forfeited all pretensions to the Christian character? Professor Stuart and his friends affirm it.' Granted; but in a land of liberty, there is a freedom of thought to be allowed; and by far the greater portion of our community are not prepared to set down Unitarians indiscriminately either as Atheists or Deists. Professor Stuart and his friends take for granted the very question in dispute; and taking this for granted, they go on to act just as though there was no appeal from their tribunal, and consign us over to the ranks of the haters of truth, and enemies of God.

Some may still object, that the difficulty has not been fairly met.

'If I believe,' says Professor Stuart, that there are unequivocal declarations in God's word (as I truly do), in respect to these tremendous subjects; if I believe that the impenitent are surely exposed to endless misery; that those who reject the Saviour as he is offered in the Gospel, "shall not see life, but that the wrath of God will abide on them"; can I, as a man of any pretensions to benevolence, refrain from telling all this to others, from urging it upon them, and from warning them of the danger in which I sincerely believe them to be? Truly, the opponents of our religious views must halt here, and candidly avow, that if such are our real convictions, we ought in all good conscience to urge them upon our neighbours.

Say, if you please, that we are utterly mistaken; that all our convictions are the result of superstition, or prejudice, or bigotry, or of a narrow, illiberal education; yet so long as we are in this plight, what are we to do? As honest men, we must follow the dictates of our consciences. We acknowledge the possibility that these may be blinded, or perverted, or even "seared"; but so long as we are not convinced that this is the case, how can we do otherwise than propagate our sentiments by all proper methods and with all the earnestness in our power?' pp. 17, 18.

He cannot be serious, of course, in intimating that Dr. Channing or any other Unitarian, doubts the right of the Orthodox to avail themselves of all proper methods' for the propagation of their peculiarities; but what are 'proper methods,' that is the question. Those who talk so much about conscience in this connexion, appear to us to confound conscience with mere opinion. Will it be pretended, that any one has a right to take up a mere opinion, especially on a doubtful and difficult subject, respecting which

the wisest and best men in the community differ, and act on it as if it were an established certainty. We know that we are fallible, and we are bound in conscience to consider this in every thing we do. The evidence, as it strikes our minds at the time, may convince us, that our own opinion is well founded; and this would be sufficient, if we were infallible in all our judgments, to establish it as a principle, on which we might safely and innocently act. But we are not infallible; and hence arises the necessity and obligation of considering how the same evidence strikes other minds; and how our acting on it will affect the paramount claims and rights of others. Because we are bound in all cases to act consistently with our own convictions of right, it does not follow that we are bound in all cases to act consistently with our own convictions of truth or probability; for though convinced, on the whole, that a proposition is true or probable, we may not be convinced of it in such a sense, or on such evidence or authority, as to think it right to assume it as a principle or rule of conduct. Our convictions of right itself, too, (we mean of right in the abstract) will be materially modified, in practice, by our knowledge, that other persons, equally competent as ourselves to form a judgment on the subject, hold different views, and hold them as sincerely and as confidently. We may think it right, abstractly considered, that a person holding certain opinions should be denounced as an apostate from Christianity; but if we find that others, equally competent as ourselves to form a judgment on the subject, have come to different conclusions, we are bound in conscience to hesitate. In such a case the general question of right and duty is as much affected in reality by the convictions of others, as by our own, and ought to be as much affected in the eye of conscience.*

*The censor Cato, the saint Bernard, and the reformer Calvin were equally insensible to the blandishments of love, the allurements of pleasure, and the vanity of wealth; and So, likewise, were the monsters Marat and Robespierre; but all equally sacrificed every generous and finer feeling of humanity, which none are naturally without, to an abstract principle or opinion; which, by narrowing their understandings, hardened their hearts, and left them under the unrestrained guidance of all the atrocious and sanguinary passions, which party violence could stimulate or excite.

'This will always be the effect of such principles or opinions, whatever they are; whether true or false; whether mild or severe; pro

Granting, however, for a moment, that Exclusionists cannot consistently nor conscientiously refrain from denouncing Unitarians as incapable of salvation; what then? Do they think to prove that they have not done what Dr. Channing has charged them with doing, by saying that they have done it, and must do it, on principle? Do they cease to be intolerant and persecuting, because they maintain, that they are so for conscience' sake? Will the good people of this Commonwealth look with less distrust and aversion on the measures of a set of men, many of them from other states, who are casting about firebrands, arrows, and death in this community, because they think to justify it by exclaiming, Gentlemen, we love you all; hence our denunciations; we must do so, or we should not be consistent. A writer, who will hardly be suspected of latitudinarianism either in politics or religion, after speaking of the many amiable and excellent

vided they are embraced with a degree of eagerness and avidity sufficient to give men confidence in their infallibility, and make them supersede the feelings of nature. To enforce the doctrines of a religion, which prohibits violence and bloodshed in every case, even that of self-defence, more violence has been exercised, more blood shed, and more cruel tortures inflicted, than in any other dispute or quarrel, that ever was engendered by the turbulent and unruly passions of men; and whether the point at issue be a dogma of religion, an axiom of philosophy, or a maxim of politics, its effects will be the same, provided it has sufficient influence to enslave the natural affections of the soul, and induce men to prefer a theorem of the head, to a sentiment of the heart.

'Had Lord Bacon seen such events as have lately happened, he would not have said, that " Atheism did never perturb States"; for if men once unite to maintain systematically that there are many Gods, one God, or no God, the moral effects will be exactly the same; the dogma instantly becomes the rallying point of a sect or faction; and all the selfish, violent, and atrocious passions are collected into its vortex. It is true, that a negative dogma is less likely, than an affirmative one, to engage such passions; because it is less flattering to that opinionative pride and presumption, which is necessary to give them vigor and energy sufficient for any great exertions: but, nevertheless, that it may become the rallying point of a faction, and be a motive for very bloody persecution, we have had abundant proof. If men can once suppose an opinion to be infallibly certain, they will feel an inclination to propagate it; and consequently square their morality to that inclination; which will lead them to employ force, if persuasion do not prevail. Truth, they say, is the foundation of all virtue; and truth is, to every man, that which he himself thinks.' Knight's Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste, pp. 236-239.

qualities of Sir Thomas More, goes on to say; But the impelling motive for his conduct was, his assent to the tenet, that belief in the doctrines of the Church was essential to salvation. For upon that tenet, whether it is held by Papist or Protestant, toleration becomes, what it has so often been called, soul-murder; persecution is, in the strictest sense, a duty; and it is an act of religious charity to burn heretics alive, for the purpose of deterring others from damnation. The tenet is proved to be false by its intolerable consequences; and no stronger example can be given of its injurious effect on the heart, than that it should have made Sir Thomas More a persecutor.' *

Here we must pause for the present. Appearances threaten a warm and protracted controversy. We did not provoke it; we do not fear it. We have sometimes thought, that this sudden outcry among the Exclusionists, charging Unitarians with abuse, misrepresentation, and intolerance, was to be regarded merely as the finesse of cunning disputants. Feeling themselves peculiarly obnoxious to these same charges, and continually assailed and harassed by them from every quarter, and wholly unable to meet and repel them by argument or evidence, they have at length hit on the expedient of hurling them back on their accusers, without inquiring or much caring whether they can be sustained or not. In this way they may at least hope to divert, for a time, the public attention, and throw dust in the eyes of their own friends, and insinuate every where a general and vague impression, that all this mutual recrimination respecting bigotry and exclusiveness is to be regarded in no other light, than as an unauthorized and discreditable bandying of odious imputations, in which both parties alike are implicated. But it will not do. If it is a mere artifice or temporary expedient, it will come to nought. If it is an attempt to crush, or silence, or check a rising sect by the mere force of numbers and vociferation; the character not only of the Unitarians, but of the Orthodox generally in this State, is a sufficient pledge that it must fail utterly. We ask for no better question, to try the respective claims of the two parties to the public favor, than this, Whose principles and measures are most conducive to free inquiry, religious liberty, and Christian charity? This is the

* Southey's Book of the Church, Vol. II. pp. 26, 27.

controversy; and considering the spirit and intelligence which are now abroad, and the obvious tendencies of society and the human mind, it is without a shadow of doubt or concern, that we commit its issues to the providence of Him who judgeth righteously.

Walker,

ART. VII. DR. CODMAN'S Speech in the Board of Overseers of Harvard College, February 3, 1831. Boston. Pierce & Parker.

FROM a remote but uncertain period, graduates while preparing themselves for the ministry, have resided at Harvard College, that they might enjoy the advantages to be derived from the lectures on Divinity and other subjects, from the library, and from the literary society of the place. Their numbers gradually increased, until, in December 1815, the Corporation with the consent and at the instance of the Board of Overseers, addressed the following circular letter to a large number of the sons and friends of the College, asking their assistance in providing additional means for theological education in Harvard University.

'The Corporation of Harvard College have thought it their duty to adopt measures for increasing the means of Theological Education at the University. In order to enable students in divinity to reap the benefit of the eminent advantages which the College possesses for this purpose, there is need of funds for assisting meritorious students in divinity of limited means to reside at the University for a requisite time; of one or more Professors, whose attention may be exclusively given to this class of students; and of a separate building.

'The Corporation are disposed and determined to apply the resources of the College to this object, as far as other indispensable claims admit. But these resources being entirely inadequate to the accomplishment of their views, they feel it incumbent upon them to call upon the friends of the University, and of the Christian ministry, to cooperate with them in this interesting design.

'As the best method of obtaining the assistance of the liberal and pious, it is proposed to form a society "for the education of candidates for the ministry in Cambridge University." All persons who shall subscribe five dollars a year shall be members,

VOL. X.- N. S. VOL. V. NO. I.

17