DEWEY'S CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS.* THE greater part of the articles which compose this volume, have been in one form or another, for some time before the public; and have received much of the attention, to which as elegant and impressive discussions, they are certainly entitled. There is great beauty of style-much force, and much felicity, of language about them. They display a rich and vigorous imagin ation, a fine and cultivated taste, and for the most part an elevated and courteous spirit; to all which we regret that, by the hostile bearing of the work upon our orthodox faith, we are obliged to render but the scanty justice of this paragraph. We discover also a comprehensive and philosophical turn of thought in many of his discourses; of which that for "Miracles preliminary to the argument for a Revelation," is perhaps the finest specimen. His views too, of inspiration, display the same tendency toward enlarged and general views; though of these we can by no means speak with the same unqualified approbation. This philosophical tendency, however, requires great accuracy of discrimination, and much logical force, to render its results at all valuable. Without these, it is apt to deprive us of facts of the utmost moment, and give us instead of them, only barren and useless generalizations; an objection to which in our view, much of our author's reasoning lies open. The fact however, that Dr. Dewey's work has been so generally known to our readers, and his liter ary and philosophical merit so generally and highly appreciated, may serve as an apology if we confine *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. our remarks, to a consideration of it in the aspect to which its controversial character naturally invites us. The two opening chapters of the volume, one upon "The Unitarian Belief," and the other upon "The nature of Religious Belief," present to us a question of some interest, in which our author stands at issue with Prof. Stuart. In his review of Mrs. Dana's recent work, the last named gentleman has dropped some very significant expressions, with reference to the use of orthodox terms in some portion of the work before us, alledging that in using the the words "Atonement, Regeneration, Depravity," &c., to express the religious belief of Unitarians, employing at the same time "an entirely new set of definitions," Dr. D. has been guilty of a "degrading artifice," and one which "merits the scorn of every upright man," &c. These remarks Dr. D. quotes in a note, as a "surprising comment" upon his language and his motives; and replies in a style which, though not undignified, is exceedingly warm. The practice which Prof. S. thus severely reprehends, had been so frequent, and is so unjust to what we deem the truth, that though the topic is a most uninviting one, we feel constrained to point out the utter futility of the vindication which Dr. D. has attempted. He argues that he has nowhere professed to use these terms in the orthodox sense, but that "throughout as every reader must see, a discrimination is studiously made between the orthodox and the liberal construction" of them;-that even if used "without any express qualification," "the very position of the writer obviously qual ifies them;" and finally that the terms in question are scriptural terms, to which one has as good a right as another. "I had thought speech and Bible speech were common property." Now as to using this language without any qualification, relying upon his position as a Unitarian to ensure a just interpretation of it, there is one obvious consideration which renders the plea inadmissible in the present instance, however valid it might be in some others. Dr. D. has himself declared that his position itself is "entirely misunderstood;"-that there is a strange "misconstruction" of the opinions of himself and his party; so much so that "it seems to be received as if it were a matter of common con. sent that we do not hold to the doctrines of the Bible and that we scarcely pretend to hold to the Bible itself." All this he asserts on the very first page of his book, and assigns this wide and deep ignorance of his views, as the very reason of his professed endeavor to tell what he understands "the prevailing belief of Unitarians to be." To require a community thus totally misinformed as to "what Unitarianism is," to interpret any language by a reference to that system, seems un reasonable enough; but Dr. D. must have strangely forgotten himself to ask that the public would interpret by his general position, the very language in which he professes to define that position. The logic of this paragraph is obviously too loose to require any exposure, or to admit of any, defense. But this is not his main vindicacation; for that, he relies upon the fact that the language is properly qualified. Has our author then, we are led to ask, so guarded his statements as to forestall the answer of Prof. Stuart? The sufficiency of such disclaimers as he here pleads, must evidently depend very much upon the circumstances of the case. Before his own congregation, who must of course be entirely familiar with his views, the briefest explana tion alone would be requisite. Before an assembly of divines the same disclaimer would, for the same reason, be ample. But in a popular discourse this brief and occasional qualification, of language used with the utmost frequency and in connections which carry irresistibly to the public mind, ideas utterly repugnant to those of the speaker, would plainly be very far below what candor and manliness call for. Dr. Dewey's explanations we are constrained to consider precisely of this character; they are far from being so ample as to hold up distinctly and steadily the prominent ideas of his own system. A writer who aims to disabuse the public mind of a deep seated misapprehension, assumes a peculiar responsibility for his use of language. The surpassing importance 100, of the themes on which Dr. Dewey has chosen to write, gives every reader a right to demand the utmost fullness of explanation which can be requisite to a distinct apprehension of his meaning. The total inadequacy of his explanations for this end, becomes apparent the moment we apply to his opponents, our author's vindication of himself. He protests strenuously against the application to his own party, of the somewhat harsh terms in which they are sometimes mentioned. He expresses his astonishment at the bold and confident tone in which it is sometimes said "there is no religion among us ;"-and declares that no man has a right to charge them with having given up the Bible. The case between them stands thus: 'I believe,' says the one, truly and firmly in the atonement, though certainly not in the popular sense of that word. Very good,' says the other, I call you an Infidel, though certainly not in the popular sense of that term.' It would certainly require some ingenuity to show that Dr. D.'s vindication of himself is not equally good for his opponent. If his simple and occasional disclaimer 6 of the popular meaning, is a sufficient justification of his usage, it justifies also all that he so earnestly protests against, in the usage of others. If our author were to be assailed as "an ungodly man, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ," very slen der justification would he deem it, to be told that all this was studiously declared to be not in the popular but the scriptural import of the language. And if such a vindication would be felt and declared to be a mere cover for theological rancor, in any opponent who should solemnly declare that in that sense he most fully be lieved it, how can it furnish any justification for Dr. Dewey's usage? Let any man describe the Unitarian as a man 'full of all subtlety, and mischief, unceasingly perverting the right ways of the Lord,' and he would find that no cautious statement that he used the terms not in the popular sense but in what he really deemed a more scriptural and just one, would exempt him from the charge of calumny. He would be told that whoever uses such terms not in their popular meaning, has no right to use them in a popular discourse; and that none but a cov. ert and unworthy design could lead him to persist in it. As for the "right" of using "com. mon property" in this manner, Dr. Dewey's concessions effectually neg ative that. It needs no argument to prove that no one has a right to use any language which perpetually and necessarily misleads men; and that this use of scriptural language does so mislead, is beyond a question. Our author himself tells us that at first, Unitarians hesitated about the use of these terms, because they "stood in the prevailing usage for orthodox doctrines." When to this admission, we add the repeated and most earnest assertions of all orthodox readers, that they themselves are constantly confounded by this language, it can not be doubted that it is felt to be on the part of all who employ it, a source of incessant misapprehension. Since then the language by their own admission conveys to the popular ear only the idea of the orthodox doctrine, why persist in the use of it? Dr. D. has exposed the reason with a simplicity which provokes some wonder. "The body of the people," he says, page 5, "not often hearing from our pulpits the contested words and phra ses, hold themselves doubly warranted in charging us with a defection from the faith of Scripture." His use of scriptural language then, is not because it really conveys to those who hear it scriptural ideas; it is a mere theological artifice, employed for a sectarian purpose. The question narrows itself at once then to this: Has any one the right to create constant misapprehension, for the sake of avoiding unjust aspersions upon his character and his faith? Has any one the right to create erroneous impressions of his system, for the sake of giv. ing that system greater currency? To these questions an honorable mind can render but one answer. We say therefore, that Dr. D. has failed to make out any justification of his usage. Still it will no doubt be termed a hardship that the Unitarian should be shut out from the common heri. tage of Christendom, and forbidden to give utterance to his religious convictions, in the consecrated words of inspiration. One additional consideration will serve to show how unfounded even this impression is. If it is really a hardship to be compelled to abandon the scriptural mode of expression, how does it happen that on certain subjects the Unitarian so readily and cheerfully does abandon it. On the topic of eternal retribution, no Unitarian ever adopts the phraseology of the Bible. Dr. D. himself takes occasion 66 more than once, to explain and vindicate at large his views of this top ic; and we have carefully examined his language. He does indeed say that "all the language of Scripture on this solemn subject we have no hesitation about using:" but he no where ventures to use in the expression of his faith, any one of its decisive declarations. Nay, he evidently feels not the least disposition to employ a certain style of Scripture language in defining his views upon it. This departure from biblical usage he vindicates most satisfactorily, indeed, on the ground that "popular ignorance" has so fixed the meaning of this phraseology, that "it is difficult to use it without constant explanation." Very true; but then why employ this kind of language on other subjects, in respect to which " popular ignorance" is equally profound? Why, when popular ignorance perpetually misunderstands this language, insist upon a right of perpetuating the confusion? Is the consideration that Unitarianism might suffer somewhat in popular estimation, a ground on which a generous mind can feel content to abate a jot or tittle of its endeavor to convey the most accurate conceptions of its faith? That it would suffer seriously from such an endeavor, we most certainly believe; but this conviction in the mind of one who receives that system as the sum of Christian truth, would betray a pitiable want of confidence in truth itself. We might pursue this subject farther, but it is by no means an agreeable one, and we gladly leave it. We have said enough to sustain the remark with which we conclude our discussion of it; that in pursuing a course which to say the least of it, is so questionable, Dr. D. must be indebted altogether more to the courtesy of his opponents, than to any well founded claims of his own, for his exemption from the unpleas ant terms in which Prof. S. has characterized it. There is perhaps no one of the subjects mentioned in this volume which Dr. Dewey discusses with deeper interest than that of the Trinity. In a discourse now first presented to the public, on the theme "that errors in theology have sprung from false principles of reasoning," his most important application of the principle is to this doctrine, and his remarks upon it disclose a sense of its importance, with which we most heartily sympathize. After a very earnest presentation of his objections to the orthodox view of it, he speaks thus :-" So powerful, so overwhelming, has ap. peared to me the argument against the Trinity, that for years I confess I have been looking for its effect upon the churches of England and America. I have sometimes invol untarily said-Is it possible that what appears so clear to me, so un. answerable, can go for nothing with the minds of others? What are the men of England and America thinking?" &c. We will not withhold the expression of our respect for the earnest spirit in which these remarks are conceived; nor can we help regarding the frankness with which they are uttered, as highly honorable to their author; especially when contrasted with the resolute and uncandid disposition which we have found in some other quarters, to consider this a settled question. Probably every intelligent observer of the progress of opinion has cherished similar anxieties; has waited, and watched, and longed, to see some token of the things which he felt assured "must shortly come to pass." The advocate of free communion has looked with interest for the effect of the calm and resistless logic of Robert Hall; and he finds at length the whole Baptist community in England, pervaded with his sentiments to an extent he had scarcely hoped for. The Prot. estant has waited and prayed for the reaction which he knows must be at hand, against the forms and superstitions with which Rome has supplanted the Gospel; and he beholds all over the blood-sprinkled soil of France-in the realms of monarchs who gloried in the title of "most Catholic"-wherever, in short, the hand of power leaves any access to the millions it has so long and so jealously guarded against our ap proach, almost in the Vatican itself, the unquestionable tokens of what he has so longed to see. The lover of religious freedom has anxiously listened for the response which all christendom is yet to make to the announcement of our separation of church and state; and he hears swelling from the glens of Scotland and the vales of Switzerland, the sound which confirms his faith in freedom. And amid all this universal progress of truth, the Unitarian too listens for the tokens which are to convey to him the grateful intelligence that he is no longer to be cut off from the sympathies of the universal church; but alas! no cheering voice brings him that consolation-over the broad earth he finds no sign that he is not as isolated, and his views as widely reject. ed as they have ever been. What a melancholy position! Why will he not, we are tempted to ask, let it awaken for once, that wholesome distrust of his system, which alone can ever bring him into sympathy with the mass of Christian minds. The tone in which our author urges his views, is one which, while it is designed to be expressive of the strongest confidence, is by no means arrogant or offensive. Again and again he earnestly objects that our doctrine involves a palpable contradiction; and argues that it is impossible for any one, steadily and consistently, to maintain his faith in it." So distinct," says he, p. 343, "are these persons of the Trinity in your idea of them, that no power of human reason or imagination can make them one being." He main tains repeatedly that even when worshiping Jesus, the Trinitarian does for the time drop all thought of any other being, and simply investing him with divine attributes, “is, and his mind compels him to be, virtually a Unitarian. The charge of inconsistency at this point, comes, in the present state of the Unitarian body, with a very ill grace from them; and if we might for once assume to advise, we would counsel Dr. D. to abandon it. When we see their religious edifices designated by no significant names save those of the person and works of Christ-dedicated with all the solemnity their system of faith can supply, to Him as their "Teacher, Redeemer, and Lord"-when we hear them venturing to offer no petition to the paternal goodness which Christ has revealed, but it must be slavishly offered in His name-seeking no blessing of the Merciful Father, but it must be entreated for His sake-when we see them thus standing before Christ with all that other men call religious homage, we smile at these charges of inconsistency between our faith and our worship. We bid the opponents who can attain to no higher views of Christ than these poor assaults upon the system which exalts him, take one lesson from the deep convictions to which they are evermore unconsciously giving utterance. them listen to the sensibilities and affections which, in all that portion of the body that seems to us to have most of the spirit of piety, seem yet loyal to the truth as it is in Jesus; and which proclaim amid all the negations of their theory, the indissoluble connection between the piety which these men cherish, and the doctrines they deplore. We bid And here we doubt not is the secret, in part at least, of the phraseology which to the no small scandal of their system, Unitarian writers find themselves impelled to use, and yet unable to justify. They are not |