Letters to Unitarians occasioned by the sermon of the Reverend William E. Channing, at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks. By Leonard Woods ..

Front matter

Class

Book -W^

TO

Letter II

The propriety of a creed. — The right of declaring our own opinions. — This right infringed. — Opinions represented as peculiar to Unitarians, which belong to the Orthodox ; — particularly as to God's unity, and moral perfection . g — 17

Letter VI

Another argument from the Old Testament, Jer. xvi. 9, in proof of man's depravity,— Arguments from the New

IS

Testament, John ni. 1 — >7. Rom. v. 12.-s-lmputati<m considered. Ephes. ii. 3. — Argument from the call to repent. — Moral character of God and human depravity not inconsistent 41^—52

Letter VII

The doctrine of Election.— Preliminary remarks. — Proof of the doctrine, from John xvii, Ephes. i. 3 — 11, Rom. ix. 11—24, &c. ! 52—62

LETTER VIII. Misrepresentations of the doctrine of Election, and the

common objections against it, considered . . 63 — 83

Letter IX

Atonement. Misrepresentations. Metaphorical language employed by the Orthodox, and by the Scriptures.— Cautions to be observed respecting the use of metaphorical language. — Two classes of texts respecting forgiveness. — The nature and design of the atonement. — Objection as to the value of Christ's $ufferiugs, considered 83—108

Letter X

fhe doctrine of divine influence illustrated, and guarded against misstatements and objections . . 106 — 120

LETTER XL

' Iditional remarks on representations in the Sermon.— Object of Christ's mission. — Nature of holiness. — - Principle of moral government .... 120 — 132

Letter XII

Practical influence of the two systems, generally, and particularly. — Love to God. — Gratitude to God.—

Love to Christ. — >Faith in Christ.- — Dread of sin, and care to obey the divine precepts. — Reverence for the Bible. — Benevolent action, particularly the spread of the Gospel. — Closing remarks . . 132—160

ERRATA.

Page 12, line 2 from bottom, read conduct, 15, 1, Mathers. 25, 13, could, for would,

36, 15, whatsoever.

106, read, Letter X. P. 120, Letter XL

132. Letter X1J.

Letter I

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 other's opinions, and not to magnify, beyond necessity, the points of difference. To this sentiment of yours respecting the danger of controversy, and the importance of candor and forbearance, I cordially agree. I regard it, as one of the great ends, which remains to be achieved by the influence of the christian religion, that all bitterness and strife should be banished from the world, and the spirit of love and peace universally prevail. With a view to this momentous end, I have made it my care, to guard, as far as possible, against introducing any thing disputatious into the pulpit, — especially on an occasion of so much inter* est, and so much tender emotion, as that of ordaining a Christian Minister. By these views I have actually governed myself for many years. I admit, indeed, the lawfulness, and, in some cases, the expedience and necessity of religious controversy ; and I have endeavored to form some definite views of the principles, on which it -ought to be conducted. But i will frankly express my apprehension, that it may require more caution, meekness, and self control, than I possess, to secure an exact observance of those rules of controversy, which I should prescribe for others. At the present time, and in my present undertaking, I cannot be insensible of special danger, as the controversy between the two parties has, for several years, been carried on in various forms, and with no inconsiderable warmth, and there are, I am sorry to say, on both sides, and even among the more moderate, too many symptoms of strong excitement. But whatever may be the circumstances of the present time, or the nature of the business I have undertaken, I wish here to declare my utter abhorrence of the practice, which has been too common, of applying reproachful epithets to an opponent, and of misrepresenting his real opinions, or endeavoring, by painting them in the most glaring colors, to expose them to contempt ; — especially, of any disposition to sully his reputation, to inflict a wound on his feelings, or to triumph at the discovery of his imperfections. Such things are totally repugnant to the legitimate ends of controversy, and ought to be reprobated by all Christians, just as we reprobate the ferocities and cruelties of savage war.

The sermon, which occasions these Letters to you, is entitled to particular attention, on account of the talents and public character of the author, and, most of all, because he feels himself authorised to speak in your name. The sermon comes forth, as the voice of your denomination, and is extensively circulated, as an instrument of promoting your cause. On such an occasion, it is unquestionably proper, that our attention should be turned afresh to the question, Avhether the cause, which this sermon advocates, is indeed the cause of God.

To men, who are friends to unfettered inquiry, I shall think it unnecessary to offer any apology for the freedom of my remarks on the various subjects, which will be brought into view in these Letters. And I hope you will not deem it improper, that my remarks should be addressed to you,— inasmuch as the subjects of the discussion, on which I am entering, have been introduced by one, who appears before the public, as your representative ; — especially, as 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. And I think too, that the mistaken views, exhibited in the sermon, are exhibited in a manner, which, after cool and sober examination, neither the writer, nor his readers, will be much disposed to justify.

It seems there has, for some time, been a general expectation in this vicinity of some publication from me relative to the sermon which has occasioned these Letters ; and inquiries have not unfrequently been made, as to the reasons of such a delay. Those reasons I will now frankly suggest. First. The regular duties of my office are sufficient to occupy my whole time ; and I found it wrould require some effort in me, to be able to devote only a few hours in a week to such an employment as this. Another reason was, that I wished not to interrupt the attention, which the public were inclined to give to what had already been written, on one of the principal subjects of discussion between the two parties. Besides ; I hoped that by taking a longer time, I should keep myself at a greater distance from the agitation and heat of controversy, and more perfectly avoid every appearance of wishing to make a personal attack upon any man ; and that I should be better able to fix your attention, as well as my own, .upon the subjects themselves, which were to be investigated, without regard to any considerations whatever, not conducive to a fair and thorough investigation.

The favor which I now ask of you is, not that you would treat my opinions and arguments with lenity and forbearance, but that you would give me a patient and candid hearing, wThile I attempt, on several important points, to explain and defend the religious sentiments of the Orthodox in New-England; and while I attempt to show, in what respects the writings of Unitarians essentially misrepresent our faith, and go into a manner of reasoning which is liable to just exceptions. I w7ish, particularly, to state the objections I feel, to several representations and modes of argumentation, contained in this Sermon, and to suggest some reasons, why the Author himself, and those who have implicitly relied upon the correctness of his positions, should allow themselves time for a serious review of the ground of this controversy. I wish, in short, as far as the limits which I must prescribe for myself will allow, to embraee the present opportunity, to do justice to myself and my brethren, and to satisfy those, who differ from us, as to the character and the evidence of that system of religion, which we believe.

The subjects, which have been discussed by my beloved Colleague, the Rev. Moses Stuart, will here be omitted. I regret, with many others, that his health and professional labors did not permit him to employ his talents and erudition on all the remaining topics of the Ser^ mon. It is at his suggestion, and by his request, that I have turned aside from my common labors, and, let me say too, from my prevailing determination, so much as to take a part publicly in the controversy, which unhappily divides this region of our country. But, though I am urged to this undertaking by the request of those, in whom I am accustomed to repose entire confidence, and though 1 am fully persuaded that the opinions of the Orthodox have been treated unjustly ; I am almost ready to withdraw my hand from this work, from a painful apprehension, that my efforts may serve but to increase or perpetuate the spirit of prejudice and animosity, which has shown itself among us in so many forms, and which, so far as it prevails, does really cut off all prospect of attaining the ends of free investigation. But I indulge the hope, that a different spirit is gaining ground. And I could wish, that the Reverend Author, who has undertaken to speak in your behalf, might have enjoyed the happiness of a more unruffled mind, and the honor of doing something more for that cause, which he is so well able to promote, — the cause of love, candor, and gentleness. I think that he, and many others will acknowledge the benefit they have, in this respect, derived from the example of my worthy Colleague. It is from the hope, that I may be guided by the same motive with him, and that, whatever else I may fail of accomplishing, I may help, in some measure, to diffuse a spirit of unprejudiced inquiry and christian kindness, that I am encouraged to proceed.

Letter II

The Author, who speaks in your name, has at length, it seems, obtained satisfaction, as to the propriety of having a creed, or confession of faith. In his sermon, he has expressly given to the public the opinions which Unitarians embrace, in distinction from the opinions, commonly called Orthodox. The design is just and honorable. I am utterly unable to conceive, what valid objection there can be against the attempt of any denomination of Christians, to make the public acquainted with their views on religious subjects ; or, in other words, to exhibit the articles of their faith. The thing is evidently proper in itself, and often necessary, though liable to abuse. With so respectable an example before you, I trust you will be free from any further difficulties on this subject, and will proceed, as occasion may require, to correct any mistaken apprehensions which the public may entertain, as to your opinions, and to give them a just view of what you believe to be the Christian religion. You owe this to the community. You owe it to yourselves. And it is obvious, that justice, in this respect, can be rendered to you by none, but yourselves. Other men, especially those who differ from you, cannot be competent to make known your faith, any farther than they are instructed and authorized by you. Doubtless you have felt that you have had reason to complain of the incorrectness of some Orthodox writers, who have undertaken to make a statement of your views. It is with manifest propriety, that you have now claimed the right, and through him, who acts as your organ of communication, have exereised the right, of declaring your own opinions. If you are just to yourselves, you will not stop here. Whenever others impute to you opinions, which you do not entertain, or deny to you those, which you do entertain; and whenever they are doubtful as to your faith, or in any way misrepresent it ; you will feel that, of right, it belongs to you to interpose, and to do yourselves justice. And you would think it a gross violation of the rules of christian candor, for any man to declare your opinions to be different from your own serious declaration.— Grant me, and those with whom I have the happiness to be united in opinion, the same right, which you so justly claim for yourselves, — the right of forming and declaring our own opinions ', and of being believed, when we declare them. We have a just claim to the last, as well as to the first, unless there are substantial reasons to question our veracity.

By the diligent application of our rational powers to the study of the Scriptures, with the best helps which have been afforded us, we have arrived at some sober, settled views on the subjects of religion. These views we wish, for various reasons, to declare. And if we would declare them justly, we must declare them in our own language, and do what is in our power to make that language intelligible to all. Where the meaning of the terms employed is doubtful, or obscure ; it belongs to us to give the necessary explanations. Where the terms are liable to be understood with greater latitude, than comports with our views ; it belongs to us to give the necessary limitations. And where our positions, in any respect whatever, need modifying; it belongs to us to modify them. — Further. It is certainly reasonable to expect, when dealing with men of candid, liberal minds, that the language which, in any case, we use to express our faith, will be understood, not in the sense which, taken by itself, it would possibly bear, nor in the sense which others might be inclined, for party purposes, to put upon it, — but precisely according to our explanations. These explanations, you will understand, do as really make a part of the proper enunciation of our faith, as the words which form the general proposition. Nothing can be more obviously just than all this, especially in relation to a subject, which is of a complex nature, or of difficult illustration.

With respect to this point of equity and honor, 1 have a few remarks to make on the Sermon now under consideration. The Author informs the public, what opinions he, and those who agree with him, embrace, and what they reject. This he has a right to do. Considering the circumstances of the case, he ought to do it. Nor can any one doubt that he is qualified to do it in the best manner. But he goes farther. He undertakes to give an account of my creed, and the creed of others with whom I agree. This is a more delicate task. In this he is evidently liable to mistake ; and after all he may say on the subject, Ave may find it necessary to speak for ourselves. If the account he gives of our faith is not given in our language, and with our explanations and modifications, — certainly if not given in a manner which corresponds with our real opinions ; we must notice the incorrectness. Most of all shall we have reason for some animadversion upon him, if he adopts, in any measure, that mode of representation, which men usually adopt, who wish to make the opinions of their opponents appear as exceptionable and absurd as possible.

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 exvlusively to Unitarians, tvhen 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. These two points cannot be kept perfectly distinct in every part of the discussion ; but it will be sufficiently evident to which my observations relate. For the present I shall beg your attention to the first.

Heretofore, it has been common for Unitarians in this country, and, if I mistake not, for this Author himself, to assert that, in respect of religious opinions, there is no essential difference between them and the Orthodox. For the sake of preventing disunion and strife, they have seemed to think it desirable, that the difference should be made to appear as small as possible. But from the tenor of this discourse, one would be apt to suppose that this Author's judgment or feelings had changed, and that he thought some important end was to be answered, by making the difference between the two parties as wide as possible. If this is a matter of fact, it is easy to see how it may have occasioned some of the mistakes, into which he has been led.

In the Sermon, p. 3, he declares what regard he and his particular friends feel for the Bible, and the principles of interpretation, by which they govern themselves in determining what doctrines it contains.—" We regard the Scriptures," he says," as the record of God's successive revelation to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception." — -It is implied in what he 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 Or- , thodox. — I ask then, is it so ? Is this high veneration for the Scriptures peculiar to Unitarians ? — Do not the Orthodox uniformly declare their reverence for the Bible, and their readiness to submit to all its instructions ? Do they not embrace that system of doctrines, which is peculiar to them, purely because they are convinced it is contained in the word of God, and because with this conviction, they cannot reject it, without disrespect to that word ? — Read their confessions of faith, their systems of Divinity, their Commentaries, Sermons, catechisms, and books of devotion, and then say, whether they do not manifest as high a regard for the sacred volume, as this Author expresses ? — Why then should it be signified, that this veneration for the Bible is among those things, which distinguish Unitarians from the Orthodox ? — Such a representation must certainly appear somewhat unaccountable to one, who knows what opinions have generally been avowed and defended by these two parties, respecting the regard which is due to the Holy Scriptures.

As to these principles of interpretation, there is no need of adding any thing to what has been written by my Reverend Colleague. You perceive that these principles are not peculiar to Unitarians. They are substantially the principles of the Orthodox; so that, if you adopt them, the question between us is not, as would appear from the Sermon, whether the principles are to be admitted ; but to what conclusions will they coduct us. when fairly applied to the interpretation of Scripture.

In relation to this point, the Author does indeed seem to make a concession in favor of others. — " Wc do not announce these principles," he says, " as original or peculiar to ourselves." — But immediately he takes occasion to follow his opponents with a train of reproachful insinuations, signifying, that although they occasionally adopt these principles, they vehemently decry them, when their cause requires; that they willingly avail themselves of reason, when it can be pressed into the service of their own party, and only complain of it, when its weapons wound themselves ; that they violate the fundamental rules of reasoning, sacrifice the plain to the obscure, &c.

Under the same head I might place the following remarks of this Author. — "God's wisdom is a pledge, that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary for salvation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too consistently to be questioned by a sound and upright mind. It is not a mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, and to confuse and unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction." — Here also he evidently means to express sentiments, which belong peculiarly to his own party. — I cannot but think it strange, that it did not occur to his recollection, that the plainness and intelligibleness of the Scriptures on all essential points is a principle, for which the Orthodox in New England have uniformly contended with great zeal, even in their controversy with Unitarians,

Under the second head of his discourse, the Author undertakes " to state some of the views which Unitarians derive from the sacred book, particularly those which distinguish them from other Christians." — It will be to my purpose just to notice the first doctrine he states, though it. has been remarked upon so satisfactorily in the publication above named. This is the unity of God ; which the Author represents as a doctrine peculiar to his party. After reading his remarks, and the remarks of other Unitarians on this subject, who would expect to find, that all respectable writers on the side of Orthodoxy have strenuously asserted the unity of God, as a fundamental doctrine of revelation, and have declared, times without number, that tliey could admit no views of the divine character inconsistent with this ? Who would expect to find that, in all Confessions of faith written by Trinitarians, the unity of God is one of the first doctrines which is asserted, and in all their systems of Divinity, one of the first, which is distinctly and largely defended ? — Truly, my respected friends, this doctrine is as important in our view, as it can be in yours. And we could not in reality have more reason to charge Unitarian Authors with injustice, should they represent us as denying the existence of God, than we have, when they represent us as denying his unity.

But we proceed to another point, on which this Author lays still greater stress. — " We believe," he says, " in the moral perfection of God. — We value our views of Christianity chiefly, as they assert his amiable and venerable attributes." — From the professed object of the discourse, and the language here employed, it appears, that the Author makes it the grand characteristic of Unitarianism in distinction from Orthodoxy, that it asserts the moral perfection of God. — But is this representation, as to the grand distinction between the parties, according to truth? Is it a representation, which he is authorized to make ? — When the most eminent Divines and most enlightened Christians, who have at any time embraced the common doctrines of Orthodoxy, — Luther, Calvin, Boyle, Hale, Baxter, Doddridge, Watts, the Eelwardses, the Matthers, the Coopers, and multitudes, not to be numbered, of the same general faith, unite in declaring expressly, and constantly, that they believe in the moral perfection of God, that they ascribe to him infinite justice, goodness, and holiness, and continually adore his amiable and venerable attributes ;— who is it that thinks himself entitled to look down upon this host of worthies, and reply, — " it is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and to think of him meanly ; to apply to his person high sounding epithets, and to his government, principles which make him odious. The heathens called Jupiter the greatest and the best ; but his history was black with cruelty and lust." — I make use of no high coloring. This is the reply, which the Author of the sermon makes, actually, and in so many words, to the most serious professions of the Orthodox, whoever they may be, as to their belief in the moral perfection of God. If he does not mean to apply what I have quoted, to the Orthodox, he has lost sight of the object of his discourse, and his subsequent reasoning, as you will see in a moment, is wholly impertinent.

In another form, he afterwards repeats insinuations of the same sort. " We believe," he says, — " We" emphatically, and by way of distinction from the Orthodox, — " We believe that in no being is the sense of right so strong, so omnipotent, as in God. We believe that his almighty power is entirely submitted to his perception of rectitude. — It is not because he is our Creator merely, but because he created us for good and holy purposes ; it is not because his will is irresistible, but because his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay him allegiance. We cannot bow before a being, however great and powerful, who governs tyrannically. We respect nothing but excellence, whether on earth or in heaven."

— Now the whole body of enlightened Christians,, who embrace the common orthodox faith, give their united testimony to the same truths, and declare their veneration and love for a God of the same amiable character. In their creeds, systems, sermons, psalmody, and prayers, they abundantly assert these views respecting the moral perfectien of God. They have asserted them continually, and publicly. They have taught them to their children. They have repeated them in a thousand forms. — And yet this author, speaking in your name too, feels himself entitled to say to them all in reply; — " It is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and to think of him meanly. — Your system takes from us our Father in heaven, and substitutes for him a being, whom we cannot love if we would, and whom we ought not to love if we could." — Candor and liberality of mind are virtues which Unitarians have considered peculiarly honorable, and which they have appeared ambitious to advance to the highest degree of influence. I would just inquire, whether these virtues are likely to be improved, or to acquire greater influence, either among Unitarians, or the Orthodox, by such language as this Author uses respecting his opponents, — language apparently expressive of real conviction, and characterized bv strength and elegance, but unfortunately wanting in justice and truth. — We claim the right of thinking for ourselves, and of declaring what we think. But according to the principle which seems to govern this writer's pen, there would be no possibility of our ever making a declaration of our opinions, which would be entitled to credit. For suppose we should profess our full assent to the strongest propositions of this author respecting the moral perfection of God ; suppose we should say the very things which he says, in the same forms, and in different forms.

and should enlarge upon them, and carry them into their practical uses, and should show by our conduct, that such are our sober views of the divine character; he could still meet all this with the reply ; — " It is possible to apply to God's person high sounding epithets, and to his government, principles which make him odious. The heathens called Jupiter the greatest and the best ; but his history was black with cruelty and lust."— If the picture, which this Author has drawn of our opinions on this subject were chargeable with only a little misrepresentation ;— or if it were ever so great a misrepresentation on a subject of no considerable importance ; it would be worthy of little notice. But it is, if I mistake not, a great and total misrepresentation, on a subject of vital consequence to religion, both theoretic and practical. And every man, and every child, who has received his impression from this sermon, as to the views of the Orthodox on the subject now under consideration, has been led into a palpable and total mistake as to a matter of fact, — a matter of fact, concerning which the Orthodox must be considered the best, and the only competent judges. To them therefore I appeal. And I am sure they will be sensible of the truth of what I say, and will be compelled, from a sense of justice to themselves, to declare, that, however free from blame the motives of this Author may have been, the representation he has here made of their views, is totally incorrect, — that it is false throughout, and in the highest degree.

LETTER HI.

I wish you not to infer from any thing contained in the foregoing letter, nor from the general aspect of it, that I am desirous of avoiding that kind of investigation, which the Author of the sermon has represented, as necessary in this case. — " We cannot," he remarks, "judge of men's real ideas of God from their general language. — We must inquire into their particular views of his purposes, of the principles of his administration, and of his disposition towards his creatures." — To this mode of proceeding I cheerfully accede. Accordingly, I will not ask you to rest ultimately on my bare assertion, that Unitarians give an incorrect account of our opinions, nor upon my general declaration, that Ave believe in the moral perfection of God. — That you may be under the best advantages to judge, whether we do in fact, believe in the moral perfection of God, it appears indispensable that I should state, summarily, what particular views we entertain of God's character, — " of the principles of his administration, and of his disposition towards his creatures."— For the correctness of the statement I shall now make, I must refer you to the writings of those Orthodox Divines, who are the most judicious, and the most generally approved.