and rendered doubly so by the circumstances of the occasion.

The new house was dedicated the same year, on the 29th of December. The sermon which Mr. Thacher preached on this occasion was soon afterward published.* It became a general topic of conversation; and while by one portion of readers it was praised as an able and lucid exposition of liberal and intelligible Christianity, and a calm and manly defence of those who had embraced such a faith, it was denounced by another portion as advancing principles, subversive of what they called the peculiar and fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. The weak were alarmed at they knew not what; the bigoted were surprised at the avowal of nonconformity; the cautious shook their heads, and intimated their doubts; while they who had observed the signs of the times, and who knew what they believed, rejoiced that the time had arrived, when religious opinions could be fairly and openly discussed, when reason was to be permitted to come out into the light, and men could maintain that their minds were their own.

If there is any fault to be found with this discourse, it is that it speaks rather too much in the tone of apology and confession. But this was to be expected from the existing state of the public mind, and from the untried and delicate situation in which the preacher stood. But no

*This is the only sermon which Mr. Thacher ever printed. It stands the last in this collection.

one, certainly, can read it without perceiving the firm conviction of truth which it every where displays, and the resolution not to yield a single fragment of any one great principle asserted. It would conciliate, but without the least compromise of belief.

Still it must be allowed that a few expressions in the discourse had better been omitted. Such, for example, is the one contained in the following passage; "There exist-it is but too well known-among the different communities of christians, some peculiar modes of regarding the truths of the gospel; and it is fitting, according to the spirit of our text, that we should be ready to justify these modes of thinking to our fellow-believers."-How is it possible, it may be said, that this could be too well known? If these peculiarities of opinion existed, they' ought to have been known. It was best for all sides that they should be known; and that an end should be put to a state of things which was an improper, a disagreeable, and, from its nature, a temporary one. The time may be easily remembered, when in our religious world, there was nothing but distrust on the one side, and fear and evasion on the other; when the self-conceited theologue looked awry on the suspected heretic, and the object of his suspicion answered him with circumlocution and hesitation. There is no denying that this was the fact. And how much better is it that there has been a change, and that we can now use language, as it was meant to be used, for the expression of ideas. And again, it may be asked, how is truth ever to be known, if her face is

always to be kept under a veil? How are we to expect that our opinions are to be received, or respected, if they are studiously thrust aside, and into the shade, as if we were ashamed of them? Nothing is to be lost, in this country at least, and every thing is to be hoped, from fair discussion. "Though all the winds of doctrine," says Milton," were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple! who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" If we are convinced that our opinions are well grounded and important, we really do not pay them a proper regard, nor do justice to the decisions of our own minds, by deprecating discovery and examination.

If it be said that the spirit of contention is unhallowed, and that ignorance is better than ill will; it is readily granted. But cannot knowledge and charity walk together, and kindness accompany discussion? If they cannot, it were happy for us if we could neither think nor feel. But surely there is nothing impossible in this union. It has been, and may always be effected; and perfect love will cast out fear.

Entertaining these sentiments, I am certain that if Mr. Thacher had been aware of all that was implied in the few words which have been noticed, he would never have used them; for they hardly comport with the spirit of firmness which marks the discourse, nor indeed with the circumstance of his public avowal of liberal opinions, without being called on to do so except by his own con

victions of propriety and right. The expression was evidently suggested by his ardent desire of peace, and his strong aversion to pulpit controversy, and theological discord. If he were now alive, he would doubtless be among the first to acknowledge that his apprehensions were groundless. For what has been the consequence of that mutual knowledge of opinion existing among us, and of that change in the state of things, which, I feel authorized in saying, and I say it to his praise, he himself was one of the most active in bringing about? Has knowledge produced strife; or is it pouring forth perpetual controversy from our pulpits into the ears of an inflamed or a wearied audience? Should a stranger go into one of our churches in Boston, with the expectation of hearing peculiar doctrines handled, would he not be disappointed? Would he not be disappointed, Sabbath after Sabbath? And yet it is as well known of what sentiments our clergymen are, as in what churches they respectively minister. What condition can be happier than this? The pure and purifying morality of the gospel is preached as constantly as before; while the preacher is no longer troubled with surmises, crossquestionings and alarms. Every thing is known, and vain terrors have ceased. We still follow our inclination and conviction, in inculcating the precepts of Jesus; but without having it now objected to us, even by members of our own congregations, that we are preaching mere morality.

With an exception or two of this kind, which at the

F

most, should be termed mere inadvertences, the Dedication Sermon must be pronounced an excellent performance, admirably adapted to its purpose and to the occasion, and triumphant in its calm but powerful defence of the liberal principles of Christianity. It must be regarded too as one of the chief causes which operated in bringing on the well known Unitarian Controversy, which was soon after conducted with so much spirit and effect in this part of the country.

The sentiments of our liberal clergy had been for a long time understood, though partially and with a distorted apprehension, by their orthodox brethren; who only waited for a favourable opportunity to communicate, in one awful disclosure, their knowledge, their alarms, and their horror to the people. Such an opportunity was furnished them about this time by the Rev. Mr. Belsham of London, who in his Life of Lindsey had devoted a chapter to the history of American Unitarianism. This chapter was republished in Boston, with a short preface; and the pamphlet thus formed was soon after reviewed in an article in the Panoplist, which was written in a style of constant high colouring, and contained falsehoods which few would commit themselves by advancing at the present time. Take for example the following extract.

"From a great variety of anonymous publications it has been evident, that the defection had proceeded in the downward course to the lowest degrees of Socinianism, and to the borders of open infidelity. Further than this; it has not been in a few solitary instances only, that