pleases them by its appearance of being more scriptural; it promotes their acquaintance with the scriptures, by inducing them to refer afterwards to the passage; and it aids their recollection of the topics of discourse, its arguments, truths, and illustrations. by giving them something to which they may be attached in their memories.

The original purpose of preaching was the exposition of scripture. To remark upon a verse instead of a chapter was a departure from the primitive mode; and to remark upon a subject instead of a text, is a still further departure. It is unquestionably on many occasions, and for many reasons, a better mode. But for constant use it is not so profitable. Christians in general care very little for the abstract discussion of some proposition in morals, however rich it may be in illustration or profound in thought. It interests them little more than a problem in mathematics. They do not perceive the use and application of it; it does not connect itself with their habits of reflection and trains of thought; it does not come home to their business and bosom. But what is built upon a passage of scripture, which they habitually feel intimately concerns them, and the lessons drawn from which they acknowledge to be of the utmost importance to them, they listen to with reverence and pleasure. It is like talking with an old familiar friend; they can understand it all, and they have perfect confidence in it; and it has an authority which the finest reasoning and most plausible eloquence never can obtain. Hence we find the deepest attention attracted by subjects purely scriptural; the recital of the most familiar parable is heard with greater silence, than the most powerful argument which is new. And those preachers who have attained the greatest popularity, and have produced the greatest effects, will generally be found to have dealt most largely in scripture subjects. scripture allusions, and scripture language. The veneration with which the Bible is regarded, aided by the associations of time and place, imparts authority and power to him who holds it in his hand while he expounds or exhorts. We are persuaded therefore, that the preacher who would be useful, should accommodate to every subject he brings into the pulpit some sentence, or expression, or incident, of holy writ, in such a manner that they shall be indissolubly associated in the minds of his hearers. The subject should never seem unconnected with the Bible; and although in writing thus he may, perhaps, compose much less perfect treatises, yet he will certainly preach far more effectual

sermons.

ARTICLE XII.

Letters to Unitarians, occasioned by the Sermon of the Rev. William E. Channing, at the Ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks. By LEONARD WOODS, D.D., Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary, Andover.-Andover: published by Flagg & Gould. 1820. pp. 160.

Letters addressed to Trinitarians and Calvinists, occasioned by Dr. Woods' Letters to Unitarians. By HENRY WARE, D.D., Hollis Professor of Divinity in the University at Cambridge. Cambridge, published by Hilliard & Metcalf. 1820. pp. 150.

If religious controversy can be maintained separately from the abuses which are so liable to attend it, we think there can be but one opinion concerning its utility, among intelligent men. But the manner in which it has been too often conducted, has frequently led the peaceful disciples of Christ, of various denominations, to lament its very beginning, and to reprobate it altogether, from an apprehension, that in the heat of disputation, more will be lost in regard to the spirit of religion, than can be gained in respect to the letter. This is so striking an indication of a true christian temper, that we presume Dr. Woods did not mean to exclude every other denomination of christians, in times past, when he says, that "it has been the general sentiment of those, who are denominated Unitarians in this country, that religious controversy is undesirable, and of dangerous tendency: and that it is the duty of christians of different parties to look with candor on each others' opinions, and not to magnify, beyond necessity, the points of difference." We object, however, to the last half of the sentence, as an explanation of the first; for, if it be the main design of controversy, to distort the opinions of an adversary, and to exclude every thing like candor from the discussion of his sentiments and reasoning,-controversy should be discountenanced and reprobated, by the common consent of all good men, of all religious denominations. Since the learned gentlemen on the opposite sides of the disputed subjects before us, agree sufficiently in their views concerning the spirit and the decorum which belong to controversy on serious subjects, we cannot do better than refer our readers to their respective publications.

It is not our design to discuss any of the doctrines which are so ably handled in the works before us. Our readers are sufficiently aware which side of the controversy we think mainly and essentially true, and to which therefore, our partialities must necessarily lean. Still however, we should feel much regret, if the opinions which we deem true, and of infinite moment, were feebly defended, or if those which we deem erroneous and New Series-vol. II.

50

pernicious, were not, in our judgment, fully and fairly refuted. Our great wish is to excite a general interest upon the subjects involved in the dispute, which has been occasioned by Mr. Channing's Sermon at the Ordination of Mr. Sparks. Professor Stuart's Letters, concerning the Trinity, have already occupied our attention ;-between those letters and the reviewers, let the public judge. We are saved from entering on the same discussion of Dr. Woods' Letters, by the thorough reply of Dr. Ware. But an account of the subjects treated, and a cursory view of the manner in which the respective individuals have conducted the controversy, seem to be due from us to our readers.

After his introductory letter, Dr. Woods proceeds to treat of the propriety of a creed, and to claim for the orthodox, some of the opinions represented as peculiar to unitarians, particularly as to the unity and moral perfections of God. He next gives the views of the orthodox respecting the character and government of God, and considers the proofs that the orthodox deny the moral perfections of God. He then proceeds to the distinguishing doctrines of Calvinism; namely, total depravity, election, atonement, and divine influences, or, as in the technical phraseology of Calvinism it has commonly been denoted, free, special, or irresistible grace. Then follow additional remarks on representations in Mr. Channing's Sermon-object of Christ's mission-nature of holiness, and principle of moral government. The book concludes with a comparison of the practical influence of the orthodox and unitarian systems.

In his introduction, Dr. Woods informs those to whom his letters are addressed, why they are addressed, and what provoked him to write: "The subjects of the discussion on which I am entering, have been introduced by one who appears before the public as your representative; and the manner in which he treats these subjects is, in most respects, not unlike the manner in which they have generally been treated by those, who have embraced the Arian or Socinian faith. This sermon is a fair specimen of the mode in which we have been accustomed to see our religious opinions opposed in the writings of unitarians. Now it must be allowed to be a sufficient justification of this attempt of mine, if I am fully convinced, that my opinions, and those of the orthodox generally, are misunderstood and essentially misrepresented by unitarians, and particularly by the author of this sermon. I am convinced of this."

Every honest man must applaud the motives here expressed, and look with impatience for the exposure of the ignorance and perverseness of a large body of christians, represented by one of their most distinguished divines. There are so many refinements in modern Calvinism, and so many artificial means employed to

give a milder expression to its harsh features, and a winning man ner to an exterior naturally rude and repulsive, that it would be difficult to make a full portrait, which would be acknowledged for a likeness by any of its friends. But has Dr. Woods, let us inquire, pointed out any material errors in Mr. Channing's de lineation of Calvinism, as far as it fell in his way to draw its outlines? It matters not with how many glosses, all bright and fresh, any adept in orthodoxy has for a moment dazzled our vision; the first and main object is to see the naked truth. Having obtained from the best formulas of Calvinists, at different periods, a clear annunciation of their belief, we are equally at liberty, either to believe with them, or to shew that such irrational and contradictory inferences flow from their doctrines, that they are absolutely incredible. Now, let us ask, what has Mr. Channing done more than this? He is accused by Dr. Woods of much more. We quote his own words:

"So far as this Sermon shall come under review, my remarks will relate chiefly to two points. The first is, its affirming that certain opinions belong peculiarly and exclusively to unitarians, when in fact they are held by the orthodox. The second is, the misrepresentations it makes of the opinions which the orthodox entertain, and of the reasoning commonly used to support them."

A little below, he quotes the following passage from Mr. Channing's sermon: "We regard the scriptures as the records of God's successive revelation to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelations of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the scriptures, we receive without reserve or exception."

After reading this quotation, we expected to hear the old charge of want of reverence for the scriptures, iterated against unitarians. But what is our amazement, when, instead of this, Dr. Woods remarks,-,

"It is implied in what he [Mr. Channing] says, that this sentiment of reverence for the scriptures is peculiar to unitarians. For he first expresses his design to lay before his hearers some of the distinguishing opinions of that class of Christians, in whose name he speaks, and then at the close says, that he has given their distinguishing views; that is, their views in distinction from those of the orthodox.'

If Mr. Channing, in the division of his subject, had expressed himself exactly in the terms which Dr. Woods would make his readers believe, without any addition, still no fair disputant would endeavour to make the same use of Mr. C's. phraseology which is done in this instance. He would consider Mr. C's. expression of reverence for the scriptures, as a first principle, from which he started, and which he claimed only to hold in common with other

christians. But it was not enough for the Doctor to take things as he found them. In order to accomplish his purpose, he was obliged to snatch a division from the middle of the discourse, and place it before and after a passage near the beginning. This to be sure is a small matter, and only bringing together what the author took care to keep separate. All that the Doctor has quoted, is to be found in the sermon, and why should he be bound to the exact order in which it originally stood? Lest our readers, however, should think it of some consequence, we will tell them the whole truth of the case.

Mr. Channing, in the introduction of his sermon, says, “Ishall confine myself to topics on which our sentiments have been misrepresented or which distinguish us most widely from others." And, a little below, "I shall endeavour to unfold, 1st. the principles which we adopt in interpreting the scriptures, and 2d. some of the doctrines which the scriptures, so interpreted, seem clearly to express." Then follows the passage which Dr. Woods quotes-"We regard the scriptures as the record of God's successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelations of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the scriptures, we receive without reserve or exception."

There was a reason for this declaration. It is a declaration which every unitarian with whom we are acquainted, would make; and it is a subject, too, concerning which, unitarians as a body, have been grossly misrepresented. Nothing more than this could Mr. Channing mean to imply.

We should dwell somewhat at large upon the other opinions which Dr. Woods charges Mr. Channing with claiming exclusively for unitarians, but which are held by the orthodox, if, in recurring to Dr. Ware's letters, we had not found a full and satisfactory reply. In a youthful theologian we should pass lightly over what seems to us to be so little worthy of a learned Professor. But it is lamentable to find one who should be a guide to the inexperienced, and who, we believe, is, by the natural vigor of his understanding, so capable of the office, deceiving himself, and confounding things most obviously distinct. Every person who heard, or who has read Mr. Channing's sermon, knows perfectly well, that all which is there said concerning the unity of God, is said in contradistinction to a trinity of persons, and a great part of his design was to shew that the two doctrines are irreconcilable. The trinitarian has an equal right to bring his proofs for three equal persons or distinctions, and to reconcile this theory of the manner of the divine subsistence with the unity of God. This, if any thing, was what it belonged to Dr. Woods to perform ; for it is incredible that he should think the author of the sermon.