You have given your name to the world as the author of accusa. tions, that we are aiming to subvert and destroy the religious liberty of this Commonwealth; that we are combined to put down all free inquiry in matters of religion; that we are endeavoring, in secrect and openly, to introduce an eccesiastical tyranny worse than that of the Inquisition; that we are determined to raise up ecclesiastical Courts to try, condem, and punish all whom we deem to be heretics; and thus to prevent all right of private judgment, and all freedom in respect to religious opinion,' p. 37.

In such language, Prof. Stuart describes the charges which, as he conceives, are brought against the Orthodox of this Commonwealth by Dr Channing.

Now, with reference to this language, we beg leave to say, in the first place, that the representations which Dr Channing has made of the spirit of Orthodoxy, are not, as Prof. Stuart seems willing to have it supposed, confined to the exhibition it has made of itself in 'Old' Massachusetts. He speaks of it in the form in which it has been manifested in this country generally, for the last fifteen or twenty years. But the Professor, we suppose, has substantial reasons for wishing to narrow the field of controversy.

In the next place, we would observe, that the author of the letter appears not exactly to understand Dr Channing; or, at least, has not correctly represented him. The language of Dr Channing, and of liberal christians generally, was never meant to be taken in that broad and gross sense which the Professor seems to attribute to it. We say, seems, for we cannot suppose that he is in earnest. We think too well of his understanding for this. In his picture of Orthodox grievances, he has dealt very largely in exaggeration. He has written with his usual off hand warmth, and has employed some expressions, which,

in his sober moments, we suppose he would contend, are not to be construed too rigorously. He talks of 'conspiracies,' and 'plots,' in which he would have it thought, that we accuse the orthodox of having embarked, as it were, with malice prepense, and to this gross construction of the charge brought against them by Unitarians, the Letter owes whatever of plausibility it possesses. But Prof. Stuart knows as well as we, that no such direct, formal, and wicked 'plot,' or conspiracy,' is meant to be charged on the Orthodox. We are not silly enough to imagine that they have come together, and said in so many words, We will put down religious liberty; it is a bad thing, and the sooner we get rid of it, the better.' We believe

that they have no design now, whatever they once had, to erect a formal ecclesiastical judicatory, to settle controversies, and cut off offending members. It is too late in the day for this, and they know it. We seemed to be threatened with such a tribunal, several years ago, when an effort was made to introduce the Connecticut system of Consociations among us; but it was soon ascertained that the project was a vain one. There is much less encouragement for attempting such a measure now, than there was then; and the chiefs in the ranks of Orthodoxy know it.

We accuse them of no direct, formal, and malicious plot or conspiracy, in the gross sense of the term. We say only, that they are the advocates of a system of doctrines, which, pushed to its legitimate consequences, is unfriendly to Christian liberty; and in support of which, they resort, and have resorted, to language and acts, which tend to discourage the exercise

of the understanding, and destroy all true and rational freedom. We say, that the spirit of their system is wholly exclusive; that all its tendencies are exclusive; that wherever it is acted upon, wherever its influences remain unobstructed, there the right of private judgment, there Christian liberty falls a sacrifice. Its influences, we know, are often counteracted by antagonist principles and feelings of our nature; but still the tendency, we maintain, is to promote tyranny and uncharitableness, and that it has promoted them just so far as it has been carried into operation; that by terror, by appeals to men's prejudices and passions, by a thousand methods of influencing the public mind, for the purpose of fastening upon it the distinguishing dogmas of Orthodoxy, multitudes have exercised the right of private judgment at the hazard of their worldly interests, their reputation, and their peace.

This is our charge. Now with regard to the former part of it, which asserts that the doctrines of Orthodoxy are, in their nature and tendency, exclusive, we deem no argument necessary. It would be a mere waste of words, to go about to prove, that a system, which teaches us to regard a majority of our fellow men, as the enemies of goodness, outcasts and reprobate, being born' subject to God's wrath and curse,' and doomed by the necessity of their nature, to endure never-ending torments in hell fire forever, while a few, arbitrarily selected from the corrupt mass, are regenerated and saved by a miraculous agency, it would be a mere waste of words, to go about to prove that such a system can exert no gentle and kindly influences. So far as it produces any effect, it must nourish a spirit of

pride, gloom, and moroseness. We say not that all who receive this system, cherish such a spirit; we cheerfully admit that there are a multitude of exceptions. But common sense, we think, fully bears us out in the assertion, that its tendency is to generate it; and that if it do not, in all cases, generate it, it is because its legitimate effects are neutralised by the principles of our moral constitution, and by those great truths of revelation, the influence of which is never wholly extinguished by the errors in combination with which they are received.

Further, we say that the manner in which the doctrines of orthodoxy have, for some years past, been pressed on the attention of the public, that the whole system of orthodox measures and influences, in fact, tends to uncharitableness; tends to repress a spirit of examination and research; tends to overawe meek inquirers; in a word, tends to enslave. We utter this charge in sober conviction. For the truth of it, we 'make an appeal,' with Prof. Stuart, to the public.' The result of such an appeal, we are confident, will be in our favor, and we thank the Professor, therefore, for suggesting it. It is putting the matter on precisely the ground we wish.

The public, the sober and reflecting part of it, at least, we believe, has long been weary of the narrow, overbearing, and slanderous spirit of sectarian orthodoxy. The gross denunciations uttered against men of liberal sentiments, and the arts which have been resorted to for the purpose of putting down such sentiments, have produced a feeling of wide and deep disgust. This feeling has been expressed in various

ways, much to the annoyance and grief, no doubt, of the exclusionists. But we are not aware that they have been harshly dealt with. The complaints of Prof. Stuart, that they have been treated with 'unexampled severity,' that they are 'oppressed and abused,'’ will be heard, we believe, with no slight degree of astonishment. True, they have met frowns and rebukes; but if any one thinks that the public has been unjust to them, that it has without reason, regarded them as the abettors of a system, at war with religious liberty and public peace, we would request such an one to examine their history for a short period back, and especially to read their publications.

We will say nothing now of the Ecclesiastical Consociations of a sister state, alluded to above, on the spirit of which the expulsion of Mr Abbot from Coventry, Connecticut, for what was deemed an error of opinion, furnishes a sufficient comment; nor of the attempt seriously made, but fortunately defeated by the good sense of the community, to entail on Massachusetts the curse of a similar system.* We will pass over Dr Ely's project to organize what he calls a Christian,' that is, a Calvinistic, 'party in politics,' which should, within a few years, bring millions of electors into the field.' And we will not insist on the exclusive policy pursued, of late, by a majority of the convention of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts, and the defence of that policy by a writer in the Spirit of the Pilgrims,' who at last, arrives at the conclusion, St. Paul to the contrary notwithstanding,

6

* We reserve this topic for a future number.