have the same right and as much reason to accuse the orthodox of infidelity.

11. The Orthodox assert that Unitarians are Emissaries of Satan, Devils, and worse than the Devil. Look at those passages, in which orthodox writers have accused unitarians of being emissaries of Satan, devils, and worse than the Devil. My first extract shall be from a Sermon by the President of Nashville College. These are his words. "Behold the progress of heresy and infidelity under the disguise of rational Christianity. See the artifice of the GREAT DESTROYER in these latter days. He has commissioned his emissaries to assume the garb and the functions of the minister of the gospel, that they may more effectually sap the foundation of the whole Christian edifice. He has enlisted talents, and learning, and indefatigable enterprise in this work of desolation. Modern unitarianism, which is every where insinuating itself into the hearts of men, naturally predisposed to its reception, because it is exactly suited to the natural character of man, is more to be dreaded than any species of infidelity ever yet avowed." What, more than Atheism? Let that pass. Here you perceive that unitarian ministers are called emissaries of Satan by a former Professor at Princeton. What would you say, if I should inform you that this said President had already become a liberal Christian himself?

My next quotation shall be from the Letters of Canonicus, as giving a fair specimen of the views of your Seminary. He first attempts to prove that unitarians do not believe in the personal existence of an almost omnipotent Devil, and then draws the following inference. "Satan has few more successful servants than those professed teachers of Christianity, who either openly deny his existence, or by never asserting it, let it slip out of the minds of their hearers. The amiable and estimable qualities, the varied learning and beneficent dispositions of such teachers, may make them revered and loved and honored in ANY community. It is, indeed, a most ungrateful task to bring forward, either directly or by implication, such a charge against a highly respectable portion of the community." The plain meaning of the whole then is this. Unitarians are the most successful servants of Satan. Why? Because some of them, either do not believe in the personal existence of an almost omnipotent Devil, or do not weekly hold him up before their hearers. But there are also other points in these assertions, which I wish you to explain. If unitarians are the most successful servants of Satan, I cannot understand how they are so worthy to be revered and loved and honored in ANY community, especially in an orthodox community. For one of your preachers lately informed his hearers, that our Saviour's command to love our enemies did not extend to the Devil; and I see no reason why it should extend to his most successful servants. And if unitarians are the most successful servants of Satan, I cannot conceive how they can constitute a most respectable portion of

the community. For I have always been accustomed to consider the most successful servants of Christ the most respectable portion of society; and, if I mistake not, our Saviour so regarded them. But if all this is the necessary inference from orthodox reasoning, do pray observe a rigid consistency.

My last passage shall be from Dr. Mason's Farewell Discourse in New York. "I know that this congregation is considered by them [unitarians], as the very focus of what they term bigotry; and I do rejoice that thus far I and you have been counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. Long may it continue so! Long may it be thought a hopeless case to attempt to bring you over to the fellowship of DEVILS. Though I would not slander the DEVIL; he promotes his work as the destroyer, not by tempting men to his belief, but by persuading them to embrace what he does not believe — what is too coarse and abominable for hell itself." This is plain language. Unitarianism is too coarse and abominable for hell itself. Unitarians are devils; and worse than the Devil himself; for it would be slandering the Devil to charge him with doing what is daily done by unitarians. Very well. I shall not argue the question, whether unitarians are possessed by the devil or not. But I must have some evidence, besides mere assertion, before I can yield the point in dispute. Remember that unitarians have the same right and equal reason to bring these charges against the orthodox denomination.

12. The Orthodox assert that Unitarians cannot be saved, but must go to Hell. Look at those numerous passages, in which orthodox ministers have asserted that unitarians cannot be saved, but must be eternally damned. Indeed this practice has become so common as to shock all respectable people of other denominations. In proof of this assertion, I will quote merely one passage from the last American Quarterly Review. These are the words. "We do not belong to the sect of unitariaus, and feel no concern for the extension of their principles, but we have been shocked by the open and coarse manner in which their claims to Christianity have been denied; and the fury by which the members of that church, many of whom we know to be pious, learned, and excellent men, have been in a summary way doomed to everlasting and hopeless misery, even from the altars of the God of MERCY." Having given you the passage from this able and catholic Journal, I will proceed with my extracts from orthodox ministers. The first shall be from Dr. Beecher's Sermon at Portland. "Reflect, I beseech you, on the argument; and remember, that in proportion to the certainity of its rusult, is the certainty of your destruction — your everlasting destruction, if you reject the doctrine of the atonement, and of justification by faith. Let parents think of this, who put in jeopardy, not their own souls only, but the souls of their confiding offspring. Let professed ministers of Christ, who reject the divinity of Christ, and neglect to preach, or

preach against, the doctrines of atonement and justification by faith ;let such ministers reflect, and tremble at the possibility, the probability, the CERTAINTY, that they will destroy both their own souls and the souls of them that hear them." This is sufficiently explicit. Unitarians who reject Dr. Beecher's views of the atonement and justification by faith, will certainly be damned.

My next passage shall be from an extemporaneous discourse, delivered by the Rev. Mr. Green of Boston, at an evening lecture in Salem, and recorded at the time by one of the most distinguished gentlemen of that place. These are the very sentiments advanced. "Nine churches (we do not mention it with a spirit of boasting) have been recently established in the vicinity of Boston, upon ground where another gospel has been preached, we do. verily believe it another gospel, WHICH NEVER BROUGHT A SOUL TO JESUS CHRIST AND TO HEAVEN, AND NEVER WILL, by men whom we can love and do love, whom we can pray for and do pray for, whom we can weep over and do weep over." Now several circumstances render these assertions peculiarly unchristian and injurious. First, they were uttered with great solemnity to an audience composed principally of females; and not of that class of females who would be most likely to suspect the infallibility of their origin. Secondly, their spiritual pride and self-righteousness would be very liable to be increased, by such a call upon them to pray and weep over the fatal errors of Christians as good or better than themselves. Thirdly, the remarks allude particularly to such men as Dr. Tuckerman, the late Dr. Foster, Dr. Ripley, and other distinguished worthies, And, finally, neither the preacher nor his hearers had arrived at such Christian perfection, as to warrant them in neglecting their own failings, and in spending their time in weeping and praying for their neighbours. Did they remember the prayer of the Pharisee?

My third quotation shall be from your Letter on Religious Liberty. These are your words. "We do from the heart believe, that the eternal salvation of our fellow-beings is connected with a hearty assent to the fundamental principles which we avow." Now these fundamental principles which you avow are contained in your human creed. You know that no unitarian can give his hearty assent to those principles. You do therefore believe, that their eternal salvation is forfeited. In other words, you heartily believe unitarians must be eternally damned because they will not profess their hearty belief in the articles of your human creed. Is not this the true meaning of your declaration?

My last extract shall be from the Farewell Discourse of Dr. Mason. In order to make the whole paragraph intelligible, I must take the sentences already quoted in the connexion. "Long may it be thought a hopeless case to attempt to bring you over to the fellowship of devils. Though I would not slander the Devil; he promotes his work as the destroyer, not by tempting men to his belief, but by persuading them

to embrace what he does not believe what is too coarse and abominable for hell itself; AND WHAT THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHRISTIANS SHALL The pre

FIND TO BE SO WHEN THEY GET TO THEIR OWN PLACE.

tences of these men to kindness, and candor, and love, are all hollow. They mean to make proselytes of you, and two-fold more the children of hell than themselves. O keep at a distance from them. Furthest from them and their charity is best. Come not near their ice, NEVER TO BE MELTED BUT IN THAT FIRE WHICH SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED!" This Reverend Doctor consigns us to endless torments with the most perfect coolness. I am sure no one can envy such a man his disposition or character.

Now, Sir, I wish to know what you mean by such declarations. Do you really believe that unitarians are to be consigned to endless misery? Do you heartily believe that such men as Buckminster, and Thacher, and Prentiss, and Abbot, and a host of similar characters are now suffering excruciating torments in hell; and that they are there to suffer to all eternity! I demand an explicit and public answer to this question. And what will it be? Will you dare openly to avow such a belief? I think not. For in the first place, you must know, that such an avowal would strike a death blow at Christianity; because the Saviour promised heavenly felicity to those who sincerely obeyed his commands; and if these men did not render holy obedience, will you pretend that any of your denomination ever have? In the second place, you must know, that such an avowal would strike a fatal blow at the pillars of Protestantism; because these declare that the Scriptures are the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice, and that every person may study and understand them for himself; and if these men did not make the Bible the only rule of faith and practice, will you pretend that any of your denomination ever have? In the third place, you must know that such an avowal would arouse the indignation of the majority of the orthodox denomination; because they firmly believe that these and similar unitarians were good Christians, and that all good Christians of every sect will be saved. And in the fourth place, you must know, that such an avowal would awaken the scorn and contempt of all liberal-minded men everywhere; because if you pretend to believe that such men are to be eternally damned for not believing every article of your creed, you will manifest almost unparalleled weakness and bigotry. And if you dare not openly avow your belief in the damnation of these men, why do you make such declarations concerning unitarians? Do you make them to frighten the young, and weak, and ignorant, so that they may not become acquainted with unitarian sentiments? Remember that unitarians have the same reason, and as much right, to sentence the whole orthodox denomination to endless torments.

I have no room for more quotations. What then must be our conclusions? Do not the extracts I have made from orthodox writers fully prove, that you have denied unitarians almost every Christian right, and called them by almost every unchristian name? And do they not also fully prove, that your denunciations are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism? I must conclude that both propositions are perfectly demonstrated.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS FACTS.

In the sixth place, I invite your attention to some miscellaneous facts, which could not well be introduced into the preceding divisions. I think the statements which I shall make under this head will prove the two following propositions. First, that many of the measures of the leaders of the orthodox party are oppressive 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 six different classes of facts under this general division, although I intended to notice some twenty or thirty.

1. Education Society. Look at some of the measures of the American Education Society. Three circumstances strike me as peculiarly oppressive. One is this. The Society is truly exclusive in its reception of beneficiaries. Although a considerable amount of your funds has been obtained from unitarians, with the express understanding that indigent students of their own sentiments should be assisted, yet your board of directors will not grant assistance to a person of known unitarian belief. You indeed proclaim to the world, that young men of hopeful piety, from all denominations, may be aided in preparing for the gospel ministry; and that you require no confession of faith from any beneficiary. This declaration is true in one sense, and in another is false. Your conscience is saved, and the public deceived, by the following artifice. Unitarians are Congregationalists; you assist individuals of this denomination who have embraced orthodox sentiments; you therefore feel justified in affirming that you aid Congregationalists. And further, you assist none but young men of hopeful piety; the candidate must bring testimonials to this effect from proper authority; none but orthodox recommendations answer this description; and no orthodox man will consider a person of known unitarian views as hopefully pious. You therefore feel justified in declaring, that such are refused assistance, not because they are unitarians, but because they give no proper evidence of hopeful piety. On this ground, all persons of known unitarian sentiments are denied the aid of the Education Society. And is not this oppressive, since a portion of your funds was received from unitarian benevolence?

The next circumstance, to which I alluded, is this. The Society is truly exclusive in its dismission of beneficiaries. A strict watch is maintained over their religious opinions. If one is discovered to be