and if, in the exercise of this right, they become Unitarians, or Universalists, or Deists, or Atheists; so be it. To their own Master, they stand or fall. We will not hurt an hair of their heads. To be sure, if called to express an opinion respecting them, we must tell the truth, as we understand it; and if required to extend to them the hand of Christian fellowship, we must act according to our convictions of duty; but we will lay no restrictions upon their freedom of inquiry and opinion, nor, while they demean themselves as peaceable citizens, will we consent that they shall suffer any more than the necessary consequences of the principles they have imbibed.

In laying the blame of our alleged intolerance to our principles, Unitarians doubtless mean to represent that our principles are dangerous to Christian liberty. But it will appear, on examination, that they are no more dangerous than their own, and that they present no greater impediments in the way of free inquiry than their own. It may not suit the policy of Unitarians to have a written, formal creed; but they have a creed, as really as the Orthodox. In other words, there are points of belief, or disbelief, by which they are known and distinguished from other religious denominations. Now suppose one of their ministers departs essentially from these points, either one way or the other, would he not be liable to suffer at all on account of his opinions? Suppose Mr. W., for instance should become Orthodox, and should preach the Orthodox faith with as much zeal and pertinacity as he now does the Unitarian faith; would his people hear him,-or would they dismiss him?* Or suppose, in the exercise of his religious freedom, he should become an avowed Atheist; would his people hear him, or would they dismiss him? And would his ministerial brethren, in this case, continue to him their fellowship, or would they withdraw it? Would the ministerial Association to which he belongs retain him, or would they exclude him? Can Unitarians answer these questions in the only way in which they would think proper to answer them, without admitting that their views and principles on the subject of religious liberty are no more liberal or tolerant, than those of the Orthodox, of which they complain?

The principles on which Unitarians found their complaints of the

*It will be recollected that the predecessor of Mr. W., a worthy Orthodox Minister, was dismissed from this people, solely (as they at the time certified) on account of his opinions. The following is a copy of a note sent to him after the society had voted his dismission:

REVEREND SIR,

By vote of the second Religious Society at their meeting last evening, Resolved, that the second Religious Society in Waltham cheerfully and willingly declare, that they approve of the moral conduct of Rev. Sewall Harding, as the minister of said society; and as their minister he has preached, with faithfulness and an earnest desire to be useful, the Gospel, agreeably to his faith and creed; and that the only difference subsisting between the society and him is an honest difference of religious sentiments.The above is an extract from the records of the Society. THOMAS GORHAM, P. Clerk.

Orthodox are entirely different from those on which they themselves act in relation to some other denominations. In order that the former class of principles may be carried consistently out, a state of society must exist, in which one religious opinion shall be deemed as good, as reputable, and as safe as another, so that a man may turn this way or that, may believe more, or less, or nothing, without any fear or hazard of consequences. Now in regard to such a state of society, it is not enough to say that it is undesirable, and in the nature of things impossible, it is a state to which Unitarians are as little ready to come as any of their neighbors: For, as observed already, they act on a very different set of principles in relation to some other sects, from those on which they found their complaints of Orthodox exclusiveness and intolerance. They complain of the Orthodox, because they will not exchange pulpits with them. Why will not they exchange with the professed Universalist? They complain of us for encroaching on their liberty and rights, because we represent their views of doctrine as erroneous and unsafe. And why do they encroach, in the same way, on the liberty and rights, of the Deist and the Atheist, by representing their views of doctrine as erroneous and unsafe?

The amount of it all is, if we understand it, that Unitarians would have their own principles in good repute, at any rate. No one must suspect or question them. No one must open his mouth or lift a finger to oppose or discredit them. We cannot express an opinion of their publications, or sing a doxology in our own churches, as Mr. W. insists (pp. 43, 86,) without affording them just ground of complaint. But while they claim so high immunities for themselves, they are far from being willing to grant the same to others. To say nothing of the censures perpetually cast upon the principles and the publications of Evangelical Christians, those sects which Unitarians regard as beneath themselves on the general scale of unbelief, complain as loudly, and with quite as much reason, of their exclusiveness and illiberality, as they do of the same things on the part of the Orthodox.

We have gone thus at length into an examination of this subject, not merely with view to answer Mr. Whitman. Had this been our only object, we could have been content to despatch it in few words. But as we had occasion to say something on the subject-a subject important in itself, and almost continually misunderstood-we thought it entitled to a degree of consideration which otherwise would not have been necessary.

Hitherto, we have forborne to call in question the correctness of Mr. Whitman's statements. It will be necessary now to return to his Letters, and examine more particularly what is there alleged. We shall call attention, in the first place, to a class of misrepresentations, which, as the most charitable supposition we can make, we are inclined to attribute to the author's ignorance.

Under this head may be ranked the views which he takes of the Orthodox creeds, or confessions of faith. He uniformly represents these as our "standards of religious truth, and" charges us with using them instead of the Bible,' and even with placing them before the Bible.' But this, he might have known, is altogether an erroneous statement. There is not an Orthodox church or body of men in the world, who have adopted a confession of faith, who would admit that this was (in his sense of the terms) their "standard of truth." The Bible, and this alone, if they are Protestants, is their standard. The word of God they have sought and studied for themselves; and having arrived at what they believe to be its true meaning, they take the liberty-the same liberty which Mr. W. has to write a letter or a sermon-to sum up this meaning on paper, and form a creed. This creed is now the authorized profession or confession of their faith, but not, in his sense, the standard of it. It sets forth what they believe to be the doctrines of the Bible, but is never allowed to take the place of the Bible, and much less to stand before it.

An individual, having satisfied himself as to the meaning of the Bible and formed his creed, perhaps wishes to ascertain whether the views of certain other persons respecting the Bible accord with his own; in what way shall this point be determined? To present them the Bible for this purpose, and ask them whether they agreed to that, would be preposterous; because the question at issue between him and them, respects not their reception of the Bible, but the sense which they put upon it. And we know of no way in which he can settle this question, but by stating to them his own views, and requesting them to state theirs; or, in other words, by exhibiting his creed, and ascertaining whether they assent to it. It is for this purpose that churches, and some other religious bodies, present their creeds to those who are to be received as members ;not that their creeds are the sources of their faith, or the standards of it;-not that they use them instead of the Bible, or advance them before it ;-but that they may ascertain whether those who propose to be admitted as members have come to the same understanding of the Bible as themselves, and whether they can pleasantly and profitably associate on the basis of a common faith.

The inhabitants of these United States have all assented to the Federal Constitution; but unhappily all do not understand this important instrument alike. There have been long and learned debates, and our country is now divided into parties, on questions growing out of the different constructions which are put on the provisions of the Constitution. In these circumstances, our citizens do not think it enough to ask respecting the candidate for office under the general government, Does he agree to the Constitution? They deem it important further to inquire How does he understand the

6

Constitution? What construction does he put upon it? Or, in other words, 'What is his political creed?' For a similar reason, and with at least as much propriety, Christians wish to know respecting the candidate for membership with them in the same church, not only whether he agrees to the Bible, but what construction he puts upon the Bible.

Mr. W. represents our creeds as inconsistent with that first principle of Protestantism, The sufficiency of Scripture. But, without going at large into this subject, our author will doubtless admit that the early Protestants understood the main principles by which they were governed; and if he had studied their history, he would have learned, that they were not more remarkable for their adherence to the Scriptures, than they were for the number and particularity of their creeds. The Augsburg Confession, prepared by the joint labors of Luther and Melancthon, was drawn up the same year, (1529,) in which the memorable protest was entered which gave to the united dissenters from Rome the appellation of Protestants. All the early Protestants, without excepting the Socinians at Racow, had their confessions of faith, and never once dreamed that, in preparing and adopting them, they were putting them into the place of the Bible, or advancing them before it, or detracting at all from the sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith. So numerous indeed were their confessions, that (as Mather relates) "they were, by the Papists, denominated, CONFESSIONISTS."

Another subject, of which Mr. W. betrays the most lamentable ignorance, is the doctrine of election. He introduces it in a variety of instances, and always in such terms and connexions as clearly shows, either that he entirely misunderstands it, or wilfully misrepresents it. The following may be taken as an example:

"In your creed the doctrine of election is fully declared. This teaches that God has chosen a certain, limited number for heaven, and foreordained the remainder to an everlasting hell. It also teaches that the number of the elect is definite, so that neither more nor less can be saved. Now if you say, the number of the elect is not definite, you give up the Calvinistic doctrine of election. And if you allow that the number is definite, then you must admit, that not one soul more will be saved, by the establishment of your feeble churches. No; none but the elect can be saved, and they will be received to heaven at any rate; and none but the reprobate can be damned, and they must go to hell in spite of Orthodox exertions."

Were Mr. W. to propound such sentiments to some of the scholars in our Sabbath Schools, they would tell him at once, that where the end is determined, the means are also determined; that the latter are made as sure as the former, and to precede the former; so that should the one fail, the other could not possibly be realized. They might also tell him, that the salvation of men is no more determined in the general plan and purpose of God, than all other events; and that he might as well have said, If my "two Letters to the Rev. Moses Stuart on the subject of Religious Liberty" are

to he published, they certainly will be published, whether I put pen to paper or not, as to have said, "If we are of the elect we shall be saved, do what we may; but if we are of the reprobate, we must be damned, do what we can."

p. 98.

Mr. W. exhibits evidence of the depth and accuracy of his historical researches in the account which he gives us of the principal Reformers. He places Zuingle "the third in the order of time," whereas he was, in fact, the first. The views of this Reformer, he says, "were exceedingly liberal, not differing essentially, except in one or two points, from the liberal Christians of the present period." But Mosheim says that "this illustrious Reformer," having been supposed to entertain "false notions relating to the Divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the divine word, original sin, and some other parts of the Christian doctrine, cleared himself from the greatest part of these accusations with the most triumphant evidence, and in such a manner as appeared entirely satisfactory even to Luther himself." Vol. iv. p. 74.

Passing over such names as Bucer, Bullinger, Ecolampadius, Carolstadt, Knox, Cranmer, and a host of others, he assigns the fifth and last place in the goodly company of Reformers to Michael Servetus! 'Is Saul also among the prophets? We have no wish to detract aught from the real merits of the unhappy Servetus, whatever they may have been. We are not aware, however, that any respectable, unbiassed historian has ever ranked him among the Reformers. Mosheim, who had no prejudices against Servetus, and who had studied his history more than any man now living,* describes his character and his theology in the following

terms:

"The religious system that Servetus had struck out of a wild and irregular fancy, was singular in the highest degree. His peculiar notions concerning the universe, the nature of God and the nature of things were strange and chimerical. He took it into his head that the true and genuine doctrine of Christ had been entirely lost, even before the Council of Nice; and that he himself had received a commission from above to reveal anew this divine doctrine, and to explain it to mankind. His notions with respect to the Supreme Being, and a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, were obscure and chimerical, beyond all measure." Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 475.

Speaking of the "doctrines of the Reformation," Mr. W. as

serts:

"On those points in which they differed from the Catholics, they had very little agreement among themselves. They were agreed in the two great principles of Protestantism; in salvation without human merit; and in certain practical abuses of the mother church. Beyond these, they came to no agreement on any important topic which they discussed."

Now this representation (unless we reckon the crude notions of Servetus among the doctrines of the reformation) the learned gen

*In addition to his general history, Mosheim published a particular and elaborate ac count of Servetus.