26. "Orthodox candidates have obtained settlements over comparatively liberal societies, by concealing their real theological sentiments." p. 21.-We have never known an instance of such concealment, and presume none can be mentioned.

27. An Orthodox minister is spoken of, p. 21, who, previous to his call, "manifested a willingness to be liberal in his ministerial intercourse."-This minister assures us that, previous to his call, he said nothing on the subject of ministerial intercourse.

28. "He continued for a year or more to preach practical discourses, and to exchange occasionally with Unitarian ministers." He did not "exchange occasionally with Unitarian ministers." See p. 144.

29. "One small class" of Orthodox ministers "pretend that their consciences will not permit them to exchange with Unitarians." p. 23. The class is not small who urge this reason for not exchanging with Unitarians, but embraces nearly the entire body of the Orthodox clergy.

30. "Another class pretend that they cannot exchange with Unitarians, because they are responsible for the sentiments delivered from their pulpits."-This is not another class, but the same with that last mentioned.

31. "In Massachusetts, for a few years past, all Ecclesiastical measures have been prepared in a certain conclave, nobody knows who they are, or where they are, invisible beings, Congregational cardinals, to whose decrees every Orthodox clergyman and church is expected to pay unlimited deference and submission." p. 24.This statement, in all its parts, is entirely without foundation.*

32. Speaking of Consociations in Connecticut, Mr. W. says, "Delegates from county Consociations form a general State Consociation." p. 25.-There is no State Consociation in Connecti

33. "He (Mr. Abbot, formerly of Coventry, Conn.) knew nothing about any such body as a Consociation." p. 26. Did he "know nothing about" the order of the churches, where he had been fifteen years a pastor? and "nothing about" the Platform of these churches?

34. "If a Consociation existed, he certainly could not feel himself amenable to their usurped authority."-He was pastor of a Consociated church-a church which had acted in Consociation, and which, on a previous occasion, had called the Consociation together to settle a difficulty in its own bosom. He was a member and the Register of a ministerial Association, formed expressly on the basis of the Saybrook Platform, which requires the existence of Consociations. He was present in Association when the church

*This proposition is quoted in the Letters before us; but our author makes himself fully responsible for it, by affirming that it is "true to the very letter."

in Marlborough was by vote admitted to connexion with the Consociation, and, as Register, attested the vote.*

35. "The church (in Coventry) would not consent to a mutual Council, unless the members should be expressly invited, not to hear and give advice respecting their troubles, but to dissolve the pastoral relation."-The church voted (Nov. 21, 1810,) "that we will unite with the Rev. Abiel Abbot and the society in choosing and calling a mutual Council, to consider and decide on the difficulties subsisting between us and him, provided we shall be able to agree on the churches from which such Council shall be called.". Reply, &c. p. 18.

36. "The Rev. Abiel Abbot appeared before this self-constituted Ecclesiastical Court," (the Consociation.)-The Consociations in Connecticut are not "self-constituted Ecclesiastical courts," but standing Councils, formed by the consent of the churches, and the authority of the State.†

37. "The leaders of the Orthodox party in 1815 made a desperate effort to establish Consociations throughout this Commonwealth." p. 31.-They made no "desperate effort." Individuals proposed the subject; the proposition was considered in General Association, and virtually declined.

38. Mr. W. says that a Committee of the General Association of Massachusetts, which made report respecting Consociations in 1815, "loudly complain that there is no regular method by which authority may be exercised over sister churches." p. 34.-This Committee uttered no such complaint. "Christian watch and care" are the words they use; "authority" is quite another thing.

39. "There is not in Massachusetts, there never had been, a power to call a whole church to account for its opinions."-The Cambridge Platform recognizes such a power, which, in the days of our fathers was repeatedly exercised. See p. 136.

40. "Our ancestors did not admit that other churches could call any particular church to account for its sentiments.”—Our ancestors did admit that other churches could call a particular church to account for "ANY public offence."

41. In Dr. Channing's "essay" against Consociations, "he simply asserts what every body knew to be literally true at the time of publication." p. 38.-" Every body " did not know at that time, nor do they now, that what he asserted "was literally true." We have examined the assertion quoted by Professor Stuart, and shown that it was not true. See p. 120, note.

The church in Marlborough had "voted, that is the desire of the church to be connected with the Consociation of Churches in the County of Tolland." Whereupon the Association "voted to comply with the desire of the church in Marlborough expressed in their vote. Passed in Association. John Willard, Moderator. Attest, ABIEL ABBOT, Scribe." See Reply to Mr. Abbot's Statement, pp. 11, 12.

The conductors of the Christian Disciple say, "It is consistent for Consociations to discipline their members, because they agree to be disciplined." Vol. iv. N. S. p. 105.

42. “You treat an opinion of fifteen years' standing, which was an undisputed truth at the time of its publication, as the sentiment of the present year."-The opinion here referred to was disputed by Dr. Worcester "at the time of its publication."-See Third Letter, &c. p. 78. It is spoken of by Professor Stuart as having been "republished after a series of years."

43. Mr. W. asserts that an Orthodox Council at Greenfield would not act with Rev. Mr. Willard of Deerfield "because he would not submit to be catechised by them as to his religious opinions." p. 39. We are authorised to say, that "none of the Council assumed the right to catechise Mr. Willard."

44. Speaking of Rev. Mr. Field's renouncing the doctrine of the Trinity, our author says, "His ministerial brethren were unable or unwilling to discuss such controverted questions, and accordingly excluded him." &c. p. 41.-His ministerial brethren were both able and willing to discuss questions with him, and had been in the habit of discussing them for years.

45. Among those mentioned as having been "excluded from Orthodox Associations for embracing Unitarian sentiments" are "Rev. Preserved Smith, and Rev. Joseph Field." p. 43.—Mr. Smith was not excluded from the Franklin Association; and Mr. Field was excluded, not for his opinions, but for unchristian treatment of his brethren.*

46. Speaking of the conditions on which the two societies in West Hampton agreed to unite, Mr. W. says, "The old society did not comply with their part of the conditions, and the seceders therefore refused to return." p. 44.-This statement has been contradicted already. See p. 144.

47. "What had this persecuted man (Mr. Truair) done to merit this severe and destructive persecution? Nothing half so bad as the Orthodox preachers are doing almost every day in this vicinity."-It is needless to attempt refuting this statement, as Mr. W. himself cannot long persist in it.

48. Rev. Thomas Worcester "had heen persecuted in almost every possible manner by the Orthodox, because he renounced the doctrine of the Trinity." p. 45.-" In almost every possible manner!!" Who believes such a statement as this!

49. Mr. W. mentions it as a "circumstance of very frequent occurrence in our churches," that young persons, on admission, are compelled to 'profess their hearty belief in the articles of a long human creed, which perhaps they never saw or heard till that moment." p. 47. We never knew an instance like this, and doubt whether one ever occurred in our churches.

50. Mr. W. speaks of "a bull of ex-communication thundered

*The conduct of members of the Franklin Association is severely censured in this part of Mr: Whitman's Letters. We are promised a full statement from the Association on the subject, which, when received, we shall endeavor to lay before our readers.

forth from the pulpit of the first church in Newton," against three of the members who had joined a Unitarian church. p. 50.-No such bull of excommunication was ever thundered forth from the pulpit of the first church in Newton.' The church signified to the three members that it had withdrawn from them its watch and care.

51. "The same body have also more lately excommunicated two others for attending the communion of the Unitarian church in Watertown."-One of these attended meeting with the Universalists. Both had left the worship and the ordinances of the church, and were considered as having violated their covenant engagements. When members abandon a church, may not the church declare itself released from all further obligation to them?

52. "The creed or covenant," in the second church in Brookfield, "was originally so liberal, that Christians of different religious opinions could honestly give their assent to its requisitions." p. 51. The original covenant in this church was Trinitarian and Orthodox. See p. 146.

53. "A few years after" introducing a new covenant, 66 the Orthodox minister was dismissed."-This minister has never been dismissed from the church.

54. After speaking of the excommunication of two members from this church Mr. W. says, "Those who passed this vote of exclusion had actually forsaken the church, and worship, and ordinances." "Those who passed this vote of exclusion" were themselves the church, and still maintained its worship and ordinances.

55. "Orthodox churches claim and exercise the right of choosing a minister." p. 54.-They claim no right of choosing a minister for the parish, but only of choosing pastors for themselves.*

56. When the Trinitarian church in Waltham separated from the second society, Mr. W. says they took away" the Bible" with them. We have shown that they did not take it. See p. 147.

57. He charges the Orthodox with "setting up a human creed so that few can subscribe it, and then allowing those few (the church) to hold the property of the congregation." p. 55.-No one has ever claimed that the church should hold the property of the congregation.

58. Mr. W. represents the Orthodox church in Waltham as consisting of "ten male members." p. 56.-He might easily have known that this statement is not true.

59. He charges the Orthodox with aiming to have the laws "altered, so that a majority of the male communicants shall hold the meeting-house and funds."-No person wishes the laws so "altered, that a majority of the male communicants shall hold the meeting-house," or any parochial property.

60. "I regard the Orthodox Conferences of churches as but another name for Consociations." p. 58.-Between Conferences of

The case of the few trust-deeded churches has been already considered. See p. 148 They form the only exception to the remark above made.

churches and Consociations, there is not, we had almost said, the remotest resemblance.

61. "The liberty of individual churches is destroyed by these Conferences. They bring ministers and churches into utter servi tude."-This representation is false-as hundreds of ministers and churches can testify from their own experience.

The next subject of complaint, proceeding in the order of pages, is the "measures" taken by the Orthodox "for organizing and establishing feeble churches." To notice particularly all the misrepresentations of our author on this subject, would be impossible. They are almost as numerous as his sentences. The account he has given can hardly be called a caricature, as a caricature implies some rude resemblance to an intended reality; whereas this statement, in most parts, resembles nothing, unless it be the hideous image in the distempered imagination of its author. A few sentences only will be given in justification of these remarks.

62. "One hundred" dollars "is literally extorted from a single lady by over-persuasion," towards building the meeting-house in Billerica. p. 59.-This money, we are authorized to say, was brought to the house of Mr. Bennett, unsolicited. !!

63. "Because the heathen people in Billerica will not permit your Missionary to insult them in their own houses, the cry of persecution is raised."-We have never heard the people of Billerica called heathen except by Mr. Whitman. The Orthodox have no Missionary in that place, nor any one who wishes to 'insult the people in their own houses.'

64. "For supporting the feeble society," " an appeal is made to the Domestic Missionary Society, which has large funds for this very object." p. 63.-There is no "Domestic Missionary Society" in Massachusetts, nor any other Society "which has large funds" for the object here specified.

65. "It is generally understood that a large fund has been raised, for the express purpose of establishing and maintaining Orthodox Societies within the borders of Unitarian parisnes."-No such fund has been raised, or has ever existed.

66. Speaking of the Orthodox who have left Unitarian congregations, Mr. W. asks, "Were they obliged to hear doctrines advocated which shocked their very souls? No."-And we as confidently answer, Yes. In many instances, they have been "obliged to hear doctrines advocated which shocked their very souls."

67. Mr. W. charges us with wishing "to confound the two classes" of Universalist" together, and to permit the unlearned to believe that Unitarians have embraced the obnoxious sentiment" that there will be no punishment hereafter. p. 72.-In the article to which he refers, we expressly distinguished between the two classes of Universalists, and were careful to inform our readers that we placed