preme Court have repeatedly decided," says our author, "that such seceders have no right to the church property. These decisions were known at the very time by those who openly violated the laws of the Commonwealth." He must be supposed to speak of the kind of property above referred to, as the plate, &c. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts had not then decided (we are not aware that they have now) that a seceding church could not hold property of this description. In the case of Baker and Fales, Judge Parker says, "There may undoubtedly be donations to a church which, from the nature of the property given, ought to be considered to be in trust for church uses, such as furniture for a communion table, a baptismal font, &c. The particular use, implied from the nature of the property given, would in such case exclude any claim of the parish or society, as such, to such property." Term Reports, Vol. xvi. p. 496.

Mr. W. represents, in this connexion, that the Orthodox claim for their churches the sole and exclusive right of choosing a minister, and of holding all the parochial property. He ought to have known, if he did not know, that this is an unfounded representation. In all our churches, with the exception of a very few, which hold their houses of worship on conditions which render such an arrangement impossible, the right of the associated parishes to choose their religious teachers, and to hold and control their own property is sacredly maintained. Our churches assume no parish right. All they claim is the right (in concurrence with the associated parishes) to choose their own Pastors, and to hold and control such property as belongs exclusively to themselves.

*

A distinct subject of complaint in the Letters before us is the American Education Society. Mr. W. alleges that this Society has obtained "a considerable amount of funds from Unitarians, with the express understanding that indigent students of their own sentiments should be assisted." This statement we are authorized to deny. That the Directors of the Society do not patronize young men who are known to be Unitarians, is true. That they never promised to do this, is also true. Donations have been neither solicited nor received with any such "express understanding" on the part of the Society or its Directors, in regard to their appropriation, as is here asserted. So far from this, the entire amount of donations, with the exception, perhaps, of a few dollars-a mere fraction in comparison with the whole has been given by members of Orthodox churches and congregations, and with the fullest understanding that the money was to be applied to the education of

*We refer to those places of worship held by trust deeds, some of which secure to the male members of the church the exclusive right of choosing the religious teacher. Different opinious are entertained among intelligent Orthodox people as to the expediency of these deeds. Certain it is, they never would have been resorted to in this country (in England, Unitarianism has subsisted upon trust deeds for the greater part of a century) had it not been for the efforts of the enemies of our faith to despoil our churches of their rights, and get possession of their property.

young men for the ministry in Evangelical or Orthodox denominations only. Of such denominations, not less than seven have shared in the appropriation of these funds.

Mr. W. further alleges, that if a beneficiary of this Society "wishes to receive his collegiate education at Cambridge, every possible exertion is made to frighten him from such a proceeding." This representation is also unfounded. For several years after the American Education Society was formed, and before the sectarian character of Harvard University was so well understood as it is at present, young men of Orthodox sentiments occasionally resorted there for an education, and received the patronage of the Society. Twenty-two young men of this character were aided in that institution between the years 1816 and 1825, and received not far from four thousand eight hundred dollars. Since the period last mentioned, few if any applications have been made from that quarter; and so long as the University is governed by the exclusive and sectarian policy of its present rulers, Orthodox young men will not go there for an education, and consequently will not be patronized there. Should the officers of the American Education Society be requested, as individuals, to advise their beneficiaries (and this is all the authority over them which they can exercise) whether they shall seek an education at Cambridge while the present policy is pursued, they will-not make every possible exertion to frighten them from' going-but will doubtless advise them not to go.

Mr. W. has given the following account of the associations of the beneficiaries for prayer and Christian conference in the places of their education.

"All those beneficiaries, who reside at the same literary institution, are obliged to assemble together once a month, according to the laws of a printed constitution. They must make one of their number the secretary of the body, who is to keep an account of all absences from the monthly meetings, note all aberrations in thought, word, and deed, and transmit a faithful history of the same to the general secretary. His answer will then be read for the special benefit of all concerned. The constitution further requires, that four prayers be made on each evening of meeting, and specifies the subjects. One is to be especially for their secretary, that he may be faithful in recording their errors and failings; and also for the whole Education Society."

We consider this one of the most inexcusable and apparently wilful misrepresentations in the work before us. Our author must have had the "constitution" of which he speaks before him ;* with the intelligence of a child he could have understood it; and yet he totally misrepresents it. It is no where said that the beneficiaries are "obliged to assemble together once a month," &c. but only that they are "expected" to do this. The "constitution" spoken of is not enjoined on them, as a code of "laws," but simply proposed to them as a model according to which, if they think proper, they may form the rules of their association. What Mr. W. calls "the secretary of the body," is in the constitution denominated *See Appendix, Note E.

"the presiding member." The secretary, he says, must "note all aberrations in thought, word, and deed." This is fabrication entire. No such duty is enjoined upon the presiding member, or attempted by him, nor could he possibly perform it, should the attempt be made. Again, we are told, that one of the prayers "is to be especially for their secretary (meaning, as the connexion determines it, the secretary of the meeting) that he may be faithful in recording their errors and failings; and also for the whole Education Society." This statement, so far as it relates to special prayer for "their secretary," is altogether without foundation. It is recommended in the constitution, that the second prayer shall be for "the American Education Society;" for its "several branches;" for its "members and supporters;" for its "Executive officers;" and among these for "the Secretary of the parent society, that he may have grace and every needful qualification for his various and responsible duties." But that the young men are required to pray "especially for their secretary, that he may be faithful in recording their errors and failings," is utterly false.

Mr. W. tells us, p. 144, of " a member of an Orthodox church who left Cambridge College and joined Amherst," and who "has lately affirmed, that there is more roguery, more dissipation, and less order at Amherst than at Cambridge, and that he wished himself well back to the heretical institution." What will be thought of the fairness of this statement, and of the conduct of him who could stoop to make it, when it is known that the individual here referred to a young man with whom, and with whose circumstances, our author is well acquainted-was, at the time when the above account was published, suspended both from the church to which he belonged and from Amherst College, on a charge of immorality! No wonder "he wished himself well back to the heretical institution!!"

Among the anonymous tales with which these letters are stuffed, we have the following :

"An Orthodox minister called upon a very sick widow, who had been several years an exemplary member of a Unitarian church. His presence was neither solicited nor desired by the suffering patient. He assured her, that she could not expect to be saved, unless she believed in the divinity of Christ. She afterward observed, that such unchristian treatment would have deprived her of her senses, had she not searched the Scriptures for herself, and known in whom she confided."

We have been made acquainted with the circumstances of this case, all which were probably known to Mr. W., and are permitted to publish the following account, received from the Orthodox minister to whom he refers.

"I went at the very earnest written request of a brother of the sick widow, who desired me to visit her as soon as practicable after receiving his letter. I found this exemplary member of a Unitarian church' disposed to question the inspiration of the Bible, and the truth of its representations of another world, and to doubt whether there was any hereafter. I do not recollect saying what

Mr. W. says I did. I endeavored to give her such instruction as I thought ap propriate and useful to one about to leave the world."

Our author thus describes a certain place which he does not name, but which we have been able to identify.

"There are about one thousand inhabitants in the place. They all attend a Unitarian meeting. One of your disorganizers enters the peaceful fold, and succeeds in turning some of the flock from their present pastor. They are organized into a feeble church. Their secession takes from the annual salary from five to ten dollars. A shanty is thrown up for a place of worship; and a minister is ordained over them."

The facts concerning this place we have received from a highly. respectable correspondent, and shall give them in his own words.

"In this "peaceful fold," several individuals had long been uneasy. At length, one of the deacons became dissatisfied with the preaching, and was distressed in view of his situation as a sinner. He communicated his feelings to the other deacon, who was ready to reciprocate them; for he also had been similarly exercised. They, with some others, occasionally met for prayer. They visited their minister, and asked him to attend the monthly concert, and to encourage them in their devotional meetings. They frequently visited him, and had no idea of separating from him, if they could receive encouragement and assistance as they wished; for he had been settled as an Orthodox minister, and professed to be so even then. But all their efforts with him were in vain. They consulted together, and unitedly prayed for divine direction. They then consulted neighboring ministers, who advised them to go to their pastor again. Some of these ministers also visited him, and expressed their ardent desire that he might preach those truths which he had formerly preached, and which he professed at the time of his ordination, and thus keep the society together. At length the deacons and some others became satisfied that they had no reason to expect their minister would preach what they considered as evangelical doctrine. They owned property in the meeting house, and knew that if they separated they should be reproached. But after mature deliberation, and many struggles, they came to the conclusion to abandon their property, disregard reproaches, and claim for themselves the same "Religious Liberty" which they freely granted to others. They concluded to establish an evening meeting for religious instruction, and asked their minister to meet with them; but he refused. They then invited other ministers to come and preach to them; and now, for the first time, one of Mr. W.'s alleged "disorganizers enters the peaceful fold," and "succeeds," as he says, " in turning some of the flock from their present pastor." But had they not turned from their pastor before? And in so doing, had they done anything "inconsistent with free inquiry, religious liberty, or the principles of Congregationalism?"They wished peaceably to perform what they deemed their duty, allowing to all others the same privilege. But were they permitted to assemble in peace and worship God, according to the dictates of their own consciences? Were not stones and eggs thrown into their place of worship, to the great annoyance and hazard of those who were assembled!! Was not one who, at their request, went peaceably to preach to them the Gospel, treated in a manner even more shameful-in a manner not to be related!! Did they not assail him, on leaving the place of worship, with oaths and curses, and follow him with the most horrible imprecations to a considerable distance from the place! Were not preparations made to burn another clergyman in effigy, who went there peaceably to preach the Gospel! When on a certain occasion, the pious people in the place were assembled for worship, did not their liberal neighbors come around the house with drums and horns, and by shaking the windows, getting upon the roof, stamping, and in other ways, make such disturbance as to stop the meeting!!!* Such was a part of the abuse

This whole account is confirmed by other correspondents and witnesses, some of whom were the principal objects of abuse on these occasions. We could mention a variety of instances of similar abuse, in which the liberal opposers of Orthodoxy have displayed their zeal, by dashing in windows where their neighbors were assembled for reli

and suffering of this small Orthodox Society, while quietly assembling for the worship of God, and endeavoring to do their duty. I am as sorry to say these things as any of those implicated can be to hear them; but Mr. W. has compelled me. I could not correct his misrepresentations, and vindicate the injured people whom he traduces and slanders, without saying thein. By great exertions, they have built a small but neat place of worship (which he reproaches with the name of a "shanty) and have settled a minister. 'Their secession,' he says, takes from the annual salary from five to ten dollars. He might have known that one of the seceding deacons paid more than this sum himself. He concludes his account by saying, 'Such is an exact and true description! If the rest of his book is as ' exact and true,' may it soon be covered with the disgrace it merits."

Professor Stuart, in his Letter, had referred to the late persecutions in Switzerland, and attributed them to the influence of Unitarianism. In reply, Mr. W. asserts, that "Unitarianism has had nothing whatever to do with these persecutions;" but "one party of Calvinists has been persecuting another party for being more zealous and rigid (more rigid than their persecutors!) in their views and measures." In 'proof of this,' he proceeds to show, that the persecuting churches, in the Cantons of Vaud and Berne, still adhere, at least nominally, to the Helvetic Confession of faith.-And so the Arians of the fourth century adhered nominally to the Nicene faith. This faith was the established religion of the empire, at the same time that its faithful adherents were banished and persecuted for their opinions.* The elder Socinus professed an adherence to the Helvetic Confession as long as he lived. In the Genevese churches, which our author admits are Unitarian, the Helvetic Confession has never been formally set aside, although subscription to it is not now enforced. It is no new thing for Unitarians to profess adherence to an Orthodox Confession of faith. "In the year 1772, many clergymen of the church of England, who held Unitarian sentiments, petitioned the Legislature for relief from the necessity of subscribing the articles of that church, because that subscription was opposed to their conscientious belief.” And though their petition was rejected, they, with one exception, still persisted in their adherence to the church. It is not long since Unitarians in this country denied that they were Unitarians, and counted themselves slandered when this name was applied to them. "The fact becomes more and more manifest," says Dr. Smith, speaking of the Canton of Vaud, "that it is not separation, but vital religion, that is the real object of hatred; for many harassments and injuries have been committed upon pious persons, both gious purposes-in cutting harnesses-shearing horses-pulling out linch-pins-besmearing cushions-privately nailing up houses where meetings were appointed-defiling the steps of churches-drawing ropes across the street to endanger the limbs and lives of females returning from meeting in the evening-and in various other acts of rudeness and violence!! Such things have been done (we blush to say it) in this nineteenth century— at no great distance from our good city of Boston-and by those, too, who claim to be the most strenuous advocates for freedom in religion, and liberty of conscience!!!

See Milner's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 79, et alibi.

+ See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 469.

+ See Christian Observer, vol. xxvi. p, 684.