same. But the Jews did not misunderstand Christ. He himself declares that they understood him, and that this was the cause of their opposition to him. Ye have seen and hated both me and my Father.' They hated me without a cause.' 'I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.' 'If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.' He represents also the opposition of the Jews, as produced by a criminal state of heart, common to man, and which would perpetuate, to other ages, opposition to the gospel. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.' We come then to the same conclusion as before. The gospel as preached by Christ and his apostles produced a great variety of objections. The evangelical system as preached in these days, produces the same objections. Therefore the evangelical system and the gospel are the same. they did, a majority of the nation the evangelical system are the misunderstood; and as " Unitarianism has never prevailed in any country," a majority of mankind in all ages, who have read the gospels and epistles, have misunderstood them. But is it credible that Jesus Christ and his apostles, speaking to their countrymen in the local and popular use of terms, should be misunderstood by a majority of their hearers, and by a majority in every age who have read the New Testament? Did uninspired men ever attempt with such ill success to make themselves understood, as must have attended the efforts of Jesus Christ and his apostles, to teach mankind? I have another question to ask. If the Jews, and a majority of mankind have misunderstood the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, how is it to be accounted for, that in all ages they should have misunderstood them so much alike, as to produce the same objections? The reviewer has decided that the gospel, seen under different lights and in different connexions, must encounter other prejudices, raise other difficulties, and start other ob jections. Of course, if evangelical men misunderstand the gospel now, they misunderstand it differently from what the Jews did, and must be supposed to create, by their preaching, different objections. Instead of this, the gospel, as misunderstood by the Jews and by evangelical men, now produces extensively the same objections. But do the same objections lie against different systems of theology? Do the Calvinistic and the Arminian systems produce the same objections? Would two attorneys, replying to an argument which each misunderstood in a different manner, reply to it as if they understood it exactly alike? Only admit that the primitive objections to the gospel, and modern objections to the evangelical system, are the same, and the conclusion is forced upon us, that the gospel and Evasion 4. This respects the argument derived from the classes of men who embraced and rejected the gospel, and who now embrace and reject the evangelical system. In its logical form it stands thus : There was something in the gospel which made it relatively unacceptable to the rich and learned and voluptuous part of the community, and relatively more acceptable to the common people. But the doctrines of the gospel, and the circumstances of rich men and the common people, are substantially the same as in the days of the apostles. That system of doctrine, therefore, which is regarded by the higher classes of society, and by the common people now, as the gospel was regarded in the primitive age, is the gospel. But the evangelical system is treated by the learned and the unlearned, and the rich and the poor, as the gospel was treated in the apostolic age; therefore, the evangelical system is the gospel. This argument the reviewer evades and misrepresents, by saying that it admits the fact, that the gospel will be "more likely to be embraced by men, the more ignorant they are on other subjects, and therefore the more liable to be deceived on this." But my argument contains no such admission. It rests on facts solely, and not on any assumed or implied principle; on facts notorious and undeniable : viz. that the same classes of men rejected, and the same classes gladly received the gospel who do now reject or receive gladly the evangelical system,-implying that the gospel and the evangelical system are the same, from the identity of their effects, on the same classes of men. But if the principle had been assumed, that the common people are in a more favourable condition to judge of moral truth, than men of literary eminence, and of wealth and high station, it would not follow that the more ignorant men are, the more likely are they to see and embrace the truth; any more than it would follow, that because the medium between poverty and riches is a happier condition than great wealth, therefore the poorer a man is, the happier he is. But if we had asserted that the common people were more likely to understand moral truth, than some men of great wealth, and powerful intellect, and great learning, we should have said nothing which would be sneered at, without sneering at the Bible. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." We have mournful evidence in the history of the heathen world, of the renowned exploits of intellect, while midnight rested on the world, in respect to moral truth. Greece and Rome, with their immortality of intellect, and genius, and taste, knew not God, and worshipped idols; and if a man must be converted, and become a little child, before he can enter the kingdom of God, an adequate cause would seem to be disclosed for the fact, that not many mighty, not many noble are called. Indeed, the gospel is so plain, that the poor and the simple may understand it. It is not so plain as to be understood without a sincere, and prayerful attention to it, even by the learned. It is not capacity, so much as honest and prayerful attention, which makes the gospel plain; and this attention, if it be bestowed by the common people, and withheld by philosophers and men of eminence, will make the one ignorant, and the other mighty in the scriptures. And when the books are opened, which contain the record of human actions, perhaps it will be seen, that the pious common people have devoted one hundred times more honest, prayerful attention, to the Bible, than multitudes whose talents and learning have gained them fame and self-confidence in the present life. After all, the true understanding of the Bible depends much upon the moral state of the heart; and great minds have great prejudices and aversions, and if they are not pious, are hindered from embracing the truth by moral causes, which bear a fearful proportion to their great talents, and extensive acquisitions. But the reviewer denies that the aversion of rich men to the gospel, in the primitive age, was produced by any thing in the gospel, to which this class of men are peculiarly opposed, and ASSERTS that it was caused by temptations peculiar to their station in society at that time, and which have since passed away. But the scriptures have decided that there is something in wealth and station, which renders the gospel always relatively offensive to persons of this description: of course the exception of the reviewer fails, and my argument remains unanswered. · Agur prays, give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny thee, and say who is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain,'-contrasting and deprecating alike the temptations of wealth, and of extreme poverty. Let not the rich man glory in his riches.' The rich man's wealth is his strong city.' The rich man answereth roughly.' Labour not to be rich.' The abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.' How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!' Wealth is called the 'mammon of unrighteousness,' so great is its liability to perversion; Woe unto you, ye rich men; for ye have received your consolation.' The cares of the world, and the deceitful ness of riches, sprang up and choked the word.' It was a certain rich man, that projected to pull down and rebuild, the night that his soul was required of him. It is the rich who fall into temptations, and snares, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.' It is the rich man that fadeth away, like grass in his ways. It was the rich who oppressed and persecuted the primitive Christians. It is the rich 6 who are directed to weep and howl for the misery that shall come upon them. It is rich men who weep over Babylon, while heaven and the holy prophets and apostles rejoice. And it is rich men, and mighty men, who cry to the rocks, fall on us; and to the mountains, cover us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne; for the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand! No such language as this is ever held in the Bible towards persons in the common walks of life. These passages show that there is something in wealth and its attendants, learning and station, which renders the selfdenial, required in the gospel, peculiarly difficult at all times to persons of this descrption. The language is not confined to the time of Christ, It begins far back in the Old Testament, and comes down to a period long subsequent to the primitive age. Nor is it difficult to perceive and account for these tendencies of elevated condition, to impede the reception of the gospel. Exalted stations increase self-estimation, and render proportionably offensive the charge of guilt and danger. Intellectual powers augment self-confidence and pride, and increase the reluctance of the heart,to rely implicitly on the testimony of God, and receive his kingdom as a little child. Wealth, and its cares and pleasures, monopolize time, engross thought, captivate affection, prevent attendance on the means of grace, or wholly prevent, or speedily obliterate, their impression. Men of wealth, and taste, and eminence, are unwilling to be preached to, or spoken to, with that earnestness and directness of application, which constitute the chief means of success, in the conviction and conversion of sinners. So that through their pride, and our fear of man, they often do not enjoy the means of grace in the same degree in which they are enjoyed by the common people. Their condition and busi ness in life, bring thein also, more into contact with the world, and less into fellowship with the people of God, than is true of any other class of society :-exposing them to greater temptations, with fewer means of preservation. Wealth, also multiplies the facilities and the temptations to a voluptuous life, while a bad life increases at once the aversion to the gospel and the temptation to irreligion and infidelity. Indeed, if there be on earth a class of men to whom the requisitions of meekness and lowliness of mind, and of temperance and strict morality, must be peculiarly offensive, it must be men of elevated minds, in the higher orders of society, and especially the pleasureloving voluptuous. There are then in the very circumstance of wealth and elevated condition, condition, moral causes of peculiar power, and permanent, universal operation, to render the real gospel of our Lord peculiarly unpalatable. And there was not, as the reviewer ASSERTS, any thing which rendered it peculiarly a matter of interest, and policy, and ambition, to men of character and wealth among them, to oppose the gospel, beside that peculiarity of character associated with their condition, and which consisted in the peculiar aversion of their hearts to the humbling requisitions of the gospel. There was nothing in the gospel dispensation which was not a matter of prediction in the Old Testament, and attended by evidence in the New, which nothing but the darkness of a heart obdurate ly wicked could resist. And it was for yielding to such prejudices, that they were abandoned of heaven, and given up to that blindness which has continued to this day. There was no odium in embracing the gospel, and no policy or ambition concerned in rejecting it, which the opposition to it emanating from their own hearts, did not first create. The acceptance of the gospel by the higher orders of society VOL. VII.-No. 4. would not have endangered their property, or lowered their relative standing in society. The new dispensation was as consistent with the possession of wealth and station, as the old; and if men of wealth and office in the Jewish church had embraced the gospel, they could have enjoyed, in church and in state, the same relative elevation, as good men, which they held in the Jewish church, in the character of unprincipled and wicked men. They were not therefore afraid of the common people, and of the loss of popularity: for the common people were disposed to acknowledge the claims of Christ, and were prevented from doing it by the inAluence of men in the higher orders of society. And as to persecution, who would have persecuted, if the rich, and mighty, and noble, among the Jews, had embraced the gospel? But had there been some circumstances peculiar to the primitive age, which gave a temporary increase of power to the temptations of wealth, the cessation of what was peculiar would not annihilate the influence of those temptations of wealth which were permanent and universal. Still there would be, then and now, something in the gospel which would render it relatively acceptable to the common people, and relatively unacceptable to persons in the higher orders of society. That system of doctrines,therefore, which is regarded by men of wealth and eminence, and by the common peo. ple also, as the gospel was regarded by them, is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Evasion 5. This respects my argument derived from the efficacy of the gospel, and of the evangelical system, to reclaim those who had long been under the dominion of vicious habits. My statement is, 1. That the the evangelical system, like the gospel, reclaims those who have been long under the dominion of vicious habits. 28 2. That it reclaims them suddenly, as the gospel did. 3. That in many cases, the era of reformation is the abandonment of the liberal system and the adoption of the evangelical, and under such circumstances as clearly show that evangelical doctrines were the moral cause of the reformation. 4. That instances of the reformation of vicious persons, are rare events under Unitarian preaching, if they exist at all. 5. That such reformations never take place suddenly, and at the time of abandoning Orthodox, and adopting Unitarian doctrines, and evidently as the moral effect of the latter system. 6. I confirm the efficacy of Evangelical preaching, and the inefficacy of Unitarian preaching, to reclaim the vicious, by the testimony of Dr. Chalmers. To this the reviewer replies, 1. That I have assumed that all who are not orthodox Christians, are liberal Christians. 2. That when I speak of liberal Christians renouncing their vicious and profligate habits upon embracing orthodoxy, there is an absurdity in the proposition which refutes itself. 3. That some nominal Christians go over to the orthodox party and reform their lives, be admits as probable: But, 4. HE ASSERTS that the same is true of nominal Christians who come over to the liberal system, and embrace it sincerely, as can be testified by a thousand examples. In reply, I have only to say that I have nowhere assumed that all those who are not orthodox Christians are liberal Christians, and that I have nowhere fallen into the absurdity of speaking of liberal Christians renouncing their vicious habits upon embracing orthodoxy. My argument has no reference to Christians of any kind. It begins and ends with "persons long under the dominion of vicious habits." The reviewer therefore has shifted the ground of my argument, so as to enable him to seem to reply to it while he passes it untouched. Had he used the terms of my argument, bis reply would have stood thus. "When Dr. B. speaks (p. 20.) of persons long under the dominion of vicious habits, as renouncing their vicious and profligate habits on embracing orthodoxy, there is an absurdity in the proposition which refutes itself." Where? Not in my proposition, but in one which the reviewer has himself imagined, and ascribed to me. Again, he ought to have said, "That some persons long under the dominion of vicious habits, go over to the orthodox party, and reform their lives upon it, is probable. But the same is also true of vicious and profligate persons who come over to the liberal system and embrace it sincerely, as can be testified by a thousand examples." This is what the reviewer was required to say, to meet my argument, and if it is what he meant to say, I would ask him why he qualifies the asserted fact, of the reformation of profligates when they change from the orthodox to the liberal system, by saying if they embrace it sincerely. My argument stands on the unqualified fact, that when profligates turn from liberal to orthodox opinions, they do reform; but the reviewer replies, that the same is true when profligates turn from orthodox to liberal opinions, if they embrace them sincerely ;admitting, as I should think, that many vicious and profligate men turn from orthodox to liberal opinions, without reformation, and implying a consciousness that the fact is too notorious to be denied. I would ask the reviewer again, whether he does upon his conscience believe that profligates who abandon orthodoxy and go over to the liberal system, are as often reformed by the transition, as when profligates abandon the liberal system and em |