In two other important towns in that county, votes have been passed in town meetings, expressive of marked disapprobation of the extravagances of the Orthodox, and a determination to have liberal preaching occasionally at least. Although the subject has now been called up for the first time publicly, it is found that the liberal voices were many more than had been supposed by either side, and their power sufficient to change completely the existing state of things. And this they will soon do, unless they are allowed to share the privileges which belong equally to all. It is remarkable how different is the course taken by the two parties in these circumstances. The one, however strong they may be, able often to do anything they wish, legally and fairly, yet remain quiet under a most unequal dispensation, relinquishing for the sake of peace half or the whole of their rights, and suffering encroachment and abuse until their forbearance is made a crime, and they are actually driven to choose between resistance and destruction. The other party, however small and feeble, are never easy till they have not only some but all power and privilege in their own hands, refusing to make any accommodation, even appearing to regard disorganization, disunion, the breaking up of friendships and neighborhood, as a cheap price, with which to purchase and secure their own entire dominion. And when all is done, the inference they draw from these opposite courses, is that the former are wholly indifferent to religion, while the latter value it more than all things else. What logic! What religion! 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the kingdom of God.'

There are several towns in Middlesex county, in which movements have recently been made by the liberal minded, similar to those I have mentioned. In Hopkinton, public measures have been taken and made known through the papers of the day. A particular account of their proceedings was given in a late number of the Christian Register. I will only add to that, that according to the votes there recorded, they have had a third service several weeks on Sunday evening conducted by Unitarian clergymen, and attended, I am happy to say, by the aged senior pastor of the society, who expresses feelings which would prevent all difficulty, if

they were generally cherished and exercised by his brethren toward those who differ. The junior pastor is to leave the society in March, but the act of dismission does not extend, as I understand it, to his elder colleague.

The town of B- in Middlesex, affords a striking illustration of the truth of what I just said about the yieldiug temper and its opposite. In this town, I believe two thirds of the voters are liberal—a majority certainly. A short time ago, they asked permission of their orthodox minister and his particular friends to have four Sundays in the year for their own use, that they might hear liberal ministers. They were refused! Two thirds of the town wished only to have four days out of fifty-two to themselves, consenting to hear and to support orthodox preaching the other forty-eight, and were refused! Finding that a request so extremely, so extravagantly moderate, we might almost say, was denied them by a minority, they said at once that if they could not have so little, they would take a great deal. They therefore voted to use the house of worship two Sundays in each of several months. I am not sure how many, but less by a good deal than they could claim. They are now hearing Unitarian preaching such a proportion of the time.

In another neighboring town, they have just dismissed their orthodox minister by a vote of two thirds of the whole town. I have other places in mind, in which something of the same kind has been done; but as I have not personal, accurate knowledge of their movements, I will not attempt an account. I have stated enough to sustain me in two conclusions.

First, it is plain that the assertion made so often by the Orthodox, particularly in the Spirit of the Pilgrims-that we oppose four days' meetings and the like measures, merely because we fear their effects upon our own ranks—has no support in fact, if it have in reason. We predicted and we see all around us, that the effects are decidedly good for us as Unitarians, disgusting many with the opposite system, and showing all the necessity of fearless and immediate action. And if we did not fear, that many who are driven from orthodoxy will be driven from all religion; if we did not think it al

ways wrong to desire or permit evil that good may come, partial good from great evil, we should rejoice rather than lament over these extravagances. After all, I must say for myself, it is not the principle of these multiplied meetings and unusual exertions that I object to, but the way in which they are conducted, the enormities in doctrine and conduct which they are allowed to sanction. The meetings themselves and the excrtions may be right, may be needed, for religion's sake-but this is a question of some difficulty, on which I will not enter here.

Again-it is to be observed as of some importance, that all these towns of which I have spoken have for many years, we may say always, been subjected to Orthodox influences, and no other. They have had no Unitarian preaching at all, and in most of them little Unitarian reading. In such circumstances, how has it happened that they have come out so generally anti-orthodox? Is it not singular, that so many Unitarian societies have been formed, and so many more are now forming, in the hands of Trinitarians? One would suppose it might check a little the tone of confidence, with which they assert the intrinsic power, the obvious truth and excellence of their system, when they see that another and very differ. erent system is sowing its seeds in the very soil on which they are laboring, and all they do, seems but to quicken the enemy's tares, causing them to spring in rank profusion and crowd out all else. May it not be, that they are striving to destroy the seeds which the God of nature has himself plant, ed, and therefore striving in vain ?

Yours,

PROGRESS OF UNITARIAN PRINCIPLES.

We are continually receiving fresh evidence of the preva→ lence of liberal principles, and a spirit of independent inquiry on religious subjects, not only among ourselves, but in England, and on the continent of Europe. The direct testimony to the fact, is confirmed by the alarm that has been excited in Orthodox communities, and by their active measures to prevent the prevalence of these principles, or to counteract their influ、

ence.

A striking instance of the kind will be found in the course pursued by the Orthodox journals of England and this country in regard to the late controversy at Geneva, between the company of Pastors and M. Gaussen, one of their number.

'That little Protestant community, [says a late writer in the Christian Examiner] early celebrated for its zeal in the Reformation, and more recently for its faithful adherence to the great principles of that illustrious era, is watched by its Protestant sisters with a jealousy, which allows nothing that occurs within its borders to pass uncriticized. The world is made to ring with lamentations over her defection from the faith, and a busy zeal is engaged in aggravating the story of her heresies and casting odium on her name.'

*

*

*

*

*

*

'The fault for which the Genevan establishment is thus held up to the censure of the Christian world, is not that it makes oppressive requisitions of conscience, but that it does not make any; not that it compels its members to adopt the faith of its own majority, but that it does not compel them to adopt the Orthodox faith;-as M. Gaussen himself says more than once; he acknowledges that he is allowed to teach what he thinks to be the true doctrine, but that does not satisfy him, for others are also allowed to teach what they hold to be true; and he complains that there is not a catechism which would forbid them to do so. He would have them reinstate Calvin's; and if this were only done, and all the Pastors were obliged to teach, and all the children compelled to learn, that ancient compendium, he and his English friends would be well satisfied. This is very like the complaint recently made in this neighborhood, that the Theological professors of Harvard College were to offer daily prayers in the University chapel; not because they would introduce any thing objectionable, but because they would 'omit' what is Orthodox.'

A further confirmation of the prevalence of liberal principles on the Continent, and the one which it was our principal purpose to state, is furnished by recent intelligence from France, of a new movement on the part of the Orthodox. We allude particularly to measures now in operation for the establishment of a Calvinistic Theological School in Geneva.

It appears that since the controversy of the Company of Genevan Pastors with M. Gaussen, this individual has been unusually zealous and active in extending the influence of Orthodox sentiments, and for this purpose has effected the establishment of the 'Evangelical Society of Geneva'—the object

of which, we are told, 'seems to be, by every active means, to revolutionize religious opinion in that city, and restore the fallen empire of Calvinism.' It is under the auspices and authority of this Society, that the efforts for the establishment of this School are made. The following brief extracts from their Circular Letter will show the character of the proposed institution, and how deeply the alarm for the prevalence of liberal sentiments is felt.

'The Evangelical Society of Geneva to the Churches, the Universities, and all the faithful of Protestant Christendom.

GENEVA, Sept. 10, 1831.

'The Evangelical Society, formed at Geneva by ministers and members of the reformed church of this city, make known to all the churches, by this circular letter, that they have founded a school for instruction in Theology, which will be open to students of all Christian denominations.

The course of instruction in this school, founded upon the infallible declarations of the Word of God, shall be conformed in all essential points to the doctrines of the Church of Geneva, as established upon the Scriptures at the Reformation. And to designate more particularly the truths which have been recently controverted, viz. the state of man, the grace of God, the person of Christ, the work which He has performed, and that which He still effects for the salvation of 's people-the school will profess those doctrines which a held in common by the Protestant churches of Holland, England, Scotland, France, and Germany, and which in particular all the Ministers of the cantons of Berne and Vaud subscribe in the Helvetic confession of faith.

"We come now to show, and it is but too easy to show, THAT THIS SCHOOL IS NECESSARY. If the young men who resort to the Academies of France and Geneva to prepare themselves for the sacred ministry, are there taught Unitarian doctrines; if those truths are there controverted, for the defence of which all our professorships were founded, all our schools opened, all our institutions established; if pious parents, who wish to educate their sons for the sacred ministry, must compel them to consume four of the best years of their youth in studies which sap the foundations of our faith; in a word, if it is true that Arianism subverts the Gospel from the foundation, then, certainly, the establishment of a new school is indispensable.

"The church of Geneva is especially called upon to aid the establishment of the new institution, because the evils to be remedied are especially found in her own bosom.'