"King of kings and Lord of lords," who is "seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high," and is GOD OVER ALL AND BLESSED FOREVER.

I am, my dear Sir, notwithstanding any difference of sentiment and feeling, with much respect, and with the most sincere wishes for your happiness in time and eternity,

Your friend and obedient servant,

Andover, July, 1830.

MOSES STUART.

POSTSCRIPT.

THE sixteen years which have passed away, since the preceding Letter was published, have made some alteration in the state of things among us, although they have not brought about any radical and thorough change. It is my apprehension, so far as I have a knowledge of religious matters in general in this Commonwealth, that the tone and demeanor of Unitarianism toward Orthodoxy has, for some time past, considerably softened, and become more urbane. The separation which took place as to ministerial exchanges and intercommunion of religious services in 1810 1816, after being for a long time strenuously resisted, and frequently indeed even loaded with indignant obloquy, has, since that period, been generally acquiesced in with comparative quiet, and has come at last to be almost universally considered as a matter of course. It is only now and then that a solitary voice is raised, at present, in the way of declamation against it. Indeed, in looking back upon this whole scene, in which I have to some small extent been an actor, I can scarcely realize now, in what way resistance to such a measure should have become so warm and impassioned as it once was. When such men as Dr. Channing published to the world, that the faith of Calvinists was a compound of absurdity, superstition, and blasphemy; when the God whom the Orthodox worship was represented as a devil in his purposes and measures; when the cross of Christ was set forth as a gallows for a criminal, erected and exposed to the view of an astounded universe; when the wor

ship of the Son and Holy Ghost was reproached as idolatry and enthusiasm; when, in a word, all the peculiar doctrines of grace, (so named by the Orthodox), were loudly pronounced to be visionary and unreasonable and incredible and revolting; why should those who published and preached and talked all this, find fault with the Orthodox for withdrawing fellowship? Independently of all sacred regard to scriptural doctrine which they at least profess to cherish, I should say that they must be more or less than men, willingly to keep themselves very long within close proximity to such scorching flames as these. Why did not the common sense and reason of Unitarians lead them, at that period, seriously to ask : 'How can two walk together, unless they are agreed? Of course, I do not mean to extend the operation of the principle, to which this question appeals, to all minute and comparatively unimportant matters in religion, as a zealous and bigoted partisan might be prone to do, but to the great, the distinctive, the fundamental principles of the Christian religion as such. If the Orthodox do, in their most sober judgment, regard the departure of Unitarians from these principles as a virtual renunciation of the distinctive elements of the Christian religion, (as they truly do), then what remains for them, if they act with any kind of consistency, but to separate peaceably from Unitarians, in their religious services and rites? Not to do this, would be to show, either that they were not sincere in their professed belief, or that, if sincere, they still regarded their principles as of very little consequence. That as a body they are sincere in their belief, is my full persuasion. But if so, how can they possibly look on such matters as have been and are in dispute as being of little consequence; so little, indeed, that the right of yielding them, or of overlooking them, may be exercised, whenever comity or etiquette may seem to make such a demand? All this is fairly out of question. They are, as I believe, in sober earnest; and if so, ought they not, must they not, demean themselves accordingly? He who is consistent in coǹtending for religious liberty, must surely allow to them the liberty of rejecting some opinions, as well as of receiving some others. Why should another man's belief compel me to relinquish mine, or to regard or treat that which I am fully persuaded is essential and fundamental, as if it were of little or no consequence, and a thing that may be dispensed with at pleasure?

On the other hand; I have never been able fully to understand, why Unitarians should have been so zealous and earnest to continue fellowship with the Orthodox. Fellowship with those,

who, as they affirm, gloat over the superstitions and conceits of the dark ages! With those who worship a devil instead of the true God! With those who are virtually guilty of idolatry in worshipping the Son and the Spirit! With those who are striving to subject their fellow men to a bondage worse than that under the Inquisition! The old adage says, that "a man is known by the company he keeps." Had they no fears of being found in fellowship and company with such impiety and bigotry and slavish and degraded superstition? In fact, considering what they wrote and published respecting the sentiments of the Orthodox, it is one of the most inexplicable things in all the history of this Commonwealth, whether ecclesiastical or civil, that they so zealously and perseveringly insisted on the most intimate religious communion with the Orthodox, and were so indignant at its being refused. I have looked in vain for the satisfactory solution of such a problem, to the usual workings of the human mind. I am able to find but two things, which aid me in any measure to account for the occurrence in question; and neither of these, it is probable, will be admitted by Unitarians. The one of these is, that religion is a by-the-by and secondary affair in the business of life, which may be accominodated in any way, and therefore need not be made so much of as the Orthodox profess to make of it; the other is, that the Unitarians of that period did not relish the idea of being held up before the public, as differing both from the opinions of the Pilgrim Fathers and from that of the majority of their fellow citizens, lest it might throw some hindrances in the way of their success. Most of the Orthodox are inclined, perhaps, to the opinion, that both of these causes were combined, in bringing about the effect under consideration.

Under the dynasty of Judge Parsons and Dr. Kirkland, two sagacious and very expert leaders, the Unitarian party became so strong, that at last their fears vanished; and since that, they have for the most part gradually and peaceably settled down, on the plan of agreeing to differ. This has saved the public from much useless agitation. I trust that this tacit and implied compact between Unitarians and the Orthodox, will remain undisturbed for the future, and the more so, as they have at last, (for such seems to be the opinion of a predominant majority among them), given birth to and raised up a new progeny of so-named heretics, although of their own sect. With these truant children they seem at present to be more occupied and concerned than with us, and they are often more indignant at them. We may

now congratulate ourselves, perhaps, on at least a little breathing spell, as I would hope, from the arduous struggles of the arena. In the mean time, left for the moment to our peace, we will stand quietly by, and look on to see how liberally the Liberalists can treat each other. We are curious, as spectators, to know how an excommunication for doctrine's sake can be brought about, where there is not only no creed, but where eternal war is proclaimed and waged against all creeds. Dies indicabit. Till then, we will thank God for our comfortable rest, and take courage also. But we shall take care to keep our arms in sight. We have no intention to put away, and suffer to rust, the panoply that as soldiers of the cross we ought to wear. We confidently expect, that, as soon as the revolting province in the domain of Unitarianism shall be subdued or exscinded, the whole forces of the empire will again be turned upon us; and probably with a skill and vigour which have been sharpened by contest. Let no Orthodox man then sleep upon his post. The ocean that is quite calm where we are sailing to-day, may be speedily visited by tempest and tornado again, and the waves roll mountain-high. But if it must be so, we will humbly hope, and even confidently believe, that there is One who sits at the head of our little barque, who can arise and say to the winds and the waves: 'Peace! Be still!' and they will obey him.

As a general thing, I should think that the laws of comity and urbanity, between the two great religious parties, are coming nearer and nearer to a gentlemanly and Christian shape. We are gradually coming nearer to the point of agreeing to differ. I strongly suspect, that the younger part of the Unitarian community now look back with astonishment on the fellowship battles which their fathers fought, and that they cannot well imagine, why they were not contented to manage their own affairs in their own way, and to let their neighbours do the same.

So far so good. But there are some important things that remain, and of which it is time for some one to speak out in earnest. The exclusive scheme of managing Cambridge University as belonging solely to the Unitarians, has become, at last, matter of discussion in the highest Court to which this whole concern is amenable. The discussions there have already told some secrets; or at least, they have brought to light things which had long been kept sub rosa. The result thus far, constituted as that tribunal is, has of course been in favour of the Unitarian measures. In particular, the last winter witnessed one event, which ought to be the subject of serious reflection to ev

ery orthodox man in the Commonwealth. This is, the acceptance of a Report, in favour of the permanent connection and union of the University of Cambridge with the Unitarian Theological Seminary there. Our leading judges, it seems, have given an opinion, that the donations to this Seminary are so conditioned, that the two Institutions cannot be legally severed. I have good grounds for believing, that this is against the wishes of many Unitarians, even of some leading persons among them. But the leading jurisconsults tell us that the matter is decided, and cannot be changed without a violation of law and forfeiture of funds. For one, I deeply regret this. Not because I would deny to Unitarians the privilege of having a Theological Seminary of their own. Far from it. I would as readily give to them liberty to do this, as concede it to the Orthodox; for in this country they have the same right to build up Seminaries of their own. But there are other difficulties respecting this matter, and they deserve serious attention from the candid of all parties.

The University belongs to the STATE of Massachusetts. Yet if I send a son there, he must attend the worship, at least morning and evening, which is conducted by Unitarian theological Professors or Instructors. He may indeed by special favour obtain liberty, as I understand the matter, to worship elsewhere on the Sabbath. But the normal condition of collegiate standing obliges him to be completely and exclusively under Unitarian teaching and influence, both scientific and religious.

What right, now, in the first place, have the Corporation of this State University, to put it exclusively under the management of Unitarianism? It would be quite in vain to allege, that there are no other competent instructors. What right have they to oblige an orthodox man to subject his son wholly to this influence, during immeasurably the most plastic period of human life? What right to subject the parent in question, who is a member of this Commonwealth, to the expense and trouble of sending his sons to another State, or to a distant Institution, in order that he may discharge what he regards as a sacred paternal duty to his children? Liberty to worship abroad on the Sabbath! Why, this does not involve a tenth part of the influences brought to bear upon the mind of a youth while at College. Why then offer us such an inefficient anodyne for our solicitude, in respect to a matter of such fearful interest? No; we cannot accept it. We know too much of the influence of academic life, and of the yielding and moldable state of the young, to trust to it.