knowledge on this subject, perhaps I can convince you of its accuracy and extent. I will therefore give a very meagre outline of a very complicated and important transaction. The circumstances are briefly these. The Theological Institution at Andover proved to be in a most wretched condition. This its friends openly said and probably believed. And what was to be done for its regeneration? The Trustees appointed a committee to visit and examine the Professors and students. Dr. Murdock was the first professor called upon, and he made a very full statement of his views and sentiments, supposing he had the entire confidence of the committee. What he said was taken down in writing; and a long, very long, report was made. On this report the charges against Dr. Murdock were founded, and principally on his own declarations. The Trustees voted to dissolve his connexion with the institution, and refused to allow him a hearing with counsel; and even forbid his seeing the Report of the committee. He did not appear before the Trustees, but protested against their proceeding. They deprived him of his office. He appealed to the Board of Visitors. They had a long trial with closed doors, and confirmed the decision of the Trustees. He appealed to the Supreme Court, who confirmed the decision of the Visitors, thinking their power limited to the inquiry - Whether the Visitors had exceeded their jurisdiction; and not whether he had been fairly tried and justly condemned.

And what were the charges against Dr. Murdock? There were eight; four made from his own statements, and four from other sources. I have not room for the whole; but I will give a few extracts for the peculiar benefit of the people. Charge I. "There are in Dr. Murdock's mind, jealousies of the other members of the Faculty and of the Trustees, and a want of confidence in his colleagues and in the Trustees, out of which evils necessarily grow, tending to the material injury, if not the prostration, of the government of the institution. There are, in his mind, jealousies of the other members of the Faculty, and a want of confidence in them, as stated by himself to the Committee of Inquiry. He now has the impression,' he states, and has had it nearly ever since he came here, that he was brought here, by those who were active in getting him here, to be an understrapper to them; that one of his colleagues [Dr. Woods] wished him, Dr. Murdock, to help him, to hold his own against another of his colleagues, [Mr. Stuart]; ' and the latter colleague against the former! One of his colleagues [Dr. Porter] Dr. Murdock stated, he regards as a gentlemanly, honest, upright man,' but as having yielded the helm of his mind to another of his colleagues [Dr. Woods]. That other, he is deliberately of opinion, is really pious, and more than ordinarily so, but maintains, theoretically and practically, such a view of the nature of virtue, as leads him to make the accomplishment of his own purposes and plans, at whatever expense to others, consistent with his conscience

and the highest good; as carried, by his principles, to make it consistent, at least with his conscience, to follow his own prejudices, in opposition to very plain rules of justice and honest dealing'; as will lead him to 'sacrifice any friend who stands in the way of his designs, and that from what he regards as benevolent motives.' His remaining colleague [Mr. Stuart] Dr. Murdock has stated, he regards as having true religion in his soul, and commonly open, ingenuous, and honorable; but at times, crafty; always ambitious and vain; and generally, having a supreme regard to himself; often headlong in his movements, rushing per fas aut nefas." On this charge, I would merely remark, that many individuals in our community will doubtless be surprised to find the opinion of Dr. Murdock, formed after a long and intimate connexion, so perfectly accordant with their own respecting these gentlemen.

Take a part of the third charge, as a curious specimen of the religious liberty enjoyed at Andover Institution, These are the words. "III. Dr. Murdock entertains views respecting the course of conduct proper for an officer in this Institution, and has in consequence of these views, pursued a course of conduct, in several particulars, wholly inconsistent with the real interests of this Seminary. He has stated, that he thinks it proper to discuss, with the students, subjects belonging to the departments of his colleagues; and in such discussions, to impugn the arguments which his colleagues have advanced, AND THAT HE HAS DONE THIS!" Well, this is religious liberty with a vengeance. Suppose Dr. Ware should be dismissed, because he thought proper to attack the arguments by which Professor Norton defended some proposition on which they happened to differ? I consider this simple quotation as the best possible commentary on Professor Stuart's Letter to Dr. Channing; and more than an set-off for all his impassioned declamation.

Take the third charge, made from other sources. These are the words: "Dr. Murdock's jealousy of his colleagues and of the trustees, and his representations to resident licentiates and students, respecting the character and conduct of his colleagues, the proceedings of the faculty, the character of some of the laws, the proceedings of the trustees, have, in fact, had a very injurious influence upon the members of the seminary." Now those of us, who know that most of the students were in favor of Dr. Murdock, are unable to understand this statement. I have room for no further quotations. Let me then sum up my positions. Did not the Trustees make the honest statements of Dr. Murdock, obtained under most peculiar circumstances, the foundation of the charges or indictment against him? Did they not vote that it was expedient his connexion with the seminary should be dissolved, before they gave him any notice of the charges against him? Did they not refuse to allow him the aid of counsel in his defence? Was not the burden of proof thrown upon him, instead of the Trustees

undertaking to prove his guilt? Did they not refuse him access to the records and papers necessary to his defence? And especially, did they not refuse him the evidence which they had received against him without his knowledge, and upon which they had made their charges and passed the vote of dissolution? Did not the visitors refuse to grant him an open trial and proceed with closed doors, allowing only one witness to be present at a time? Did it not appear at that trial, that Professor Stuart had written a most remarkable letter to the conductors of "The Christian Spectator," censuring with great severity the course they had taken as to the controversy on the Atonement, and their respectful notice of Dr. Murdock's Discourse on that subject, and threatening to set up an opposition Review? And have not the visitors withheld from Dr. Murdock his copy of that letter, and all his original papers given in evidence? Has not Dr. Murdock repeatedly demanded them; and has he not been prevented by this unjustifiable detention of the visitors from making a public statement of his case? Letters, p. 93. Review, p. 26.

6. Misrepresentation. I gave a long list of most unjustifiable orthodox misrepresentations. Your answer to the whole is contained in the following sentence. "If a single, well authenticated instance could be produced, we should regret and condemn it as sincerely as our author." Sir, did I not pledge myself to prove the truth of every statement I made? Did I not charge 66 one instance " on the orthodox minister of this place? Has he not ascertained that the whole story was without the least foundation in truth? Why has he not had the honesty to confess his mistake, especially since he has had so much to do in providing materials for your Review? Sir, if you will condemn every well authenticated instance of orthodox misrepresentation, I will furnish you with one hundred of the most aggravated character. I will now give you one of late occurrence, and if you fulfil your promise, the ninety and nine shall be forthcoming. About three months since, a unitarian lady in this place was rapidly failing with the consumption. She was sustained by her religious views to a most remarkable degree; being rendered uncommonly resigned, joyful, and happy. Members of the orthodox church made themselves very busy for one or two days, in circulating the report, that this lady had become orthodox, that she had met with a change, that she could not die a unitarian; a report, utterly and thoroughly false, without the least shadow of truth for a foundation. Nothing, but a most urgent sense of duty could possibly have induced me to refer to this aggravated instance of slander. But, Sir, I firmly believe, that when unitarians are wonderfully supported by their Christian faith, a systematic effort is made by certain orthodox professors to misrepresent such instances, and that stories are forged, without the least regard to truth, for the purpose of effecting this object. The reasons of this belief I am ready to give, either from the press, or

before any court of justice. And the only palliation I can find for this unprincipled measure is contained in the following passage from the pious Baxter. "And abundance of sincere godly persons, especially women, have loose tongues, and hasty passions, and a stretching conscience, but especially injudicious heads, so that frequently they know not truth from falsehood, nor have the tenderness of conscience to be silent till they know; so that if one say it, another will say it, till a hundred say it, and then it goeth for current truth." Letters, p. 94. Review, p. 42. Baxter, vol. iv. p. 533.

Thus have I noticed your remarks on my First Letter. And what have you done to weaken or destroy my conclusions? Did not the "Recorder" assure us that a "thorough Review" would be given to the public? Did he not inform us that it would take some considerable time to collect the necessary evidence for this purpose? Have not several individuals aided in your great undertaking? Is it to be supposed that you have omitted any thing which would have the least effect on my statements? Have you not aimed to do all in your power to cast discredit on my facts? And after all this mountain labor, what have you accomplished? Have I not fairly noticed all your assertions of the least importance, all your arguments, and all your evidence? Have I not defended every essential position with satisfactory proof? Have I not shown most conclusively that all the important statements of my First Letter are substantially correct? You have said, that most of the measures described in my First Letter are the natural and inevitable result of your principles, "bating the false coloring and inaccuracies of statement." How much false. coloring have you proved? How many inaccuracies have you established?

I must, therefore, let the public see what are the necessary results of your own principles. Your honest admission I must hold up for the inspection of the community. Here are your very words.

"The attentive reader will perceive, in view of the foregoing remarks, that NO SMALL part of what Mr. Whitman charges upon the orthodox as PERSECUTION and OPPRESSION, and altogether inconsistent with free inquiry and religious liberty, is but the NECESSARY RESULT of THEIR religious liberty. They could not have their liberty and do otherwise. They certainly have the right, as much so as Mr. Whitman or any other man, to adopt their own religious principles, and to act according to them; and it will be found on examination that MOST of the charges urged against them in his FIRST Letter (bating the false coloring and inaccuracies of statement) are the NATURAL AND INEVITABLE RESULT OF THEIR HONEST PRINCIPLES."

Very well! Out at last! This is what I have always thought. Let any man read over attentively my First Letter to Professor Stuart, if he wishes to know what the organ of the exclusionists acknowledges to be the natural result of their religious liberty and religious principles.

I call upon the community, I call upon every boy and girl, upon every man and woman, to remember this confession. I call upon the freemen of this nation to banish those views of liberty and religion which lead necessarily to such unchristian measures and abominable practices. I call upon them to ascertain if the religion of Jesus sanctions or even tolerates such conduct.