creeds, setting forth their origin and pernicious tendency. For this offence he was summoned before the delegates of the synod. His trial lasted several days. Being unable to make him renounce his error, or, in reality, place the human creed before the Bible, they excommunicated him from their body, and declared his pulpit vacated. But his own church, to whom alone he was amenable, disregarded this act of clerical ursurpation and dictation.' p. 13.

Then, in voting for ministers. And under this head the curious affair of trust deeds is discussed.

Having done with the use made of creeds, Mr Whitman proceeds to his second general topic, 'Ministerial intercourse.' Under this division he speaks of several classes of facts, and first, of the misrepresentations which orthodox individuals have circulated to prevent ministers of their own sentiments from exchanging with Unitarians.' He gives the case of Mr Hubbard, 'late pastor of the church in Middleton.' The case is a most extraordinary one, but the account is too long for insertion.

6

Next, the threatenings used by the orthodox party, to prevent ministers of their own sentiments from exchanging with Unitarians.'

The circumstances are

'Take an example of recent occurrence. briefly these. A unitarian minister of Salem, in company with an influential layman of Andover, called on an orthodox minister of Middlesex county, to obtain an exchange for the following Sabbath. As the orthodox minister had before preached in Salem, he addressed to him the following observation: I hope you are not getting into the exclusive system.' The reply contained the following gentiments, according to the testimony of the layman, now before me. "I abhor the system, but am compelled to enter into it for THEY have told me, if I do not join them, they will fall upon me and break up my parish.' The layman immediately repeated this very appropriate proverb; "The fear of man bringeth a snare." And so it has proved.' p. 19.

Mr Whitman refers to other instances of a similar kind.

Next, of oppression practised by ministerial associations for the same purpose; and fourthly, of concealment, of which a curious example is given. Then Orthodox reasons for not exchanging with Unitarians.' Under this head some independent sentiments are quoted from a publication of the Rev. Mr Withington of Newbury, an orthodox clergyman, no exclusionist however. The following precious morsel forms part of the quota

tion.

• 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, But as they are wholly destitute of power, they have found out a singular way of executing their laws. The clergyman, who hesitates, OR DARES TO THINK OR ACT FOR HIMSELF, suddenly finds himself surrounded by the whisper, that he is becoming an UNITARIAN. It is not easy to conceive the horror and dismay, that this suggestion occasions. It is caught from mouth to mouth, and whispered from ear to ear, and every ghastly relater increases the terrors of the tale. The poor, affrighted victim must either return to the bosom of the church, the popular measure of the day, or be denounced a heretic, worthy of all the flames that detraction can kindle; for, in this country, we burn heretics in no other.' p. 24.

Very well for an orthodox divine of Massachusetts. We honor the independent spirit of the writer.

Mr Whitman's third general topic is Ecclesiastical Tribunals.' And first, consociations actually established, as in Connecticut, to which Abiel Abbot became a victim, whose case is treated at some length. Then follows an extract from the 'Criminal Code' of Con

necticut, with a most precious comment thereon by the late Judge Swift.

The attempt was made not long since to introduce into 'old Massachusetts,' Consociations similar to those already in existence in Connecticut. Mr Whitman takes notice of three instances. The last relates to the famous project of 1814 and 1815, of which we have given some account in a previous number.*

* Number for October, 1830. The arguments we then employed have not yet been met, and it is unnecessary, therefore, to renew the discussion. The attempt, it is true, has been made to evade their force, but a most shuffling attempt it proved to be. Dr Channing had asserted, in 1815, that our long established form of congregational church government is menaced, and tribunals unknown to our churches are to be introduced.' Now, say they, these tribunals could not have been unknown to our churches,' since a similar tribunal was proposed a century, or a century and a half ago! Yes, proposed and rejected, and was therefore unknown; that is, not in use among our churches, which every one, acquainted with the force of language, must know was Dr Channing's meaning.

6

Again, our congregational form of Church government, was not menaced, say they, because no force was attempted to be employed. A mere quibble. Then these tribunals cannot be inconsistent with Congregational Church polity, they maintain, because advocated by true Congregationalists, such as Doctors Increase and Cotton Mather, and because the Connecticut churches have long flourished under their influence. Here they are at issue with Professor Stuart, who strenuously maintains that they are at war with the first principles of Congregationalism, and who contends, therefore, in the face of the clearest historical evidence, that they could never have been attempted. But the best is yet to come. The project for establishing these tribunals, they add, was defeated fluence of the orthodox clergy!' The fact is, the the current of public sentiment strongly set against them, and were therefore compelled to retreat with the best grace they could. Truo, the measure was opposed by some of the orthodox clergy and among others by Dr Spring of Newburyport, who declared that the plan was not friendly to the liberty and rights of conscience,' and

6

through the inprojectors found

Mr Whitman proceeds to treat of the violations of the principles of free inquiry, religious liberty and congregationalism by ecclesiastical councils' and 'ministerial associations.' He gives several cases, in some of which the actors certainly appear in no very favorable light. He then speaks of the oppression frequently exercised by orthodox churches in their proceedings relating to the admission, the excommunication, and dismission of members; of the rights claimed by these church es, and of the combinations called, conferences of churches,' and in support of his positions introduces some original documents, which will be found worth reading.

'Measures for organizing and establishing feeble churches in Unitarian parishes,' constitutes his fourth general topic.

The circumstances are generally these. There are a few orthodox individuals, principally females in unitarian societies. These are visited by orthodox ministers; and urged to secede and form themselves into an evangelical church. Others are pointed out who are supposed to be wavering, and these are also treated in the same manner. They are assured that their present pastor does not preach the truth, but is leading his people to destruction. They are cautioned to conceal from their husbands the contemplated separation, and told that opposition must be expected in the cause of God. Having enlisted a small party, a day is appointed for the organization of the feeble church. Orthodox ministers are present; some

6

that, if it were adopted, it would introduce a revolution amid our churches.' But the great obstacle its friends had to contend against, and which caused their defeat, was, after all. a jealous spirit of liberty on the part of the people. Expressions of indignation at the proposed measure burst forth from all quarters, and the advocates for the new tribunal, were compelled to desist from an attempt regarded with almost universal detestation and abhorrence.

of them bring their own church members, to help make up a decent number for the new body. In this way the evangelical church is organized, consisting of some four or more females, and perhaps one or more males, residents in the place; and several males and females from neighboring and distant towns. And it is a well known fact, that in most instances, the seceders from unitarian churches, have been urged to this measure by the conversation, preaching, and writings of orthodox ministers. Such are some of the measures adopted for organizing feeble churches in this commonwealth.' pp. 58, 59.

Then a new meeting house is to be erected, and for this funds must be begged. One of the methods resorted to of late for this purpose, is to send out some coarse minded person, who travels from town to town, and by virtue of misrepresentation and slander, by entreaty and menace, by telling his audiences that the new society, for which the meeting house is wanted, is surrounded by a set of people who are no better than heathen, extorts the necessary sum. Having obtained a meeting house, the next thing is to fill it, and to accomplish this the appeal is, in but too many instances made, without scruple to the basest passions of human nature. The feeble society is then to be supported, and here the begging system is again put in operation.

'But the greatest instrument of increase is a revival; and for the production of one of these religious excitements, the minister and his church labor incessantly. For they are aware that there are some thoughtless persons who may be easily drawn in by such a system of operations. And the character of the minister, as a successful pastor, depends on his success in getting up these excitements. If he should not be able after one or two years to accomplish this object, he is dismissed from his society. And what is the reason assigned? Simply this. "We do not think you well adapted to build up a new society." p. 63.