transaction may have become unpleasant; the mention of it may now be injurious to the reputation of those to whom it refers; but neither privilege nor vote can alter the fact or disprove the inference. Nor can there be a doubt that orthodoxy did more, in proportion, for Catholic emancipation, in the general body of Dissenting Ministers, than anywhere else. So much the more honour is due to those who consistently advocated religious liberty. They were placed in trying circumstances, and acquitted themselves like men and Christians. But so much the stronger, also, is the argument of our reviewer. We cannot allow their merit to become a mantle to cover the deficiencies of others. There is a limit beyond which we will not tolerate undue assumption, nor submit to unjust reproach, even though we should impair the union and harmony of the three denominations.' We rejoice to find that union and harmony so jealously guarded from even unintentional invasion or damage. It is one of the last strongholds of charity in this sectarian country, and a fierce siege is laid to it. Deeply should we regret having caused the abstraction of one atom of its strength, or having, in the slightest degree, misrepresented any class or individual connected with it; but for the assertion, when the cause of truth seems to us to require it, of facts which we know, and of opinions which we hold, we have no apology to offer, whatever be the consequences."

On this article we have only a few ob servations to offer.

There is nothing mentioned about privilege in the resolution adopted by the meeting, though we conceive that there might have been, in perfect consistency with the usages of that body-it being one of its standing regulations that no member is at liberty to publish any account of its proceedings, and there have aforetime been occasions when no reluctance was expressed to enforce that regulation.

The discussion of its proceedings, "in various periodicals and pamphlets," to which allusion is made, was occasioned by an irregular publication from the pen of a member of the body, the statements of which it was necessary to correct, and which cannot, therefore, be fairly pleaded as a precedent for those who may choose to begin such discussions.

Any one reading the offensive passage, especially in its connection, would be led to think, that the Unitarians, on the occasion referred to, came down in such force that they achieved a mighty rescue! Now, if we are to credit the report of the

numbers who voted on that occasion, furnished by an ex-member,* "the previous question was lost by a majority of 41 to 28. The point, then, to be proved is, how many Unitarians voted? We have not access to the journals of the body, and therefore cannot assert the number with entire confidence, but we very much question whether it can be shown that there were fourteen Unitarians present at the debate, and it will be still inore difficult to prove that fourteen voted against the previous question.

When the whole strength of this chivalrous corps was mustered on the petition roll, invalids and all, there were but sixteen! If we, however, for a moment concede that all these gentlemen were present, and voted against the "previous question," it will appear that the petition was saved by the extraordinary majority of three! for had not the Unitarians voted, there would have been 28 against the previous question, and 25 for it; and the friends of Catholic emancipation would have been left in the minority of three.

But it is strange that it did not occur to the sagacious editor that the orthodox members might make the same boast, for had sixteen of them failed to oppose the previous question, precisely the same result would have followed.

What the unity of the Unitarians on this question has to do with it, appears difficult to comprehend. The chance of unity is always increased in proportion to the smallness of the party to unite. The Trinitarians can better afford to be divided upon a particular question, in that room, on account of their great numerical strength; but if division were to befall the Unitarian corps, utter insignificancy must be the result. They know this, and act accordingly.

To indulge then in this petty boast, that the Unitarians saved the Catholic petitions "from being smothered," was little enough, if it could be proved, but in the doubtful position of the case, is certainly "calculated," as the resolution expresses it," to produce an incorrect impression."

For who that reads the Review in question would imagine that there could be any doubt about the matter. Every reader would understand that the mighty influence of the Unitarians, on the occasion referred to, was so displayed, that all were impressed with the conviction, that their votes had saved the petitions. But we have reason to know, that when the offensive passage was read to the body, many of the Presbyterian Board had the candour to acknowledge that it

* Vide Ivimey's Dr. Williams's Library, page 47.

OF

THE foundations of Boston, the metropolis of New England, were laid by the pilgrim fathers, with the fond hope of rearing a social fabric, in which liberty should find a permanent abode, and of organizing a church polity, by which truth and holiness should be secured to their newly-formed churches. The plan of ecclesiastical government they adopted for the New England churches was that which takes a middle course between Brownism and Presbyterianism, and which has been known in England and America for two centuries, by the name of Congregationalism.

The churches organized upon that model were, for a long period, distinguished by a stedfast at tachment to what are termed orthodox opinions, and by their holy consistency gladdened their brethren in Old England, and diffused the light of Christianity in that wilderness which they called New England.

To a painful extent "the gold has become dim, and the fine gold changed." By recent returns, it appears that in the state of MassaVOL. XV. N. S. NO. 91.

chusetts alone, of which Boston is the capital, there are 406 Congregational Churches, 350 of which are Orthodox, and the remaining 56 Unitarian. The total number of Unitarian congregations in the United States is, at the highest computation,-that is, their own,—190. To witness the defection of onefourth of our churches in that State, from the truth which their fathers defended with affectionate devotedness, is a melancholy sight, and demands, at the hands of all Congregational Churches, a calm inquiry into the causes which have terminated in so afflictive a result.

Captain Basil Hall appears to have thought that "the democracy of religion," which characterizes the Churches of New England, may account for their adoption of what he calls "the doctrines of this liberal Christianity." Now it is a fact well worthy of remark, that the Congregational Churches of Great Britain, which act upon what the Captain would regard "the democratic principle," have been preserved, without a single exception, from the Unitarian heresy, while those communities which

3 E

are less popular in their government have become more heretical. "Had not this writer," says Mr. Josiah Conder," been biassed by the determination to make democracy answerable for every thing he disliked in the United States, he would not, perhaps, have overlooked the fact, that Socinianism is not, never has been, and neve can be, either in America or in Europe, the religion of the people. Modern Unitarianism has fixed its strongest hold in the Swiss cantons, under a form of government the most purely aristocratical perhaps in the world; and long before the contagion had spread across the Atlantic, it had infected the Presbyterian churches of Geneva, France, Germany, and England, It has always commenced, not with the people but the pastors; and its natural history marks it as the hybrid production of Deism and nominal Christianity." With these acknowledged facts before us, and with nearly two thousand Congregational churches, maintaining all the great doctrines which our forefathers proclaimed, it does become an interesting and anxious question, how a fourth part of the churches of Massachusetts have apostatized from the truth, and have been led to deny the Lord that bought them.

Our American brethren have provided abundant materials to illustrate this subject, from which we shall liberally extract such statements as may give our readers a correct practical view of the whole question.

A short historical sketch of the introduction and progress of Uni

Vide" United States of America and Canada," forming the 23d, 24th, and 25th volumes of the Modern Traveller, a

tarianism in New England will be necessary to connect, in the mind of our readers, the subsequent parts of this paper, and we cannot supply this better than in the language of Mr. Hodgson, whose letters have been regarded by Americans themselves as amongst the most intelligent and impartial that have been written by English tourists in their country.

"From all I can learn, it appears that Unitarian opinions have been entertained in New England for fifty years at least, and perhaps much longer. Generally speaking, however, they were not very openly avowed till much more recently; some of those who held them concealing their sentiments, because they were unpopular-others because they felt indifferent about them-and others, more reflecting and philosophical, because they conceived that their extension would be most effectually promoted at that particular time by reserve and caution. The first Unitarian congregation formed in America established in the King's Chapel soon after the revolution. This was the chapel in which the governor worshipped; but, becoming private property, the majority having changed their sentiments, expunged from the church prayers all allusion to Trinitarian doctrines, and openly renounced the Trinity: the minority of course retired. In 1792, a Unitarian congregation was formed at Portland, in the district of Maine, and another at Saco, a small town twenty miles farther to the south. Both these congregations soon expired, but another has been since established at Portland.

was

"As Unitarian sentiments became more general, they were gra

family library.

who were supposed to have imbibed them, gave no evidence of the fact, except that of omissions. This at length brought upon them the charge of insincerity from their more orthodox brethren. The imputation was repelled with warmth, and the public were left in great doubt as to the precise sentiments of many of their pastors. Dr. Morse, who had been the most prominent of those who publicly manifested their regret at the defection of their brethren from the common faith, was accused of misrepresentation; and the most candid felt it almost impossible to arrive at the real state of things. At this time, Dr. Morse happened to meet with Mr. Belsham's Life of Lindsey, in which he found his own representations borne out by letters and documents transmitted from Boston by the Unitarians themselves. These he strung together in the form of a pamphlet, under the title of American Unitarianism.' This pam phlet was eagerly read, and produced a great sensation. It disclosed the actual state of things, brought the question to an issue, and ranged in opposite ranks those advocates of conflicting sentiments who had hitherto been confusedly intermingled."*

This marked division has been shown in various ways. Till within about the last fifteen years, ministerial intercourse and Christian fellowship were maintained amongst the Congregational pastors and churches, because none of them were then known to be Unitarian. Since that period the decidedly orthodox have withheld from all exchange of ministerial service, and the line of demarcation has been more distinctly

*Hodgson's Letters from North America, Vol. II. pages 237, 244.

drawn with every succeeding year.

Thus in the Convention of Congregational Ministers in Massachusetts, which meets annually to hear a sermon and distribute charitable funds, the Unitarians, with their accustomed modesty, managed for thirty years to have the standing officers of the Convention of their own party, though their numerical strength, could all the members have been present, was only as one to three. In 1820, however, the orthodox body made a stand, and succeeded in appointing Dr. Codman to be their scribe, and that estimable minister has since that period been annually chosen. If the evangelical party felt a difficulty in any longer permitting Unitarian ministers to hold offices in their Conventions, they were likely to feel yet more strongly the impropriety of permitting a Unitarian preacher to alternate with their orthodox members in the annual sermon, for as the preacher was chosen by the vote of the body, it became very serious question whether they should be accessary in any sense to the choice of one to preach to the assembled clergy of Massachusetts, who, they had too much reason to fear, would not preach the gospel of the New Testament. In 1827, therefore, this question was settled by a vote of the Convention, and from that time to the present no Unitarian preacher has been appointed to address it.*

a

To complete this brief historical sketch, it is only necessary to add, that God has signally honoured the uncompromising conduct of the orthodox ministers, the spirit of the pilgrim fathers animates many of their sons, and Unita

* Vide Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. III. pp. 248-255.