1 ministerial career, as they may hence infer, that this mode of preaching will be the most likely to ensure their popularity and usefulness. But if Mr. Turner only meant the latter, then my reinarks will not apply to these, because, as so much depends on extraneous circumstances, I do not pretend to give an opinion on the best mode of performing them, sorder, however, to understand this subject clearly, it will be necessary to define the terms ive use, or we shall only wage a war of words. By extempore preaching, I mean a discourse delivered without premeditation, or with premeditation, as it respects the matter it contains, but the language in which it is expressed is suggested to the mind of the speaker at the moment of delivery. Any other mode than this I do not call extempore preach. ing, and, of course, should not object to it. I have said that I believe this mode of preaching will not be acceptable to the majority of members of most of our regular congregations; for, although our congregations may not be so numerous as some of the other classes of Dissenters, yet, I think, it will be generally admitted, they contain, according to their numhers, a greater proportion of intelligent hearers; and I cannot conceive that these will be as well satisfied with extempore preaching, as with the present mode, unless it can be supposed that extempore sermons will, in general, be equally as good, in matter and arrangement, as written ones; but this, I believe, the most sanguine advocate of extempore preaching will not undertake to prove. If ministers were only required to address their congregations some few times in the course of a year, some of them, probably, might, by previous preparation, according to Mr. Brougham's recominendations, become as finished orators in the pulpit as any of those who have signalized themselves in the Senate, at the bar, or on the stage. But can there be any comparison instituted between the ministerial profession and any other respecting the frequency of its public addresses? Are not the great majority of ministers, especially among the Dissenters, obliged to address their hearers twice on every Sunday throughout the year? From what other profession is an equal exertion required? If the other professions have their busy times, in which great exertions may be required of them, they have longer intervals of leisure to prepare for them. But, in any other profession which requires much public speaking, how few is the number of those who attain any high degree of eminence as public speakers, compared w with those who scarcely reach the point of mediocrity! But to be able to form some idea what extempore preaching would generally be, we have only to ascertain how this kind of preaching is performed among the other classes of Dissenters, whose preachers generally adopt this mode of preaching; and then we may, próbably, be able to determine whether, setting aside their peculiar doctrines, the members of our different congregations would be satisfied with a similar strain and style of preaching ; for something similar it undoubtedly would be. I willingly acknowledge there are some excellent preachers among those to whom I refer, men of considerable talents and attainments in this mode of preaching; but, it must also be admitted, they are thinly scattered; the great majority cannot be quoted as examples of the excellence of this kind of preaching; and though it may give satisfaction to the members of their different congrega tions, would it satisfy the majority of ours? Do not they, also, overlook or excuse many imperfections in their preachers, if they do not discover any lack in soundness of faith? But would similar imperfections be thus easily passed over among the Unitarians? Do they not, likewise, generally believe that, both in praying and preaching, the preacher receives certain aids and assistances from heaven, Land, therefore, to give utterance to these, he must necessarily speak extempore, or these could not be granted him? They, therefore, readily overlook unday delinquencies against logic and sound sense, too glaring to escape detection; and, if compelled to notice them, it is generally done with this kind of an apology for themy that the preacher depended too much on human aid, and not sufficiently on divine, Bat is this belief prevalent among the Unitarians, and would they thus reu-dily excuse the blunderings of their preachers? ceive to be new or strange doctrines. They do not hear from him any doe trine contrary to what they have been taught to believe to be true, if they have received any religious instruction. They may have heard the same general doctrines from their fathers, and the same they know are believed and avowed by the Established Church, to which by profession they belong. There is not, therefore, any opposition of sentiment between them on doctrinal subjects. But how changed is the case respecting the Unitarian! What opposition from ignorance and prejudice has he not to encounter and remove, before he can plant a single grain of Unitarianism, or excite any attention to it! But we are not now discussing the best mode of propagating our peculiar sentiments where they are not known, or the best mode of preaching for a missionary preacher, but that which will be the best for the instruction, edification, and prosperity of our regular congregations; and this, I believe, will not be extempore preaching.000 doodle not d to omoa es PLAIN TRUTH. 29828lo odlo It may, perhaps, be said that I take it for granted, that extempore preaching must necessarily be imperfectly done, and that written sermons, of course, are excellent. But this is not the case. I acknowledge, that extempore preaching may, occasionally, be well done, and thus produce a considerable effect on those who hear it; all that I contend for is, that if it were generally adopted, it would not be as well done, or give that satisfaction to the great majority of Unitarians, as the present mode of preaching now does: why, therefore, should it be changed Nor do I pretend to say that all written sermons are excellent. Some of these, it is well known, cannot be highly extolled. And much, perhaps, cannot be said in favour of those that are hastily put together; especially, if done after tea-time, on a Saturday evening, which is about all the time that some sermon-writers pretend to take for the composition of a sermon: some of these will not be much superior to a common extempore sermon. But, if our young ministers were advised to adhere to the writing of sermons, brather than to yame attempt extempore preaching, the probability is, we should have better Critical Synopsis of the Monthly ReIsermons, and such as would give more pository for November, 1824. HISTORY OF THE IRISH far as they can be collected, are as favour of written sermons; for, where the experiment of extempore preaching has been tried among the Unitarians, it has not been generally approved. Seriously, therefore, would I advise those young men who have been Sinduced to attempt this mode of preaching, to return to the other, in which they have merited the approabation of those that heard them, while their extempore effusions have not given oequal satisfaction, know there are some among us who think from the great success which the Methodists in particular have obtained bin making proselytes, which success has generally been attributed to their popular mode of preaching, that if Unitarians would adopt the same style 1of preaching, they would be equally las successful in making converts to Abeir peculiar opinions. But the cases are very dissimilar When a Metho-dist goes forth to preach, he does not carry to his hearers what they con Mr. Cogan on the Greek Article. There are several points of sound and interesting criticism in this communication, but the thread is rather obscurely conducted through them. I am struck by the following rule: "It is worthy of observation, that the epistolary writers of the New Testament do not commonly use the article with an attributive standing before the name of Jesus Christ, when such an attributive is introduced by a conjunction, the word so having preceded." The peculiar influence of the circumstance stated in this last clause is certainly very curious. Would no other word but as have the same effect? Unitarian critics are bound to investigate the nature and rationale of this rule, if it can possibly be done. Essay on the incidental Communication of Religious Knowledge to the Young, contains much good sense. Mr. Worsley on Unitarian Missionary Preaching. Some of this advice I should think excellent. I regret to see some too contemptuous expressions coming from such a quarter. Reports well enough got up." What a fine bone for the enemies of Unitarianism to pick! The custom of sending out desultory missionaries might be injudicious if continued indefinitely. But under certain circumstances, I can conceive of nothing more useful to the cause at large than these explorers and pioneers. Even if they get pelted with mud, it is a fact worth knowing. And if any where they are respectfully listened to by considerable numbers, it is better still. ago American Roman Catholics. Years have I often heard the excellent Catholic Bishop Cheverus, formerly of Boston, read one of the regular prayers of his Church, in which the President of the United States, by name, with all others in authority, were commended to the especial bless ing of God. Dr. J. Jones on Mark and Lake, exhibits, in many things, the usual acuteness of his penetration. But has he not deceived himself in his argument for the "internal evidence" that Luke was one of those who went to Emmaus? Although Luke "in three places uses the first for the third person," yet does not the context sufficiently shew that he is relating the conversation of other persons besides himself? The remarks on the identity of Mark and Cleopas are to me somewhat confused. Dr. Jones has poured more valuable light on St. Paul's, precepts re specting anger. た 錯 Persecution of Elias Hickes. The readers of the Repository will be glad to learn that Elias Hickes and his cause are making triumphant pro gress among his sect at New York. At their General Meeting the last spring, Unitarian preaching and libe ral measures overwhelmingly prevailed. The Unitarians of this denomination, however, stand decidedly aloof from those of all others. In deed, Elias Hickes, though he now extensively reads our publications, arrived at his present views solely by his own unassisted reflections and perusal of the Scriptures. Probably not a hundredth part of his followers know any thing of the great controversy that is prevailing in the Christian world at large. John Griscom, one of the sect, a Professor in the Columbia College, at New York, and author of a very intelligent book of Travels in Great Britain, still retains the faith of Trinitarians. In the towns of New Bedford and Lynn, in Massachusetts, two flourishing Unitarian congregations possess a gene rous proportion of regular worshipers, who but a short time since were the highly-respected followers of Penn. Rammohun Roy. An edition of his writings is now going through the press in New York. Mr. Bakewell in Reply to Dr. Smith. The lovers of light and pleasant reading must feel el an obligation to these two gentlemen for the enter tainment and instruction which has been furnished by them during the past year. They have very much enlarged our knowledge of the state of things in Geneva; and they have taught both us and themselves the lesson, how differently may the saine object, appear to different minds, when seen from different points of view, and coloured by different prejudices and ha bits of thought. When Dr. Smith reproached the Genevese pastors for preaching moral sermons, did he forget the sermons of Barrow on Industry? I do think it shews the excessive barrenness of what the e orthodox have to say against us, when they resort, as they so frequently do, to the wretchedly futile charge of our preaching and listening to moral discourses and sermons, in which Jesus Christ is not expressly named, &c. One cause, I' suspect, of the animosity of Calvinists against modern Geneva, is, the admirable system of catechetical instruction which is in such active operation there. It must somewhat excite their jealousy to see their own instruments and apparatus of defence so successfully employed by their opponents. The systematic efforts which are at this moment making for the instruction of the young by so called "orthodox Christians in America are prodigious. Each little Sunday-School Committee is not contented with labouring in its own private sphere; but there is a great rage among them to generalize and nationalize the business, and make it present an imposing front by enlisting numbers in the cause, and uniting distant communities and different sects in the pursuit of one object. Our peculiar federative constitution of government, leads us perhaps into these ambitious whimsies. They parade thousands and thousands of youths through the streets, with badges and banners, on anniversary days, and assume the dangerous title of National Sunday School, &c. Verily these children of light are growing wise in generation. Yet I see not much to fear ultimately in their mighty operations. The Assembly's Catechism is no longer the text-book among a majority of the schools. Lessons of scripture are committed to memory, and books, I believe, are generally used, which, though in inany points exceptionable, are not quite so injurious in their tendency as the old Westminster farrago of incompre hensible metaphysics and absurd theology. To the eye of philosophy and experience, many a Calvinist Sunday. School is now a sweet and gentle and pliable little nursery of future sturdy, independent, thinking Unitarians." Dr. Smith in Reply to Mr. Bake well. What a pity that these gentlemen should so widely differ as to the chief object" of Dr. Smith's argument! Diverging thus at the very central point, it is no wonder that the farther they have proceeded, the farther they have seemed to depart from each other. Feeble, oh, feeble, art thou, Dr. Smith, in thy argument, (numbered I,) to shew that M. Malan did not violate the Consistory's Regulation! Silence would have been a better way of backing thy friends than this. Where is the mighty inspiration and superior unction in the extract from that preacher's writings on p. 669 ? Passages, equally eloquent, pious, and sound, might be found in many an Unitarian's sermons. I do not think the passage is in perfectly good taste. It possesses that strained aim after merely rhetorical effect, so common among the French divines. Dr. Smith's next argument (2) is strong. In Arg. 3 is an unhandsome insinuation, as if the present Genevese clergy did not "adorn their Christian profession by the fidelity of their preaching, and the purity of their conduct. Whatever may be their sp speculative errors on metaphysical and critical subjects, it seems cruelly uncandid thus to impeach the very spring of their internal motives, and to throw a stigma on their moral characters. The distinctions run between religious toleration and religious approval are very well. But Dr. Smith should recollect, that toleration may be 'violated by the manner in which those doctrines are condemned which cannot be approved, ་་ After all, this Monsieur Malan, I fear, is acquiring an importance by the present controversy," which scarcely belongs to him. Dr. Smith and all of us will ere long probably be ashamed that we ever took any concern about the yearly receipts and expenditures of a noisy sectary and boarding-housekeeper. We shall wonder how we could ever have pondered on his "outfit of beds and furniture," or felt perplexed to know whether he employed two, or three domestic servants. The lovers of theological scandal and domestic investigation will, no doubt, be glad if Dr. Griscom, of New York, and some English traveller in the United States will treat them next year with a Correspondence in the Repository respecting Elias Hickes, and his persecutions, and household style of living. Dr. Smith asks if Mr. Bakewell "is ignorant that the very word salvation means deliverance from sin." This is coming round sweepingly to Arminianism and liberal interpretation, and lowering the old terrific images with which Calvinism has so long and often essayed to move the world. And how the doctrine of Final Perseverance is frittered away by this accommodating writer! It amounts then to a mere truism. Unitarians, and all other men of good sense, I should presume, must admit in the main the representations of it here made. There is a poor catch in the reasoning on p. 674, beginning with " He that believeth on me," &c. These expressions contain not a promise of perseverance to those who believe, but a promise of everlasting life to those who perseveringly believe. The doctrine of final perseverance, I imagine, has nothing to do with them. All that about "the salt of the land" in Edinburgh and other Calvinistic cities, is still purely a begging of the question. It takes for granted the very fact that Mr. Bakewell disputes. But Calvinists are so fond of applying to themselves the scriptural expression "Salt of the earth," that, I dare say, Mr. Smith's argument with himself, instead of being pointless, passes for self-evident. Mr. Belsham on Dr. Channing's Attempt to delineate Dr. Priestley's Character. I am not disposed to defend the entire breadth of Dr. Channing's remarks on Dr. Priestley; but the present writer's generous jealousy causes him, I think, to magnify the wound inflicted on the reputation of his departed friend. Although Dr. Priestley might have regarded innovation as improvement, yet so do all innovators, and this is a weak defence against the charge of Dr. Channing. As to the French theory of chemistry, it was opposite to his own; and may not this have been the cause of his reluctance to adopt it? The next charge is not very heavy, and is a mere matter of critical opinion; and the next is very feebly replied to. As regards the allegation of a deficiency in inoral enthusiasm in Priestley, I apprehend Dr. Channing will he well borne out. Undoubtedly, Dr. Priestley had a certain kind of enthusiasm, which prompted him to pursue the truth fearlessly, and to suffer for it manfully. But, surely, his best friends must allow, that in the capacity of religious teacher, or leader of a party, he possessed no vivid enthusiasm. He was rigidly didactic and demonstrative in all his writing and preaching, but there was little, if any, warmth in his exhortations, and no high tone of sensibility in his reflections. This was probably all that Dr. Channing could mean. American Unitarians can easily inform Mr. Belsham, that if Dr. Priestley, in his first sermons at Philadelphia, had displayed more "moral enthusiasm,” and less of the mere uncompromising ardour of the contoversialist, there would have been an earlier, broader, and more central basis laid for Unitarianism in America. In closely examining Dr. C.'s remarks on Priestley's anti-supernatu ralism, I find no positive charge, but every thing tenderly, sparingly and dubiously said. The amount of it only is, that Priestley was liable to be "swayed" in his speculations by the scrupulous spirit of his age, and knowing that there is something infinitely valuable in Christianity, he was inclined to hope that it would be rendered "more credible;" not by sweeping away its miraculous character, surely, but by excluding from it the supernatural as much as possible ;" that is, as much as the truth could bear. I think it not worth while to touch upon several other points in the body of this communication, since they rather involve some matters of metaphysical theology and biblical criticism, than a direct impeachment of Dr. Priestley's Christian and moral temperament, or any misapprehension of Dr. C.'s terms on the part of his critic. Mr. Belsham does not appear to me to have considered with proper |