son to fear the former; under the latter a part of our community, as I believe, are now suffering.

The position I have taken is somewhat bold; and there are not wanting those who will doubtless deem it assuming. I can only say: Пáraşov μév, ůкovσov dé; or (to modify this a little in translating it) read first and then judge. If I have exhibited a narrow party spirit, such as the Orthodox are charged with cherishing-then smite; and even more than once. If I have merely given voice, as a freeman, to the feelings of some hundreds of thousands in this Commonwealth; if, although I may have nothing extenuated, I have still not set down aught in malice; then those, who feel that my complaints are uttered in order to reach their ears, and who do not relish the idea of discussing such matters before the public, will, I hope, take what I say in good part, and regard it as the voice of friendly monition, and not the obloquy of an enemy. My earthly course is nearly finished; and I can have but little to fear from any injustice that I complain of, so far as it respects myself. But he who knows all hearts, knows that I love my country, and love this noble Commonwealth, and earnestly wish for its highest prosperity and welfare. I feel as if I were now giving my last testimony to the great cause of religious liberty; and feeble as it may be, I do trust that it is sincere, and animated by a sense of sacred duty. Every mite may do some good when rightly and timely contributed; for it helps to swell the aggregate feeling in favour of religious rights and liberty which are absolute and complete. Most sincerely do I hope, ere I quit the world, to see all grounds of such complaint, as I feel compelled to make, removed, and this Republic become an example to the whole earth of true religious freedom and equal justice in their fullest sense.

My Brethren in sentiment, in whose behalf I speak, (although not as their constituted representative), will cheer me, as I hope, in my arduous task, by their approbation. To those of whom I complain, I would most respectfully say: If you acknowledge me as a fellow-citizen and a freeman, you will concede to me the right to speak, so long as I observe the rules of decorum, of moderation, and of comity. Such of you as are truly liberal, (and many such there are), will even thank me for turning your attention to matters of serious complaint and uneasiness. To the partizans among those of whom we complain, whose practical maxim seems to be: Aut Caesar, aut nihil, I have only to say, that I do not feel myself bound to be silent, because they do not like to hear me speak about such matters. Sure I am, that they cannot with any truth say, that it is no concern of mine. Every citizen of the State has a direct and deep interest in the subjects discussed. If the day of reflection should come, and a change of the course which some influential men are pursuing should be the result of it, they will then thank me for the suggestions I have made, however unwelcome the whole subject may now be. I have not uttered one word for the sake of reproach. What may seem at first view to look like this, is nothing more than a simple statement of facts, or a picture of grievances. While undertaking to admonish others of wrong, I ought to be the last to do a wrong, like to that of which I complain.-M. S.]

LETTER.

REVEREND SIR,

IN perusing the volume which you have recently published, entitled 'Discourses, Reviews, and Miscellanies,' and also in reading your 'Election Sermon' recently delivered before the Legislature of this State, I have met with some passages which contain charges, expressed or implied, against the denomination of Christians in Massachusetts who are called Orthodox or Trinitarians, that seem to me to deserve serious and candid examination. If they are indeed well founded, it is proper that the community should know it; nor can it be taken amiss, that you have given your name to the world as a pledge that they can be established and made good. But if they have no foundation in point of fact, you will join with me in saying that they ought in justice no longer to pass current under the sanction of your name, but that the public should be correctly informed respecting them.

Passages in your recently published works, of the nature to which I have above adverted, are somewhat numerous. But as it is not my object to multiply quotations, or to dispute about words, I shall content myself in this place with making merely a few extracts.

My first extract shall be from your Election Sermon recently published.

"You have all heard of the outward evils, which religion, when thus turned into tyranny, has inflicted; how it has dug dreary dungeons, kindled fires for the martyr, and invented instruments of exquisite torture. But to me all this is less fearful than its influence over the mind. When I see the superstitions

which it has fastened on the conscience, the spiritual terrors with which it has haunted and subdued the ignorant and susceptible, the dark appalling views of God which it has spread far and wide, the dread of inquiry which it has struck into superior understandings, and the servility of spirit which it has made to pass for piety,-when I see all this, the fire, the scaffold, and the outward inquisition, terrible as they are, seem to me inferior evils. I look with a solemn joy on the heroic spirits, who have met freely and fearlessly pain and death in the cause of truth and human rights. But there are other victims of intolerance, on whom I look with unmixed sorrow. They are those, who, spell-bound by early prejudice or by intimidations from the pulpit and the press, dare not think; who anxiously stifle every doubt or misgiving in regard to their opinions, as if to doubt were a crime; who shrink from the seekers after truth as from infection; who deny all virtue, which does not wear the livery of their own sect; who, surrendering to others their best powers, receive unresistingly a teaching which wars against reason and conscience; and who think it a merit to impose on such as live within their influence, the grievous bondage, which they bear themselves. How much to be deplored is it, that religion, the very principle which is designed to raise men above the judgment and power of man, should become the chief instrument of usurpation over the soul.

“Is it said, that, in this country, where the rights of private judgment, and of speaking and writing according to our convictions, are guarantied with every solemnity by institutions and laws, religion can never degenerate into tyranny; that here its whole influence must conspire to the liberation and dignity of the mind?" I answer, we discover little knowledge of human nature, if we ascribe to constitutions the power of charming to sleep the spirit of intolerance and exclusion. Almost every other had passion may sooner be put to rest; and for this plain reason, that intolerance always shelters itself under the name and garb of religious zeal. Because we live in a country, where the gross, outward, visible chain is broken, we must not conclude that we are necessarily free. There are chains not made of iron, which eat more deeply into the soul. An espionage of bigotry may as effectually close our lips and chill our hearts, as an armed and hundred-eyed police. There are countless ways by which men in a free country may encroach on their neighbours' rights. In religion the instrument is ready made and always at hand. I refer to Opinion, combined and organized in

sects, and swayed by the clergy. We say we have no Inquisition. But a sect, skilfully organized, trained to utter one cry, combined to cover with reproach whoever may differ from themselves, to drown the free expression of opinion by denunciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by joint and perpetual menace,—such a sect is as perilous and palsying to the intellect as the Inquisition. It serves the minister as effectually as the sword. The present age is notoriously sectarian, and therefore hostile to liberty.”—pp. 25-28.

Again, in the newly printed volume of your Discourses, etc. you say:

"We do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form a judgment as to our Christian character. But we insist that we have a right to be judged by the fairest, the most approved, and the most settled rules, by which character can be tried; and when these are overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is applied, we are injured; and an assault on character, which rests on this ground, deserves no better name than defamation and persecution.

"I know that this suggestion of persecution will be indignantly repelled by those, who deal most largely in denunciation. But persecution is a wrong or injury inflicted for opinions; and surely assaults on character fall under this definition. Some persons seem to think, that persecution consists in pursuing error with fire and sword; and that therefore it has ceased to exist, except in distempered imaginations, because no class of Christians among us is armed with these terrible weapons. But no. The form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes venom from its lips, and secretly blasts what it cannot openly destroy.—pp. 561,

562.

66

In the same volume, when speaking (as in the preceding extract) against a system of exclusion and denunciation in religion," you make the following remarks:

"Another important consideration is, that this system of excluding men of apparent sincerity, for their opinions, entirely subverts free inquiry into the Scriptures. When once a particular system is surrounded by this bulwark; when once its defenders have brought the majority to believe, that the rejection of it is a mark of depravity and perdition; what but the name of liberty is left to Christians? The obstacles to inquiry are as

real, and may be as powerful, as in the neighborhood of the Inquisition. The multitude dare not think, and the thinking dare not speak. The right of private judgment may thus, in a Protestant country, be reduced to a nullity. It is true, that men are sent to the Scriptures; but they are told before they go, that they will be driven from the church on earth and in heaven, unless they find in the Scriptures the doctrines which are embodied in the popular creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire for themselves; but they are also told, at what points inquiry must arrive; and the sentence of exclusion hangs over them, if they happen to stray, with some of the best and wisest men, into forbidden paths. Now this Protestant liberty,' is, in one respect, more irritating than Papal bondage. It mocks as well as enslaves us. It talks to us courteously as friends and brethren, whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and even charges us to look with our own eyes, but with the same breath warns us against seeing anything which Orthodox eyes have not seen before us. Is this a state of things favorable to serious inquiry into the truths of the gospel; yet, how long has the church been groaning under this cruel yoke?

"Another objection to this system of excluding professed disciples of Christ, on account of their opinions, is, that it is inconsistent with, the great principles of Congregationalism. In churches, where the power is lodged in a few individuals, who are supposed to be the most learned men in the community, the work of marking out and excluding the erroneous may seem less difficult. But among Congregationalists, the tribunal before which the offender is to be brought is the whole church, consisting partly of men in humble circumstances, and of unimproved minds; partly of men engaged in active and pressing business; and partly of men of education, whose studies have been directed to law and medicine. Now is this a tribunal, before which the most intricate points of theology are to be discussed, and serious inquirers are to answer for opinions, which they have perhaps examined more laboriously and faithfully than all their judges? Would a church of humble men, conscious of their limited opportunities, consent to try, for these pretended crimes, professing Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and as exemplary as themselves? It is evident, that in the business of excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more than the tool of their minister, or a few influential members; and our churches are, in general, too independent and too upright to take this part in so solemn a transaction. To correct their