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 minority? Has not the only lawful creed-maker for Christians given a perfect 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 infallible 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 churches. A young man, for instance, who has lived a very thoughtless and irreligious life, is suddenly converted. After a few weeks he is admitted 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 compelled 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 not only obliged to profess his hearty belief in the articles 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 withdraw 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 vows will be upon you. They will follow you to the bar of God; and in whatever world you may be fixed, will abide upon you to eternity. You have unalterably committed yourselves, and henceforth you must 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 renounced their orthodox belief, were so assured. One lady,

who requested a dismission and recommendation to a unitarian church, was informed that no dismission would be granted, that she must be excommunicated 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 necessary step to the communion table. For in so doing, you in effect require them to promise to perform one of two things,—either to neglect the Bible wholly, or to perform an impossibility. If you allow them to study the Scriptures, no doubt they will depart at least from some expressions of the creed; and they cannot believe the human opinion in opposition to Scriptural evidence. I do hope the followers of Jesus will look to this clerical usurpation of his rightful authority; and banish all such human traditions from the school of their divine Master. For I think a candid consideration of these two practices must convince them of their unscriptural character, and illiberal and oppressive tendency.

In the second place, look to the causes of excommunications from orthodox churches. Three circumstances strike me as peculiarly oppressive and unchristian. One is this. The orthodox have repeatedly excommunicated 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 commands of Jesus. Simply for searching the Scriptures for themselves, and expressing their sentiments in the very words of the sacred writers. 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 another place, a man, who still adhered to orthodoxy, was publicly excommunicated, 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 a unitarian Sunday school, and on being questioned by the church sessions, 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 paragraph, puts on the same ground, permission granted by the presbytery for the people of their charge to hear unitarian preaching, and permission granted by a father for his children to visit a brothel or gamingtable. 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 from 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 observation, 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 difference of opinion. And I would ask, from what source you obtain authority for such proceedings? From reason? There is nothing reasonable in the practice. How much more reasonable would it be for the persecuted disciple to excommunicate the persecutors 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 that 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 he 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 unitarian 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 occurred. Orthodox ministers have assured such members, both in conversation and writing, that theirs were cases of peculiar guilt and imminent peril, and that they would cheerfully 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 recommendation to the congregational church in the place of their residence. In answer to their request, the following absolute refusal was received.

"Rev. 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, that we 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 Platform. That expressly declares, 'if a member's departure be manifestly 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 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 parish, 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 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 altogether a strict regard to truth and honesty and fair-dealing. should I be guilty of refusing to dismiss and recommend an individual, and proceed to excommunication, would you not pronounce the measure unchristian, illiberal, and oppressive? And is the same act any the less unchristian, illiberal, or oppressive, because perpetrated by an orthodox church?

But

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. A 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 unitarianism. 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 meeting-house. 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