to refer those words to Mr. Payson, he must settle it with his conscience; but it is certain that Mr. Payson intended no such thing. He merely meant to say that somebody, from misapprehension or some other cause, had distorted and magnified his statements, and made them very different from what he had reported them. Mr. Whitman, by underscoring these words, and by throwing them back upon Mr. Payson, gives a meaning to the language which is not true, and which I certainly know was not intended. This may appear a small matter; but it shows with what spirit Mr. Whitman writes.

I have thus pointed out some of the more palpable and gross misrepresentations and falsehoods, implied and asserted in Mr. Whitman's language. But his whole statement, in almost every line and word, needs correction. It seems impossible for his pen to touch a single point connected with Orthodoxy, without distorting and perverting it.

I will add a few words in regard to Mr. Hubbard's conduct respecting the paper which Mr. Payson put into his hands. Mr. Hubbard at the time expressed his entire satisfaction to Mr. Payson, and gave him a written certificate to that effect. He also verbally stated to him that he should make no use of the paper which he had signed, except to show it, if necessary, to a few individuals, for the purpose of proving to them that he had received full satisfaction. But what did Mr. Hubbard do, or permit to be done, with that paper? In the course of one or two days, as I am credibly informed, that confession, as it is called, was posted up on the meeting-house in Lunenburg in the most public manner; and copies of it were, in a week or two, circulating in all the neighboring towns, and some of them, it is believed, in a mutilated form;-and all this to throw as much odium on Mr. Payson's character as possible. And now he has put it into the hands of Mr. Whitman to publish it to the world —and by his abusive epithets to make the odium still greater, if pos sible. Is this a Christian course? Is it honorable? Is it, under all the circumstances of the case, honest? Is it consistent with his declaration to Mr. Payson that he was satisfied, as a Christian brother ought to be? Is it abiding by the golden rule, to do unto others as he would that others should do unto him? I leave these few facts and inquiries with Mr. Hubbard's conscience.

As to his Orthodoxy, it may be temarked that his whole influence in this region is against it-it is all on the side of Unitarianism. If he be Orthodox, surely his practice belies his principles. What, a man Orthodox! and yet striving to pull down Orthodoxy, and lending his influence to the enemies of Orthodoxy, in the vile work of slander and misrepresentation! Let a discerning public judge between such a man, and sound Orthodoxy.

Note C.

The clergyman here referred to is the Rev. Mr. Albro of Chelmsford. The following is part of a letter from him to the writer of the Review. Our limits have compelled us to abridge his valuable communication.

Mr. Whitman says that the facts which have transpired since my connexion with this parish, furnish evidence of "an artful and deep

laid plan to bring a Unitarian society upon Orthodox ground;" and he'charges me with wickedly concealing my sentiments in order to gain possession of the pulpit. The following statements will show what foundation there is for his charges:

1. Look at the state of the society previous to any attempt to settle an Orthodox minister. The society was organized in Feb. 1824. From the first they thought themselves too feeble to maintain a minister without foreign aid. For some time, they depended upon occasional supplies from Cambridge, but were disappointed in their expectations of receiving any pecuniary aid from that quarter. After many attempts to procure the stated preaching of the Gospel, the society began to apprehend that they should not succeed. This is substantially the account given by Mr. Whitman, and no one knows the former condition of this people better than he, for he was the last Unitarian, who, for any considerable length of time, supplied their pulpit. He left the place with the conviction, which he very freely expressed, that the society could never maintain a Unitarian minister. So thought the leading men in the Parish. They pronounced the case, especially after the labors of Mr. Whitman among them, absolutely hopeless, and declared that, in their opinion, there was no other way to build up the society, but to interest the Orthodox in their concerns, by consenting to the settlement of an Orthodox minister. For, said they, the Orthodox will pay their money to support their religion, which we have found by experience, the Unitarians will not do. In their embarrassment, when as one of the leading Unitarians has often told me, they knew not what to do, a gentleman in Cambridge advised them to apply to Andover for a candidate, and if possible to settle an Orthodox man. When they had, of their own accord, determined to place themselves upon Orthodox ground and not before, several individuals in the vicinity, who did not then belong to the society, offered their assistance to carry so good a resolution into effect. They were also encouraged to expect aid from the Massachusetts Missionary Society. Under these circumstances, they obtained a candidate from Andover with whom they were generally pleased, but who, for reasons not important in this connexion, was not settled. Thus you see, that instead of planning to get hold of this society, the society fled to us for assistance when their affairs were desperate, and they could not live without our aid.

2. Next, look at the evidence of concealment, before my settlement. I was never employed by the committee of this Society as a candidate. Mr. Clement of Chester, N. H., was their candidate ; and during the summer term of my Senior year, I preached here several times, at his request, as did others then residing at Andover. Whatever individuals in this place might have thought, I did not consider myself, nor did the society generally consider me as a candidate for settlement. While I was writing my sermons in the Seminary, and preaching occasionally here, as in other places in the vicinity of Andover, as is common with the students, I had not the slightest wish to settle here, nor the remotest expectation that I ever should. Under such circumstances what motive could I have had to conceal my sentiments?

well

But further; the society, and every one acquainted with me, knew that I was Orthodox in sentiment. It was because I was Orthodox, that they were anxious to settle me. This was the very thing they wanted: for it was by the settlement of an Orthodox man that they expected to gain the necessary funds for his support, and thus relieve themselves of a burden which they were unwilling to bear alone. Still farther; nothing was ever said to me, previous to my receiving their call, respecting the subject of exchanges. Not a word was dropped by the committee, from which I could infer that they wished me to exchange with Unitarians. At the Parish meeting, when the vote was passed to give me a call, no one said anything on the subject. The vote appeared to be unanimous, and was without any condition whatever, as the papers will show.

Almost entirely unacquainted with them, and their history, I received their call, as any Orthodox man would receive a call from an Orthodox church and society. That these statements are true, I appeal to the fact that in my reply to a memorial afterwards sent to me from sundry individuals in the society, I asserted the same things in substance, and they were not denied.

3. Next look at the circumstances which occurred in the Council assembled to ordain me.

The Council consisted of seven Orthodox, and two Unitarian ministers. Before any business was transacted, Mr. Whitman of Billerica desired me to state what course I intended to pursue in relation to ministerial intercourse after my ordination. He wished to know, he said, whether I would exchange with the Unitarian members of the council.

Mr. Allen of Chelmsford took the same ground. The council understood them to speak only for themselves. No one present supposed that they were authorized by the society to insist upon any concession, or that the exchanges, to which they wished to gain my consent, extended beyond themselves. To Mr. Whitman's question I replied, that I would not pledge myself to exchange with all the members of the council, and I appealed to the council to say whether it was proper to insist upon such a pledge as the condition of my settlement. The Orthodox members said that the question of Mr. W. was premature inasmuch as there had as yet been no examination touching my ministerial qualifications, &c.-that the church and society had unanimously called me without expressing any wish, or fixing any condition in regard to exchanges,-that they met, not to form a new contract for us, but to ratify the one already formedthat they wished to leave me entirely free to act upon this subject as I thought expedient-that they had no right to insist upon my exchanging with the members of that Council, or with any other ministers; thus asserting for me the right of private judgement, free inquiry, and entire religious liberty. On the other hand, the Unitarians, those sticklers for freedom, to whom there seems to be oppression even in a conclusive argument for Orthodoxy-were not willing to have me free to do what I should judge best. They wished to bind me with the fetters of a solemn and public pledge to exchange with them, whether I could conscientiously do it or not. This is the freedom which these worthy champions of religious liberty of

fered me. You are free to follow the dictates of our conscience, but not to judge for yourself. After much discussion, Mr. W. varied his question. It was in this form, "Have you come here with a determination not to exchange with us?" I replied in substance that I had come with a determination to pursue that course which, upon mature reflection, I should judge expedient. At this stage of the business Mr. C., a delegate, not a minister, from Andover, rose and remarked, that between the society and myself there seemed to be no dispute, they were perfectly satisfied-that he thought he understood the ground taken by Mr. Whitman, and that from his acquaintance with my views, he felt authorized (he did not say was authorized, for he was not) to say that I should give satisfaction to all the members of the Council, and that I was present and could answer for myself. I was silent, and the subject was dropped.

In confirmation of what I have said, I will add an extract from a letter from Dr. Church, one of the council. "I can freely say, that you did not pledge yourself to exchange with Unitarians. You declined to say, whether you would, or would not. It was argued by the other side (i. e. the Orthodox) that you ought not to give any pledge, as to your future exchanges, either one way or the other, but be left to conduct them according to your sense of duty and propriety. Thus I have always supposed the matter to be left." So much for the Pledge. I will merely add that I exchanged once with Mr. Whitman, which was all that I intended, and more than I promised, and he is the only Unitarian with whom I ever exchanged in my

life.

4. Now for the change in the confession of faith. The second Congregational church was organized in April 1824, by a council of five ministers, three of whom were Orthodox. In May following, a church meeting was called, the original confession set aside, and a new one more lax adopted in its stead. The church began, you see, by asserting the right to change their creed as often as they pleased. Of this change, the record, being upon a loose piece of paper, was not put into my hands. I was entirely ignorant of it, until several months after my ordination. When I discovered it, I called the church together, and desired them to consider whether it would not be expedient to revise our articles of faith. With one voice, they agreed that it was expedient. I then laid before them a confession and covenant which I had prepared. After an ample discussion of every article, and after a sufficient time to examine and object, if it was not consistent with their belief, it was adopted by an unanimous vote. At this meeting every male member of the church was present.

Now what frightful squinting towards religious bondage does Mr. Whitman perceive in the transaction above mentioned? Is it inconsistent with free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of Congregationalism, to change a confession of faith, when every member of a church wish to change it? Would you bind men with fetters worse than an "everlasting trust-deed," to keep a creed, after they were convinced of its error? Would you force a church against its will, clearly and freely expressed, to persevere in a wrong course, when conscience and the word of God loudly called for an alteration?

5. Next look at the "respectful memorial," and the "Jesuitical reply."

After I had been settled more than two years, during which time I had exchanged with no Unitarian except Mr. W. of B., I learned there was much dissatisfaction in the society-not in the churchon account of my close preaching, as well as my illiberality in regard to exchanges. Indeed, the latter cause was not assigned, until after strong and bitter opposition had been excited and fomented against my doctrines. Under these circumstances, I was informed that a meeting of disaffected individuals was to be held, to see what could be done to restore harmony. Before this meeting was held, however, I repeatedly heard that the Unitarians were resolved, if possible, to close the meeting house against me, and they were determined, at all events, to throw off the yoke, as they called it, which I was endeavoring to fasten upon them. That oppressive yoke was composed of the doctrines of the cross,-and the Bible class,-and the Monthly Concert, at which pious persons prayed for the conversion of sinnersand the Sabbath school,-and the Female benevolent Association, that had given money to an Orthodox missionary society from which this parish were then receiving a hundred dollars a year,-and the Temperance society. What a tremendous bondage, to have such things tolerated in the Parish; for let it be observed, the Unitarians did next to nothing to help them forward. To the leaders of the opposition, I made what I deemed a very fair and honorable proposal. Knowing that nothing could be effected by the meeting of a few individuals, I told them, that if it should appear in a Parish meeting regularly called, that a majority of my congregation were dissatisfied with my preaching or exchanges, I would immediately ask a dismission, and leave them to procure such a preacher as they liked best. This reasonable proposal was rejected on the ground that possibly a majority might be in my favor. "If you get but one majority," said a Unitarian to me, 66 we shall be bound." I was surprised that those who professed to have such lofty notions of civil and religious rights, should be unwilling to have a question, in which the whole parish was concerned, decided in a public meeting, especially, as they had a thousand times asserted that three quarters of the society were Unitarians.

But the meeting was held. Thirty-one persons, by great exertions, were collected at a tavern, to devise the means of harmonizing the society. At this meeting, the memorial, which Mr. W. has printed entire, was drawn up. All signed it. Four of these signers were my friends, who had been deceived in regard to the object of the meeting, and immediately abandoned the combination, when they saw the design to be, not to build up, but to pull down. Of the remaining twenty-seven, more than half were known to be Universalists, who certainly felt no especial desire that I should exchange with Unitarians. Now let any intelligent man take that paper, dignified with the name of a memorial,-let him remember that I had never, either before, at, or after my ordination, encouraged any expectation that I should be liberal in my exchanges,-that by the decision of the Council I was entirely free, that the society never claimed