PRIESTLEY AND CHANNING.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

SIR,-In my last communication to you, inserted in your Number for November, I had occasion to notice a certain contrast between the writings of Priestley and Channing. Annexed are some farther thoughts in continuation. Yours truly, CHRISTOPHILUS.

The genius of Priestley was more intellectual-his tastes and habits ever in favour of logical and critical compositions and investigations. The genius of Channing delighted more to expatiate upon moral ideas and sentiments; and had a tincture of imagination and poetry in his style-at least of a moral enthusiasm and warmth, which we do not look for or find in such cool reasoners as Priestley. This constitutional diversity of character might partly be the result, and partly the cause, of that choice which other circumstances induced them to make of the subjects which engaged their attention. As Unitarians, Priestley's attention was taken up with the assertion and defence of those abstract doctrines and criticisms which formed the ground of his separation from the Orthodox Faith. He had to fight with the weapons employed by his opponents, and meet them on the accustomed field of polemical controversy. His genius was calculated for that service. Channing, although a decided Unitarian, was one of the modified school of Price-as regards the special topic of the person of Christ—and like others of that school, or like Price himself, might consider himself as a moderate on the subject of what was then, and what is sometimes yet, called the Socinian Controversy. But independent of any influence which this circumstance might have had at first, the more advanced period in which he flourished-the taste of the age-and his own constitutional disposition-all led Channing to prefer the moral aspect of religion to the metaphysical and critical, and to endeavour recommending it to the hearts and cultivated tastes of the public, by beautiful illustrations and

analogies, more than to their intellectual faculties, by dry arguments and learning.

It is a maxim with Unitarians, as professed Rationalists in religion, to bow implicitly to the authority of no man, therefore, they will allow me thus to speak freely of their two greatest authors; but, after all, it is not in human nature, especially in collective bodies, to be altogether uninfluenced by a deference for the authority and example of great men. Hence among these (the Unitarians) some are influenced more by the authority and example of Priestley, others by Channing.

In the order of time, this occurred naturally to be first and most in favour of Priestley-but it was equally natural for Channing's influence to succeed, and during this transition, individuals would be affected differently by their constitutional dispositions and otherwise, to follow Priestley or Channing. Be this as it may, in particular cases and degrees, there is in point of fact two schools of Unitarianism easily distinguished by attentive observers, though not acknowledged by, or taken notice of among themselves as a body. The first, that of Priestley, having the priority in point of time, and perhaps the majority in point of numbers (although I am not sure of that), but at any rate it was so. The second school, that of Channing, gaining ground, more adapted to the age, and of a more Catholic spirit. The principal distinction between them lies in the estimate and the regard they have for the character of Christ. They agree together on one point, and differ alike from the popular orthodox opinion, in holding that whatever wisdom and power and goodness distinguished Jesus from the other sons of men, it was derived from and subordinate to the Almighty Father-for which doctrine they think with all Unitarians, that we have the most. express testimony which language can convey, in the terms Jesus himself most frequently, or rather more generally used on the subject. But Priestley was of opinion that the character or person of Christ had no existence before the qualifications and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Channing was partial to the idea of preexistence. I think it proper to notice this fact, because it may, in the opinion of some, have contributed to the

greater favour which Channing has met with in these latter times, than Priestley did in former times. In the view of persons attached to polemical divinity, this would of itself make Channing appear the more moderate of the two divines, as Price was considered in the days of Priestley-i.e. in the first of age of Unitarianism. But, for my own part, any preference which I may feel in favour of Channing, does not rest upon his opinion concerning the pre-existence. It is to the moral and intellectual and spiritual character of Christ, and to the superior attention it received from Channing, to which I wish to point notice. That is a thing which may be understood and valued independently of any opinion we may entertain about the constitution of his person, as it has been called. This was Channing's own idea, and here was a real difference between the two. Priestley attached a high importance to his theory and opinion about the simple humanity of Jesus, therefore treated it somewhat in the spirit of a sectarian and polemic. Channing, attaching no great importance to the particular theory of pre-existence on the topic of the person of Christ, was therefore more charitable, more catholic, and more ready to devote his mind to other views of his character, provided they were not inconsistent with the primary doctrine of the Divine Unity, on which his judgment was clear and decided.

Perhaps some of your readers may ask what is my authority for ascribing these views to Channing? I do not recollect that he has treated on the subject expressly in any of his publications, but his opinions may be gathered from the general style of his remarks on sundry occasions, when he speaks of the moral character of Christ. I have before me, however, a private letter, in which he expressly mentions his views; and as a key to the more general and desultory remarks in his publications, perhaps some extracts from such private document may interest your readers.

"I cannot accord with the theory you refer to (respecting the person of Christ). I have always inclined to the doctrine of pre-existence, though I am not insensible to the weight of your objections. * My mind has been turned from the controversy about

*

*

Christ's person, as it has been called, although I acknowledge its importance. His spirit, his distinguishing moral attributes, the purposes of his mission,-these topics are so interesting as to draw me from controversy. On these, I am happy to find so much accordance between us."-Extract from a letter of Dr Channing, dated 31st March 1832.

Now, these practical views of the character of Christ, expanded and illustrated as they are, by such discourses as Channing has published on "The internal evidence of Christianity," and on "The love of Christ," give us a far more lively, impressive, and amiable idea of what Jesus was, than all the conceits of scholastic theologians about his supposed eternal generation, his essence or substance being the same with the Father's, yet distinct, not made, nor created, but begotten, incomprehensible, one of three Almighties in a certain sense, while there is only one Almighty in another sense, &c. &c. We can have no practical conception of character or relation to us, from the accummulation and wire-weaving of such definitions. They do not present us with the image of a moral being, having a claim on our love, our faith, and confidence. If the Christ of the schools has any such moral claims, they arise from other circumstances -from his sufferings, his actions, and his offices, displayed on the earth, and not drawn from the mystery of eternity. Accordingly, in the Athanasian Creed, after attempting to define the faith as consisting in specific views of these abstractions, it has to fall back upon the history of what Christ was and did on the earth, after the manner of the more ancient creed, called the Apostolic, and which, we may remark, is just an abstract of what Jesus did and suffered in the world.

In this way, even the orthodox are obliged to take up views of the character of Christ, to which the unsophisticated mind of man will respond; but this is in spite of their own peculiar system and taste, which is all in favour of the metaphysical ideas. But Unitarians can take up the moral and spiritual views of Christ's character with more advantage and consistency, being unfettered by the mysticism of the metaphysical theology. This Channing has done, not indeed systemati

cally and designedly, in reference to the question as regards the merits of orthodoxy, but substantially and successfully in the way of appeal to the better sentiments of our nature, and the capabilities of the subject. Thom and Martineau have incidentally done the same thing; and this style of treating the topic of Christ's character is gaining ground. This is as it should be ; but it might promote the progress and effect of the movement, if its advantages were more considered, and the means of promoting it farther discussed. The contrast between the genius and writings of Priestly and of Channing is one instance in which the subject can be illustrated; and the greater popularity and acceptableness of the latter among other denominations of Christians than the Unitarians, is a proof of the success by which the prevalence of his method and taste might be attended.

SLIGHT SKETCHES OF SCRIPTURE SCENES AND

CHARACTERS.

(Continued from Vol. xvi. p. 516.)

NO. III.-RESTING AT BETHANY.

He seeks not yet Ephraim, that city of the wilderness, which shortly afterwards sheltered his persecuted head from the fury of the priests; but proceeding onward, in the calmness of an untroubled conscience, through those terrific mountain solitudes, the haunt of the robber and the murderer, he has reached the stately Jericho, Jericho, second only in the splendour of her renovated palaces to Zion, the city of the Great King,— Jericho, at that period crowned with palms, blooming with roses, and shedding her precious balsam on the air;* now, alas ! like the proud Jerusalem, once more

"So highly prized was the balsam that, during the war of Titus against the Jews, two fierce conflicts took place for the balsam orchards of Jericho, the last of which was to prevent the Jews from destroying the trees, that the trade might not fall into the enemy's hands. The gardens were taken formal possession of as public property; an imperial guard was appointed to watch