Copyright by the editor, Hal Morris, Secaucus, NJ 1997. Permission is granted to copy, but not for sale, nor in multiple copies, except by permission.
Jacksonian Miscellanies is a weekly* email newsletter presenting short** documents from the United States' Jacksonian Era, which you can receive it for free by sending to firstname.lastname@example.org a message with
as either the subject line, or as the *only* line in the message body. If you want to make a comment or query, please send a separate message to email@example.com.
((* Biweekly in the summer
** Typically 10-20 pages of printed text))
Jacksonian Miscellanies can also be read at http://www.panix.com/~hal/jmisc. The WWW version is augmented with much biographical, bibliographical, and other information.
Please direct responses and comments to firstname.lastname@example.org,.
The following is an episode in one of the "pamphlet" wars on theology that were common in America in the early 19th century.
In 1805, when the Unitarian minister Henry Ware was made Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard, the Orthodoxy gave the institution up for lost. This lead to the foundation of a conservative theological seminary at Andover, which made Leonard Woods its first professor of theology (he served for the next 38 years).
In 1820, Dr. Woods reacted strongly to William Ellery Channing's ordination sermon for Jared Sparks -- a famous statement of the Unitarian position. Over the next two years, Henry Ware defended Channing; Dr. Woods counterattacked, and the book from which the following it taken resulted. The whole episode was nicknamed the "Wood 'n' Ware Controversy".
This section of Ware's argument consists, in large part, of a cogent critique of Woods' mode of attack. He bitingly compares the orthodox to materialist philosophers in their denial of free will: "I know, indeed, that Hume, Godwin, and others, who hold some philosophical positions in common with the orthodox, ... confound together physical and moral qualities..."; he draws the conclusion that the orthodox argument, like that of Godwin, will lead to the conclusion that "the murderer is no more to be blamed than the dagger." Like both Hayne and Webster, in their 1830 "debate", he makes witty analogy to warfare: "It is sometimes the policy of inferior combatants to carry the war into a quarter, where there is no opposition.", while illustrating the elaborate feigned deferrence of the era's debating style, when he follows that up with "But such a motive and design cannot be attributed in the present case." No indeed; our worth opponent Dr. Woods would never stoop so low!
Occasion of the present publication. State of the controversy.
Manner of conducting it. Charge of inconsistency answered. Agreement between
some orthodox and infidel writers. Another charge of inconsistency answered.
Statement of the question at issue on the subject of depravity corrected.
WHEN I published nearly two years ago, "Letters addressed to Trinitarians
and Calvinists,'' it was my hope not to be called upon to pursue any further
the discussions, in which they were employed. But the Reply of Dr. Woods
to those Letters, which is now before the public, has rendered it proper
for me, I think, to offer some further thoughts on the several subjects
of discussions and remarks on his manner of treating them. I shall accordingly
address to you a few additional Letters in which I hope to be able to satisfy
you, that the state of the controversy is not changed, and that the great
points at issue between us remain, as they stood before. My opponent had
doubtless good reason to felicitate himself as he does, (p. 6) "on
the benefit he could derive from the frankness," (he might have added,
perhaps, want of controversial skill and caution) of the person. with whom
he was contending. Though I trust to be able to show, that the benefit
is to himself only, as an accomplished disputant, and not, as he flatters
himself, to the cause he maintains. That will be found to derive less advantage
from the circumstance, than he seems to promise himself.
I think it necessary, in the outset, to remind you of the state of the
controversy, because you are otherwise in danger of losing sight of the
points at issue, and of having your attention directed to subordinate circumstances,
which are so apt, in the course of discussion, to be allowed to take their
place. For this purpose I must call your attention to the origin and progress
of the discussion.
The occasion, in which it originated, was a Discourse delivered by Dr.
Channing at the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Sparks at Baltimore, in May
1819. A part of that Discourse, in which the doctrines of Calvinism were
spoken of, was attacked by Dr. Woods, who complained that the doctrines
referred to were misrepresented, professing at the same time to give a
correct statement of them, as they are now held in this country by those,
who assume for their system the title of Orthodoxy; and undertaking also
to defend them, as constituting the true system of christianity, agreeing
with our experience and clearly taught by Revelation.
The important points of doctrine, you will recollect, which he maintained
in a series of Letters addressed to Unitarians, were, The total depravity
of human nature, particular personal election, atonement by the death of
Christ, and the necessity of special divine influence in producing holiness.
Those Letters were published in the spring of 1820. In the month of
August of the same year, the writer of these pages attempted an answer
to them in Letters addressed to Trinitarians and Calvinists. In those letters
he endeavored to show, that the doctrines of orthodoxy, as stated by Dr.
Woods, were not taught in the bible, were not supported by experience,
and could not be reconciled with the moral character of God. The writer,
at the same time, took occasion to state distinctly, his own particular
views upon each of the several subjects in controversy.
In the book which furnishes my apology for addressing you once more
in these Letters, Dr. Woods has appeared again in defence of the doctrines
maintained in his former publication, and in reply to the objections, which
I had urged against them. With what degree of success, you will be able
to judge, after having read what he has written, and what I have now to
allege in answer.
Nothing will be found, I am persuaded, which, upon a fair examination,
will be thought to affect the evidence of any one of the main articles
in the scheme of scriptural divinity, which I endeavored to support in
my Letters. The reader, who gives himself the trouble to make the necessary
comparison of passages referred to, will perceive, without the aid of these
pages, that although Dr. Woods has been able to fasten some apparent inconsistencies
and absurdities, and perhaps you will think after all that can be said,
some real ones upon his antagonist; they are yet of such a nature, as not
to affect at all the truth of the points at issue. but only the conclusiveness
of my reasoning upon them? or still more frequently the propriety of some
term or phrase which I have employed. They serve to show, not the weakness
of the cause, but that its strength has not been fully displayed; not that
the Unitarian doctrines are incapable of a fair support but that the best
support has not been given them, of which they are capable.
It accordingly makes a part of my present design to show, that whatever advantage Dr. Woods may seem to have obtained in detecting apparent inconsistencies in the explanation and defence of the Unitarian doctrines the evidence of the doctrines is not affected.
But I hope also to do more than this. I hope to satisfy you, and I think I shall be able to do it, that the inconsistencies so ingeniously detected and so faithfully displayed are, in general, if not in every instance, apparent only; and that they will disappear upon a fair presentation of the true meaning of the passages, from a comparison of which they were drawn.
I mean not by this to intimate any unfair or dishonorable intentions
in Dr. Woods. I will not allow myself to believe him capable of any intentional
argumentative unfairness. I only mean, that in the discussion of religious
or moral subjects for popular use, one can hardly employ words with such
philosophical exactness and so constantly guard against objection that
metaphysical subtlety shall not be able to bring together expressions,
which seem to be irreconcileable with each other. And there is certainly,
at first view, something extremely imposing, and apt to make a strong impression,
in an array of inconsistencies and contradictions spread before one in
strong relief and in broad characters. Our first thought is, that little
reliance is to be placed on a writer, who so exposes himself. Yet, in reality,
there is nothing, perhaps, upon which we have less reason to depend. For
suppose, all that can be asked, the inconsistency to be as great in reality,
as it seems to be; what does it prove?- not that the cause is a bad one,
but only that it is unskillfully or carelessly managed;-not that the doctrine
is false, but that the evidence of its truth has been less successfully
stated than it might have been. But we are not usually required to admit
so much as this. Such is the imperfection of language, and such the real
difficulty of some subjects of speculation, that, as I have before observed,
it is scarcely possible for words to be used with such accuracy and precision,
and with such care, that a vigilant and acute antagonist shall not be able
to discover inconsistencies, which may be so presented, as to seem of considerable
importance. I could illustrate this by a hundred instances taken from the
sacred writers, where we are constantly called to reconcile apparent contradictions;
and where, by the fairest modes of interpretation, we are able to do it
with entire satisfaction without prejudice either to the writer or the
doctrine. It would have been no difficult task to discover apparent inconsistencies
in the book, which I had occasion to notice in my former Letters. But had
I pursued that course, the author would doubtless have charged me, and
I know not how I could have repelled the charge, with a disposition to
cavil, rather than reason; and would probably have been able to show, that
a little more patient and impartial attention to the subject, or a little
more argumentative fairness, would have presented to me a meaning, that
implied no absurdity and was chargeable with no contradiction.
With these preliminary remarks, I now invite your attention to the several
charges of inconsistency to which, in the book before me, I am represented
to have exposed myself, in my statements of the Unitarian doctrine, and
reasonings respecting it.
The first that I shall notice is contained in the passage in pp. 13 to 17 inclusive, and refers to p. 26 in the Letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists, compared with pp. 20, 31 and 41, of the same. *
* I refer always to the pages of the octavo edition of the Letters.
Upon looking at these several passages with a reference to the alleged
inconsistency, my first thought was, that I might safely leave the subject
without any explanatory remarks, only requesting you to read the whole
of the several passages attentively; assured that you could not fail to
perceive, that it only offers a remarkable instance of an appearance of
inconsistency produced by a dexterous juxtaposition of separate passages,
where a careful examination of the subject only is needed to show, that
no real inconsistency exists.
But lest there should be any readers, who may not have the patience
to recur to passages and their connexion, and make the requisite examination,
or may not have the means of doing it, or may be insensible of the need
of doing it, not aware how liable a fair and honourable disputant, of peculiar
talents, turn of mind, and habits of speculation may be to impose upon
himself and thus upon his reader by his own ingenuity; it seems necessary
for me to take the labour upon myself by showing where the fallacy lies
in the present case, and in several others which follow.
The inconsistency with which I am charged (Dr. Woods' Reply, p.. 16)
amounts to this, and this only, though it is again and again brought to
view, and placed in different points of light, viz. That while in the formal
statement of the doctrine, which I meant to maintain respecting the natural
state of man, I assert, that man is by nature free from all moral corruption,
as well as destitute of positive holiness, by nature no more inclined to
sin than to virtue, and equally capable in the ordinary use of his faculties,
and faith the common assistance afforded him, of either; yet, in discussing
the subject, I several times say what implies, that by their natural
birth men become moral, have a moral disposition or character, which is
good or holy in such a sense, as to entitle them to the Saviour's complacency,
and make them heirs of his kingdom.
Now, by reading the whole passage and applying the principles of interpretation,
which we usually apply when we discover an apparent contradiction between
two sentences of a writer of any character for common sense and consistency;
you will be satisfied, that had my ingenious friend as faithfully taxed
his ingenuity to ascertain the real meaning of the writer in the passage
before him, as he has done to detect and present to view an alleged inconsistency,
he would have saved me, himself, and the reader some waste of labour and
time. For, notwithstanding what is so repeatedly insinuated, that he was
at a loss what my real opinion was, and what was the position, that I meant
to maintain, he will nothe cannot deny, that in the direct statement of
my opinion on the subject, there is no ambiguity, no room for any reader
to be at a loss, what is the precise position, which I meant to maintain.
It is, as I have before stated, That man is by nature, that is, as he
is born into the world, equally free from sin and destitute of holiness,
no more inclined to vice than to virtue, and equally capable, in the ordinary
use of his faculties, and with the common assistance afforded him, of either.
And this position, you will recollect, is maintained in opposition
to the doctrine of orthodoxy on the same subject, which is, "That
man is by nature, that is, as he is born into the world, totally depraved,
inclined only to evil, and wholly incapable of any good inclination or
motion, until such inclination or motion is produced by an irresistible
act of the spirit of God."
Now, in support of my own position, and in opposition to that of orthodoxy,
among other arguments, I took occasion to apply that, which is drawn from
the earliest indications of character in children. But in speaking of the
innocence, gentleness, kindness, and love of truth in children am I to
be charged with asserting or implying, that they are holy by nature,
in contradiction to the express assertion at the head of the argument?
Consider only what the nature of the argument required. Dr. Woods' position
is, that human beings come; into existence totally depraved, inclined
only to evil. If this be the truth, the earliest indications of character
in children ought to be evil only, unmingled wickedness, sin without alloy.
My position, on the other hand, is, that human beings come into existence
innocent, and without any greater bias to sin than to holiness; not inclined
to holiness only, nor did I say to holiness more than to sin. If this
be the truth, the earliest indications of character will be of a mixed
nature; and at an early period, as soon indeed as the child becomes capable
of moral action, we shall be likely to find in its dispositions and in
its character as much of that which is good, as of that which is evil.
This, I endeavored to show, is in fact the case, and that our doctrine
is fully confirmed by experience. I confined myself, indeed, chiefly to
the mention of amiable traits and virtuous tendencies; because those of
an opposite nature, not being questioned by the orthodox, it was unnecessary
Now, as it was the object of my argument to show, that whatever early
indications there are of bad dispositions or bad tendencies, they are to
be attributed to other causes, and furnish no proof of original native
depravity; when l had occasion to speak of good dispositions, and good
tendencies, common courtesy, one would have thought, should have saved
me from the charge of asserting or implying, original native holiness,
even although it had not been, as it had, expressly disclaimed. My real
meaning must have been perfectly obvious to every reader. It was what the
argument required, viz. that the early indications of what is good in children
proves, not that they are holy by nature, but only, that they are not
totally depraved, since, if they were, none of those indications could
have existed. With this explanation in your mind, read the passage, which
I have referred to, and you will perceive, that all appearance of inconsistency
But I have not yet done with the passage. In my former publication,
I had mentioned as proofs, that the nature of man is not totally depraved,
that innocence, simplicity, and purity are characteristics of early
life; that veracity, kindness, good will, flow from the natural feelings,
and that the infant mind early discovers affection, attachment, gratitude
toward those from whom it receives kindness. The correctness of this
statement of the characteristics of early life, far from being denied by
Dr. Woods, is expressly admitted. "These," he says, after quoting
them, "are charming names, and I am sensible that charming qualities
of human nature are denoted by them." But are innocence, purity
veracity, kindness, gratitude and good will, qualities that denote a nature
totally depraved, inclined only to evil? What then must be the qualities,
that shall denote a nature free from depravity? Will you say, the opposite
qualities, impurity, deceit, unkindness, ingratitude, illwill? I had
not asserted, nor was it implied in any thing I did assert, that either
or all of these were sufficient alone to constitute a holy man,
or, that nothing more than these was required; but I did suppose that they
made a part, and an important part of that character, which constitutes
conformity to the moral law, and renders him to whom it belongs holy, and
acceptable to God.
Nor did I think of comparing these qualities, as Dr. Woods has done,
(p. 13) with "beauty of complexion and features, sprightliness of
temper, and activity of limbs.'' I knew, indeed, that Hume, Godwin, and
others, who hold some philosophical opinions in common with the orthodox,
do, on the ground of those opinions and as their legitimate consequence,
confound together physical and moral qualities, and assert, that there
is as much good desert in a well formed body, as in a well regulated mind
or heart; and upon the same principle, that there is no more guilt or blameworthiness
in the murderer, than in the instrument with which he perpetrates the bloody
deed. But I had always supposed, that when the Orthodox were charged with
these opinions, as the legitimate tendency of their doctrine of human nature,
and necessarily connected with it, they would deny the charge, and consider
it as a slanderous misrepresentation. And I am at once surprised and sorry
to meet with expressions in the book before me, which expose the author
to the charge in a manner, which I do not perceive how he is to repel.
for if there is no more good desert in innocence, veracity, gratitude and
kindness, than in personal beauty, there can be no more guilt in falsehood,
ingratitude, or cruelty, than in personal deformity; and he who asserts
this need not hesitate to go the length of Godwin,that the murderer is
no more to be blamed than the dagger.
A charge of inconsistency of a similar nature occurs, (p. 30) which,
by turning to the passage in my Letters, to which it refers, you will perceive
has as little foundation as the other.
In proof of the general position, which I have before repeated, viz.
that mankind come into the world innocent and pure, objects of the complacency
of the Creator, and no more inclined by nature to sin than to holiness;
no more disposed to hate and disobey, than to love and obey their
Maker, I had urged the manner in which little children are spoken of
by our Savior and by St. Paul. Suffer little children to come unto mefor
of such is the kingdom of God. Except ye be converted and become as little
children &c. I asked, if they were depraved, destitute of holiness,
averse from all good, inclined to evil only, enemies of God, subjects
of his wrath, justly liable to all punishments, could our Savior declare
respecting them, of such is the kingdom of God? In this sentence
the acute and vigilant eye of Dr. Woods has fixed itself on the unlucky
phrase destitute of holiness, as implying a contradiction to what
I had elsewhere said, and what my scheme every where implies, that men
do not possess by birth that character of personal holiness, and positive
virtue which is necessary to their being christians &c.
Now I am ready to admit, if you will insist in contradiction to the
whole tenor of this passage, in which it stands, and to the main position,
which I had so often repeated, and stated so explicitly, that I must have
used the word holiness here in its technical sense, the charge of
inconsistency will lie against me. And what is the consequence? Only this,
that I have used a phrase, which expresses a meaning, that I did not intend
to express, and which every reader, not excepting Dr. Woods himself, perceives
that I did not intend. In the sense, therefore, whether proper or not,
in which it was evidently used, no contradiction or inconsistency is implied.
So far as the alleged contradiction consists in the representation of
little children as belonging to the kingdom of God. I shall not
be held answerable for the propriety of the terms, as I only use the words,
that were used by our Savior. Nor do I perceive what is gained or lost
by Dr. Woods in adopting the interpretation of Rosenmuller, and understanding
the text to mean, not that children belong to the kingdom of God, but
that members of Christ's kingdom must be like little children. For
upon this interpretation, equally with the other, little children are supposed
to have some qualities, which are essential to those, who are to become
christians. They have then some good qualities-are not totally depravedare
not inclined only to evil
Dr. Woods, however, endeavours to prove, that our Saviour's recommendation
of children as objects of imitation to his disciples does not imply (p..
37) "that children possess any moral excellence or goodness, like
that excellence or goodness of christians, which is meant to be set forth
by the comparison;" because christians are in a similar manner, for
the purpose of illustration, likened to sheep, lambs, doves; and it is
asked, "do sheep, lambs, and doves possess moral excellence?"
They are compared also, it is said, "to salt, light, and the branches
of a vine." But to the whole reasoning and appeal in this passage,
specious as it seems at first view, a single consideration may be opposed,
which will suffice to show, that it has no weight. It is this, that every
such illustration by a comparison is to be interpreted according to the
nature of the subject in discussion and of the object of comparison. When
christians are compared to a vine &c. we are very certain, that it
cannot refer to any intellectual or moral quality in the vine, because
a vine is in its nature incapable of such a quality; but are we hence to
infer, that there is no reference to moral qualities, when a child is the
subject of comparison, who is capable of such qualities? Some degree
of presumption at least, that moral qualities were referred to, one would
think was to be drawn from the very circumstance, that a subject was made
choice of for the illustration, which was capable of moral qualities. And
we should be confirmed in the opinion, that it certainly was so, if, as
in the present case, the whole transaction clearly indicated, that moral,
and only moral qualities were in the mind of the speaker. Dr. Woods, however,
is of a different opinion. He thinks they are not moral, but natural qualities.
And he says, (p.. 40) "The plain truth is, that the amiable natural
qualities, which distinguish little children, are made use of to illustrate
the amiable moral qualities, which ought to belong to christians."
You will here doubtless wish with me to learn, what are the names of those
moral qualities of christians, which are said to resemble, and are
represented by the natural qualities of children. The amiable natural
qualities, which, it is not denied, belong to children, are innocence,
purity, veracity, kindness, gratitude, &c. You will wish to know what
are the amiable moral qualities of christians, which these represent,
and whether they are known by other names than innocence, purity, veracity,
&c. You will think it also a singular concession in one, who professes
to maintain the doctrine of total native depravity, that the qualities
above mentioned are the natural qualities of children; that beings by nature
destitute of all good, and inclined only to evil, are yet by nature kind,
grateful, pure, innocent, and true; i.e. have the very qualities which,
in christians, are moral qualities.
It is important for me here to call your attention to an incorrectness
in Dr. Woods' statement of the question at issue on the subject of depravity;
because it is a circumstance, by which the reasoning in this and the following
chapters is materially affected. He says, (p. 13) " The real question
is, whether holy love to God and man is the first moral affection, which
human beings generally exercise after they become moral agents, and are
expressly informed what God requires of them." Now this is so far
from being the real question, that it has made no part of the question
between us. It has neither been asserted nor denied; nor do I know, that
the affirmative is maintained by any one. The real question at issue is
a different one. It is not, whether the first moral affection be generally
holy, but whether it be always unholy; not whether holy love
to God and men be the invariable or general characteristic
of our first affections; but whether our first affections and inclinations
be evil, and evil only. You perceive the wide difference
of these questions. With the former I have no concern. The latter was opposed
in my former letters, as being supported neither by scripture nor experience;
and it is the only point to which Dr. Woods' defence ought now to have
been directed. Why he has chosen to direct it to another point, about which
there has been no controversy, he will doubtless be able to say. It is
sometimes the policy of inferior combatants to carry the war into a quarter,
where there is no opposition. But such a motive and design cannot be attributed
in the present case.