ART. L-Discourses and Reviews upon Questions in Controversial Theology and Practical Religion. By Orville Dewey, D.D., Pastor of the Church of the Messiah in New York. New York: C. S. Francis & Co. 1846. pp. 388. 12mo.

THE author of these discourses stands in the very first rank of Unitarian literature. As a pulpit orator, his reputation is distinguished, and the post which he occupies in our greatest city adds importance to whatever he may choose to utter. For these reasons, and because it is some time since a polemic volume has been produced, on the side of Anti-trinitarianism, we are disposed to subject it to a serious examination.

With a few exceptions, which shall be noted in their proper place, these essays are not chargeable with the usual offensiveness of controversial writing. Dr. Dewey possesses all the qualifications which are needed to give seemliness and polish to the form of his opinions. He shines more to our apprehension, in the gentle glow of sentiment, than in the conflict of reasoning. Nothing is more characteristic of the whole work, than a disposition to avoid bold statement of positions, sharp cutting of defin→

ing lines, and penetrating analysis of philosophical difficulties. The shudder with which the author sometimes flies back from metaphysical methods, (as on page seventy-third,) is more amiable in the saloon, than dignified in the field of disputation. Yet he is not a common man, and where he is in the right, as he frequently is, we admire the perspicuity and scholarlike elegance, with which he can express a familiar truth.

This volume, as we learn from its first sentence, is designed to give a comprehensive reply to the question, What is Unitarianism? This is encouraging; for no one cause has hitherto more prevented successful debate, than a sickly dread of disputation, and a studied vagueness and even reticency, in regard to the points at issue. In telling us what Unitarianism is, Dr. Dewey seems to have found it strangely necessary to tell us also what Calvinism is. Of this we make no complaint: but was it necessary, or pertinent to the design above stated? If the reason is, that of all schemes of opinion, Calvinism is that which shows the strongest lines; that of all defenders of ancient faith, Calvinists have been the most determined; or that of all opponents, ours are the most opposed; we accept the omen in good part. The fact in regard to this volume is obvious to him who only opens its pages. The very first essay is constructed, with reference to the views of Calvinists. A laboured treatise is given, on 'the Five points of Calvinism.' Another treatise discusses the 'Calvinistic Views of Moral Philosophy;' and, everywhere, the form of Christianity which our author depicts, is the Calvinistic form. He allows himself to forget, that it was not Calvinism, but Trinitarianism, which he was held to refute.

The book opens with an article intituled, "The Unitarian Belief.' This creed is marked by a careful avoidance of the more repulsive points of Socinianism, and as careful an approach as honesty will allow, to the words of sound doctrine. We might have expected such articles as these: Unitarians believe that the Son and the Spirit are not divine persons; Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ was a mere man; Unitarians believe that faith and works are the same thing;* Unitarians believe

'Belief and unbelief, in Scripture use, embrace in their meaning, essential right and wrong, virtue and vice, religion and irreligion.' p. 318. Yet a little after he says, 'Man cannot stand before God, demanding heaven, for his keeping of the moral law.' p. 322.

that future punishment is not eternal. But this is not the method pursued. We are far from charging the author with a purpose to deceive: we indicate the policy as characteristic of the party, from the days of the Council of Nice. Witness the accession of the Arians, save in a single iota, to the homoöusian symbols. If space were allowed us, we should be glad to transcribe every word of Augustine's oral debate with Maximinus, the Arian bishop. It would show the disposition common to all who reject the divinity of our Lord, to fly from too abrupt an avowal of their extreme opinions. The terms used in all these cases are not such as are best suited to express fairly and fully the doctrines maintained, but such as to the ear are most like the orthodox confession.

In this exposition of his faith, Dr. Dewey sets himself against those who say, that his 'creed consists of negations.' Although we could ask no better proof of this offensive proposition, than this very article, we shall now state what Unitarians actually believe. 1. They believe, according to our author, "in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." 2. They "believe in the Atonement." 3. They "believe in human depravity." 4. They believe "that men are to be recovered, by a process which is termed in the scriptures, regeneration." 5. They believe "in the doctrine of election." 6. They believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. 7. They believe "in the supreme and all-absorbing importance of religion." Now we would not wrong an adversary, in particular one of so many amiable qualities as our author; but we cannot conceal our astonishment at this mode of statement. Knowing, as we do, and as Dr. Dewey knows, how many derive all their knowledge of a treatise from the heads or titles of its parts, and knowing that this is a phraseology appropriated by immemorial usage to the orthodox faith, we regard it as a glaring impropriety to employ this very phraseology to denote the precise opposite. We yield all the advantage which may flow from the acknowledgment, that in the body of the essay, Dr. Dewey, after these several declarations, duly proceeds to empty each of them of all evangelical meaning. We admit that Bible speech is common property; but we contend that thus to use it is neither open nor politic dealing. And if we are asked, in what way the objections to Trinitarian doctrine-for of such objections the Essay is

made up-should be expressed, we reply just as Trinitarians express their repugnance to the opposing scheme, fully, clearly, and in terms which leave no man in doubt, for a single sentence.

When we penetrate to the interior of these statements, we find that meager and unsatisfying religion which belongs to all who reject the gospel. We find that if Jesus "is God in his nature, yet as Mediator between God and man, he cannot be regarded as God." We find that the Holy Spirit is the "power of God," or " divine influence." And we find that the Atonement is a vague something, which we cannot and need not explain:

"But what now is the meaning of all this phraseology, and of much more that is like it? Certainly it is, that there is some connexion between the sufferings of Christ and our forgiveness, our redemption from sin and misery. This we all believe. But what is this connexion? Here is all the difficulty: here is all the difference of opinion. We all believe, all Christians believe, that the death of Christ is a means of our salvation. But how is it a means? Was it, some one will say, perhaps, as if he were putting us to the test; was it an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? We answer, that it was an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation. 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 cxplanation, some peculiar creed, concerning it? Who will dare to answer this question in the negative, when he knows that the Christian world, the Orthodox Christian world, is filled with differences of opinion concerning it? The Presbyterian Church of America is, at this moment, rent asunder on this question. Christians are, every where, divided on the questions, whether the redemption is particular or general; whether the sufferings of Christ were a literal endurance of the punishment due to sin, or only a moral equivalent; and whether this equivalency, supposing this to be the true explanation, consists in the endurance of God's displeasure against sin, or only in a simple manifestation of it." pp. 10, 11.

We should like to see the difference pointed out between this scheme of atonement, and that which has been maintained by some theologians, not Unitarian. For our part we abjure that theology which seeks not to know the connexion between Christ's sufferings and our forgiveness. The link which is here dropped is the very support of faith. Give us all the superstitions of the Tridentinum, rather than a system without expiation. The last sentence of the extract above might furnish occasion for remark and vindication, but we forbear. Dr.

Dewey's notion of atonement is" reconciliation, not of God to us, but of us to God." As he does not argue this point at length, we merely record our dissent.

In regard to human depravity, Dr. Dewey maintains that it is not of nature. For "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." These are words easily uttered; but as no proof is alleged, and as we do not recognise the statement as intuitively true, we pass to other matters.

There is no part of the work before us, in which the amiable author's strength more remarkably breaks down under a great argument, than in his attempt to show that Unitarians believe in Election. Dr. Dewey has good reasons for inveighing, as he sometimes does, at metaphysics; it is certainly not the field in which his laurels are to be won. Referring his doctrines to their legitimate paternity, he says, of election, "Our good old Arminian fathers fought with it for many a day." He might have added, and with weapons of better temper than their sons; as better knowing what they opposed, and where the real difficulties lay. The Unitarians, we are here told, believe in God's universal prescience. We are glad that they go so far. But, it is added: "We believe in election, not in selection." Here the reader, who is at all familiar with his language, may excusably rub his eyes and suspect his vision, or the typography. Can it be that we are reduced to the necessity of showing that election and selection are identical? Must we go to Ainsworth to find that eligo, from e and lego, means "to choose, elect, or pick out;" and that selectio, from se and lego, means "to choose out, to pick, and lay aside, to cull?" Must we quote Johnson, to show that election is "the act of selecting one or more, from a greater number?" We spare our readers the infliction, and reserve our comments for the sequel.

Under the head of future punishment, we thus read: "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. They are too obviously figurative to permit us to found definite and literal statements upon them.". In all our perusal of theo logical treatises, we call to mind no greater instance of laxity in