Enough has been said to show, that, according to Dr. Beecher, the truth once delivered to the saints' is decidedly anti-calvinistic. This concession, considering the quarter from which it comes, is certainly an important one, and we thank him for it. He goes on to say, (p. 5,) To prevent circumlocution I shall, in this discourse, call them [the doctrines as before given] the Evangelical System, and for the same reason, I shall call the opposite the Liberal System.'

6

We have not the least inclination to dispute about words, or names. Dr. Beecher has an undoubted right to express his own opinions in his own way; and to call the system embodying them by his own name, or any other not already appropriated. But he has no right to use a term, the obvious tendency of which must be to deceive and mystify the public, leaving them to suppose that his system contains no innovation upon the popular faith. Still less has he a right, after having avowed the doctrines laid down in this discourse, to boast of them as being strictly, or even substantially, the same with those held by the great body of the reputed orthodox throughout our country, or to assert or intimate, as he repeatedly does, that they were the doctrines held by the

tion is to be attributed neither to our industry, nor effort, nor endeavour; but that the whole is to be referred to the counsel of God; lest any one should think that those who are chosen are therefore chosen because they have so deserved, or have by any means gained to themselves the favour of God; or lastly, that there is any atom of worthiness by which God may be moved. But understand simply, that it does not depend upon our will, or upon our endeavour, (for he has put 'running' for effort, or contention,) that we should be reckoned among the elect; but that the whole of this is of divine goodness, which, of its own accord, takes those who neither will, nor endeavour, nor even think of it. *** Let us therefore determine, that the salvation of these, whom it pleases God to save, is so ascribed to the mercy of God, that NOTHING remains for the industry of man.' We might cite passages to the same effect without end; but one more, taken from Edwards, will be sufficient. Hence it may be inferred,' says he, 'that nothing in the reason and nature of things appears, from the consideration of any moral weight of that former kind of sincerity which has been spoken of, at all obliging us to believe, or leading us to suppose, that God has made any positive promises of salvation, or grace, or any saving assistance, or any spiritual benefit whatsoever, to any desires, prayers, endeavours, siriving, or obedience of those, who hitherto have no true virtue, or holiness in their hearts; though we should suppose all the sincerity, and the utmost degree of endeavour, that is possible to be in a person without holiness.' Freedom of the Will, P. III. s. v. Works, Vol. V. p. 202. We may be permit ted to subjoin the testimony of Dr. Woods to the same point. That act of divine grace which, so far as the conduct of sinners is concerned, is wholly unconditional, is, as I understand it, the first formation of a holy character, or the commencement of real goodness in the heart.' Reply to Dr. Ware, p. 158.

Reformers, the Puritans, and the Fathers of New England; for he must know that this is not true, or his ignorance upon the subject is such as to make it a sin for him to write upon it in so confident a manner. This radical mistake, however, if we may call it a mistake, runs through his whole sermon, affecting all its reasonings and conclusions.

What then shall we say of Dr. Beecher's calling the 'opposite' to his doctrines, as given above, the Liberal System?" That he means by the 'liberal system,' in this place, what is commonly understood by Unitarianism in this country, is evident, because he afterwards refers to Professor Ware and Dr. Channing as among its most distinguished advocates. But where does he find Professor Ware, or Dr. Channing advocating a system made up of doctrines the OPPOSITE to those, which he has here advanced? That we may not be suspected of quibbling about a word, we shall show, by another passage, that Dr. Beecher really meant all that we charge him with meaning. For the question is not,' says he, (p. 40,) how much of this system [these words are italicised by Dr. B. himself,] may be misunderstood, consistently with sanctification by that which is still embraced; but can it be rejected ENTIRELY, by those who possess a Bible, and they who do it be sanctified without it, and saved by the instrumentality of errour? Again, therefore, we demand it of him to prove, that Professor Ware, and Dr. Channing do indeed maintain a system made up of doctrines the opposite to those, which he himself has here advanced. Let him refer to the passages in which they have asserted, or implied, that men are NOT free agents; or that an atonement has NOT been made for sin by Jesus Christ; or that a compliance with the conditions of the gospel is NOT 'practicable in the regular exercise of the powers and faculties given to man, as an accountable creature;' or that God does NOT exercise providential government, which extends to all events.' him do this, or retract his charge as publickly as it has been made, or consent to lie under the imputation of a shameless calumny. Here then is another radical errour with which Dr. Beecher starts, and it cleaves to him to the end.

a

Let

The main body of this sermon is occupied in attempting to prove, by a series of collateral arguments, independently of the direct evidence of scripture, that the orthodox (under

standing this word in its largest signification amongst us) are right, and that the liberal party (understood also in its largest sense) are wrong. Or, as Dr. Beecher himself expresses it, (p. 6,) For the sake of argument, we shall suppose the evidence from exposition to be on each side exactly balanced, and proceed to lay into the scale of evangelical exposition those arguments, which seem to furnish evidence of its correctness.' These arguments are five in number, but naturally resolve themselves into these three :

I. The obvious meaning of scripture ;

II. The testimony of the primitive church; and

III. Its superiour moral efficacy, or sanctifying influence. On each of which topicks we shall say a few words in reply to what Dr. Beecher has advanced. With regard to the OBVIOUS MEANING OF SCRIPTURE, there are several principles to be observed, which Dr. Beecher has not considered, or has chosen to keep out of sight. In the first place, it is evident, that the obvious sense is no further to be followed by us, than we have reason to believe it to be the true sense of the passage in question. That it is not always the true sense, nay, that it frequently is not the true sense, is certain; since all figurative language, with which the scriptures abound, consists essentially in a departure from the literal or obvious meaning of the words used. Besides, when we speak of the obvious sense being probably the true sense of any passage, we mean the obvious sense as it struck the mind of the writer, and not as it may happen to strike our minds. Such have been the changes that have taken place in the customs and manners of the world, in the modes of thinking and speaking that have prevailed, in the controversies that have been carried on in the church, and especially in the peculiar, and, as it were, technical meaning of some of the leading terms used in those controversies, that, even in those passages where the sacred writers intended to be understood in the obvious import of the language used, what was the obvious import to them, may appear a forced and most unnatural construction to us, from the necessary changes which language has undergone. This holds true especially of those who are under the necessity of reading the Bible in a translation, and, as in the case of our translation, in a language remarkably different from the original, in many of its

characteristicks. That the sacred writers were, for the most part, unlettered men, (a circumstance alluded to by Dr. Beecher,) only serves to heighten this difficulty, as they must have been so much the more likely to use language in its local and peculiar sense, rather than in its general, precise, and philosophical sense. Add to this, the effect which a man's theological prejudices and prepossessions must have upon his mind, in judging of the obvious import of many passages of scripture. If he has been trained to associate inseparably a peculiar theological sense to certain words of frequent recurrence in the sacred writings, (such for example as grace, election, justification, &c.) it will follow of course that many of the passages, in which these words are found, will suggest to him a meaning, and it will seem to him their obvious meaning, though widely different from their true meaning, and, indeed, from their obvious meaning to all unprejudiced readers.

These remarks, which might be extended to a much greater length, will serve as a general reply to what Dr. Beecher has advanced, or insinuated, under this head. Suppose it conceded, that there are a few single passages of scripture, the literal or obvious import of which seems opposed to Unitarianism; it is no more than may be said of every other system. How many texts are urged against the orthodox system, the obvious sense of which must be restrained, turned aside, or entirely sunk; or the system itself be abandoned. Professor Stuart, after attempting to reconcile some of these with orthodoxy, in his Letters to Dr. Channing, admits it to be a subject open to discussion, 'whether I have violated the laws of exegesis in doing this; and whether you, or I, depart most from them, in explaining the texts which seem at variance with the opinions that we defend.'* We have no doubt but that Mr. Stuart has discovered as much learning and address in sinking the obvious meaning of these passages, and bringing up another, as any Trinitarian ever did, or ever can; but let any one consider, how poorly he has succeeded, and he will be more and more convinced of the truth of the following remark of Dr. Carpenter: 'My full conviction is, that no "twisting" and "straining" on the part of the Unitarian,

* Letter IV.

to show the consistency of the Trinitarian's scriptural evidence with his own belief, can possibly equal that to which the Trinitarian is reduced, when he attempts to prove that the Son is omniscient, though he himself declared that he did not know the time when his own prophecies should be accomplished; (Mark xiii, 32;) that the Son is omnipotent, though he declared that of himself he could do nothing; (John v, 30;) and that the Son is "the true God," though our Lord prayer to his God and Father, addressed HIм as the ONLY TRUE GOD;" and this exclusively of himself, for he immediately speaks of himself as the person SENT by the only true God.' (John xvii, 1, 3, 8.)*

in

66

But Dr. Beecher may still contend for the obvious sense of the proof texts' adduced by the orthodox in support of their system; and that the obvious sense of the proof texts of every other system, and, indeed, of all the rest of scripture, should be sacrificed to it. Dr. Beecher seems to lay great stress on this argument; but why, we cannot divine. Wherefore is this uncommon deference and respect to be paid to the obvious sense of the proof texts of the orthodox? There is not a denomination of Christians under heaven without their proof texts; the Catholics have them, the Baptists have them, the Quakers have them, the Antinomians have them, the Universalists have them; and, in each case, the obvious sense of these proof texts, if you take them separate from their connexion, may seem to favour the doctrines, which they are brought forward to support. To say, therefore, that the orthodox can gather together a few such texts, is no more than might be said of the most misguided man living. Besides, when Dr. Beecher intimates it as conceded 'by Unitarian commentators and writers,' that the only plain and obvious sense of these proof texts, taken by themselves, favours orthodoxy, he is to be understood as speaking with his usual accuracy. If he will take the trouble to turn to a Review of Professor Stuart's Letters, in the Christian Disciple, he will find it there maintained at length, that, putting every other part of scripture out of view, and forgetting all that it teaches us, this proposition [the doctrine of the Trinity] is clearly proved to be FALSE by the very passages which are brought in its support.'+

6

+ Vol. I. p. 384. et seq.