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 accounts, 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. Channing 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, aud 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 Association 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 settlement of their difficulties. But, in proposing a council, they would allow him the liberty of electing his part of the ministers, only from one or two orthodox associations. This of course prevented his accept

ance of their proposals; for the council would not be mutual, 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, after 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 satisfactory. 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 ministerial brethren, pronounced it "DIABOLICAL.” Now bring this measure home to our own county. Several of the orthodox ministers in this vicinity have lately 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 Associations. 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 knowledge, 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, first, those cases in which orthodox asso

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 Association to catechize the Rev. Mr. Bailey as to his religious opinions. He received them very politely, and answered their questions very cheerfully. A few months after, he received a letter from the scribe of the association, informing him, that in consequence of his errors, his connexion 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. SherSuppose 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?

man.

Secondly, take those cases in which orthodox associations have denounced 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 News, 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 associate 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 contained 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 to be?

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 pub ication, entitled A Letter on Religious 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 opinions of certain ministers of good Christian character, render them unworthy of public confidence.

As a fair illustration 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 be owned or employed as a Christian minister on account of his great ERRORS. I have not room for the bull of excommunication and condemnation which they published in two or three newspapers. 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 standard 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 doctrine, 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 unexpectedly 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 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 that 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 ministers 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 punish 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. 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 congregationalism. I will mention four different classes of facts in proof of these assertions. Look, first, at the terms of admission 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 received to communion. Now from what source do you obtain authority to require this confession? From Jesus Christ? 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