our theological world, broken only by the writings of Hopkins and his followers and opponents, which added nothing to the theological learning of our country. This condition. of things was in a great measure produced by the state of public affairs in our own country and in Europe, which engrossed men's thoughts and feelings. Religious opinions were less clearly defined; clergymen, holding, as they conceived, opposite doctrines, did not in all cases feel bound to keep aloof from each other. This state of things continued into the present century; but the truce was soon broken.

"One of the first symptoms of the renewed struggle was the appearance of the Panoplist,'* I think in 1804. In that publication I do not recollect any thing marked by its learning or its power of general reasoning. It did nothing to promote theological science. But the flame which it was intended to kindle blazed forth on the election of Dr. Ware, who was a liberal Christian in the best sense of the words, and a good theological scholar, to the professorship of divinity in Harvard College. This was in 1805. But the controversy which followed was not managed with extraordinary ability by the liberal party. Through the influence of many causes, which rendered the fact natural and excusable, members of that party were not sufficiently explicit in the avowal of their opinions; there was a tendency among them to represent themselves as not essentially disagreeing with their opponents; and in general, though the superiority of the liberal party in learning was then acknowledged, they wanted the learning necessary to give them assurance in their opinions, and to enable them fully and satisfactorily to explain and defend them. The feelings of resistance in the other party were very strong and active. They denounced their opponents

* A periodical publication.

as enemies of the Gospel, and excluded from the hope of salvation. This strong language, which may sound so strangely in our times, is fully supported by the controversial writings of that period. I may refer especially to the dif ferent Letters of Dr. Worcester to Mr. Channing, Dr. Worcester having come forward at a later date (in 1815) as a champion of the Orthodox party. The prestige of Orthodoxy continued very powerful; and there were many whose own opinions would have borne no severe test, who yet shrunk from any direct opposition to it. I cannot fix the precise date, but it was after 1805, that I was informed by a young minister, that, on his professing his disbelief of the Trinity, he was told by one of the most distinguished clergy. men of Boston, and a most liberal-minded man, that he had better not publicly avow it.

I

"It was in this state of things, in 1805, when he was not yet twenty-one years old, that Mr. Buckminster was or dained as pastor of the society in Brattle Street. In less than eight years, eight years interrupted by constant illhealth, and by constant labors and avocations connected with his ministry, he was taken from us. The blossoms and fruits of his mind ripe fruits appeared together. have nothing to add to the opinions I expressed, immediately after his death, in the General Repository,' concerning the influence of his genius, his learning, his whole character, in promoting and giving an impulse to all good literature among us, and especially to the liberal and enlightened. study of theology. These opinions were afterwards confirmed by the corresponding views presented in the excel lent Memoir of him, by his friend and mine, Mr. Thacher. This Memoir, and the notices of him in the General Repository, (there were two,) are prefixed to the last edition of his Sermons.

"I will go on to mention a few facts which throw light on the state of religious opinion and feeling, and of theological learning, during the period of which I have spoken. In 1812, I published, as editor, the first volume of the General Repository.' I suppose I need have no hesitation in stating, what was then generally recognized, that in this work the tone of opposition to the prevailing doctrines of Orthodoxy was more explicit, decided, and fundamental than had been common among us. The first article in the volume, entitled 'A Defence of Liberal Christianity,' was written by myself. Mr. Buckminster expressed to me, on his own part, no dissatisfaction with its sentiments, but told me of a remark made on it by our common friend, Mr. Vaughan of Hallowell, the pupil and friend of Dr. Priestley, that it reminded him of what the English Unitarians had been called, namely,' the sect of the Imprudents.' For one who should read it now, with only a knowledge of the present state of religious opinion and feeling in our country, it might be difficult to discover why the writer should be thought to belong to the sect of the Imprudents. But, in 1809, Mr. Buckminster had said, in a letter to Mr. Belsham, (published in Williams's Life of Belsham,) Do you wish to know any thing of American. theology? I can only tell you, that, except in the small town of Boston and its vicinity, there cannot be collected, from a space of one hundred miles, six clergymen who have any conceptions of rational theology, and who would not shrink from the suspicion of Antitrinitarianism in any shape.'

"But the publication of the General Repository soon failed for want of support. It was too bold for the proper prudence, or the worldly caution, or for the actual convictions, of a large portion of the liberal party. Mr. Channing, in a defence of those who were then among us beginning to be

called Unitarians, in his Letter to Mr. Thacher,' published in 1815, said of it, 'As to the General Repository, I never for a moment imagined that its editor was constituted or acknowledged as the organ of his brethren; and, while its high literary merit has been allowed, I have heard some of its sentiments disapproved by a majority of those with whom I conversed.' When, in 1819, I was elected Professor of Biblical Criticism, the President of the College, Dr. Kirkland, informed me that Mr. Channing, who was then a member of its Corporation, was willing to assign me the duties and the salary of the office, but objected to giving me the title of Professor on account of the injury it might be to the College to make so conspicuous its connection with one holding such opinions as mine.

ers.

"Its decided character, however, was not the only obstacle to the success of the General Repository. It was overbur dened with learning, or with what passed for learning among us, out of proportion to the amount of theological knowledge, or interest in such knowledge, which existed among its readI gave in it an account of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley, the fame of which had not then died out; and this was continued through several numbers. Dr. Kirkland, with his usual happiness in giving advice indirectly, told me that people said I was writing what nobody but myself understood.' Still an effort was made by its friends to promote its circulation. In 1813, a recommendation of it (unsolicited by me) was published as a circular, bearing the signatures of five of the most respectable laymen of Boston. But it was not thought advisable that any clergyman should sign it.

"The facts which I have stated, few as they are, may throw some light on the oppressive bigotry which at that time prevailed among us. I am tempted to add another proof.

A passage comes to my recollection of a lecture which I delivered in the College Chapel, about the year 1816 (I cannot fix the precise date). I have looked it up in the manuscript, and find it to be to this effect:

"Whatever an ill man believes,' says Jeremy Taylor, 'if he therefore believes it because it serves his own ends, be his belief true or false, the man hath an heretical mind; for, to serve his own ends, his mind is prepared to believe a lie. But a good man, that believes what, according to his light and the use of his moral industry, he thinks true, whether he hits upon the right or no, because he hath a mind desirous of truth, and prepared to believe every truth, is therefore acceptable to God; because nothing hindered him from it but what he could not help,- his misery and his weakness, which being imperfections merely natural, which God never punishes, he stands fair for a blessing of his morality, which God always accepts.' This is admirable. But it is melancholy to think, that we have so long been accustomed to nothing but what is bigoted and narrow and irrational on the subject of religion, that we feel delight in the expression of any generous or manly sentiment, though it be nothing but the most obvious truth. We are like those who have been so long confined within the walls of a prison, that they are filled with emotion at being restored to the common light and air.

"When we consider that it would be an absurdity too gross to be imagined, for one among us at the present day to deliver in a lecture the concluding remarks on the passage from Taylor, we may comprehend what a vast change has taken place since they were written.

"I some time since observed a passage in a note by Mr. W. H. Channing to the Preface to his Memoir of his uncle, in which he says, that, in a sketch which he