Scottish public to whom the Reviewer affirmed, that Dr. Channing was now to be introduced, in his true, and most honourable, and most dignified character, as a preacher of the gospel of Christ, the assertion would have been baseless. Had he looked into Blackwood's Magazine, of a few years back, he might have seen that Dr. Channing was noticed, as one of the most talented and powerful sermon writers of the age. It was, therefore, Dr. Channing's reputation as a theologian, that paved the way to his literary fame; and the calumnious aspersions of the Reviewer can only defile their author. Any denomination may well feel themselves honoured, in the association and advocacy of so gifted a man as Channing; but let the Reviewer be assured, that the Unitarians needed not his mantle to cast around their principles, even though it had the virtues ascribed to that of the Prophet. Believing their sentiments to be those of reason and Scripture, they seek no cloak to hide, nor insidious means to advance, their dissemination.

A man who purchases a sermon, and yet is thereby "introduced by surprise into a theological dissertation,' must be an individual, it is imagined, whom no "dissertation" would benefit. His proper place would be at a school. The readers of the Christian Pioneer will have formed a different idea of this sermon-see vol. iii. p. 3-10, and 44-50-from that announced by the Reviewer, when he avers, "It is framed to set suspicion asleep, to strip the reader insensibly of his faith, without provoking his opposition." To most readers, on this side of the Tweed especially, the very word Unitarian, which occurs in the opening pages of the discourse, would have, I suspect, the directly opposite effect of an opiate; for in Scotland it is the tocsin of danger. It seems to me, that no person could read that sermon, and doubt, for a moment, that it was the teachings of Christian Unitarianism he was perusing.

The limits to which I must confine this sketch, preclude me from pointing out all the misrepresentations of the Reviewer. The object of the sermon, is, to describe the great design of Christianity-the perfection of the human soul; and Dr. Channing illustrates that design, by dwelling principally on the knowledge which the gospel imparts to man, of the character of God. The Reviewer thinks it preposterous to point out the end, without first providing the means for gaining it. I apprehend, however, that the absurdity lies with the Reviewer, and not with the author.

And if, as the Reviewer truly says, "The very conception of a Supreme Being has a tendency to purify and elevate the mind, by bringing before it the noblest object of thought;" and if, as Dr. Channing proves, the end of Christianity be to purify and elevate the mind, and Christ points out the character of God our Father, as the chief means of that purity and elevation, then has the Doctor done, what the Reviewer says he should have done and did not; and the guilt of being preposterous, is with him, who in one page brings a charge, which he contradicts in the preceding.

The Reviewer, with a disingenuousness worthy only of a bad cause, cuts out a sentence from its connection, and gives it to his readers as Dr. Channing's statement of the whole object of the Saviour's mission. The passage in its connection, occupies nearly pages 44 and 45 of the Pioneer. All that the Reviewer here gives, is, "By the cross of Christ-Christianity]'-it sets forth the spirit of selfsacrifice with an energy never known before, and in thus crucifying selfishness, frees the mind from its worst chain." And then he exclaims, in all the majesty of his orthodoxy, "This, then, is the summary of the Christian's faith. Christ died to set forth the spirit of self-sacrifice. Mysterious death for an end so simple! Laborious and costly scheme to accomplish nothing!" Spare your heroics, good Mr. Reviewer, for they are founded on a fraud. You knew when you penned those sentences, that you were maligning and falsifying the faith of your opponent. You knew that neither Dr. Channing, nor any Christian Unitarian, held that that sentence you garbled and detached from its connection, contained "the summary of the Christian's faith." You knew it, because two pages onward, you give a portion of the passage that preceded the sentence you misquoted. You knew, that from both your quotations, you left out what Channing states as especially the distinctive characteristics of the gospel. You knew, that at the close of the entire passage, which you thus grossly misrepresented, the author declared, he had "hardly glanced at what Christianity contains." And knowing all this, you had the hardihood to traduce a man as much your superior in intellect, as he is, if such be your usual plan of conduct, in moral integrity. Yes, and you can talk, too, of the "practical impotency of Socin. ianism." Know you not the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour?"

have

The Reviewer charges Dr. Channing with undervaluing Christianity-with not being satisfied with it "as it has come from the hands of God," and as being "offended by the clearness and simplicity which refutes his speculations." These charges are the common coin of the reputedly orthodox, spurious indeed and worthless, but passing current with the multitude. Their only effect on truly Christian minds, is, to excite compassion for the man who uses them. Of the views maintained by Christian Unitarians, especially as to the influence of the Spirit of God, the Reviewer is lamentably ignorant; imputing misrepresentation to Dr. Channing, whilst he himself is alone liable to the accusation. The word atonement is very rife in the pages of the Reviewer, it being, in his judgment, the essential point of Christianity, and that, without a belief in which, the Gospel would be valueless; and the charge is continually made or insinuated, that Unitarians believe it not. This again is untrue. They do believe the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement, that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." But what doctrine of atonement the Reviewer maintains, it is not so easy to ascertain. Some men think it necessary to talk a great deal about atonement, and it is the Shibboleth of the day; but it may be the atonement according to the Assembly's Catechism, or Dr. Wardlaw, or Archbishop Magee. If the term be used, the multitude are not over-scrupulous as to the meaning, It will be well both for his own reputation, and probably his peace, if before he write again, he should mark well that Scripture, "Understand first, and then rebuke."

The Reviewer expresses his parting regrets, that Dr. Channing's talents "should be enlisted in a cause so hostile to the interests of the religion and virtue of his country." He prophesies, that on the purity of the religion, depends the stability of the national morals of America. I think so too; only for the Reviewer's Calvinism, I would insert Unitarianism. But when he adds, "Socinianism is not the school in which national virtue will be exercised and trained to maturity;" and, presuming that by Socinianism he intends Unitarianism, I cannot but marvel, that he should have forgotten the great leaders in the American Revolution; that the compatriots, whose dying hour was hallowed by the rejoicings of millions, on their country's jubilee, did not occur to his memory; and, especially, that he who drew up that glorious Declaration of Independence, was not shadowed forth to his mind, a testimony,

that his assertion was unfounded, and his presages false. And if his vision were too limited to stretch across the waves of the Atlantic, he might have remembered, that the men to whom England is indebted for her most valuable lessons of freedom, whose mighty intellect led the way in the establishment of British liberty, and whose unswerving de. votion to the rights of their fellow-countrymen, must ever be revered whilst fearless integrity is honoured upon earth -were the Christian Unitarians, Milton and Locke.

I have no wish to trench on the ground, which Mr. Yates so firmly and triumphantly occupies, in his controversy with Dr. Wardlaw; but there are one or two things, calling, I think, for a passing notice. Dr. Wardlaw, in all the superciliousness of spiritual pride, gives himself, he says, "very little concern as to the views which the readers of the Christian Pioneer may have formed, on his dispute with Mr. Yates; "nor will the concern be much greater,” he concludes, if, even after his last letter, they should still retain their opinions. But is this a feeling becoming a Christian? Very little concern" about immortal souls! A Christian minister believes that some of his fellow-creatures entertain gross and dangerous errors, perilous to their salvation, destructive of Christian truth, tending to immorality; and he acknowledges, he feels 66 very little concern "about the matter. And this, too, from the man who twits the Unitarians for their indifference-for their want of zeal in the conversion of the heathen, and who calls on them to produce the Jews, and infidels, and sinners, whom they have turned from the error of their way.

66

The conclusion of Dr. Wardlaw's letter, is worthy its commencement. Having begun with indifference to human salvation, he finishes with the assumption of infallibility. "Being sick of debate," to use his own chaste and significant phraseology, and not being over-fond of "metaphysical discussion," (though the letters contain a tolerable quantity of it, by way of diverting the attention of the readers, I suppose, from the real merits and facts of the controversy,) Dr. Wardlaw strips the Pioneer of his Christian name, and by one stroke of his pen, deems the matter to be settled. Not so fast, good Doctor!-You demur to Mr. Yates, "in the capacity either of Grand Inquisitor, or even of Father Confessor;" be not surprised, therefore, that before bowing to your authority, either to give or take away titles, you are required to produce your patent, as the Protestant Pope. Remember, also, that the Christian Pioneer is not exclusively Unitarian. It, like yourself, wishes "to keep by the question, with whomsoever the result may associate" it, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" Its pages are open freely to all denominations. It is, I believe, the only periodical in Scotland, which willingly admits the statement and defence of any religious party. The views of its Editor, certainly, are Unitarian, and his most strenuous efforts are devoted, to promote the practical adoption of that faith; but, I am persuaded, I can answer for him, when I say, that he had rather its course should at once be stopped, than that

it should be advanced by anathemas against the faith of others, or the encouragement of sectarian pride and unchristian feeling.

In a funeral sermon for Mrs. Ewing, Dr. Wardlaw, if mistake not, affirmed, that the doctrine of the resurrection was an essential, if not the most essential doctrine of Christianity. Who believes that doctrine more firmly than the Christian Unitarian? Who have written more ably in its defence, than Christian Unitarians? On Dr. Wardlaw's own showing, therefore, they are entitled to the Christian name. But they appeal to a higher authority than his. And if, in their case, the language which Milton applied to "the new forcers of conscience, under the Long Parliament," be as applicable now as when originally uttered,—

Men whose life, learning, faith, and pure intent,

Would have been held in high esteem with Paul,
Must now be named and printed heretics,

By shallow

and Scotch what d'ye call "

they feel themselves consoled and assured, midst the calumnious representations of their opponents, by Paul's affirmation, which is equally their own, "That is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

A word or two with the Rev. William Thomson of the Relief Church, Hutchesontown. Sundry announcements had forewarned the people, that the subject of his Lecture, on the 17th May, would be, “Unitarian morality as much opposed to Christian morality, as is the doctrine of Christ to the doctrine of devils!" But whether the Reverend defamer's second thoughts had imparted more wisdom to him than his first, or that his boldness failed him in the hour of trial, certain it is, that the discourse was deemed, even by his own partizans, to be a lame and impotent conclusion to so fearful a prologue; and by others, the affair was regarded almost as a theological hoax. The major portion of the discourse had little or no bearing on the matter propounded, though, perhaps, that was amply made up by the ignorance and confusion of ideas so palpable in the remainder. Mr. Thomson appears not to have read any Unitarian books, or, if he has, to very little purpose, for he talked of Hume, Godwin, and other Unitarians. Such ignorance, not to call it by a more appropriate name, is unpardonable in a professed Master in Israel. Why, the "Political Justice" would have taught him the sterling value of integrity and fair dealing; and had he really perused the writings of those whom he thus classed together, he might have learned, had his prejudices permitted him to receive instruction, that Godwin's views were as opposed to those of Hume, as are the Christian Unitarian's to those which he professed. But thus it is, that the ignorant are misled, and delusion is strengthened, and error perpetuated.

As a specimen of Mr. Thomson's reasoning, take the following:-" Unitarian morality must be barren, because the Gospel is the effect, and the Holy Ghost the cause, of Christian righteousness, and they deny the Holy Ghost altogether.' How often must men be told, that the Christian Unitarian firmly believes,