different from the dignified and Christian conduct of the theological Professors at Cambridge!

And, thirdly, are you not accustomed to treat the objections of your pupils to your favorite opinions in an illiberal manner? I know that you and your colleague request the students to make their remarks. But how often are their observations treated with ridicule, with contempt, with impatience, with peevishness, more especially if they are in opposition to any of the articles of your human formulary of faith? Is this the way you encourage the spirit of free inquiry and religious liberty?

And, fourthly, have not students in your Seminary been cruelly persecuted for controverting some of your favorite opinions? Take one example of no very distant date. As your respected friend, Dr. Woods, had the principal hand in this particular instance, I will put a few questions to his conscience. Sir, do you recollect one James Kimball? Did you not summon him to your room on a certain evening? Had you then seen any fault in him? Had he been guilty of no offence but the one you specified?— that of making his classmates smile by the dissertations which he read in your presence? Was not the real cause of grievance a very different thing? Were you not offended because he was courageous enough to controvert some of your favorite positions? So he firmly believed until the hour of his death. And did you not again summon him to your room near the close of the second year of his course? Of what crime had he then been guilty? Had he committed any offence against morality or religion? Did you even charge him with any? Did you not affirm that you could name no fault? that you could not put your finger upon any? Did you not studiously avoid making any accusation against him whatever? Did you not know, that as a diligent student, and a plain, consciencious Christian, he had done nothing of which he ought to be ashamed? Why then did you endeavour to intimidate and dishearten a man who had made such exertions and sacrifices to acquire an education? - who had been encouraged to work his way through college by the hope of being useful in the ministry?— who had already been nearly two years in your Seminary without reproach? Why did you wish to discourage such a man by threatening to deprive him of the pecuniary assistance which was bestowed on others, whose intellectual, moral, and religious qualifications were not superior to his? Why did you advise him to give up the idea he had so fondly cherished of becoming a minister of the gospel? Why did you attempt to drive him from the institution without the testimonials usually given to those who leave before their course of study is completed? Was it right thus to blast the sacred hopes for which he had toiled seven or eight of the best years of manhood? - and for no fault you could name, for no crime on which you could put your finger? Were you not in reality afraid or ashamed to

name the only offence of which you considered him guilty?—that of controverting some of your favorite opinions in your presence? And because he gave an honest account of your treatment of him to the President of the Trustees of Phillips Academy, did you not pursue him with an unrelenting spirit? Did you not require him to retract what he had written, to do what his own conscience must have considered base wickedness, or suffer the consequences? And simply because he could not righteously make such a recantation as was satisfactory to yourself, was he not publicly and disgracefully expelled from your Seminary?—and expelled too at the very moment his health was evidently declining? —and declining too as he and others firmly believed under the rod of cruel persecution? And afterward did you not even publicly forbid his attending morning and evening prayers in the chapel? After he had been thus driven to his native home, with the stigma of your expulsion on his character, did he not exhibit the appearance of a broken-hearted man the remainder of his days? And who can tell how much unkindness contributed to the very destruction of his life? Can you look back upon your treatment of James Kimball with an approving conscience? Can you affirm in the presence of your omniscient Judge, that you granted him the rights of free inquiry and religious liberty? Let me whisper one word in your ear. Remember, that all the circumstances of this unhappy and ́melancholy case have been recorded by a faithful hand, and that their publication will not be withheld from the community for ever.

And, finally, has not a late Professor in your Seminary been cruelly persecuted for pursuing an independent course? I allude to the case of the Rev. Dr. Murdock. Did not your difficulties with this colleague originate with Dr. Woods? Did he not afterwards enlist the feelings of the other Professors on his side? Was not the principal cause of your opposition to him occasioned by his unwillingness to pursue your plans and measures? Did you not endeavour to chastise him for his heretical Sermon on the Atonement? Did not the Directors of the Seminary request his opinion respecting any improvements in the instruction or government of the Institution? Did they not promise him their confidence, if he would speak freely concerning the existing evils of the school? Did he not rely upon their honor, and give his opinion of the other Professors? Did not the Directors then betray his confidence? Did not their "portraits," made up from his statements, cause your opposition to increase even to enmity? Was not a generous sum then offered him if he would resign his office? After it was discovered that he would not be bribed, was he not dismissed by a vote of the Directors? While his trial was pending, did you not forbid the students boarding with him? Did you not prevent some from going to his house to recite to Mr. Gibbs ? Did you not aim to excite a prejudice against him in the community?

Did he not declare,

that the records of the Inquisition could scarcely furnish an instance of such unjustifiable and cruel persecution? Is he not prevented from giving a history of the whole affair to the public, by a fear that his exposure of the iniquity of some concerned would greatly injure the cause of orthodoxy? Can you affirm that all your proceedings in relation to him were consistent with religious liberty? Remember, that many of the facts in his case have been faithfully recorded, and will not be withheld from the public for ever. In view of all these measures, I must conclude that free inquiry and religious liberty are not enjoyed by the Students in your Theological Seminary.

6. Misrepresentation. Look at some of the orthodox misrepresentations of unitarians and unitarianism. I would gladly omit any statement of facts under this name; but a solemn sense of duty compels me to treat this unpleasant topic with truth and firmness. I feel bound to declare that some individuals in good standing among your leaders, have circulated most slanderous reports respecting the character and opinions of unitarians. My limits will permit me to notice but four different classes of misrepresentations in general circulation among the orthodox. And first, look at those untruths which strike at the very foundation of our moral character, and which, if believed, must utterly ruin our influence as ministers of the gospel. So many instances of this kind now rush on my recollection, that I find it difficult to make a selection. One example is this. A unitarian minister, the son of an orthodox clergyman, was ordained over a society in Plymouth county. An orthodox Christian in the vicinity took pains to circulate the report, that this man preached his father's orthodox sermons; and that there was an open dissagreement between the sentiments of his discourses and his unitarian prayers. Another instance is this. An orthodox deacon in Middlesex county reported that a unitarian minister in the neighbouring town had declared to his people, that he did not believe a word of the Bible.-A third case is this. An orthodox clergyman in this county informed a lady who had left his meeting, that the unitarian preacher in the same town preached sentiments which he did not himself believe. A fourth instance is this. Two orthodox ministers were travelling in the stage with two unitarian church members. One of them asserted, that the present Professor of Pulpit Eloquence and Pastoral Care in the University at Cambridge, then residing in Europe for his health, had renounced Christianity, and become an infidel. - As a fifth example, I will take one of the multitude which have been circulated respecting myself. The orthodox minister in this place has lately stated, that when I was journeying in New Hampshire, last season, I called at the house of an orthodox lady; that she asked me if I "was willing to enter the eternal world with my present views and feelings;" that after remaining silent and thoughtful some time, I boldly answered "No,"

I was not willing. Whether the Reverend gentleman believed this story when he circulated it or not, is not for me to determine. I must however say, that had I believed a similar report concerning him, I should not have whispered it about among a few females; but I should have felt it my duty to expose his hypocrisy by proclaiming the evidence on the house-top. I now declare, that the statement is an absolute falsehood, made out of whole cloth, having not even the shadow of a circumstance in truth for a foundation. And I must also proclaim, that if this man, or his deacon, or his church, continue to circulate the report after reading this, I shall be obliged to consider them as guilty of wilful slander. Such then is a bare specimen of those misrepresentations with which the orthodox atmosphere is surcharged. These are, indeed, sufficiently aggravated to have been propagated by professing Christians; but they are mild in comparison with some which have come to my knowledge. I have taken these cases in preference, because they can be readily proved before a legal tribunal. Now, Sir, will you not pronounce such a practice most base and unchristian? And do those individuals who keep such ruinous misrepresentations in circulation really believe them to be very truths? Look at the examples stated. Do they not carry the evidence of falsehood on their very front? Why then are they repeated by intelligent persons? Is it not done to injure our influence and usefulness with the ignorant? to keep them from hearing our preaching, or reading our publications, or becoming acquainted with our sentiments? And it is a fact, that our very honesty has been suspected by the less informed of your party, and our characters have suffered in the estimation of unitarians at a distance, by such slanderous statements. But this is not the worst of the case. The cause of Christ has been greatly injured; and the reputation of your clergy has suffered exceedingly. I state the following fact with extreme reluctance; but I utter the literal truth, when I declare, that candid men have lost their confidence in the moral integrity of several of your lay and clerical leaders; and that the following by-word is in the mouths of no small portion of the community; "Some orthodox ministers will lie." Such a state of things is extremely injurious to the interests of our common faith; and I do hope my labors will be rewarded by turning the attention of all concerned to this most important topic.

And, secondly, look at those mirepresentations which relate to the progress of unitarian sentiments. Orthodox leaders in this region have zealously endeavoured to make people at a distance believe, that unitarianism was on the decline, while orthodoxy was on the increase. One most deceptive mode of leaving such an impression has been, to boast on every convenient opportunity of the number of new churches lately established within this Commonwealth. And such statements have been strengthened by the circulation of such misrepresentations

as the following. It has been reported that one and another unitarian preacher had renounced their liberal sentiments and embraced orthodox views. It has been reported, that one and another unitarian society in Boston had dwindled away; and that the church in which Dr. Channing officiated had been closed, on account of secessions to the orthodox. Now there is no need of contradicting such statements in this vicinity, for we are assured that they are without the least foundation in truth.

And, Sir, have the leading orthodox in this vicinity really believed such representations? Have they regarded unitarianism as on the decline? Your letter furnishes conclusive evidence as to your own opinion. But if any have credited such stories, I pity their credulity, and rejoice in their disappointment. I hope no one has engaged in such a course, to influence that class of weak-minded and unstable Christians who always endeavour to side with the majority, and measure the success of truth by numbers. That persons at a distance have been deceived by such published and unpublished statements, I do positively know. Now were I called upon to distinguish any one fact, which indicated the progress of unitarian sentiments, I should mention the recent erection of so many little orthodox meeting-houses. For in the first place, many of them are built in towns which were once wholly orthodox, but are now so completely unitarian, that not one fifth, tenth, twentieth, fiftieth, or even hundredth part attend orthodox preaching. In the second place, several of the new houses of worship have been erected in places, where orthodox ministers have been settled to this very time; and they being now removed from their pastoral connexion either by death or dismission, the unitarian majorities of their hearers have settled ministers of their own sentiments: so that small remnants have been obliged to beg funds for building another church. Something like eight instances of this character have occurred during the past year; and there are more than eight other societies which are now dissatisfied with the exclusive measures of their present orthodox pastors. Besides all this, it is well known, that unitarians constitute a considerable portion of most orthodox societies in the State; so that there can be no doubt your generosity will be heavily taxed for years to come for the erection of new orthodox meetinghouses, which may be pointed out as the standing evidence of the progress of orthodoxy. If unitarians were to adopt a similar course of proceeding, how many churches, as large and respectable as those organized by the orthodox, do you suppose they might establish in one year?

And, thirdly, look at those misrepresentations which relate to the belief of unitarians. Orthodox individuals have greatly misrepresented our peculiar opinions even in this Commonwealth; but the farther you remove from the land of the Pilgrims, the greater the misrepresen