the use of terms. When we found, for instance, that the phrase, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' and that the words atonement, regeneration, election, with some others, were appropriated by the popular creeds, and stood in prevailing usage, for orthodox doctrines, we hesitated about the free use of them. It was not because we hesitated about the meaning which Scripture gave to them, but about the meaning which common usage had fixed upon them. We believed in the things themselves, we believed in the words as they stood in the Bible, but not as they stood in other books. But, finding, that whenever we used these terms, we were charged, even as our great Master himself was, with deceiving the people,' and not anxious to dispute about words, we gave up the familiar use of a portion of the Scriptural phraseology. Whether we ought, in justice to ourselves, so to have done, is not now the question. We did so; and the consequence has been, that the body of the people, not hearing from our pulpits the contested words and phrases, not often hearing the words propitiation, sacrifice, the natural man, the new birth, and the Spirit of God,-hold themselves doubly warranted in charging us with a defection from the faith of Scripture." You will perhaps recollect, my dear father, expressing your alarm, when I told you, after hearing a Unitarian sermon upon regeneration, that I thought it a faithful and Scriptural one, only I missed some of the technicalities, to which I had been accustomed. The substance, I thought, was there, though presented in a new shape; the solid truth I discovered, though divested of its orthodox and popular dress and drapery. But further, after asserting the firm belief of Unitarians in the Scriptures, Mr. Dewey says, "in the first place, we believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.' This was the simple, primitive creed of the Christians; and it were well if men had been content to receive it in its simplicity. As a creed, it was directed to be introduced into the form of baptism. The rite of baptism was appropriated into the profession of Christianity. The converts were to be baptised into the acknowledgment of the Christian religion; 'baptized into the name,' that is, into the acknowledgment of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" After enlarging upon this baptismal form, he says, secondly, "We believe in the atonement. That is to say, we believe in what that word, and similar words, mean in the New Testament. We take not the responsibility of supporting the popular interretations. They are various, and are constantly varying, and are without authority, as much as they are without uniformity and consistency. What the divine record says, we believe according to the best understanding we can form of its import.” After declaring that Unitarians believe the death of Christ was an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation, he says: "But now the question is, what is an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? And this is the difficult question,-a question to the proper solution of which much thought, much cautious discrimination, much criticism, much knowledge, and especially of the ancient Hebrew sacrifices is necessary. Can we not receive the atonement,' without this knowledge, this criticism, this deep philosophy? What then is to become of the mass of mankind, of the body of Christians? Can we not savingly receive the atonement' unless we adopt some particular explanation, some peculiar creed concerning it? Who will dare to answer this question in the negative, when he knows that the Christian world is filled with differences of opinion concerning it? The atonement is one thing; the gracious interposition of Christ in our behalf; the doing of all that was necessary to be done, to provide the means and the way for our salvation-this is one thing; in this we all believe. The philosophy, the theory, the theology (so to speak) of the atonement is another thing." .... "In the third place," says he, "we believe in human depravity; and a very serious and saddening belief it is, too, that we hold on this point. We believe in the very great depravity of mankind, in the exceeding depravation of human nature. We believe that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.'” Then, after assenting to several of the strongest texts upon this point, he says: "We believe that this was not intended to be taken without qualifications, for Paul, as we shall soon have occasion to observe, made qualifications. First, it is not the depravity of nature, in which we believe. Human nature-nature as it exists in the bosom of an infant-is nothing else but capability; capability of good as well as evil, though more likely, from its exposures, to be evil than good Secondly, it is not in the unlimited application of Paul's language, that we believe. When he said 'No, not one, he did not mean to say that there was not one good man in the world. He believed that there were good men. Neither, thirdly, do we believe in what is technically called 'total depravity'; that is to say, a total and absolute destitution of every right, even in bad men. "From this depraved condition, we believe, in the fourth place, that men are to be recovered, by a process, which is termed in the Scriptures, regeneration. We believe in regeneration, or the new birth. That is to say, we believe, not in all the ideas which men have affixed to those words, but in what we understand the sacred writers to mean by them. We believe that, 'except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;' that he must be new created in Christ Jesus;' that 'old things must pass away, and all things become new.' We certainly think that these phrases applied with peculiar force to the condition of people' who were not only to be converted from their sins, but from the very forms of religion in which they had been brought up; and we know indeed that the phrase 'new birth' did, according to the usage of the language in those days, apply especially to the bare fact of proselytism. But we believe that men are still to be converted from their sins, and that this is a change of the most urgent necessity, and of the most unspeakable importance.. ... .... We believe, too, in the fifth place, in the doctrine of election. That is to say, again, we believe in what the Scriptures, as we understand them, mean by that word. The truth is, that the doctrine of election is a matter either of scholastic subtilty, or of presumptuous curiosity, with which, as we apprehend, we have but very little to do. Secret things belong to God. We believe in what the Bible teaches of God's infinite and eternal foreknowledge. We believe in election, not in selection. We believe in foreknowledge, not in fate. "In the sixth place, we believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. We believe that sin must ever produce misery, and that holiness must ever produce happiness. But There has been that attempt to give definiteness to the indefinite language of the Bible on this subject, to measure the precise extent of those words which spread the vastness of the unknown faturity before us; and with this system of artificial criticism, the popular ignorance of Oriental figures and metaphors has so combined to fix a specific meaning on the phraseology in question, that it is difficult to use it without constant explanation. 'Life everlasting,' and 'everlasting fire,' the mansions of rest, and the worm that never dieth, are phrases fraught with a just and reasonable, but, at the same time, vast and indefinite import. We believe, then, in a heaven and a hell. We believe there is more to be feared hereafter than any man ever feared, and more to be hoped than any man ever hoped. ... Once more, and finally, we believe in the supreme and all absorbing importance of religion. The soul's concern is the great concern, &c." But I must bring these extracts to a close, for I find I cannot do justice to Mr. Dewey without occupying more space than my limits will allow. I must refer you to the work itself,* where you will find much that must interest you. It is a delightful book. I will only add, that the sentiments contained in these extracts are such as I have met with in every Unitarian work which I have read. LETTER VIII. INQUIRIES ANSWERED. Y DEAR FATHER: I HAVE arisen at the hour of four to indite a brief reply to that art of the letter you are writing me which has been received. I feel so much exhausted from the amount of reading and writing which I have been engaged for the last two months, that my * Dewey's Controversial Sermons, published in 1840. strength soon fails; and, therefore, my dear father, you must excuse me if I do not write as fully as you might expect or wish. In reply to the argument on your second page, commencing with -"what if they are worshipping three Gods,"-let me refer you to an essay by James Foster, on "Fundamentals in Religion," contained in "Sparks's Collections" for May, 1825. It conveys a better answer than I have ability or strength to give you.' Again, you ask "where have you seen a great many exemplary Christians, according to what you have been taught, and what you believed you had felt of vital, experimental Christianity?" In this sense, in view of certain points of doctrine which I had been taught, and which I believed that every one must receive before he could be a Christian-I will answer, that I have not seen them. But I have long ago learned to judge of a tree by its fruits; it is our only means of judging; it is the rule which our Saviour has given us, and must therefore be a correct rule. In this sense I have seen them. When I behold a person doing justly, loving mercy, and, as it seems to me, walking humbly with God-wherever I can thus recognise what appears to me God's image in my fellow creatures-my soul feels fellowship with such a one, however I may deem him mistaken in points of doctrine. It may be they are, as I have been, ignorantly wrong. Now it is conceded on all hands so far as I have known-and I have heard the opinion often expressed by Trinitarians-that, as a body, the Unitarians are a remarkably moral people. But, they say, is their religion; they cultivate a high tone of moral feeling. Well, all will be inclined to acknowledge that this elevated tone of morality is an excellent thing, so far as it goes. Now, when I hear them aver, and when I read from the works of all their writers to whose pages I can get access, that this morality is the fruit of a sincere and living faith-by living faith I mean a faith which brings forth fruit-in the Lord Jesus Christ as one who comes to them with an almighty commission; with credentials from his Father and our Father, from his God and our God; with the same authority as if Jehovah himself had appeared on earth; I am ashamed and confounded that I have, without giving them even a hearing, without the slightest examination, been guilty of the grossest injustice towards them. I am, I solemnly repeat it, ashamed and confounded; may God forgive me. Such uncharitableness, however involuntarily, the fruit of mistaken and narrow minded opinions, I feel has been a shade upon my character, a degradation to my soul; and I bless God for my great deliverance. that My first feeling, after reading some little tracts containing information concerning their faith, and written with a spirit of heavenly love and meekness, was an inexpressible relief to find I had been mistaken in regard to a numerous and respectable class of my fellow men; that they were not, even in theory, what I had thought them; and, though mingled it may be with self upbraiding, a discovery like this cannot but be delightful, I will not merely say to any liberal and enlightened Christian, but to any humane mind, or human heart. You ask me, my dear father, if I now embody in what I term Christianity only the naturally amiable tempers and correct deportment of persons, who have no savour of devotion, who deny, and some of them almost ridicule, that change taught by Christ to Nicodemus, and which I for a number of years have professed to believe in, and moreover to feel, not merely as an outward and moral, but as an inward, radical and spiritual change. In answer to this I say no, my father. Those cannot be Christians who deny what Christ came to teach. Those are by no means my ideas of Christianity; and you will see, if you are willing to read what I send you, that these are not the views of Unitarians. I will refer you now to the following articles. In " Burnap's Expository Lectures, the article on "Saving faith in Christ;" and article of Dr Channing's, entitled "Objections to Unitarian Christianity considered;" the tract on Christian Salvation; the article "On the nature of a Heavenly Conversation," in the number of "Sparks's Collections" for May, 1825; the tract entitled "The Unitarian's Answer;" the one entitled "The Doctrine of Religious Experience;" and "Mr. Whitam's Discourse on Regeneration." If, my beloved father, you should feel that by any step I may feel myself bound to take, I am showing you personal disrespect, such a fact would add exquisitely and infinitely to my sufferings, but it could not alter my views of duty. The matter is between me and my God; and, at my age, and under my circumstances, I am responsible to God alone for my actions. As the Almighty sees my heart, he knows, my father, how I love and venerate you; he sees that you are the apple of mine eye; but in a case like the present, prayerfully considered under all its aspects, I will remember my Master's charge to his disciples, and call no man my father on the earth, for one is my Father, which is in Heaven. Matt. xxxiii. 9. I have gathered the opinions of a great many Unitarian writers from their books; it is now my intention to hear the preaching of Dr. Gilman and such other Unitarians as may fall in my way, that I may judge of his and their opinions for myself. I consider that I am acting for eternity, and I could tell you of feelings which ought to rejoice your heart? but I forbear, being afraid that you will ascribe them all to the strength of what you deem my strange delusion. Perhaps my future life will prove, better than anything I can say, whether the doctrines I now espouse will or will not bear fruit to the glory of God. I have decided to go on next Sabbath morning to the Unitarian Church, and have thought it honest and right to tell you so. I have read carefully, and, I would add p a erfully, the books which you have placed in my hands; but they have only served to strengthen me in the opinions I now hold. You will find in the two books-"Norton's Statement of Reasons," and Burnap's Expository Lectures,"-explanations of most of the texts you Brought before my mind; and I would remark that, I did not obin those books till after my views were changed and my letters |