapprehension, or any other cause, though I would not implicate any one individual, should have been magnified into public reports injurious to the private character of Rev. Mr. Hubbard, which I have no wish to impeach, and in regard to which I know nothing injurious or derogatory."

I will, lastly, give you the confession of the orthodox gentleman in Middleton, who originated these slanderous reports. As he writes like a true penitent, I shall withhold his name from the public; for I have no wish to injure his reputation, and I trust his own conscience will inflict the most severe punishment for such aggravated wickedness. Here it is." Be it known to all whom it may concern, that I have, during the year last past, been circulating reports that are highly injurious to the moral and ministerial character of Rev. Ebenezer Hubbard, late minister of this town. I have made statements dishonorable to him and his children, to ministers and other individuals, with whom I have been conversant. I now freely acknowledge and publicly declare, that the statements made by me at any time, and to any person, against Mr. Hubbard's character, are false and groundless, unprovoked and slanderous; and I take this method to make public my sorrow and regret, that I have labored to injure a man who never injured me, and whose moral character and conduct, I have reason to believe, as far as my knowledge extends, has been correct. I also further declare, that I never heard Mr. Hubbard's children use profane language. Middleton, April 24th, 1829."

Now is not this a most aggravated instance of misrepresentation, originated and executed by orthodox individuals to prevent a minister of their own sentiments from exchanging with unitarians? Just remember the leading circumstances. Here is an orthodox minister of good reputation; he is surrounded by a family of young and dependent children; he has no means of subsistence but the income of his professional services; he is on the eve of settlement over a united society, who wish him to continue his practice of exchanges with unitarians. At this moment, a neighbouring orthodox minister enters the parish, visits one of the most influential families, solemnly assures them that their pastor elect is a bad man, and will prove a curse to their society, — desires them to put the slanderous reports into immediate circulation, and carefully

The whole church are in dis

to conceal the name of their informant. may. What to do, they know not. And had not Mr. Hubbard pursued the business with the coolness of an innocent and injured man, and with the decision of a Christian parent and freeman, he would have been utterly ruined as to all worldly prospects, and perhaps reduced even to beggary. And all this wicked contrivance for what cause? Simply because he exercised an independent ministry; simply and solely because he would exchange with unitarians. If such measures are not oppressive, tyrannical, and unchristian, I know not the meaning of the words. And if they are not subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism I know not what measures can be. Other instances of misrepresentation by orthodox individuals, for similar objects, though of a more private and recent character, have come to my knowledge, but must be omitted for want of room.

2. Threatening. Look at the threatenings used by the leaders of the orthodox party, to prevent ministers of their own sentiments from exchanging with unitarians. Take an example of recent occurrence. The circumstances are briefly these. A unitarian minister of Salem, in company with an influential layman of Andover, called on an orthodox minister of Middlesex county, to obtain an exchange for the following Sabbath. He addressed to him the following observation: "I hope you are not getting into the exclusive system." The reply contained the following sentiments, according to the testimony of the layman, now before me. "I abhor the system, but am compelled to enter into it; for THEY have told me, if I do not join them, they will fall upon me and break up my parish." The layman immediately repeated this very appropriate proverb: "The fear of man bringeth a snare." And so it has proved. Here you perceive, that an orthodox minister honestly confessed his abhorrence of your exclusive system, and his forced compliance with it from fear of the execution of your threatenings. I do not now mention the name of this individual, because I would not expose him to any more severe pain, than I believe his conscience has already inflicted.

This is but one of many similar instances. I mean, that many are deterred from exchanges with unitarians by the various threatenings of your leaders. About two years since, one of the very zealous and exclusive ministers remarked of the orthodox minister of Pepperell, that he doubted his piety, because he exchanged with unitarians; that they were laboring to prevent him from so doing, and that they should persevere until their object was accomplished. I have lately heard that this object is accomplished, that this man has surrendered his independence to his clerical brethren, that they have broken him down, as they term the result of their various measures. When your leaders have not been able to gain their ends by threatenings, they have put

their threatenings in execution. Take the proceedings in Gloucester as a fair illustration of this assertion.

Now do you imagine that the public will long submit to this priestly dictation? Will parishes much longer suffer their ministers to be frightened by orthodox leaders from exchanging with unitarians? Will they not rather assert their own rights, as well as the rights of their pastors? And in order to manifest their independence, will they not require a continuance of liberal exchanges? Yes, Sir; you may depend upon it, that the orthodox ministers who are now deterred from ministerial intercourse with unitarians by your threatenings, will ere long be released from their servitude. They will be aided and supported by public sentiment in the maintenance of their individual and congregational rights. They will be protected in an independent course by the voice of a free people. And orthodox leaders will be made to realize, that such threatenings are oppressive, tyrannical, and unchristian; and also subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism.

3. Oppression. Look at the oppression practised by the leaders of the orthodox party, to prevent ministers of their own sentiments from exchanging with unitarians. I allude particularly to the exclusive rules adopted by the majorities of some ministerial associations. In all parts of the Commonwealth, there are more or fewer orthodox ministers who are perfectly willing, if we may believe their own words, to exchange with unitarians. They openly aver, that they can see no good, but much evil, resulting from the exclusive system; that there is common ground enough on which to hold ministerial intercourse with unitarians; and that so far as they are themselves concerned, they have not the least objection to such a course. They also declare, that they are prevented from exchanging with unitarians, by the regulation of their orthodox brethren, who have agreed to exclude from their associations, their ministerial fellowship, and their Christian sympathy, all who will not conform to their laws on the question. Several instances of such confessions have come to my knowledge. I will merely refer to the conversation of one orthodox minister in Middlesex county. When speaking on the subject of exchanges with a neighbouring unitarian minister, and afterwards with one of his parishioners, he uttered the sentiments I have recorded. Is not this acknowledging that the usurpations of his clerical brethren prevent him from exchanging with unitarians?

And does not this confession fully establish the usurpation of the leaders of the orthodox party? What right have a majority of an orthodox association to adopt rules which shall oppress the minority? Yes; oppress the minority! For if they exchange according to the dictates of their judgment and the wishes of their hearers, the majority commence their measures of persecution, first by excluding

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »